New Poll, Same Problems
Previously I wrote about the problems pollsters seem to be having in framing a question that adequately captures the real issue at the heart of the NSA spying controversy. Today the Washington Post has released a new poll on the subject. It asks the following question:
51% found the practice acceptable; 47% found it unacceptable. This is a far better poll question than the one used by Rasmussen, but that doesn't say much. First, and most obviously, this poll question neglects to mention that the targets of the wiretapping are U.S. citizens within the U.S. That's a rather salient fact that would likely affect the outcome if included. To its credit, though, the question does mention that the surveillance at issue is being conducted without a warrant, something the Rasmussen pollsters apparently felt was irrelevant. And, unlike the Rasmussen poll, this poll question doesn't entirely assume away the possibility of abuse by suggesting that only communications with terrorists would ever be intercepted. Unfortunately, the question does imply that the only motive investigators would ever have is "investigating terrorism." Framed in that way, the question assumes that the wiretapping is being used for proper purposes. But the entire point of having a warrant procedure is to insure that surveillance is in fact being used for proper purposes, so it's highly questionable whether the "investigating terrorism" phrase should be built into the poll question. Then again, it's probably not fair to leave out any mention of terrorism whatsoever. Here's a better poll question:
But while this question would more accurately solicit public opinion regarding the underlying policy issue at stake here, it still wouldn't get at the real controversy: the president's decision to disregard FISA. So here's the question I want pollsters to ask:
My guess is that well over 50% of respondents would answer yes.
Would you consider this wiretapping of
telephone calls and e-mails without court
approval as an acceptable or unacceptable
way for the federal government to
investigate terrorism?
51% found the practice acceptable; 47% found it unacceptable. This is a far better poll question than the one used by Rasmussen, but that doesn't say much. First, and most obviously, this poll question neglects to mention that the targets of the wiretapping are U.S. citizens within the U.S. That's a rather salient fact that would likely affect the outcome if included. To its credit, though, the question does mention that the surveillance at issue is being conducted without a warrant, something the Rasmussen pollsters apparently felt was irrelevant. And, unlike the Rasmussen poll, this poll question doesn't entirely assume away the possibility of abuse by suggesting that only communications with terrorists would ever be intercepted. Unfortunately, the question does imply that the only motive investigators would ever have is "investigating terrorism." Framed in that way, the question assumes that the wiretapping is being used for proper purposes. But the entire point of having a warrant procedure is to insure that surveillance is in fact being used for proper purposes, so it's highly questionable whether the "investigating terrorism" phrase should be built into the poll question. Then again, it's probably not fair to leave out any mention of terrorism whatsoever. Here's a better poll question:
In light of the threat posed by terrorism, do
you think the government should be able to
conduct wiretapping of U.S. citizens without
warrants and without judicial oversight?
But while this question would more accurately solicit public opinion regarding the underlying policy issue at stake here, it still wouldn't get at the real controversy: the president's decision to disregard FISA. So here's the question I want pollsters to ask:
Are you bothered by the fact that the
President has, in the name of fighting
terrorism, authorized the warrantless
wiretapping of U.S. citizens despite the
existence of a federal law forbidding such
surveillance?
My guess is that well over 50% of respondents would answer yes.
posted by A.L. at 11:44 PM
5 Comments:
I believe you are very wrong that well over 50% would answer yes. They would answer no because they believe the government should protect them at all costs. Secondly, you assume nefarious uses by the government rather than what I believe most people not driven by an agenda would assume which is to discover terrorists and stop plots. While of course your assumption could be true I personally don't think it is the purpose of the program.
Also, according to the admitted leaker of the program, it is used to make connections between phone numbers and can track them with US numbers. Exactly what I would want...
Well, 47% percent of people found the program unacceptable in this latest poll, and it left out a lot of key elements. Do you really think my poll question wouldn't nab at least 3% more respondents into the 'unacceptable' column? Please.
Secondly, you assume nefarious uses by the government rather than what I believe most people not driven by an agenda would assume which is to discover terrorists and stop plots.
Wrong again. I don't assume any nefarious uses. I firmly believe that the purpose of the program is to fight terrorism. But the very reason for having oversight is to insure that abuses don't occur. If you do away with oversight, there's absolutely no way of knowing whether the program is being used for its intended purpose, so you have to be careful not to embed elements in a poll question that assume away the very issue being discussed.
If you'd bother to read any of my posts on this subject, you'd see that my issue is not with the program itself. I'm willing to believe it is a useful program and that it doesn't unfairly infringe on civil liberties. My problem is that the program seems quite clearly to violate a Congressional statute. If this program is necessary and useful, the president should to Congress and have them create a statutory framework that allows for it.
I've read all of your posts on this subject (and remember your initial thoughts of allowing the government the ability to do this program), as well as all other subjects (you're welcome) but believe you are focusing on the wrong metric in this case.
First off the question just prior to the one you are focusing on is whether people are following this issue closely, and they are by a 66/34 breakdown. Within that I take it that people know that there is the possibility that it is illegal as all of the press reports have stressed that they believe it is illegal to tap in this case.
I believe the more important question is:
6. What do you think is more important right now - (for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy); or (for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats)?
Investigate Respect No
threats privacy opin.
1/8/06 65 32 3
This question while ignoring your main topic gauges what people truly want and that is that the government is doing enough.
And to end on a pedantic note, your post said well over 50% which is quite different from getting to 50% and what started my response.
I've read all of your posts on this subject (and remember your initial thoughts of allowing the government the ability to do this program), as well as all other subjects (you're welcome) but believe you are focusing on the wrong metric in this case.
First off the question just prior to the one you are focusing on is whether people are following this issue closely, and they are by a 66/34 breakdown. Within that I take it that people know that there is the possibility that it is illegal as all of the press reports have stressed that they believe it is illegal to tap in this case.
I believe the more important question is:
6. What do you think is more important right now - (for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy); or (for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats)?
Investigate Respect No
threats privacy opin.
1/8/06 65 32 3
This question while ignoring your main topic gauges what people truly want and that is that the government is doing enough.
And to end on a pedantic note, your post said well over 50% which is quite different from getting to 50% and what started my response.
Fair enough.
I think we're dealing with two separate issues here, though. One is the proper balance between fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberties. This is essentially a policy question, and one that I can't even be sure where I come out on without knowing more about the specifics of the program.
The second question is about the constitutional separation of powers. It's about whether the president or Congress has the ultimate say in these matters. With respect to that issue, I think the Bush administration's position is rather audacious and highly questionable from a legal/constitutional standpoint.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home