Blue Crab Boulevard

VERY Interesting Poll

The Washington Post did a fast Poll about the NSA revelations from yesterday. Public opinion is 2:1 in favor of the program. Now that's a real fast poll and it's unclear how opinion will change as the spin gets applied.

Just to try to ask another rational question here: There are reports that some members of Congress are "demanding explanations" from the White House. Wouldn't it be a good idea to demand explanations from the members of Congress who apparently knew about this program? I mean, heck, they could do that in the hall on the way to the rest room.

It's important that since this has been leaked that some questions get answered. Including the one I just asked.

I've already had commenters who declare, with an air of authority, that the program is illegal. That is not apparent as yet. Consider this: many on the left have praised Qwest for not participating. The company is painted in heroic terms because apparently their lawyers asked for a warrant first. But the other companies' lawyers must have approved going along with the NSA, right? That actually makes Qwest an outlier. What if it also turns out it is wrong?

UPDATE: Many thanks to Sister Toldjah and Protein Wisdom for linking.

UPDATE: Bradley over at Southwest Left Coast cheerfully dismantles a Boston Globe "survey". Rightfully so.

Media, Politics | Gaius Friday, 12 May , 2006

By Sven, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 8:28 am

Putting the question of legality aside for a moment and assuming the program simply involves call records - not content - do you object to the government having this information?
By Gaius, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 8:32 am

Let me ask you a question: You do realize that all the data we are talking about is already available, plus a whole lot more, and is in the hands of private companies. Are you more comfortable with them having all that than the government having a liited amount?
By Sven, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 8:33 am

Answer my question, and then I’ll answer yours.
By Gaius, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 8:38 am

Actually, if all they are doing is pattern analysis, I don’t care. I have absolutely nothing to hide.
By Sven, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 8:56 am

No, I don’t like private companies compiling that data either, but private companies on their own generally don’t have the opportunity to ruin my life with it. The government can. As Chicago Law School’s Geoffrey Stone puts it:

With good reason, we shouldnâ€™t trust the government to care only about criminal acts. Once the government can gather all sorts of other information about you (for example, who your friends are, what books you read, what petitions youâ€™ve signed, who you sleep with), it then has the capacity to use that information against you in all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with catching terrorists. Certainly, weâ€™ve seen this throughout history. Information is power, and power can (and usually will) be abused. Suppose you have to consider that every act, every phone call, every email is permanently preserved in government computers and thus accessible [in an instant] even many years from now to those officials who will decide whether to hire you for a government job, oppose you for elective office, admit you or your child to a public university, or audit your taxes. Might this have an effect on your conduct and conversations?

You may have nothing to hide, but does anyone within six degrees of separation of you? And if you’re squeeky clean, why do you blog under a pseudonym?
By Gaius, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 9:03 am

Because of what my son does.

And I think private companies actually have more potential to ruin your life these days.
By Black Jack, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 9:25 am

It’s the smear merchants in the Democrat Party I don’t want to see get their hands on personal information. They’re the greater danger to national security.

Remember all the idiot nonsense they dredged up to use against Supreme Court nominees from Thomas to Alito. That disgraceful display shows exactly how the unprincipled Left would misuse the private information of Americans.
By Sven, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 9:25 am

So, you’re saying your son could be held responsible for opinions you profess? Guilt by association? Say it ain’t so!
By Gaius, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 9:28 am

More for his protection than anything else.
By Pug, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 9:42 am

Wonder what Black jack will think of these types of operations when the “Democrat Party” is back in the White House. It will happen some day. It’s OK as long as it’s Republicans is not a very strong argument.
By Gaius, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 9:55 am

If it’s being used for pattern analysis, it’s not worrisome. If it is used for something else, that’s another story.

Let me put it this way, if the government tried to use this in court, it would not stand up to the rules of evidence.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 10:06 am

The Boston Globe story on the NSA spying was pathetic. It didn’t cite any poll evidence, and appeared to just consist of four people the reporter could contact by deadline. It didn’t even include a disclaimer.

The Post/ABC poll was much better, and the AP story, while not scientific, at least disclosed that point.

I wrote about this on my own blog.
By Gaius, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 10:10 am

Now, that’s one of the hot buttons for me. By no stretch is this “spying”. I freaking hate when the media uses it that way.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 10:11 am

Would you care to explain the difference?
By Sven, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 10:13 am

I understand; that’s a good, admirable reason. I’m not trying to chastise you about using a pseudonym, just trying to make a point. There’s nothing remotely objectionable about this blog, yet it can still be used against him. And, given the right circumstances, against you.

Likewise, it’s possible for the government - and yes, the phone company and grocery store as well - to use seemingly innocuous information against you. What happens when the political climate changes, as it inevitably will, and your opinions and associations suddenly become suspect? What happens when the Iranians take over and begin routing out Bush supporters? Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

The intent doesn’t have to be malicious. If the government has push-button access to these records, what’s to prevent it from using them to investigate an “ordinary” crime? If a friend of a friend is the suspect, what’s to prevent you from being drawn into the investigation, based on nothing more than the “pattern” of your contacts - a “pattern” not even you realize exists?
By Gaius, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 10:14 am

Spying (As defined in M-W) implies hostile intent. General usage is one government against another.
By Gaius, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 10:17 am

Actually, it’s more complicated. I’m not afraid of this blog being used against him - hell, I have readers from CentCom.

Again - I do not believe this kind of pattern data could even be introduced in court. Period.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 10:21 am

That’s a rather fine line you’re drawing. And Bush’s rationale is that he’s trying to stop Al Qaida, which implies hostile intent.

Would calling it “surveillance” be okay with you? Would it make it any better?
By Gaius, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 10:28 am

It’s actually not a fine line, Bradley. It is a loaded term when used in the way it is being used. Surveillance would at least be more neutral.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 10:32 am

The whole premise under this NSA program, as Bush has explained it, is to protect America against a deadly enemy. That’s his whole justification. So what’s so “loaded” about calling it spying?

Sometimes, plain words are the best, and Latinate pseudo-neutral words are simply a way to evade the ugly reality. I think this is one of them.
By Gaius, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 10:44 am

Bradley, using the term “spying on Americans” or “to spy on Americans” are loaded, and you must know that. That’s not, apparently, what the program is about at all.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 11:04 am

Gaius, it’s an old trick of government to invent some explanation that obscures what’s going on, and I’m not buying it. Orwell explained it well in Politics and The English Language.

The NSA is gathering information on millions of Americans, supposedly to track the actions of enemies. Spying exactly describes what is being done, in plain English.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
By Gaius, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 11:06 am

Sounds like a plan.
By Black Jack, Friday, 12 May , 2006 @ 11:27 am

Pug, if Dems don’t stop their efforts to undermine national security, they’ll never get back in the White House. The Left doesn’t control the flow of information anymore, and American voters can’t be fooled by bogus exit polls or the likes of Dan Rather and his phony documents. So, unless Dems come up with some new way to steal elections, they’ll never again be more than a noisy, annoying obstacle, to American progress.
By Black Jack, Saturday, 13 May , 2006 @ 11:32 am

Allow me to add one more qualification to my concluding remarks:

There are actually two ways Dems might avoid being reduced to noisy insignificance. One, I mentioned above, Dems and their allies in MSM can improve their techniques for stuffing ballot boxes and stealing elections, and the other way is for GOP pandering to imaginary swing voters and illegal immigration activists, to reach the point where Conservatives will refuse to vote Republican incumbents back into office.

The mid-term elections will tell the tale. If GWB caves in to the “amnesty first” cabal, and fails to secure the border with a physical barrier, Conservatives will react in an explosion of disillusionment with the GOP and throw the bums out in November.
By Gaius, Saturday, 13 May , 2006 @ 11:41 am

Captain Ed is saying that’s not a good strategy, either. You might want to go read what he came out with.
By Black Jack, Saturday, 13 May , 2006 @ 2:23 pm

Thanks for directing me to CQ. The Captain does offer a pretty good overview. Apparently even Lindsey Graham is getting the message although he mistakenly says Conservative outrage is a recent result of shifting winds. Not so, Conservatives have been clear and consistent. The legislation passed by the House is in the right direction, and to hell with those double dealing nabobs in the Senate.

The American people want a physical barrier on the border. Our elected representatives can face it, or they can try to pull a fast one. Only one path leads to reelection, the other to perdition. Pandering politicians are well advised to use extreme caution, mercy will likely be in very short supply come the mid-term elections.