The "framing" of the Domestic Spying issue

[SHRED]

My wife was talking to her dad, a Bush supporter, about the NSA scandal.
Her father said, "Well I am in favor of the President doing whatever it takes to keep us safe", or words to that affect.

I have heard this thought expressed all over the media also.
The RW frame-job has worked.
They have framed this as the President "needed" to do this.
That somehow the legal channels (FISA) were restrictive (which we know is false) and that he needed to sidestep the very cooperative FISA court in order to "keep us safe".

The issue has been framed as you are either for security or against.

We need to push back with the fact that the "frame" is built on a false premise and that nothing would have restricted the President, in his spying on terrorists, had he followed the law.

[Inland]

1. Illegal seraches give more security than getting warrant? Of course not.

If bush isn't getting a warrant, it's because there isn't enough connection with national security for even the rubber stamp of the FISA court.

That Bush won't go to the secret court proves the searches have zip to do with national security.

[SHRED]

2. That's what needs to be investigated!

[applegrove]

3. Why not go back and change the laws at the time - it would have been

agreed to - to streamline the process. In a time of war. No problem. Why not?

[seabeyond]

4. i have heard it from brother, father and 45 yr old repug friend

the insist we need to trust bush and he just listens to terrorist adn he should be able to do whatever to keep us safe. there is no room to question bush. i dont understand all three of these people are better than this. i dont get it. i guess i need to start talking about how and why hitler got away with what he did.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. You can't frame it on Constitutional grounds.

In my view, this is the idea Bush is trying to convey:

I am so committed to the safety and security of the USA that nothing, not even the Constitution, will stop me from implementing those measures which I deem necessary for our safety and security.

And people are buying this argument for all of the reasons one might expect. There's really no easy answer to this spin.

Anyway, we need to separate this issue into two distinct pieces. First, there's the PR side, to which the above spin is directed. But that's only half the issue. The other half is the very real legal/constitutional side, for which he has essentially no defense. I honestly don't think we can win the PR side of this fight unless the debate is shifted from "is this program good/effective?" to "Did the President break the law?" That can only be achieved in the long term with an investigation that will likely never happen. Depressing, but true. Turning this scandal from a negative into a positive is pure Karl Rove. Trust me, they're thrilled that this is still in the news. They'll only ever really be in trouble if an actual investigation takes place.

[SHRED]

6. Points well taken n/t

[abluelady]

7. Very Well Said

We need to question what results the spying brought about? It seems to me that if there was success we would be hearing about it, and we're not. We should stress that point. This spying was going on before 9/11 and 9/11 still occurred. And more importantly, we should be responding to each and every spin. Perhaps when they hear us as much as they hear him, a difference will be seen.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. I disagree, actually.

t seems to me that if there was success we would be hearing about it, and we're not. We should stress that point.

The problem with this is that we will now be arguing not the legality, but the effectiveness of the program. If we are of the opinion that the program is illegal, than its effectiveness should be completely irrelevant.

This spying was going on before 9/11 and 9/11 still occurred.

This has the same problem, as well. 9/11 didn't make it legal, either. 9/11 should be irrelevant.

And more importantly, we should be responding to each and every spin. Perhaps when they hear us as much as they hear him, a difference will be seen.

The problem with this is that it looks very partisan. As soon as people get a sense that the actual issue is being subverted into a political, partisan cause, they'll tune out. I really think the only way we can ever win this is on the legal merits, and that's an enormous uphill battle. If that time ever comes, it would be nice to at least have the appearance of bipartisanship. I think the Clinton impeachment is somewhat relevant here. People did not like what Clinton had done. A lot of them figured that it was illegal. But the Republicans were just so unbelievable partisan about the whole thing that they destroyed whatever support they had.

[abluelady]

9. You are Absolutely Right

But the administration has convinced Americans to be afraid. The average American is too scared to think about legalities. They won't listen; therefore, they won't hear. Imho, we have to talk to them in a way they can understand. You and I know we're talking apples and oranges, but they don't. We have to take small steps with small minds.

[rpgamerd00d]

10. FRAME THIS

:D