Posted on 01/07/2006 9:57:08 AM PST by squidly
A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.
Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates.
Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.
Agreeing with the White House, some 42 percent of those surveyed do not believe the court approval is necessary.
"We're at war," Bush said during a New Year's Day visit to San Antonio. "And as commander in chief, I've got to use the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people. ... It's a vital, necessary program."
According to the poll, age matters in how people view the monitoring. Nearly two-thirds of those between age 18 to 29 believe warrants should be required, while people 65 and older are evenly divided.
Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants.
BS for sure. Just who did they ask anyway, a few in the Beltway, NYC and a few hundred Bostonians? Geez!
First, who the hell is "Ipsos", anyway?
Next, these numbers aren't even close to what more mainstream pollin has been over the past few weeks.
Move along...nothing to see here...
But we know that AP stands for Anti-American Propaganda.
What difference do opinion polls make when both statute and court precedents allow warrantless surveillance in certain instances?
I am a lawyer, but not a Constitutional or criminal lawer. That being said, despite my formal education regarding Constitutional law, I would be hesitant to make any poll to the public or even to lawyers in general.
This is a Constitutional issue, not an issue for popular vote.
The question does not mention that the suspected terrorist were outside of the country when intercepted.
The demographics were quite like those of some of 2004's exit polls that showed Kerry the big winner.
Other than talking points I don't see what advantage these type of targeted polls can have.
1. Should the Bush administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?The question is ambiguous, IMO. If the question is should the government be able to tap the terrorsit end, virtually everyone will say YES. If the question is should the government be able to target the US end without a warrant, the answer would be different.56-43-2 not sure
2d. Party affiliation
Strongly GOP - 13
Moderatly GOP - 27
Independent - 8
Moderately DEM - 32
Strongly DEM - 20
Monitoring -only- international calls and -only- those where one end is a known terrorist will not be a tough issue for the President to sell to the people or to Congress. That's why I think the surveillance at issue is broader than that.
Yup, they've got this poll thing and election fraud down to a fine art.
I wonder how many polls the AP ignores when the results come back to their disliking. I bet it is STAGGERING the number of suppressed polls that show americans to NOT be raving communists.
uh... give them Kennedy's home address?
The Rasmussen question reads ...
Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?
The AP poll wording is apt to confuse readers, as it has the phrase "between US Citizens" in it, which NO DOUBT, some people will take as meaning that, without reading further. Also, the AP poll was whether or not a warrant should be required, but the Rasmussen poll doesn't say one way or the other. Here, some (maybe even most) participants may have imputed the warrantless aspect, even though it wasn't expressed in the question.
Actually, Al Jazeera is more pro american.
Here's a poll to conduct in this country...."do you think that monitoring phone calls to certain Middle East/Muslim countries might have prevented 9/11?"
This smells like the typical MSM "push poll", where the questions are asked in a manner so as to get the answers they want. Then they spin the results even more.
A dumb American poll as per usual.""
We all know how a "poll" can be skewed.
I don't trust this either...
They must have asked all Demorats and only those who live behind gated guard houses in high end communities.
"Actually, Al Jazeera is more pro american."
;D!
ya gotta point there pissant!
Just because information is collected does not mean it must be acted upon.
Are you implying that taking Teddy out the market would drive several distilleries out of business? If so, I'm sure there's a few hundred or a few thousand FREEPERs that would step up and make up the difference in consumption. Humblegunner, Eaker and several other of the Houston area chapter would gladly make the sacrifice I'm sure.
Just because information is collected does not mean it must be acted upon.
Are you implying that taking Teddy out the market would drive several distilleries out of business? If so, I'm sure there's a few hundred or a few thousand FREEPERs that would step up and make up the difference in consumption. Humblegunner, Eaker and several other of the Houston area chapter would gladly make the sacrifice I'm sure.
Is there another country that even thinks of getting a bench warrant before checking in on its citizens?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.