CNN Poll: Most feel civil liberties not harmed by war on terror

[DeepModem Mom]

Poll: Most feel civil liberties not harmed by war on terror
October 26, 2006

(CNN) -- Most Americans do not believe the Bush administration has gone too far in restricting civil liberties as part of the war on terror, a new CNN poll released Thursday suggests.

While 39 percent of the 1,013 poll respondents said the Bush administration has gone too far, 34 percent said they believe the administration has been about right on the restrictions, according to the Opinion Research Corp. survey. Another 25 percent said the administration has not gone far enough.

Asked whether Bush has more power than any other U.S. president, 65 percent of poll respondents said no. Thirty-three percent said yes. Of those who said yes, a quarter said that was bad for the country.

Seventy-two percent of poll respondents said they believe the size of the federal government has increased in the past four years. Twenty percent believe it has decreased, and 8 percent had no opinion.

Fifty-eight percent of poll respondents said they would not want their son or daughter to grow up to be president. Fifty-six percent, however, said they would want their child to grow up to be a member of Congress....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html

[truebrit71]

1. Bullshit.

Total, utter, complete, Bullshit....

[saigon68]

38. These people are idiots

Or SHEEPLE

[DainBramaged]

2. Were they polling the swamp people? Ignorant fools.

[Efilroft Sul]

3. Well, CNN just proves Keith Olbermann correct.

The media hasn't done its job to alert viewers to Bush's power grab. If they did, this poll would reflect different results.

[wtmusic]

4. The nets show their true colors around election time

and Fox-er, CNN is no exception.

[Selatius]

5. Most people aren't very well informed.

Thank the corporate news networks.

Thank the public education system that skimps on civics education in America.

[skooooo]

8. People are free to inform themselves.

No one's preventing Americans to read and take an interest in reality.

[Benhurst]

23. Many people do not have the time, the money, nor the education to surf the

Internet for reliable the news.

The right-wing corporate control of network and cable news and "mainstream" press makes it very difficult (especially if one doesn't have a computer and unlimited Internet access) to be adequately informed in BushAmerica.

Those who attempt to keep abreast of what is going on by watching the corporate news on television often are fed nothing but propaganda.

And don't forget how many of us have been misled by the "liberal" New York Times and Washington Post, and we as a group are better educated and spend more time tring to find alternative news sources than the average citizen, even those attempting to keep well informed.

[skooooo]

46. Even so..

...people have to be responsible for getting informed. May not be easy, or fun, but no one is going to do it for you.

[PunkPop]

9. Right. It hasn't affected THEM PERSONALLY

so everything's a-ok.

[bunkerbuster1]

16. My take too. A popular RW jab is--"Name ONE right they've taken!"

And John Q. Stupid can't think of one, because he doesn't know anyone personally who's been detained, or hassled, or wiretapped.

It's like we've gone from MLK's "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," to "Injustice anywhere? Pass the beer nuts."

[Divernan]

20. Uneducated people cannot really be well informed.

If people had to pass a civics quizz/define civil liberties before being allowed to participate in a poll, those who answered that Bush has not gone too far in restricting civil liberties would have been excluded from the poll. I mean, for god's sake, Americans had more civil liberties as colonists of Great Britain. We are now back at the pre Magna Carta stage of political development.

[Waya]

6. And stupidity .......

...is alive and well I see. What the hell does it take for people to get their heads out of their asses?

[canadianbeaver]

7. UH HUH.......I am so sure!! What a crock!! n/t

[leftyladyfrommo]

10. I think people don't really understand what liberties are any more.

They are just taken for granted.

No one will even notice until it is too late. And that is very scary.

[bdamomma]

18. exactly.

[Kagemusha]

11. So first you misinform the public, and then you poll the public.

And lo and behold, you discover the conventional wisdom you have yourself created.

[aquart]

26. Exactly.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Ever get the feeling you're trapped

in a nation filled with IDIOTS, FLAMING IDIOTS!1!!!

[latebloomer]

14. Took the words right outta my mouth!

"Most feel civil liberties not harmed by war on terror"

"MOST are fucking IDIOTS!!!"

[Ezekiel in Exile]

68. The really scarry thing...

...about this poll are the 25% who don't think Bush has gone far enough. Real Brown Shirt material.

[mcscajun]

72. Those are precisely the people that scare me.

And they're out there (yes, I accept there are distortions in the poll, but I also know that our own homegrown BrownShirts ARE Out There.)

25% of Americans: ill-educated, poorly informed, jingoistic morons who spout RW jargon and talking points and have NEVER understood what America is all about, so they are easily shepherded into the pens for slaughter. It will come as a great surprise to them when it's THEIR Rights that are trampled on in the fullness of time; that time WILL Come.

25%!!! :cry:

[LibDemAlways]

70. Every day.....

Every time I see the parade of giant SUVs at my daughter's school

Every time someone mentions "American Idol"

Every time someone tells me I should be glad 90 year-olds are hoisted out of their wheelchairs at airports and roughed up because "they might be terrorists"

Every time I see a sticker on a vehicle supporting Bush

Every time I hear a reporter with access to Bush wasting time joking around with him or asking a softball question

Every time I get a blank stare when I mention some new outrage perpetrated by the Bush Crime Family

Every time I see the asshole in chief being fed answers and blurting out words he doesn't understand while the press sits there anesthetized

Every time I see a poll that shows George "Macaca" Allen in the lead or tied for the lead in the Virginia Senate race

In all these instances and many more, it's painfully obvious that too many people are willfully ignorant, or, worse - intentionally ignorant.

[acmavm]

13. The American public (or a great big hunk of it rather) do not

deserve the rights and freedoms that people fought for 200 years for. First to obtain these rights and them fight to preserve them.

You know why? Because these people are cowards. They think their nice soft lifestyle with their SUVs and comfortable homes and someone elses kids dying for them is a given. They don't sacrifice. They won't sacrifice. And they're waaaayyyyy to damn stupid to know that once they letting these bastards start taking rights and freedoms away, they are dooming their little crumb snatchers to a life that they can't picture in their minds and would never dream of wanting for themselves.

[bunkerbuster1]

36. No, no, wrong.

They've been completely misled. This issue has been framed in a bullshit fashion by a lazy-ass media, and it's worked for the Goopers splendidly.

Americans really do think that all Preznit Chimp wants to do is "spy on terrorists." They really do think that Democrats believe this is wrong.

Ok, not all Americans, but a majority.

They really do not realize that the dispute is over obtaining warrants to do the surveillance. I could blame the Dems for not hammering this hard enough, but I really think it's just been incredibly irresponsible reporting, and by this point we're past the tipping point of getting America's collective head out of its ass.

[acmavm]

39. I don't think I'm wrong at all. I know idiots like this. I live in

a rat's nest of the batshit crazy f**ks.

Please, America is not the land of the free and the home of the brave. It's the land of the delusional and the home of the 'I'll do anything just don't ask me to sacrifice'.

[bunkerbuster1]

60. My neighbors are batshit-crazier than yours! Nyah!

seriously, I hear ya, and I acknowledge that people have to take responsibility for their own ignorance. It's true that most people can't be bothered peeking behind the headlines and the soundbites, if they pay any attention to news at all.

But that said, a great deal of blame has to be placed in the hands of the media for their complete mishandling of this story and for their willingness to allow it to be framed in Administration language, i.e. that the GOPee is in favor of surveillance against terrorists and the Dems aren't. Even an NPR listener might get that impression from some of the coverage I've heard.

[Bacchus39]

42. rights are bestowed on Americans whether or not they

are cognizant of them or exercise them. "deserving" has nothing to do with it.

[Little Star]

15. None so blind as those who refuse to see.

Individually, many Americans can see the threat. As a group, Americans are ignorant, lazy and gullible. Sure is frustrating.:banghead:

[bdamomma]

17. what are wrong with those people, they are truly in denial

and delusional, probably wickedly brainwashed. Geez, I am glad I am not like them, in denial all the time, what a way to live disgusting.

[kurth]

19. Yeah, if your not a terrist, you got nuthin' to worry 'bout

They swallowed it whole, didn't they?

[NotGivingUp]

21. BECAUSE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS NOT DOING ITS JOB!!!!!

[bunkerbuster1]

37. Absolutely.

As I've been saying in some other replies to this thread.

[bdamomma]

44. yes, they play into the grand scheme of things don't they???

wait until November 7th, spin spin and more spin.

[RetroLounge]

22. Most Americans? Bullshit!

Most of 1013 people with computers and internet connections who happen to click on a useless CNN poll.

NOT Most Americans...

RL

[NRaleighLiberal]

24. Folks, look at this - complete spin! Title says "Most do not feel"

but the numbers say otherwise - 39% says gone too far, 34% about right - so tell me when was 34 greater than 39???

[Gormy Cuss]

25. Don't forget the rabid ones who think Bush hasn't gone far enough

Those plus the 'about right' group far exceed the 39% who say 'gone too far.'

[Freedom_from_Chains]

27. And there you have it, the majority does not understand

what civil liberties is.

[warrens]

28. Good god.

Just when you start to think Americans are wising up. This is like those polls that showed a majority thought Saddam had WMD, after two years of admissions that he didn't. They just hear the right-wing spin, not enough to get any facts, and assume it's true. Gad, I hate this country sometimes.

[Mithras61]

29. As I was recently told...

"Don't put too much stock in what people think, because most of them do far less of it than you imagine..."

[rodeodance]

30. then this tells me that 65% do not read!

Asked whether Bush has more power than any other U.S. president, 65 percent of poll respondents said no. Thirty-three percent said yes. Of those who said yes, a quarter said that was bad for the country.

[stepnw1f]

31. Who Did They Poll?

Brain dead Republicans?

[Jack Rabbit]

32. If a poll found that most Americans believe the earth is flat

. . . that would not change the fact that it is round.

Bush has gone too far in restricting civil liberties and I will not abide by those restrictions.

[Bacchus39]

41. how will you resist??

please elaborate.

[The Stranger]

33. Civil liberties and civil rights are not subject to majority rule.

They exist in the individual and cannot be voted away or tampered with in any way without due process of law.

[AlienGirl]

34. How was the sample selected? What were the qualifying questions?

Without knowing that, it's hard to say whether the poll represents an accurate cross-section of American opinion. Also, the percentage who said there's been too much restriction of liberties is larger than *either* the ones who say it's about right or the really scary ones who want more restrictions. It would be interesting to see exactly what that 25% thought should be added to the restrictions already in place--tighter gun laws? travel restrictions? sedition laws?

Tucker

[bunkerbuster1]

35. Thank you mainstream media, for repeating the "Terra Wiretap" BS.

Rarely if ever do the media point out the bleedin' obvious, that all the Democrats ever wanted was for the President to follow the FISA regs (and the constitution), and obtain a warrant, even after-the-fact. A damn paper trail.

The media continually characterize this as being either pro- or anti-wiretapping. I'm not real surprised that many Americans actually believe what they're told, incessantly.

Hell, even NPR slips up, repeatedly, on this. ABCNBCCBSFoxCNN are much, much worse.

[Bacchus39]

40. I have yet to hear anyone state which liberties have been violated or taken away

so I'll leave the insults to the public to others.

The one I will state is the wiretapping without the warrant. However, since a warrant can be obtained easy enough anyway and it would be secret, I really don't see much of a difference.

the one that ACTUALLY affects me is the damn searches at the airport. although I am willing to put up with some inconvenience for the safety of myself and fellow passasengers.

[Mithras61]

43. Some liberties that we've lost...

1) right to petition the government over grievances - think you can approach George with a grievance? Think again! You get to go stand in a "Free Speech Zone" - out of sight, out of mind...

2) Right to Habeus Corpus - since the passing of the Military Commissions Act, you can be designated as an unlawful enemy combatant and imprisoned without access to courts or the right to confront your accuser. If you don't have that right, other "rights" become meaningless (they'll just designate you & you're toast).

3) Right to Privacy - you used to have what the courts have long recognized as a right to privacy. The * administration has gone to great lengths to abridge this. The wiretapping scheme was only the latest incident in their war on your privacy. The FISA courts may have been secret & not had very high standards for issuance of warrants, but the * administration couldn't even meet THOSE low standards of "evidence" and so they sidestepped the FISA courts.

There are other abridgements in the USA PATRIOT Act and others, but these will do for now. Basically, these buttheads have taken away all of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights except for (I believe it's the) Third amendment (it's the one about quartering of soldiers).

They have also done their darndest to prevent us as a citizenry from being informed (which has been called the backbone of Democracy), committed war crimes in our name and made us far LESS safe from terrorist attacks than we have ever been.

I could go on, but I think I'll let others have a chance as well...

[Bacchus39]

45. well thank you

I still think I can petition the government, the problem is they will not listen.

my understanding is that the enemy combatant doesn't apply to US citizens, I hope I'm right so maybe you can clarify. If I am wrong then you certainly raised a huge concern.

the wiretapping thing they are going to do with a warrant, without a warrant, with a secret warrant, or get a warrant AFTER they already wiretapped. warrant, no warrant big deal.

but thanks for listing some concerns and not just engaging in bashing/

[Mithras61]

48. You're welcome... here are some thoughts on your response...

You can petition the government, but if you insist on doing it in their hearing, they will put you in jail (many instances ranging from Miami to Denver that I'm aware of).

Enemy combatant status can be assigned solely by George & Rummy. No review is allowed. So you're a citizen. So what? What difference will that make if they won't let you into court to file a habeus corpus petition?

The wiretapping thing on domestic calls without probable cause is illegal & the FISA courts wouldn't authorize it. Simply stating that they will do it anyway doesn't make it not a violation of your right to privacy.

[Bacchus39]

50. ok

I always believed the petitioning the government was through a formal mechanism like a referendum and not just a protest. but yes, free speech is restricted at GOP political events.

I believe the law states that non-US citizens can be designated enemy combatants. not US citizens. that is a big difference (especially for me) but if I am wrong then that is a HUGE violation of my rights

again, wiretapping. It grants me little comfort that a "judge" gives the go ahead for a wiretap that obviously I know nothing about rather than say a FBI agent.

[Mithras61]

51. The problem with the law is...

The problem with the Military Commissions Act is that it gives them cover. They are holding "enemy combatants" incommunicado. You don't get to assert your rights (as a citizen or otherwise), because they are holding you incommunicado. That the law (may or may not) restricts their ability to call persons enemy combatants to non-citizens is moot, because until you get a hearing, you can't question your detention, and they have not intention of allowing you that hearing.

As to the issue of protest being petitioning the government, I believe protest has been held as protected by both free speech rights and petition the government rights. In either case, though, they are still abridging the right to free speech (if not freedom to petition the gevernment)

The problem with wiretapping is that if the courts can't find probable cause, and refuse to issue the warrant, but the NSA taps you anyway, they have still abridged your right to be secure from unreasonable search (the Fourth Amendment, IIRC). In this case, the FISA courts refused (or as in most cases, weren't even petitioned!) to issue a warrant, so it is a violation of your rights under the Fourth amendment.

[Bacchus39]

52. wiretapping

ok, I am going to read the Military Commission Act. but with regards to wiretapping, you do know that they can wiretap you and THEN go back and get a warrant?????!!!! so if the judge determines there was NOT probable cause what then? ooopsy.

[Mithras61]

54. Sort of...

Basically, at that point anything they gathered cannot be used in court. I believe they are also required to discard that information and any associated recordings.

Also, the FISA court is supposedly for international investigations (it IS the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act court, after all), not for domestic investigations (unless they become international). By law, the NSA spooks have to go through a regular domestic court for a domestic wiretap, which means they have to show probable cause BEFORE they tap...

[Bacchus39]

55. I believe they can listen and go back within 72 hours

and get the warrant.

[Mithras61]

57. Hmmm... IANAL, but...

I do not think they can listen without a warrant except for FISA warrants. The 72 hour exception was designed to give the gov't time to get the hearing set up.

I believe that under a normal (local/state) criminal investigation, they have to have probable cause to get the warrant, and they can't wiretap until they have the warrant unless they have the consent of at least one of the parties (this consent requirement varies by state, if I remember correctly).

For Federal investigations, I believe that they cannot wiretap at all unless they can establish probable cause, but the probable cause hearing can be in closed session/judge's chambers.

[teryang]

66. The law does state citizens can be enemy combatants!

This is one of the principles underlying the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision by the Supreme Court:

"There is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. 317 U.S., at 20. We held that “citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of … the law of war.” Id., at 37—38. While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities. See id., at 30—31. See also Lieber Code, ¶153, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, Gen. Order No. 100 (1863), reprinted in 2 Lieber, Miscellaneous Writings, p. 273 (contemplating, in code binding the Union Army during the Civil War, that “captured rebels” would be treated “as prisoners of war”). Nor can we see any reason for drawing such a line here. A citizen, no less than an alien, can be “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States,” Brief for Respondents 3; such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict."

This is further complicated by the fact that Military Commision Act and the Patriot Act define certain acts as material aid and support of enemy combatants and domestic terrorism respectively. Therefore, the limited facts considered under Hamdi, whereby he was alleged to have taken up arms against US allies in a combat zone, could be extended to encompass aid and support domestically or domestic terrorism as within the zone of combat. Aid and support and domestic terrorism are defined both broadly and vaguely. This is in fact is the exact position the government takes. Therefore, the law could be applied to anyone, a critic of the war, an anti-war protestor, someone thought to fit a profile at an airport. The limits are only those set by the imagination of unchecked power.

[humbled_opinion]

47. The problem is that the Right has hypnotised many

Americans into believing that the only way to stop terrorism is to do it Bush's way. The Danger is never discussed. Now I say when you discuss the issue with a republican take Bush out of the equation. Put Hilary Clinton in and say she has the same powers... Their heads spin.

[just a girl]

49. The Germans felt the same in the late 1930s and early 1940's

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; after all I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; after all I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; after all I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

- Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor, 1892-1984

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. That's because it hasn't hit THEM yet

Wait till people they know are arrested as "terrorist sympathizers."

Barring invasion by a foreign power and the resulting imposition of martial law, human rights are rarely lost overnight or to the whole population at once. In every case that I know about, the authorities began with minor denials of rights to certain unpopular groups to test the waters, and if there was no significant objection, they moved forward. Even the Nazis started slowly, and by the time people realized what was happening, it was too late.

[depakid]

56. Another bullshit CNN propaganda poll

That people believe and repeat as if it were the gospel truth...:eyes:

[williesgirl]

58. They must be fucking robots to say that. recommended

[rail]

59. Wasn't one of Cheney's goals to return power to the presidency (i.e., for him)...

...that eroded in light of the actions of corrosive Nixon officials (i.e., including him)?
www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1221-08.htm

If so, wonder what he feels about the quote below:
Asked whether Bush has more power than any other U.S. president, 65 percent of poll respondents said no. Thirty-three percent said yes. Of those who said yes, a quarter said that was bad for the country.

Whether or not the populace believes any rights were lost under this administration (..and, unfortunately, many couldn't have told you what rights existed beforehand), doesn't change the fact that rights have been absorbed by this administration. and for those who do know what they're giving up (i.e., those who advocated wireless wiretapping, suspension of the writ of habeus corpus), it's sad what people will intractibly give up for a modicum of supposed security.

If this administration couldn't protect the country without doing away with the Constitution and the rights that make this country what it is, they should let someone else lead who can do both.

[coalition_unwilling]

61. OK, well, 70% of Americans believe in angels. No one ever went

broke overestimating the stupidity of the American people.

[boddhi]

62. but I think the REAL thing that hasn't seemed to sink in...

... to hardly anyone yet is that the Military Commissions Act has given the right to hold, without recourse, those deemed enemy combatants to ALL future administrations. Right, left - it don't matter. While we may be terrified of what this administration wants to do with this power, it is horrific to imagine what some future administration might do with it.

And having the law redacted or overturned by the Supreme Court will not be enough. The precedent has been set that, in a time of crisis, Congress has passed such a law and a President has signed it. That's enough for some future wacko to pass a new law and call anyone who votes or speaks against it an 'enemy combatant' or the term de jour.

Perhaps an explicit Constitutional Amendment saying something to the effect of "Congress shall pass no law abridging the rights of ANYONE of ANY nation the right to appear before an impartial judge" might work. I'm fairly certain though that, once this current crisis is over, the need for such an amendment will be completely lost and there will be one more problem passed down to the next generation.

[Generator]

63. Of course they don't

Nothing has happened to them. Yet. Let's pray to all the graces of the universe it never does, however, the precedent has now been codified in law. The president can detain anyone without any rights whatsoever, and as long as he doesn't rape, mutilate or murder you-it's not torture. Most Americans have no clue this could ever apply to them. Who will stand up if an innocent American is charged? Will we even know?

I would like them push polled-like did you know that habeas corpus is dead? Do you know that wiretapping of all Americans is occurring right now? That privacy is dead? Did you know that congress has no power whatsoever APPARENTLY because it doesn't challenge the president's use of signing statements? Do they even know about signing statements and that the make a mockery of everything the congress does?

What does America really know? The masses are kept ignorant for a reason.

And when..shudder..it does happen, it will be too late.

Just don't get uppity America. Stay home. Don't challenge your governement. It's safer there.

[Temporary1]

64. I was in a DHS roleplaying game today, and let me tell you from personal experience

A LOT changed in counterintelligence after 9/11 and the bush reforms. If you live in an urban area and frequent it often your data is probably on file from some surveillance exercise or another. My sis works at DHS and I did some roleplaying for simulations there. They're all nice people, but they go way too far as far as surveillance goes I think (and I shudder to have these people get orders from people like Gonzo and Dubya).

[Thickasabrick]

65. The majority of the public blamed Saddam for 9/11 - remember?

I can't get too upset about these polls. Unless it's on Oprah, people don't really want to be informed.

[pitohui]

67. cnn: half of all americans have IQs less than average

dan quayle told em that much in 1988

[leesa]

69. I see CNN polled their executive staff again.

[entanglement]

71. That's 'cause they believe it will only affect "people who don't look like us"

:eyes: