64% of Americans Support NSA Intercepts

[roo_ster]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

I predicted that none of the major media outlets would comission a poll on this subject, but did not think about a pollster taking up the subject on thier own. I expected the American people to firmly support GWB & the NSA, but what really surprised me was that a majority of Democrats also supported the actions.

I guess this is one reason that GWB's poll numbers are rising while hte Democrat's numbers are falling in tha last couple months.

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (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. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

 

[Sistema1927]

What is really amazing is that 51% of Democrats are supportive.

This story was just on "Fox & Friends".

 

[Them Bones]

Newsflash........ 64% of Americans are stupid.

 

[Ermac]

Newsflash........ 64% of Americans are stupid.

Another Newsflash....you are Stupid! Awesome post! Good way to contribute.


In relation to the thread, I think 64% of Americans are smart. Gee, only W is trying to PREVENT terrorism in the US. Gee, I wonder why the other 36% is against it? Maybe they ought to read into the NSA wiretaps and see what it is about before going "OMG, my rights, my rights, my civil liberties." :banghead:

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

Another Newsflash....you are Stupid! Awesome post! Good way to contribute.


In relation to the thread, I think 64% of Americans are smart. Gee, only W is trying to PREVENT terrorism in the US. Gee, I wonder why the other 36% is against it? Maybe they ought to read into the NSA wiretaps and see what it is about before going "OMG, my rights, my rights, my civil liberties." :banghead:

It just demonstrates the fallacy that wisdom is additive.

 

[GoRon]

Lets stay on topic and cut out the name calling.

It doesn't seem to me that all the information is out about who and what the NSA is spying on.

The Bush haters have the President convicted and impeached already.

It is a healthy debate and if this and other administrations have crossed the line then the debate will drag them back hopefully.

 

[Tory]

Reality check

"Gee, only W is trying to PREVENT terrorism in the US."

Gee, W thinks that is accomplished by violating the Constitutional rights of American citizens while leaving the borders wide open.

Yes, that's a blindingly intelligent strategic assessment.......

 

[The Drew]

Another Newsflash....you are Stupid! Awesome post! Good way to contribute.


In relation to the thread, I think 64% of Americans are smart. Gee, only W is trying to PREVENT terrorism in the US. Gee, I wonder why the other 36% is against it? Maybe they ought to read into the NSA wiretaps and see what it is about before going "OMG, my rights, my rights, my civil liberties." :banghead:

Great way to contribute right back...

how about this... At least 64% of the people are sheeple, and will give up any civil liberties they have for the illusion of security.

Maybe the NSA and the president ought to respect THE LAW, and THE CONSTITUTION, and NOBODY would have a problem with these wiretaps.

 

[yucaipa]

Newsflash........ 64% of Americans are stupid.

I'm a proud card carrying member of the "stuipd 64%"

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Would those 64% still support the NSA domestic spying if they knew how these powers were abused? Like the NSA spying on Quakers. Or the NSA spying on churches, then the feds threatening to revoke their non-profit status because a priest or pastor gave what they interpreted to be an anti-Iraq war sermon?



FACT: Like tasers are being abused by police, spy powers get abused by the feds. You give these guys an inch, they take a foot. This is the nature of government and police.



Let's be real Americans and stop talking about what powers to give the government, but rather we should be talking about what we should be stripping them of.


That's not going to happen though, since most Americans approve of and demand the nanny-state.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Newsflash........ 64% of Americans are stupid.

That, and the spin doctors are successfully spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). Never overlook the FUD factor.

 

[Derby FALs]

I'm a proud card carrying member of the "stuipd 64%"

Some of us already knew that.

 

[Ermac]

Great way to contribute right back...

how about this... At least 64% of the people are sheeple, and will give up any civil liberties they have for the illusion of security.

Maybe the NSA and the president ought to respect THE LAW, and THE CONSTITUTION, and NOBODY would have a problem with these wiretaps.

Then how comes nobody realizes that CARTER, REAGAN, BUSH SR., and KLINTON did the same? It seems everyone likes to point the finger at Bush. So your saying that wiretaps FOR SUSPECTED TERRORIST ACTIVITIES are not justified? It seems like the media has got to most people. And let me ask you this, have we had ANY terrorist activities since 9/11? Oh gee, maybe we are doing something right in prevention. Besides, if your not a terrorist, you won't be wire tapped and have nothing to worry about...right?

 

[The Drew]

Then how comes nobody realizes that CARTER, REAGAN, BUSH SR., and KLINTON did the same? It seems everyone likes to point the finger at Bush. So your saying that wiretaps FOR SUSPECTED TERRORIST ACTIVITIES are not justified? It seems like the media has got to most people. And let me ask you this, have we had ANY terrorist activities since 9/11? Oh gee, maybe we are doing something right in prevention. Besides, if your not a terrorist, you won't be wire tapped and have nothing to worry about...right?

It doesn't matter, how very 3rd grade of you to say... "he did it first" so I guess that makes it OK.

You're argument that "if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about" is weak. How long before gun rights activists become labeled as "terrorists".

As far as justification goes, they may be justified, however if they involve american citizens on american soil, then without a warrant (before or after the fact) they are Illegal. How can you expect the people to obey the law when the government so readily throws it aside?

 

[Derby FALs]

So your saying that wiretaps FOR SUSPECTED TERRORIST ACTIVITIES are not justified?

Illegal wiretaps are never justified, no matter which president authorizes said wiretap.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Then how comes nobody realizes the CARTER, REAGAN, BUSH SR., and KLINTON did the same?

That's not exactly true--those other presidents may well have engaged in illegal wiretaps, but none of them ever claimed to be above the law. The real difference here is that Bush has stated that he is not bound by the constraints of the Constitution, which effectively amounts to the assumption of dictatorial powers.

Even if that is not the case, we're in deep, deep trouble when the best defense for our current president is that he's no worse than Clinton.

 

[Flyboy]

Just remember what percentage support re-authorizing the "assault weapons" ban.

Heck, think about what percentage think the AWB has something to do with machineguns.

Even if the poll were statistically valid--a point I don't concede until I've seen, among other things, the phrasing of the questions--just because the people like it doesn't make it right. To borrow a line, "[p]eople are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”

 

[Ermac]

It doesn't matter, how very 3rd grade of you to say... "he did it first" so I guess that makes it OK.

You're argument that "if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about" is weak. How long before gun rights activists become labeled as "terrorists".

As far as justification goes, they may be justified, however if they involve american citizens on american soil, then without a warrant (before or after the fact) they are Illegal. How can you expect the people to obey the law when the government so readily throws it aside?

I'm not saying that I totally disagree with you (on par with us gun activists being called terrorists eventually)...but I do think W is doing the right thing with the wiretaps (again, My opinion). If American citizens are having conversations with suspected al queda groups in Iraq, Afganistan...then by all means should they be monitored.

 

[The Drew]

Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?

This is the poll question. It FAILS to address the warrant issue, which is the entire point of this debate. Whether or not the president and the NSA need to have warrants for these wiretaps. Not whether or not they can intercept phone conversations at all...

 

[yonderway]

Good thing we don't live in a democracy. See, under a republic, mob rule by the idiotic 64% wouldn't happen.

Oh, wait, these days we do live in a democracy where the constitution is a "living document".

 

[yucaipa]

Illegal wiretaps

The Democrat leadership (and the ACLU) keep using that term,the problem is the facts and the case law doesn't back them up.

It's one thing to say :the president "should not" have the authority,under existing law.

Its dishonest to say : the president "does not" have the authority under existing law.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

If American citizens are having conversations with suspected al queda groups in Iraq, Afganistan...then by all means should they be monitored.

The problem with bending Constitutional rules for one group is that you then have carte blanche to bend them for other groups. The slippery-slope theory is more than just a theory--like evolution, they've found the bones.

 

[Ermac]

Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?

This is the poll question. It FAILS to address the warrant issue, which is the entire point of this debate. Whether or not the president and the NSA need to have warrants for these wiretaps. Not whether or not they can intercept phone conversations at all...

I see your point listed above, but why should they need warrants for taps for suspected terrorists? Isn't the whole idea to nip it in the butt and keep it quiet before it gets to the public. I TOTALLY agree with your point and the other people's points on here about having a warrant for wiretaps...BUT.....if it deals with terrorism, you shouldn't need to get one. But I think I am beginning to realize something....how do we know if they are actual taps with suspected terrorists? That is where I think the fault lays....

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I agree with many here on THR that this falls in line with eternal vigilence to ensure we don't trade away liberty for safety.

However, it makes me sick how so many Democrat politicians pundits are suddenly born-again Constitutionalists in their witch hunt to create another Watergate.

 

[Geno]

Read these books:

"Damned Lies and Statistics"

"How to Lie with Statistics"

Inasmuch as I am a graduate school, research professor, I have seen all too many times how people lie, distort, bend, stretch, cut, hide, murder, pillage and plunder to make the numbers and words mean what they "want them to mean". My favorite words out of my graduate students, “Researchers PROVED it!”

64%? Not!

Doc2005