NSA Spying and Bad Polling
The other day Rasmussen published a poll that supposedly showed that "64% of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States."
As others have already pointed out, this poll was about as flawed as a poll can be. The actual question asked was the following:
As Ezra Klein points out, this question leaves out all the most salient facts, i.e., that these intercepts are taking place without a warrant and in violation of a Congressional statute. In his post, Klein offers a better polling question:
Fair enough, right? Well, over at the Corner, Jonah Goldberg takes issue with Klein's revised poll question. He suggests that the revised question is itself biased because "[n]o one is talking about tapping run-of-the-mill phone conversations." Goldberg suggests his own revision:
Anyone see the obvious problem here? The whole point of having some sort of oversight (such as a warrant requirement) is to make sure that the government is in fact limiting its spying to "communications with known al Qaeda associates." Asking the question in the way Goldberg suggests assumes away the possibility of abuse, which is the entire reason for having oversight in the first place. Is Goldberg really that clueless?
More importantly, though, none of these poll questions addresses the real issue. We can debate ad nauseam what the proper level of oversight should be for this kind of spying. But that's all beside the point. The fact is that there is already a law on the books--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--which specifies exactly what level of oversight is required. FISA spells out, in very carefully chosen language, precisely what procedures the NSA must follow when intercepting communications involving U.S. citizens. For four years now, at the President's direction, the NSA has been ignoring these procedures. The real issue here is a simple one: did the President overstep his authority when he approved this sort of spying? As Glenn Greenwald wrote earlier today:
So let's not let bad poll questions and clueless commentators (or the president himself) distract us from what is, unquestionably, a serious issue.
As others have already pointed out, this poll was about as flawed as a poll can be. The actual question asked was the following:
Should the National Security Agency be
allowed to intercept telephone conversations
between terrorism suspects in other countries
and people living in the United States?
As Ezra Klein points out, this question leaves out all the most salient facts, i.e., that these intercepts are taking place without a warrant and in violation of a Congressional statute. In his post, Klein offers a better polling question:
Do you believe the NSA should be able to
listen in on your phone calls and read your
e-mails without oversight, probable cause, or
a warrant?
Fair enough, right? Well, over at the Corner, Jonah Goldberg takes issue with Klein's revised poll question. He suggests that the revised question is itself biased because "[n]o one is talking about tapping run-of-the-mill phone conversations." Goldberg suggests his own revision:
Do you believe the NSA should be able to
listen in on your phone calls and read your
e-mails without oversight or a warrant if you
are communicating with known al Qaeda
associates in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Europe or
the Middle East?
Anyone see the obvious problem here? The whole point of having some sort of oversight (such as a warrant requirement) is to make sure that the government is in fact limiting its spying to "communications with known al Qaeda associates." Asking the question in the way Goldberg suggests assumes away the possibility of abuse, which is the entire reason for having oversight in the first place. Is Goldberg really that clueless?
More importantly, though, none of these poll questions addresses the real issue. We can debate ad nauseam what the proper level of oversight should be for this kind of spying. But that's all beside the point. The fact is that there is already a law on the books--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--which specifies exactly what level of oversight is required. FISA spells out, in very carefully chosen language, precisely what procedures the NSA must follow when intercepting communications involving U.S. citizens. For four years now, at the President's direction, the NSA has been ignoring these procedures. The real issue here is a simple one: did the President overstep his authority when he approved this sort of spying? As Glenn Greenwald wrote earlier today:
What matters more than anything else is
keeping the focus exclusively on what this
scandal is about. This is not about
eavesdropping, or warrants, or the Fourth
Amendment, or privacy. This scandal raises
all of those issues secondarily, but that is not
what this scandal is about. This scandal
matters so much because George Bush broke
the law and is vowing to continue to break the
law because his lawyers have created legal
theories which contend that the President
during "wartime" has the right to break the
law.
So let's not let bad poll questions and clueless commentators (or the president himself) distract us from what is, unquestionably, a serious issue.
posted by A.L. at 10:15 PM
2 Comments:
They are using the Intelligent Design Big Book of Statistics for Criminals.
The fact of the matter is that when you paint an issue with the 'fear' brush, everything is justifiable. I would love to know the answer to this question: "Mr. President, given your constitutional authority in wartime, what programs and actions AREN'T you lawfully allowed to enact?"
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home