--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: > <snip> > > By the time this poll was taken it was common knowledge that > > warrants for wire tapping calls coming in to the US from > > suspected terrorists were not asked for by the NSA nor given > > by the courts.<I stand completely behind my comment and by the > > Washington Post Poll that the overwhelming majority of Americans > > stand by the program that the NSA had in place which included > > warrantless wire taps on calls from suspected terrorists coming > > into the US. Now if you would like to show me another poll taken > > by a major news paper or polling firm that says Americans are > > against warrantless wiretaps in the case of intercepting terrorist > > phone calls coming into the US, I'll be happy to listen. > > CNN/USA Today/Gallup, 1/20-22/2006 > > As you may know, the Bush Administration has been wiretapping > telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United > States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without > getting a court order allowing it to do so. How closely have you been > following the news about this: very closely, somewhat closely, not > too closely, or not at all? > > 69% are either following it Very Closely (31%) or Somewhat Closely > (38%). > > Do you think the Bush Administration was right or wrong in > wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?" > N=506, MoE ± 5 (Form A) > > 46% Right, 51% Wrong, 3% Unsure > > Do you think a special prosecutor should or should not be appointed > to investigate this matter? N=500, MoE ± 5 (Form B) > > 58% (Should), 39% (Should Not), 2% (Unsure). > > http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-01-23-poll.htm > > > Associated Press, 1/3-5/2006 > > 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? > > Required to get warrant, 56% > Monitor without a warrant, 42% > Unsure, 2% > > http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com/ > > > Zogby Poll: Americans Support Impeaching Bush for [Warrantless] > Wiretapping, January 9-12, 2006 > > If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval > of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider > holding him accountable through impeachment? > > 52% agree, 43% disagree, 6% n/a, moe 2.9% > > http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12530 > > > NBC News/Wall Street Journal, January 26-29, 2006 > > Do you think that the Bush administration should conduct wiretaps of > American citizens who are suspected of having ties to terrorists > without a court order, or do you think that the Bush administration > should be required to get a court order before conducting these > wiretaps? > > Should be able to wiretap without court order, 41% > Should be required to get a court order before wiretapping, 53% > Depends 4% > Not sure 2% > > http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/poll20060131.pdf >
Of curse, none of these polls quite asks about the real issue: should the president be allowed to ignore the law? The law states that the law enforcement types most get a warrant to monitor calls of the relevant kind within 48 hours AFTER the monitoring starts, IIRC. The President never bothered to have his people do this. IN fact, since it is standard procedure for law enforcement agents to follow the law unless told otherwise, someone must have ordered these agents NOT to follow the law. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
