He was at 42% last week. This week he’s at 41%. 41 < 42, hence the “drop.” I thought it was pretty charitable of me to mention Gallup, who ranks him more highly than many polling organization, who put Bush in the 30s. And thanks to his illegal domestic spying program, that’s about to drop through the floor.
Gotcha.
Illegal? Hmmm… I don’t have time to start that discussion.
I am not so sure, however, that this “illegal” wiretapping is going to hurt Bush. I find it significant that the only Republicans to oppose renewal of the PATRIOT Act are those not soon up for re-election and the only Dems to support it are those up for re-election. I think the Dems are pretty far to left of the mainstream US on “civil liberties”.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. It’s a good 45 minute read, but you’ll end up reading it in Constitutional Law 101 one day, anyhow, so consider it a head start.
If the wiretapping wasn’t illegal, then you wouldn’t have seen a FISA justice resign in protest today.
I’m sure, as always most always, you have good reasons for believing what you do, however, like I said, I don’t really have the time to delve into that right now. (Was that enough commas in one sentence?)
I’d be more curious as to your thoughts on the popularity/unpopularity of the PATRIOT Act/domestic wiretapping.
Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
So not only does the AG have to authorize each search, but such searches are only permitted if the AG certifies that “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person” will not be involved. It’s warrantless searches of anybody in the U.S. other than citizens.
Bush, on the other hand, not only eavesdropped on Americans, but eavesdropped on conversations that exclusively involved Americans — no foreign nationals at all.
And that’s the difference between national security and illegal eavesdropping.
The HolyCoast.com post never said anything about those precedents not having that caveat.
While what you say brings information that is clarifying, the HolyCoast.com post is not “factually wrong”.
What the site says of the Bush wiretapping is:
the decision to allow NSA snooping on international phone calls where one side of the call is in the US
That’s not true. The decision is to allow wiretapping of domestic calls, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of those individuals. From the New York Times:
A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.
Besides the fact that you changed (from “no American citizen caveat” to “international calls vs. purely domestic calls”) the object of the “factually wrong” assertion: The NYT says that Bush put in place a “requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil.” HolyCoast is talking about what Bush told the NSA to do (which is his responsibility) not what the NSA actually did (NSA’s responsibility).
you changed (from “no American citizen caveat” to “international calls vs. purely domestic calls”)
It don’t matter — both apply.
he NYT says that Bush put in place a “requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil.” HolyCoast is talking about what Bush told the NSA to do (which is his responsibility) not what the NSA actually did (NSA’s responsibility).
On the contrary, the difference is between what Bush said and what Bush did. Bush has also claimed repeatedly that there’s no eavesdropping taking place outside of court orders. Clearly, what President Bush claims that he’s authorized is entirely different from what he’s done.
It don’t matter – both apply.
Both are valid points, yes, but neither show any factual inaccuracies in the HolyCoast post.
On the contrary, the difference is between what Bush said and what Bush did. Bush has also claimed repeatedly that there’s no eavesdropping taking place outside of court orders. Clearly, what President Bush claims that he’s authorized is entirely different from what he’s done.
If you think any of the presidents has had iron-fisted control of the day to day intelligence work, you are sadly misled. There is a clear disconnect between what Bush told the NSA to do and what they actually did.
Amazing how you can call going from 37% on November 11-13th to 41% now, a drop.
see Gallup Glance, lower right
He was at 42% last week. This week he’s at 41%. 41 < 42, hence the “drop.” I thought it was pretty charitable of me to mention Gallup, who ranks him more highly than many polling organization, who put Bush in the 30s. And thanks to his illegal domestic spying program, that’s about to drop through the floor.
Gotcha.
Illegal? Hmmm… I don’t have time to start that discussion.
I am not so sure, however, that this “illegal” wiretapping is going to hurt Bush. I find it significant that the only Republicans to oppose renewal of the PATRIOT Act are those not soon up for re-election and the only Dems to support it are those up for re-election. I think the Dems are pretty far to left of the mainstream US on “civil liberties”.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. It’s a good 45 minute read, but you’ll end up reading it in Constitutional Law 101 one day, anyhow, so consider it a head start.
If the wiretapping wasn’t illegal, then you wouldn’t have seen a FISA justice resign in protest today.
I’m sure, as
alwaysmost always, you have good reasons for believing what you do, however, like I said, I don’t really have the time to delve into that right now. (Was that enough commas in one sentence?)I’d be more curious as to your thoughts on the popularity/unpopularity of the PATRIOT Act/domestic wiretapping.
:)
This provides some perspective on the domestic wiretaps.
Yeah, but that “perspective” is factually wrong. Clinton’s Executive Order 12949 said:
So not only does the AG have to authorize each search, but such searches are only permitted if the AG certifies that “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person” will not be involved. It’s warrantless searches of anybody in the U.S. other than citizens.
Ditto for Carter — his Executive Order 12139 had the exact same caveat.
Bush, on the other hand, not only eavesdropped on Americans, but eavesdropped on conversations that exclusively involved Americans — no foreign nationals at all.
And that’s the difference between national security and illegal eavesdropping.
The HolyCoast.com post never said anything about those precedents not having that caveat.
While what you say brings information that is clarifying, the HolyCoast.com post is not “factually wrong”.
What the site says of the Bush wiretapping is:
That’s not true. The decision is to allow wiretapping of domestic calls, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of those individuals. From the New York Times:
Besides the fact that you changed (from “no American citizen caveat” to “international calls vs. purely domestic calls”) the object of the “factually wrong” assertion: The NYT says that Bush put in place a “requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil.” HolyCoast is talking about what Bush told the NSA to do (which is his responsibility) not what the NSA actually did (NSA’s responsibility).
you changed (from “no American citizen caveat” to “international calls vs. purely domestic calls”)
It don’t matter — both apply.
he NYT says that Bush put in place a “requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil.” HolyCoast is talking about what Bush told the NSA to do (which is his responsibility) not what the NSA actually did (NSA’s responsibility).
On the contrary, the difference is between what Bush said and what Bush did. Bush has also claimed repeatedly that there’s no eavesdropping taking place outside of court orders. Clearly, what President Bush claims that he’s authorized is entirely different from what he’s done.
Both are valid points, yes, but neither show any factual inaccuracies in the HolyCoast post.
If you think any of the presidents has had iron-fisted control of the day to day intelligence work, you are sadly misled. There is a clear disconnect between what Bush told the NSA to do and what they actually did.