Bush Justified in Wiretapping

[Adam's Apple]

NewsMax Poll: Bush Justified in Wiretapping

Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush's authorization to the National Security Agency to tap the private conversations of U.S. citizens to search for evidence of terrorist activity, an exclusive NewsMax.com poll reveals.

In one of the largest responses to a NewsMax poll ever, more than 150,000 people across the Internet have made their opinions known about this controversy. And they resoundingly say that the President was justified in taking this action to protect America.

Here is a breakdown of the poll results for several key questions:

1) Has President Bush been justified in tapping the conversation of U.S. citizens?
Justified - 80%
Not Justified - 20%

2) Do you believe the President must have a court-approved warrant to conduct a wiretap?
Yes - 23%
No - 72%
Not Sure - 5%

3) Do you believe President Bush's claim that he undertook this action to protect America?
Yes - 83%
No - 17%

4) How would you rate media coverage about President Bush's actions?
Fair - 20%
Unfair - 80%

NewsMax continues to update its online poll. You can still vote - just Go Here Now.

from www.newsmax.com

 

[Mariner]

what's to stop him from tapping Howard Dean's phone?

First he stated directly that there was no such program, even as he reauthorized it 36 times. Then he stated it only covered international calls, which we soon found out to be untrue.

I'm surprised more people don't remember J. Edgar Hoover, and the type of harrassment and surveillance opponents of the Vietnam war were put through.

And what about the Constitution, which specifically forbids "unreasonable searches"?

I'm betting this poll didn't ask, "Do you support the President in circumventing the system already in place that permitted wiretapping with a secret judge's authorization?"

That judge has resigned in protest over the current system, and Republican Kean, as well as many other Republicans with a libertarian streak (which I would expect to include many U.S. Message Board members), have concluded that the program was likely unconstitutional.

Bush seems to want a kingship, not a presidency. He wants to be able to declare war, to hold enemy in secret dungeons without legal reason or representation, to keep programs and information secret from congress (circumventing the constitution's checks and balances) and to read our emails and tap our phones. We already held a revolution to escape the powers of one King George--we don't need another!

Mariner.

 

[Gunny]

what's to stop him from tapping Howard Dean's phone?

First he stated directly that there was no such program, even as he reauthorized it 36 times. Then he stated it only covered international calls, which we soon found out to be untrue.

Fairly normal and to be expected for someone to deny the existence of something that is supposed to be secret.

The program does cover international calls. If one end of the conversation with a terrorist organization is in the US, you would ignore their conspiracy because you place your individual rights above the security of the Nation.

I much prefer a suspected terrorist have his rights infringed than the result of the conversation being someone walking into a shopping mall with a bomb strapped to his/her chest.

What then would become of the rights of the terrorist's victims?

I'm surprised more people don't remember J. Edgar Hoover, and the type of harrassment and surveillance opponents of the Vietnam war were put through.

You are dishonestly comparing apples-n-oranges. Hoover spied on US persons for the express purpose of digging up dirt on US persons. The objective of the NSA Program is to identify possible terrorists/terrorist cells within this country by eavesdropping on calls made to suspected terrorists/terrorist organizations outside this country.

And what about the Constitution, which specifically forbids "unreasonable searches"?

Nothing unreasonable about eavesdropping on suspected terrorist activities. It's actually applying something you literalist, "Me-first" libs attempt to ignore as much as possible -- common sense.

I'm betting this poll didn't ask, "Do you support the President in circumventing the system already in place that permitted wiretapping with a secret judge's authorization?"

Your question is not asked because it isn't a biased, liberal poll that rigs all the questions to portray Bush in the worst possible light. Your question is based on your making an absolute statement out of you and the rest of the Bush-haters OPINIONS.

That judge has resigned in protest over the current system, and Republican Kean, as well as many other Republicans with a libertarian streak (which I would expect to include many U.S. Message Board members), have concluded that the program was likely unconstitutional.

Bush seems to want a kingship, not a presidency. He wants to be able to declare war, to hold enemy in secret dungeons without legal reason or representation, to keep programs and information secret from congress (circumventing the constitution's checks and balances) and to read our emails and tap our phones. We already held a revolution to escape the powers of one King George--we don't need another!

Mariner.

All Presidents of the US, during a time of war, have the final authority as CinC. Bush is hardly setting a precedent. He has just made a decision that gives you libs yet another excuse to twist it into something it isn't and start slinging your "stuff" against the wall in hopes that it will stick.

Looks like this one is sticking about as well as the rest.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, if the president, during time of war or not, has the sole power to drop nukes, which could kill millions of people, if not more, then what makes you think he doesn't have to right to listen in on phone conversations, especially as long as the scope remains to gather foreign intelligence. It's nothin new. Lots of correspondance was monitored without a warrant during World War II in order to root out foreign spies. Not one of these was used in the prosecution of a domestic crime.

 

[Mariner]

The Commander-in-Chief is commander over the military, not over everyone. The Constitution could not be more clear that the President is a citizen subject to the same laws as everyone else.

To put it another way, how many people on this message board would be happy if a Democratic president arrogated herself the right to wiretap anyone?

Mariner.

 

[Nightwish]

The fact that this is a Newsmax poll speaks volumes. After catching them in the act of fudging poll numbers a few weeks ago in a sad attempt to paint Dems as pro-Saddam, I think Newsmax is the last source I'd ever trust for truthful information. And even if the numbers are accurate (questionable), it still doesn't say much of anything except that a large number of Newsmax readers (probably 80% or more of its readership is far right wing) think it's okay. They're a far cry from representing the beliefs of mainstream America. They're a fringe group just as much as the far left fringe groups.

I'm also curious how those readers would have voted if Spewsmax had told them the truth about the manner in which that wire-tapping has been going on? They haven't simply been tapping the phones of people already believed to have ties to terrorists, they've been tapping into the mainframes of major telephone companies and monitoring hundreds of thousands of random private conversations, looking for random clues to terrorism ties (and possibly to dissenting opinions, if the Pentagon thing is any indication).

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The fact that this is a Newsmax poll speaks volumes. After catching them in the act of fudging poll numbers a few weeks ago in a sad attempt to paint Dems as pro-Saddam, I think Newsmax is the last source I'd ever trust for truthful information. And even if the numbers are accurate (questionable), it still doesn't say much of anything except that a large number of Newsmax readers (probably 80% or more of its readership is far right wing) think it's okay. They're a far cry from representing the beliefs of mainstream America. They're a fringe group just as much as the far left fringe groups.

If dems had their way, saddam would still be in power. It's just the truth. Your many dozens, hundreds, if not thousands of other options are just snakeoil and failed solutions already tried.

 

[Nightwish]

If dems had their way, saddam would still be in power. It's just the truth. Your many dozens, hundreds, if not thousands of other options are just snakeoil and failed solutions already tried.

Still having trouble pulling your head out, I see.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Still having trouble pulling your head out, I see.

Not at all. Do you convince yourself with your faulty reasoning? That's what's most tragic.

 

[Nightwish]

Not at all. Do you convince yourself with your faulty reasoning? That's what's most tragic.

1. Newsmax readership is primarily far right wing Republicans, so any sample polled in a Newsmax survey is not likely to be a representative sample of the American people, but rather a representative sample only of the far right wing.

2. Newsmax has been unequivocally caught fudging poll numbers in the past, so their methods and honesty are suspect.

Please identify which of the above is "faulty reasoning."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

1. Newsmax readership is primarily far right wing Republicans, so any sample polled in a Newsmax survey is not likely to be a representative sample of the American people, but rather a representative sample only of the far right wing.

2. Newsmax has been unequivocally caught fudging poll numbers in the past, so their methods and honesty are suspect.

Please identify which of the above is "faulty reasoning."

No polls are valid, not with radicals on both sides in their jammies skewing them. I consider bad polls a multiplier of numerator and denominator, thus reductible. You need more than this. Something like rather-style forged documents.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Besides, this was about Saddam and your illogical separation between his outing and the invasion.

 

[Nightwish]

Besides, this was about Saddam and your illogical separation between his outing and the invasion.

No, I think you've forgotten which thread you're in. This was about Bush wiretapping American citizens.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, I think you've forgotten which thread you're in. This was about Bush wiretapping American citizens.

No. You were talking about a poll painting dems as pro saddam. I'm saying they were pro-saddam, being against the invasion that resulted in outing him.

 

[Nightwish]

No. You were talking about a poll painting dems as pro saddam. I'm saying they were pro-saddam, being against the invasion that resulted in outing him.

I was talking about them fudging the numbers, falsely reporting the results of the poll, a point that was relevant to this thread as well, because this thread is based upon a poll from those same people. Whether or not you or I believe the Dems are pro-Saddam is completely and utterly irrelevant. The point was not about the Dems, it was about the falsifying of poll results by Newsmax staffers.

Perhaps you're having trouble understanding. Newsmax lied about the numbers. Whether the poll was good or not makes no difference. Newsmax didn't give the poll, nor did they publish it. They only mentioned which poll it was, and reputed to be truthfully relaying the numbers from that poll to their readers. I had to go online to find the poll they were talking about, and what I found was the Newsmax lied in reporting what the numbers from that poll actually were. They said a majority of Dems answered affirmative to a question, when in the actual poll a majority of Dems answered negative to that question.

Newmax lied. That is the point. What is it about that that you're not understanding?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I was talking about them fudging the numbers, falsely reporting the results of the poll, a point that was relevant to this thread as well, because this thread is based upon a poll from those same people. Whether or not you or I believe the Dems are pro-Saddam is completely and utterly irrelevant. The point was not about the Dems, it was about the falsifying of poll results by Newsmax staffers.

and on that point, bogus polls does not eliminate them as a good source, all polls being subject to manipulation. "DU this Poll"

 

[Nightwish]

and on that point, bogus polls does not eliminate them as a good source, all polls being subject to manipulation. "DU this Poll"

Okay, get this through your incredibly thick head!!!! We weren't talking about the poll itself. We were talking about how Newsmax reported it.

Let me give you an example. A pollster takes a poll of 100 people to see how many of them approve of gay marriage, and how many are against.

Here are the results: 60 Approve, 40 Against.

A journalist sees this poll, and reports it to his readers like this: A recent poll conducted by [insert random pollster] has found that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, with only 40% saying they approve.

As you can see, the numbers in the poll, and the numbers in the report are totally different. This is what Newsmax did. It doesn't matter one whit whether the poll itself was valid or not. What matters is that Newsmax lied about what it said.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Okay, get this through your incredibly thick head!!!! We weren't talking about the poll itself. We were talking about how Newsmax reported it.

Let me give you an example. A pollster takes a poll of 100 people to see how many of them approve of gay marriage, and how many are against.

Here are the results: 60 Approve, 40 Against.

A journalist sees this poll, and reports it to his readers like this: A recent poll conducted by [insert random pollster] has found that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, with only 40% saying they approve.

As you can see, the numbers in the poll, and the numbers in the report are totally different. This is what Newsmax did. It doesn't matter one whit whether the poll itself was valid or not. What matters is that Newsmax lied about what it said.

And I'm saying reporting bogus polls is not enough to completely invalidate a news organization. Can you get that?

 

[Annie]

I was talking about them fudging the numbers, falsely reporting the results of the poll, a point that was relevant to this thread as well, because this thread is based upon a poll from those same people. Whether or not you or I believe the Dems are pro-Saddam is completely and utterly irrelevant. The point was not about the Dems, it was about the falsifying of poll results by Newsmax staffers.

Perhaps you're having trouble understanding. Newsmax lied about the numbers. Whether the poll was good or not makes no difference. Newsmax didn't give the poll, nor did they publish it. They only mentioned which poll it was, and reputed to be truthfully relaying the numbers from that poll to their readers. I had to go online to find the poll they were talking about, and what I found was the Newsmax lied in reporting what the numbers from that poll actually were. They said a majority of Dems answered affirmative to a question, when in the actual poll a majority of Dems answered negative to that question.

Newmax lied. That is the point. What is it about that that you're not understanding?

The poll was a 'voluntary' reader response poll. Being Newsmax, it is going to be to the right. Surprisingly, not as biased in results as one would think. My guess, they had a story that appealed to some 'moderates.' It wasn't trying to be 'scientific.'

 

[Emmett]

Hey Varooma, what's up man?

Oh, don't worry about that anymore, wiretapping our international lines now is illegal. Even the president does not have the authority to do it! We can plan anything we want.......................

No really, our leading democrats did exactly what we thought they would. In an effort to have something on the GOP they actually stooped to compromising the national security of the country. Yeah, really! We can talk about whatever we want to as long as one of us is out of the country.

We need to hurry though because it isn't the sentiment of the American people and they are gonna be real sore when we blow something else up so hurry up eith the plan and let's get this show on the road huh!

OK, Good BYe!