I don't believe this! AP-Ipsos poll: 50% support spying?!!!$#@$%^

[in_cog_ni_to]

What a CROCK OF SHIT. 50% of the people SUPPORT ILLEGAL spying? I don't believe it! It also sounds like the Dem Senators didn't get much more info from their meeting with Gonzales and Hayden. I wonder if Specter will do his thing now?....will he draft his legislation and send them to an intelligience court to see if their "program" is legal???



Poll: Surveillance Wins Some More Backers

Thursday February 9, 2006 10:46 PM


By KATHERINE SHRADER

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's campaign to convince Americans that the government's eavesdropping program is essential to the war on terrorism has made an impact: Last month people disapproved, 56 percent to 42 percent. Now it's basically 50-50.

Bush has been particularly successful at making his case to core supporters, including Republicans, white evangelicals and suburban men. Support in each category grew more than 10 percentage points in the last month.

The AP-Ipsos poll findings came as the White House relented and provided some new details to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees about the program. At Bush's direction, the National Security Agency has been monitoring communications between people overseas and in the U.S. when links to terrorism are suspected.

However, Senate Democrats left their three-hour session Thursday frustrated about the level of information they received from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, the nation's No. 2 intelligence official.
<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-5606465,00.html

edited to add poll question and results...

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?
2/6-
8/06
1/3-
5/06
Should be required to get
a warrant .......................................... 50 56
Should be allowed to monitor
without a warrant.............................. 48 42
Not sure ......................................... 2 2


Interview dates: February 6-8, 2006
Interviews 1,000 adults, 858 registered voters
Margin of error: +3.1 for all adults, +3.4 for registered voters

[savemefromdumbya]

1. What was the question?

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Is eavesdropping essential to the war on terrorism?

It's in the article.

[salvorhardin]

6. The question...

"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 entire poll, which consists of just that question and some questions to sort respondents into demographics is in this PDF: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/act_hit_cntr.cfm?id=2967&Region=us&PDF_name=mr060209-1topline.pdf

[gkhouston]

10. but even that question is bogus

because the Bush administration can apply for a warrant retroactively. The only two responses allowed in this poll are "can't wiretap until you have a warrant" or "don't need a warrant, ever" and that doesn't reflect the law.

I wonder if people were given a false choice on purpose...

[savemefromdumbya]

18. Perhaps they should be asked to run their poll again?

with more clarification

[mrcheerful]

2. The repig spin is working.

They aren't spying on americans they are spying on Al-Quida contacts in america.

[mmonk]

3. People ignorant of fact shouldn't be polled.

They think they aren't being spied on.

[acmejack]

5. They didn't mention this was a poll of crack smokers

taken at a facility for the profoundly disturbed.

[shadowlight]

7. Here is the question.

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?
edited to add link http://ap-ipsosresults.com/

[smartvoter]

15. Again, and as we have discussed around here, the INCONVENIENT

little fact that they CAN START RIGHT NOW and check in with a judge in three days is ignored -- the option is go to judge BEFORE they start, whic his not how it works. It's as if the provision for operational speed doesn't exist. There were a couple of threads on this the other day:

Well, it looks like the Republicans have done it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x351454

Does anyone remember "Operation Roll-back Al Qaeda?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x351371

It's exasperating!

[Steve A Play]

8. It doesn't matter what any percentage of the people "think"

What matters is what the law was when the action took place. :crazy:

The law is there to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority. If that doesn't happen, then our system of government no longer works, and our Constitution allows for us to deal with it. :)

They can't change the rules after the game no matter what any 'poll' says.

Steven P. :kick:

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. Really? Since when do laws matter to the BFEE?

Our only hope is repukes turning on these rat bastards.

[bluestateguy]

9. Take it easy

This all depends on how the question is parsed and phrased, much like affirmative action. If I were a pollster, I could make 70% of people support affirmative action in one poll, and 70% oppose it in another.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. Here's the question and results.

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?
2/6-
8/06
1/3-
5/06
Should be required to get
a warrant .......................................... 50 56
Should be allowed to monitor
without a warrant.............................. 48 42
Not sure ......................................... 2 2


Interview dates: February 6-8, 2006
Interviews 1,000 adults, 858 registered voters
Margin of error: +3.1 for all adults, +3.4 for registered voters

[Yoda Yada]

14. Sorry, I posted (below) before I read this. nt

[Yoda Yada]

13. A REPUBLICAN framed that question.

I might be missing something here....but was "with warrant vs without warrant" mentioned in the question?
...eavesdropping only WITH A WARRANT? .....or WARRANTLESS eavesdropping?

It is not illegal to wiretap, IF you get a warrant from the FISA court. But since the question was framed differently, the Republicans CAN NOW SAY (and they will) Americans think eavesdropping IS essential (with...or without a warrant.) These people are "snakes in the grass".

MAYBE I did not understand ....but it IS a very manipulative way to phrase the question.

[smartvoter]

17. "BEFORE" is the misleading part. You can tap right now and see

a judge in three days so you don't lose a hot lead. But you ARE held accountable afterward by a separate set of eyes.

This KEY PROVISION to all of this has been wiped right out of discussion.

[oregonjen]

16. Here is a sample of the Republican viewpoint

A letter to the editor in today's Oregonian. They just chew info they hear and spit it out without even thinking.

www.oregonlive.com



As if you'd be spied on . . .


I'm kind of amused at the people in this country who are having a tizzy fit because they think President Bush is "spying" on them. They must hold themselves in such high esteem, believing that their conversations are so important that the government would take an interest in what they are saying.

As for me, I'm thrilled that our president is doing everything possible to keep me safe -- which, by the way, is no more than other wartime presidents have done.

BEVERLY XXXXXXXX, Tualatin

[shadowlight]

19. Okay, can someone here

write a real question?
The fact that 50% agree to this question
means a much greater majority will agree to an
honest question.