Comments on: Poll watching: 64% support warrantless eavesdropping

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:07:19 +0000

“andrew, get a warrant? Just how do you get the phone call back to listen to it while you waited for the warrant?”

FISA allows retroactive warrants.

“What do you say about this judge violating his oath and leaking secrets, outing operations?”

Not as heroic as Daniel Ellsberg.

By: Baklava

Baklava — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:09:01 +0000

ST’s post had this, “Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news.

Interesting. That means that a smaller percentage than last year of people only get thier news from the NT Times or CNN.

Each year an issue presents itelf for this type of question (a question asking the misinformed) and each year the number gets smaller and smaller since 1990.

By: A Blog For All

A Blog For All — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:06:29 +0000

What Do Those Polls Really Mean?

the high level of support for these kinds of warrantless searches against terrorists who are communicating with individuals inside the US shows that most folks still have some kind of functional common sense. Now, if the big media outlets actually no…

By: The Right Nation

The Right Nation — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:51:18 +0000

Last 2005 Round-Up

According to this poll by Rasmussen Reports, 64% of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. Just…

By: Baklava

Baklava — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:57:17 +0000

Dennis Cwell’s question had a flawed premise. Congress has oversight and has been briefed over 12 times.

But otherwise, the answer to your question is YES because then I would be very happy that I was involved in helping this country stay safe from terrorists. If I, Baklava, didn’t know I was on an international call with a terrorist, I would YES sure as heck be glad that the government was doing it’s duty of national security.

By: ReidBlog

ReidBlog — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:52:14 +0000

The Rasmussen boobie poll

Rasmussen polls have been called “crack for weak people” …

By: PCD

PCD — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:16:07 +0000

Oh, Just a side light. Clinton started the rendering operation in foreign countries. Key Democrat Bush haters like Sandy Berger were involved. LINK

By: PCD

PCD — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:14:14 +0000

andrew, get a warrant? Just how do you get the phone call back to listen to it while you waited for the warrant?

I’m going to throw this at you. The FISA judge that resigened is suspeced of being the leaker of this and other national security stories you, andrew, and other lefties here are so upset about. What do you say about this judge violating his oath and leaking secrets, outing operations?

By: John in Carolina

John in Carolina — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:42:47 +0000

My thoughts on the latest Rasmussen poll

Rasmussen reports 23% of poll respondents say the Feds shouldn’t have authority to monitor calls between suspected overseas terrorists and people living in the US. Twenty-six percent erroneously believe domestic surveillance started with Bush. Who ar…

By: tommy in nyc

tommy in nyc — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:40:22 +0000

This leftie is thinks while eavesdropping is troubling you have to give any president the benefit of the doubt in fighting the GWOT. You can’t expect to follow civilian criminal codes when you’re fighting against fanatics targeting civilians. What would any sane person do if they knew someone might be possibly blow up a bridge or something like that? Wait for it to happen then grab the terrorists? Nah man I don’t think keeping an eye on potential terrorists is violating civil-liberties. What would anyone here do? Probably the same stuff as the 43 admin.

By: PCD

PCD — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:21:43 +0000

Dennis, the answer is yes when you are communicating outside the country with KNOWN terrorists. What part of that can’t you uncerstand?

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 10:07:18 +0000

wow. ‘suspected terrorist’ that means probable cause right? so enough to get a warrant?

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:47:05 +0000

Dennis, that’s not at all what they’re doing. People are getting (or trying to get others) worked up over this based on the thought that the NSA is spying on normal, everyday citizens, and that’s not the case at all.

By: Dennis Cwell

Dennis Cwell — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:52:14 +0000

Here’s a question:
“Do you believe the NSA should be able to listen in on your phone calls and read your e-mails without oversight, probable cause, or a warrant?”

By: ArizonaTeach

ArizonaTeach — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 04:31:22 +0000

I think a lot of pundits are going to have to rethink a lot of the current paradigms because of this. It seems that the media’s power to drive a story instead of report it might have reached its pinnacle, or maybe, finally, people are starting to get tired and suspicious of the pretty obvious pile-on. Democrats SHOULD be terrified, because they bet everything that the post 9-11 feelings have waned, and I think it’s becoming pretty evident that they’ve lost that bet. Iraq’s a losing issue for the Dems, security is a losing issue for the Dems, the economy is a losing issue for the Dems, and now it seems that their biggest ally, the MSM has been declawed…man…it’s a good time to be on the right side of history, no?