Polls show US citizens are against warrantless wiretapping. Why support it?

[seasat]

I was curious and figured that with the cave in on warrantless wiretapping that there must be an electoral advantage in supporting it. Maybe as someone who is to the left on civil liberties, I'm in the minority. When I searched for polls on the subject, I found that US citizens oppose warrantless wiretapping. Polls in 2006 showed a slight majority supporting it but the recent polls show the public has turned against it.

By 2007, US citizens did not support warrantless wire tapping.

Sixty-one percent of voters favor requiring the government to get a warrant from a court before wiretapping the conversations U.S. citizens have with people in other countries, with an outright majority of voters, 51 percent, “strongly” supporting the requirement, the poll of 1,000 likely 2008 general-election voters found.

Here's the excerpt from a just released Rasmussen survey:

One thing voters overwhelmingly agree, however, is that the government needs a search warrant if it wants internet providers or telecommunications companies to turn over customer records: 69% say so, as opposed to only 17% who say a search warrant is not necessary.

So with US citizens turning against the idea of warrantless wire tapping, what is the advantage in supporting it? Is the telecom lobby that powerful? Is it just a cool power that both our party and Repubs think the executive branch should have? I don't get the cave in by our Democratic party members.

[leftofthedial]

1. New Democrats, DLCers and blue dogs ARE THE ENEMY

they have infiltrated our party, but they are not on our side.

[Individualist]

8. Precisely! They're subversives.

[Junkdrawer]

2. This wasn't a "cave in". This was Pelosi and Hoyer actively working...

to pass legislation THEY WANTED. And it was done as cynically as possible.

Before the Primaries, they "defeated" immunity so that the Blue Dogs could turn back more liberal challengers.

The MINUTE the primaries were over, they reintroduced this bill and passed it.

[seasat]

4. My real dark suspicion is that it's about presidential power.

The underlying reason for blocking telecoms being hauled into court is that it would allow a challenge to the ability of the President to override a statute with an executive order. That is what happened in the case of Bush's warrantless wire tapping program.

If the telecoms are sued, they most likely do not have a financial risk. A lawyer with considerable experience in wire tapping cases recently pointed out that telecoms likely have indemnification agreements with the government. That means that the government would be responsible for any financial awards in a suit over wire tapping. The telecoms also probably have an agreement authorizing them by the Bush administration already meaning that the FISA bill really does grant retroactive immunity. The only thing that might happen is they would be publicly embarrassed by their participation in the program.

The likely reason that the bill is so weak is because it would result in the courts reviewing (as they should) which carried the more weight an executive order or a legislative statute. Most of Repubs are behind this because they actually believe in spying on US citizens. While I think some Democrats are behind it because they want to retain that power in the executive branch of overriding statutes. The rest are just going along with the flow or have received a lot of lobbyist cash.

Since this Rasmussen poll just came out, I wonder how the Senate will swing on this issue. It might give the folks like Chris Dodd and Barack Obama some reason to fight back against it. I still have some hope that they'll at least remove the retroactive immunity section.

[notesdev]

3. It all makes sense

when you realize that the nation's elites - business, media, and political - work together to advance their own positions at the expense of everyone else's. It's class warfare, the elites vs. everyone else. And they've been winning for quite some time now since the rest of us by and large haven't even figured out the rules of the game.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Because we live in an illusory Democracy?

Because we live in an oligarchy?

Come on. Think about it. Someone thought they were entitled enough to throw our elections. Would an American who really believed in our Constitution and voting process do something like that?

[rhett o rick]

7. I am with you. We don't live in a democracy, they just pretend we do. And that's good enough for

most.

[cascadiance]

6. Follow the money! Those with Money WANT it to pass!

And they control our voting systems, our media, and basically our politicians now too!

[Greyhound]

9. Because US citizens are irrelevant. Our only purpose is to finance and retain

power for those that rule us.

[deacon]

10. It's politics over the rule of law. Not Pelosi and Reid promised and it's a disgrace. n/t

[Festivito]

11. Outside money. We don't pay for our elections. We get what we ...

pay for: NOTHING but three-dollars worth out of the thousands we put in.

[readmoreoften]

12. The Democrat needs to vote for spying on the American people to 'appease their voters.'

Only the most hardcore conservative voters want wiretapping. The choice to allow this is either some kind of bullshit (and most likely doomed) appeasement of the Republicans in hopes of "gaining" something--which is patently fucking absurd since we're the majority--or it's very simply that the Democrats are as culpable and corrupt as the Republicans or both.

What's the difference between their party and ours these days? The Democrats are the elitists who pity the poor they fuck over. I'm not holding my breath.

[crickets]

13. Keeping that powder dry. K&R

:eyes:

[leftchick]

14. every fucking corporate lobby is that powerful

they run our country, along with AIPAC.