Put another way, 57% of Americans think the NSA program, as described in the WaPo poll, is either unacceptable or only somewhat acceptable. What does somewhat acceptable mean? I think it might mean "acceptable if modified somewhat" or "I'm not sure, I need more info to make up my mind."

In any event, this poll is not the great evidence for the Bush admin its proponents claim it is.

There was a local news story the other night about blasts at a local quarry and how folks in new subdivisions were being put off by the rumbling.

Anyway, they interviewed a resident and of course her quote went something like this:

"The first time I heard one of the explosions I thought it was a terrorist attack or something..."

So, yeah, I can buy it that the average schmoe out there does indeed worry a lot about being attacked by terrorists...thekeez

Two comments:

1. Kevin, I think you're right that the details have yet to sin in. Look at the last graf of the WaPo's writeup:

A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.

I personally don't put much stock in this poll whatsoever.

2. Regarding the "fear" metaquestion, I want to see breakdowns of support by rural/urban and coastal/landlocked splits. My suspicion is that the people least likely to be targeted or effected by a terrorist attack are the ones most likely to fear one.

Check out the Plank. They have an interesting analysis ot the wording of the question itself, and I'm unsurprised that the results came out the way they did after I read the question that was asked.

This happens to be a question I've wondered about myself: Just how afraid are most Americans of another terrorist attack?

So long as George W Bush is President I am not afraid. I know he will do everything possible to prevent another terrorist attack from happening including storing the phone records of suspected terrorists.

That is, at a gut level, not an intellectual level. And how would we find out? Ordinary polling doesn't seem like it's up to the job.

I'm pretty certain most Americans feel the same way as I do. That's why a majority of Americans support Bush's terrorist survelliance program. They know we can trust him to prevent the terrorists from attacking us. That's why it's politically foolish for liberals to attack Bush for his terrorist survelliance program. This will only convince more Americans liberals can't be trusted to defend the national security of our great nation.

I work in NYC and it rarely crosses my mind. I'll admit that when something unusual happens - fire trucks surrounding a building, closing a lane of the Lincoln Tunnel during rush hour, etc - I wonder if it is due to seom terror alert, but I really don't think about it all that much.

I have my doubts about the poll. The questions were poorly phrased. If polls come out this week that support this polls conclusions, then I'll accept it, but I right now, I remain a little suspicious.

A lot of Americans are still very, very scared of another terrorist attack.

People need to get a life and turn off the Idiot Box.

I don't doubt Mike or Kevin on this, but what has always seemed so odd is that the people who are the most scared, or at least the ones who let fear drive their politics the most, all seem to live in places that are highly unlikely to be on a terrorist target list. And just how "soft" are the residents of NY, DC, and LA who just buck up and decide to ignore the fear? And how "hard" are the ones in small midwest or southern towns who want to turn the country into a dictatorship in order to be safe?

Expect an attack? Yes. Afraid of one? Absolutely not. The only thing I'm afraid of is the irrational and destructive responses of my fellow-citizens. "Flight or Fight" is not useful: paranoia is not policy.

There's an important opportunity here for an opposition politician to counter
the Republican's subversive exploitation of fear. Fear is not an American
value. Fear was not how we won our independence, or World War II. Courage and
competence are the quintessential American values, and when real leaders call
upon Americans to fight, courage and competence are what will be required of all
Americans.

But Kevin, the question you ask was answered by your own Chris Bowers some months ago:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/28/144459/988

"Again, a large difference. Democrats feel a lot less safe and secure since 9-11 than Republicans. Interesting"

"Again, Democrats are more worried, but the margin here is lower than it is on other questions."

"Wow. A majority of Republicans in this survey are not very worried about capturing Osama Bin Laden. Only a quarter are very or extremely worried. The difference here between Democrats and Republicans is gaping."

So Dems are scared shitless and Republicans are sanguine.

Who knew?

Fear does have something to do with the initial numbers of this and first NSA scandal. The numbers would not have been this way when Bush was first put into office. The numbers in support will probably diminish but this Bush fallacy of security can't last. And what about the next spying story that comes to light? How many more?

Most citizens don't get the whole civil rights thing. The average Joe doesn't appreciate the importance of limits on what government can do to an individual until he's a victim of government overreaching, whether it's an erroneous criminal investigation, an unwarranted IRS audit, or whatever. They see these protections as legal technicalities whose only real effect is to allow a certain percentage of obviously guilty people to go free. These folks aren't capable of the abstract thought necessary to see the overall benefit to society of these protections and limitations. So once again, it's ignorance -- nothing more.

The operative word is "warrant"; i.e.

a) Do you agree the US should utilize wiretaps to track the activities of terrorist in the US? Duh!

b) Do you agree the government should obtain a warrant before wiretapping the activities of American citizens? Duh!

Only the Limbaughs et al try to make this about surveillance with no mention of warrentless suveillance. And the press and pollsters are playing along.

I'm pretty certain most Americans feel the same way as I do.

Oh yeah, that's why Dumbya's approval rating is around 29%, because "most" Americans worship his lying ass like you do, Al. Nice try.

Fear is one part; ignorance is another. For instance, back in 2004 I challenged several people whose intention to vote for Bush. Their argument? Kerry wouldn't have attacked Iraq, and after 9/11, we had to do something to show "them" that we weren't going to take it!

What can you say to such people?

The bottom line is that by violating the constitution so completely, Bush has, in effect, handed Osama the victory he could never have won just by bombing the US--we have, voluntarily, given up some of the core freedoms which made us different. We were really unconquerable, but we surrendered.

Here's the question asked by the poll in full:

45. It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

------- Acceptable ------

NET Strongly Somewhat
63 41 22

------- Unacceptable ------

NET Somewhat Strongly No opin.

35 11 24 2

46. If you found out that the NSA had a record of phone numbers that you yourself have called, would that bother you, or not? IF YES: Would it bother you a lot, or just somewhat?

-----------Yes------------
NET A lot Somewhat No No opin.
34 24 10 66 *

47. Do you think it is right or wrong for the news media to have disclosed this secret government program?

Right Wrong No opin.
5/11/06 56 42 1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_nsa_051206.htm

I agree completely that once Americans are reminded of past misuse of these types of programs, support will go down quickly.

More importantly, who cares what the polls say? It's what the Constitution says that counts. The polls used to say that blacks and women shouldn't be able to vote, to put it bluntly. Almost half of people don't think the press should have reported it, and 2/3 don't care if the NSA has a record of calls they made. Just b/c they will give up their civil liberties has no bearing on whether I should have to give up mine!

"I think most Americans just don't have much appreciation for the way programs like these inevitably get out of hand."

Perhaps you ought to remind them about the last time the CIA fell into the dirty paws of the Republican party.

Remember the bugging of John Lennon and Martin Luther King?

A couple of obvious enemies of America... right?

That's the bad news.

The good news is that terrorists now know not to pose as leftists.
Your bound to be taped and have your emails read if you wear that political badge.

No, the most likely hiding place now for enemies of America is to pose as rightwing loudmouths.

They think they are safe in that guise.
Whose going to double check those credentials?

Let's hope the CIA is bugging and inflitrating these potential terrorists very carefully.

I usually just feel annoyed by the rightie trolls on these sites, but reading Al's comment, I think for the first time I really, truly feel sorry for them. The blind faith, the need for a protecting father figure just exudes from every word - and the fact that they are so needy and yet have put their trust in someone who is so demonstrably incapable of providing the protection they crave, is really tragic.

A lot of us in NYC aren't exactly thrilled that 9/11 happened to us, yet the Right always represents any left-of-Gingrich views as those of the Upper West Side.

(b) I think most Americans just don't have much appreciation for the way programs like these inevitably get out of hand.

And this one may have already gotten out of hand and just isn't out of the bag yet. After all, first it was "only international" and "only suspects" now it's millions of domestic numbers but "hey we're not actually listening in". What's the next revelation? But I do agree Kevin, I think many Americans just trust and don't think of the consequences or abuses or the dark path it leads down. Many Americans believe "if I'm not a terrorist - I have no worries".

Democrats feel a lot less safe and secure since 9-11 than Republicans.

Sure, with W in charge.

"The first time I heard one of the explosions I thought it was a terrorist attack or something..."

Jesus Christ. How do you get past this level of fear and stupidity? As I've mentioned before, the view out my window is right onto Ground Zero, I walk directly past the pit several times a day, and several friends of mine where in the towers that day (they all survived, luckily, though some were injured), and right now I'm watching them start construction on the new Bullseye...excuse me, Liberty Tower.

If anyone has a right to be fearful, it's me and my friends. And yet I and the other New Yorkers I know aren't jumping out of our skins with fear every time we hear a loud noise. We get on with our lives. Why is everyone else so paralyzed with fright?

Most Americans feel that we have too much freedom.

What can you say to such people?

"You're too stupid to live" is the first thing that pops into my mind. Not very constructive, I admit.

I usually just feel annoyed by the rightie trolls on these sites, but reading Al's comment, I think for the first time I really, truly feel sorry for them. The blind faith, the need for a protecting father figure just exudes from every word - and the fact that they are so needy and yet have put their trust in someone who is so demonstrably incapable of providing the protection they crave, is really tragic.

Needs a repost:

"The annihilation of the individual self and the attempt to overcome thereby the unbearable feeling of powerlessness are only one side of the masochistic strivings. The other side is the attempt to become a part of a bigger and more powerful whole outside of oneself, to submerge and participate in it. This power can be a person, an institution, God, the nation, conscience, or a psychic compulsion. By becoming part of a power which is felt as unshakably strong, eternal, and glamorous, one participates in its strength and glory. One surrenders one’s own self and renounces all strength and pride connected with it, one loses one’s integrity as an individual and surrenders freedom; but one gains a new security and a new pride in the participation in the power in which one submerges. One gains also security against the torture of doubt. The masochistic person, whether his master is an authority outside of himself or whether he has internalized the master as conscience or a psychic compulsion, is saved from making decisions, saved from the final responsibility for the fate of his self, and thereby saved from the doubt of what decision to make, he is also saved from the doubt of what the meaning of his life is or who 'he' is. These questions are answered by the relationship to the power to which he has attached himself. The meaning of his life and the identity of his self are determined by the greater whole into which the self has submerged."

- Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom

They just think they've already heard about it. The incremental change is off most people's radar.

Why is everyone else so paralyzed with fright?

Coffee, sugar, isolation, TV, cars, boredom... take your pick.

Right on, Stefan.

Why is everyone else so paralyzed with fright?

I guess it really is "Mission Accomplished" by Mssrs. Rove, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

i'm far more afraid of getting t-boned at an intersection or even just keeling over after a hard run than i am about a terrorist attack.

and that's not to say i don't appreciate the fact that there are people out there in the world who wouldn't think twice about killing me, and everyone i know, just to make a political point. but on the list of deadly things i'm likely to encounter, terrorist attack isn't high enough up that i'm willing to throw away the things that make America a good place to live, just to reduce it's likelyhood. and i worry more about the fact that there are people who are willing to throw away those things than i do about terrorism.

defending America should mean more than protecting the soft parts - it should also include defending the things that make America great.

The bottom line is that by violating the constitution so completely, Bush has, in effect, handed Osama the victory he could never have won just by bombing the US--we have, voluntarily, given up some of the core freedoms which made us different. We were really unconquerable, but we surrendered.

Well, if, as Bush has said, they hate us for our freedoms, then the solution is simple -- get rid of our freedom and they won't hate us anymore! Problem solved!

Well, I live in the Midwest, and no one here worries about another terrorist attack. More useful to worry about tornadoes, which "target" the area.

I think that the key is using the word "Spying". "The administration is SPYING on Americans." Out here in red country, that'll resonate more than "illegal wiretaps" or "datamining" will.

But the more the public hears about it, the more they'll dislike it. The initial impression is always going to be "can't be so bad... this is America..." and it'll take a bit of a while (especially with this lapdog media) for it to sink in. But it always does sink in-- he's down to 29%, after all.

No. I don't know anyone who worries about the threat in any concrete way.

People don't do that. They smoke even though there's a warning on the side of the cigarette pack telling them it's a bad idea. They order two fried eggs, bacon, and biscuits with gravy for breakfast, even though they're overweight, short of breath, and have high cholesterol. They buy motorhomes so they can tootle around the countryside during their retirement, complaining about the weird weather we're having as they drive down the highway. They spend that extra $5K on new living room furniture instead of saving it to cover medical emergencies, even while complaining that the cost of their personal healthcare doubled last year. They might 'worry,' but then they put their worries out of their minds and go about their business.

As for the threat posed by massive domestic surveillance programs, I fear that losing their democracy may be just another worry they can't be bothered to take seriously...

I suspect (a) approval numbers will go down as there's more coverage of the program.

I suspect you're right. The mainstream media made the mistake of running a poll before they'd had a chance to pump their views into the audience 24/7 for a couple of weeks. They won't make that mistake again.

It was fun to see how the polling process suddenly became fatally flawed around here, including the wording of the questions and the demographics, when the numbers came out the "wrong" way.

The "polls suck" posts alternating with the "29 percent approval ratings" posts are especially amusing.

The real answer to Tomasky's question is that most Americans don't stay up nights worrying about terror attacks. And guess what: Most Americans don't stay up nights worrying about an imminent 1984-style dictatorship in America, either.

It isn't a matter of trust. It's a matter of experience.

The NSA has been around for over fifty years, through projects like Shamrock, Eschelon, Carnivore, and others, and guess what: we're all still here. And we can still come onto boards like this and crap all over the government and leadership without fear.

Maybe the average American isn't the one who needs an attitude adjustment.

Or maybe it's because they had that poll already done just before the new news was breaking, so it doesn't actually have jackshit to say about anything. ya think???

You don't suppose Fred Hiatt got this one in the can after a call from Unka Karl a couple months ago, do you? Because after all, we ALL trust EVERYTHING the fucking Washington Post has to say, DON'T WE, SLAVES.

Screw it, screw them, and SCREW BUSH. I've fucking had it with this lawbreaking asshole. When oh when is some PTSD' vet gonna come home and xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (decode that, NSA creeps) just before he dies his inevitable and horrible death by depleted uranium poisoning?

Et tu, Brutus?

I would REALLY rather be killed by a terrorist than spied on by my own government. Otherwise, what is the fucking point?

As H.L. Mencken said, "the average man does not want to be free. He merely wants to be safe."

I live in California. I can't be sure of the ground beneath my feet. At any moment, it might shift and bring everything down around my ears.

I've walked through the concrete and glass canyons of downtown LA and had the wispy ashes of the encinerated Altadena and Malibu hillsides drift down around me.

I've stood in a corner office of a Century City skyscraper and watched as smoke billowed up decoratively like a scene from an Irwin Allen disaster movie during the Rodney King riots.

I've been woken up in the middle of the night by the police to be evacuated from my home because some wanne-be white supremacists had faked a bomb scare on my street in order to frighten "Mexican" families from my neighborhood.

A mountain lion carried off an Akita from a backyard about four blocks from my house.

Once, while I was waiting for a bus, a shirtless man came up, punched a street sign and then asked if I had any spare change.

Presently, regular gasoline has hit over 3.40 a gallon; we're remodeling the kitchen and it's 100 percent over budget.

Right now, islamofacist terrorists rank right behind asteroid collisions on my "things to worry about" list.

I'm not afraid of a terrorist attack... I'm terrified of Republicans and Evangelicals and Creation Scientists and Right Wing Pundits and the Lap Dog Media and Corporate Treachery and Timid Democrats and Apathetic Citizens and Military Control and... well, you get the idea.

A terrorist attack, by itself, is no threat to my way of life. The things I mentioned do threaten American values.

In the thirteen years since the first bomb attack against the World Trade Center in 1993, just under three thousand people have been killed by terrorist attacks on US soil. That means about an average of 230 Americans have been killed each year since this recent "wave of terror" began.

Is a death rate of 230 Americans a year a legitimate cause of pants-wetting among Americans that they should be willing to cast aside the Bill of Rights out of fear of a terrorist attack? I would say not.

Terrorism is way down the list of causes of death for Americans. Many more people (1000+) die each year choking on things (food, small toys), yet this doesn't seem to have anybody in a panic, or prompt the government to spend $300+ billion dollars in the Middle East overthrowing governments -- or China, which manufactures most of those small toys that are killing so many American children.

I hear Republicans talk about how we're "in a war on terror", and they wet their pants and scramble to surrender the rights of the people to the government. I wish the Republicans could stop being cowards, afraid of the small number of terrorists who have the capability of carrying out attacks in the US, and have the courage to stand up for the bill of rights.

Despite the cringing Republicans believe, this country is strong, and can hold the bill of rights secure in one hand and beat the terrorists to a pulp with the other. If we get a few bloody noses in the fight, so be it. We can take it. We can't take turning into Republican surrender monkeys, willing to hand over the bill of rights in the face of small threats.

I think that pollsters should wait at least three days after the news comes out to do a poll like this. I bet that most of the people responding had not really heard, much less understood, the scope of the project.

On the other hand, maybe people just don't value (other people's) privacy very highly and can't imagine they're being spied on themselves.

You don't have to live in constant fear and need the security provided by the Maximum Leader to understand that there really are bad guys out there who would surely likely to one-up the 9/11 crew, and that it's the government's job to try to prevent it.

I am much more concerned about another Katrina, or two or three Katrinas, hitting the Gulf Coast within the next few months. And again next year. And the year after that, and the year after that ...

The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database

Maybe in addition to breaking up wily bands of eco-car vandals they'll use the database to prosecute the Plame leak and to figure out all the politician's involved in Hookergate.

First they said it was only about phone calls of 'known terrorist associates'. Then it was only about phone calls outside the country of non-US people. Then they said it was only about phone calls of non-US people if one of the speakers was a non-US person. Then they said it was only about phone calls where one end of it was outside the country. Then they said it was only about phone calls that had some 'linkage' to phone calls with one end outside the country.

Now, oh, well, it really is about recording every phone call every person on Earth makes, but it's only about recording the 'externals' of the call.

So, what moron would believe that?

Given that the support for the President is highest in places like St. George, Utah and Salina, Kansas, where, even if there is a terrorist attack there's no chance of it happening in those places,

and given that the support for the President is lowest in just those places that would be most attractive to would-be terrorists,

the conclusion is inescapable that real fear of a terrorist attack is practically non-existent.

Funny how tdouche considers anyone who worries about this program paranoid--but if it turns out that most Americans are actually against it, then it's the evil liberal media and their brainwashing tactics.
I guess some paranoid kool-aid drinking is okay.

That's why he's tdouche, professional hack.

I have no friends.

After all, if your panties are clean, why should you mind the government sniffing them?

bushwahd: I would REALLY rather be killed by a terrorist than spied on by my own government. Otherwise, what is the fucking point?

Exactly. Anyone with an iota of actual libertarian feeling wouldn't need to have this explained to him.

tbrosz's post, on the other hand, boils down to "Trust the government. They're my guys."

Tom, is there any civil liberty, any one at all, that you wouldn't rape, bludgeon to death and leave lying in a ditch if it saved you a quarter on your tax bill?

You're the walking definition of "craven," guy. It just sounds nicer than "whore," but the distinction is minimal, if it even exists.

You don't have to live in constant fear and need the security provided by the Maximum Leader to understand that there really are bad guys out there who would surely likely to one-up the 9/11 crew, and that it's the government's job to try to prevent it.

Then the regime might want to do things like catching Osama bin Laden, who's likely working on a plan to one-up his 9/11 exploit, instead of wasting its resources spying on ordinary Americans. And yet establishing a police state, rather than going after terrorists where they actually are, seems to be a higher priority for this regime.

I think that Big House at 2:28 pretty much had it. I just heard some Joe Public guy on the radio, and he said something like "yeah, people throw up this civil rights stuff or bill of rights or human rights, but we need to be safe" and I thought "dude, without that 'rights stuff' we don't exist. The very point of the country goes away."

Give me liberty or give me death, indeed. There's way, way too much complacency around here.

And Tom, this line:
I suspect you're right. The mainstream media made the mistake of running a poll before they'd had a chance to pump their views into the audience 24/7 for a couple of weeks. They won't make that mistake again.

is so tragically inane that I am speechless.

"Tom, is there any civil liberty, any one at all, that you wouldn't rape, bludgeon to death and leave lying in a ditch if it saved you a quarter on your tax bill?"

I don't pay taxes. Mommy doesn't either. We get our check every month from the government we hate.

I liked Jim M's comment so much I want to see it again,

I don't doubt Mike or Kevin on this, but what has always seemed so odd is that the people who are the most scared, or at least the ones who let fear drive their politics the most, all seem to live in places that are highly unlikely to be on a terrorist target list. And just how "soft" are the residents of NY, DC, and LA who just buck up and decide to ignore the fear? And how "hard" are the ones in small midwest or southern towns who want to turn the country into a dictatorship in order to be safe?

As I recall, we have nothing to fear, but fear itself. That's how the greatest generation did it.

Okay, I'll bite. I live in a large city that would make a pretty good target, and I'm scared. Also mad--after worrying all the way through the Cold War, we have to go through this?

But the terror threat is just one more reason not to like Bush--it's pretty clear that, aside from fearmongering rhetoric, he's not doing all he could. And with an administration as incompetent as this one, I wouldn't feel safe even if I thought they were giving it their all. But I think the terror rhetoric is mostly just an excuse to accrue more power to the Presidency. Convenient excuse.

As to other people's fears, I was at a graduation rehearsal yesterday, and when the microphones came on suddenly, it sounded like an explosion. Suddenly someone called out, "Incoming." Nervous laughter.
We may not be hiding our heads, but there's a lot of apprehension out there, I think.

i wonder if tomasky is too quick to dismiss explanation number two. i suspect it covers a fairly sizable plurality of the population when it comes to terrorism.
when the democrats complain about these nsa programs, plenty of americans probably hear something like: "president bush is trying too hard to protect you from terrorists and we don't like that."

I figure that another terrorist attack is pretty much inevitable. I mean, sooner or later, someone is going to pull something off. I expect something more on the order of the first WTC bombing in '93, or maybe of the magnitude of the Madrid train bomb. But something on the scale of 9/11 is highly unlikely. They got very, very lucky.

As for who's scared: the most scared, to me, are the "manly men" who want to go and attack them over there so we (read: they) don't have to face them here. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of our military to protect their sorry a**es. I find the attitude reprehensible. I mean, we're approaching the number of deaths that happened on 9/11--more(?) if you include coalition troops, and orders of magnitude more if you include Iraqis.

So what have we gained? A couple of thousand US soldiers have died, thousands more have been wounded or maimed, we've spent hundreds of $B, all so some loud-mouthed chickenhawks don't have to soil their drawers when they go out in public? It's disgusting and craven.

And let's remember there were no terrorist attacks (by foreigners) between 1993 and 2001. So Bush's "record" of keeping us "safe" is meaningless. He's got a few years to go to match Clinton's record.

This might be a beltway phenomenon believe it or not. I've heard that it feels like Ground Zero there. Some people have been storing canned food and preparing for the worst.

I was afraid until I visited the WTC site and realized that life had moved on. You can't really ignore that message when the birds are singing and it's springtime... :o) I think most Americans have strong images in their mind that are associated with the trauma of 9/11. That happened in their living room. I know that's how I think of it when I look back on where I was on that day. It was fear -- generated more by a mediated image than by an actual event. I'm afraid Americans are going to be reacting to this for a long time.

And we can still come onto boards like this and crap all over the government and leadership without fear.

Right. Unless you're a Catholic priest or nun who's also a peace activist. Or an official of the Green Party. Or a Quaker. Then you can't come onto boards like this and crap all over the government because you're already on a watch list and no longer allowed to fly on airplanes -- and who knows what the next level of punishment is after that?

Frozen bank accounts? Arrest of peaceful protestors? The use of Homeland Security resources for political purposes? Extraordinary rendition?

Oh wait, all those things are already happening.

KJJG - on the woes of California living -

Hey, are you trying to pop the real estate bubble all by yourself? :)

Most Americans realize, at some level, that our country acts out violence for political and economic gain. Some of the violence perpetrated in our name was retaliatory, which seems to be a normal human response to attack, but it creates a dilemma: if we can retaliate for unprovoked attacks so can our victims. Whether consciously or unconsciously, Americans know we have earned retribution from the innocents we have harmed throughout the world, and so a foreboding of future attacks shades our liberty. The only way to end this potential for retaliation is to prosecute those leaders who have led us into unprovoked war and occupation for crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, most Americans will reject these ideas consciously and will support police state policies in order to feel secure, keeping the cycle of violence in play.

Maybe why Europe has reacted entirely differently to the whole schmozzle--they've HAD terrorists running around for years--the IRA, the Basque separtists, the nuts in Germany and Italy. They've seen it all and know that you can't make anywhere totally safe--you simply have to decide what damn risk you want to take vis-a-vis providing the gov't to do what sort of tracking and infringement on your civil rights.

Trouble is, the US just panicked after 9-11. And now a certain sector of the population is still in shock that Life May Not Be Safe and is flailing around and willing to give up everything in order to be able to go back to that cozy little world where all the Bad Things happen in those nasty places abroad, we don't have to worry about anything, and the sun is shining and the birdies are singing and the US is just the best dam' good place on this earth.

Which is also probably why those living in urban centers are more sanguine about the whole situation--they've always had to deal with higher levels of risk, whether it be from getting attacked by a mugger to getting run over by a idiot driver. A potential terrorist attack just increases the daily risk infinitesimally.

Someone probably already brought this up in the comments, but to address your question about if it's not fear, then what? I really can't come up with an alternative explanation. My thinking is that if this percentage of people think that the NSA database is acceptable, it's because they're not really taking the time to understand how this is such an infringement on our civil liberties. I think that after 9/11, people (especially those that don't live in the cities that were hit, for some reason) needed to feel protected from harm, and they look to the government to provide this protection. In times of crisis - and if this NSA revelation happened say, in 2002, when the wounds were still raw - I could understand how some folks could support this. I hate to sound callous - I mean, I lived in upstate NY when 9/11 happened, and I still felt as if I was right there - but after five years? If they would just take the time to think about it, they'd realize (hopefully) that this administration is just about as bad as the men who flew those planes into the buildings back in 2001.

Stefan, Well, if, as Bush has said, they hate us for our freedoms, then the solution is simple -- get rid of our freedom and they won't hate us anymore! Problem solved!

Fundamentally, what bin Laden really wants is to make us more like them, and, with Republicans, he doesn't have far to go.

Damn it, y'all are still missing the subtle dishonesty in the framing. At issue is not whether the NSA should be monitoring calls, but whether the president should follow the established law for such a practice.

Any argument as to whether the NSA program is a good idea should have been made to the Congress, and if Congress was convinced, the law should have been changed to reflect that. This didn't happen. That is the issue.

I almost never think about the possibility of another terrorist attack, and it doesn’t seem to me that anybody I know does either.

It is the NSA's job to think about the possibility of another terrorist attack. Isufficient vigilance is what permitted the 9/11 attacks. One way and another, NSA is trying to prevent another, even as the enemies are trying to plan another.

Presumably you pay attention while driving a car. Is it only because you are afraid? Maybe you learned that paying continuous attention was a good idea.

americans are indeed very very scared. they are being eaten alive by anxiety, uncertainty, and fear. the question is what that anxiety & fear is really all about -- the thing about terrorism is that it is an extraordinarily convenient & clear thing to focus on ... unlike the hypocrisy at the core of our political system, the corruption at the highest levels of the government, the slipping standing of america's image in the world, the savage erosion of the average american's standard of living, and the deeply (even mortally) wounded self-confidence of americans in their country as a force for good in the world.

kth, Given that the support for the President is highest in places like St. George, Utah and Salina, Kansas, where, even if there is a terrorist attack there's no chance of it happening in those places, and given that the support for the President is lowest in just those places that would be most attractive to would-be terrorists, the conclusion is inescapable that real fear of a terrorist attack is practically non-existent.

Or, is it that this is a great opportunity for the woodsy hinterland to repress New York and Los Angeles, the source of all their resentment?

Shoppers know that the major retailers and major banks already have tons of information about us and our shopping habits. Amazon knows what kind of books I buy, Sam's Club knows what products I buy and in what quantity. Just about anybody could run my credit report with a few clicks of the mouse. Several web sites can link to a satelite photo of my house, for Pete's sake.

SMurph: I usually just feel annoyed by the rightie trolls on these sites, but reading Al's comment, I think for the first time I really, truly feel sorry for them. The blind faith, the need for a protecting father figure just exudes from every word - and the fact that they are so needy and yet have put their trust in someone who is so demonstrably incapable of providing the protection they crave, is really tragic.

You were suckered by the parody of Al.

Maybe you learned that paying continuous attention was a good idea.

unfortunately for your analogy, this country was founded on the idea that the driver of the car is not allowed to pay attention to anything he wants, any time he wants, without permission from anyone else.

if you want an ever-vigilant, all-seeing government, move to fucking North Korea.

Amazon knows what kind of books I buy...

Amazon does not have the power to incarcerate, kill or otherwise coerce anyone with that information. Amazon does not have the police departments of the country, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the IRS and the largest military in the world at its disposal. Amazon can not take me to jail. Amazon cannot make laws. Amazon cannot do a thousand other things that the US government can do... because Amazon is not the fucking US government.

remember when conservatives chortled at Reagan's "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" line ? i do. i wish "conservatives" did.

When a country is in harmony with the Tao,
the factories make trucks and tractors.
When a country goes counter to the Tao,
warheads are stockpiled outside the cities.

There is no greater illusion than fear,
no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself,
no greater misfortune than having an enemy.

Whoever can see through all fear
will always be safe.

republicrat,

It is the NSA's job to think about the possibility of another terrorist attack. Isufficient vigilance is what permitted the 9/11 attacks. One way and another, NSA is trying to prevent another, even as the enemies are trying to plan another.

It wasn't that long ago when I heard Rush the drug addict devote show after show proclaiming that there wasn't a single thing, not one SINGLE thing that the government could do correctly.

But I guess he was wrong because now some anonymous guy on the internet says "trust the government?"

Yeah, sure, I guess so. NOT.

cld> First they said it was only about phone calls of 'known terrorist associates' [muslims]. Then it was only about phone calls outside the country of non-US people [foreigners]... Then they said it was only about phone calls where one end of it was outside the country [friends of foreigners]...

I think this is the quote you're looking for:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

- Pastor Martin Niemöller

Freq. Ken,

And all of that is wrong and should be illegal.

I don't think it's inconsistent for people to not fear a new terrorist attack, while at the same time believing that stringent measures are needed to prevent a new attack. Personally, I think the probability of a new attack is very high and thus vigorous preventative measures are justified; but at the same time, I don't "fear" the new attack, since I think the possibility it will touch me personally is incredibly remote. That might explain the dichotomy observed by your contributor.

tbrosz, I don't pay taxes. Mommy doesn't either. We get our check every month from the government we hate.

At last, the truth.

You've made a lot of progress here today. I think we can take a time out and have some ice cream.

Shoppers know that the major retailers and major banks already have tons of information about us and our shopping habits. Amazon knows what kind of books I buy, Sam's Club knows what products I buy and in what quantity. Just about anybody could run my credit report with a few clicks of the mouse. Several web sites can link to a satelite photo of my house, for Pete's sake.

Frequency Kenneth, since you're so little concerned about your privacy would you mind posting your real name, phone numbers and home address? I'd like to download some of those photos of your house for my files. I assume you won't mind if I stop by for a visit?

It is the NSA's job to think about the possibility of another terrorist attack. Isufficient vigilance is what permitted the 9/11 attacks. One way and another, NSA is trying to prevent another, even as the enemies are trying to plan another.

Then why can't they go to the courts and get a warrant for this information? If the program is legal and above-board, why are they resisting court review? No one is claiming that the government shouldn't have the power to investigate threats -- merely that that power must be used under the law, upon the issuance of a properly court-ordered warrant, as specified by the Constitution.

Just about anybody could run my credit report with a few clicks of the mouse.

Also, would you mind giving me your full legal name and Social Security number? I'm kind of curious to run this credit report. Probably nothing there, but better safe than sorry, that's my motto.

shortstop:

Tom, is there any civil liberty, any one at all, that you wouldn't rape, bludgeon to death and leave lying in a ditch if it saved you a quarter on your tax bill?

Nobody is raping any of your civil liberties.

One point of my post is that, on boards like this, it seems to be considered irrational to worry about a terror attack, but perfectly rational to work oneself up into a lather with wild speculations on imminent dictatorship, destruction of the Constitution, or a lot of other paranoid delusions that are, frankly, a lot less likely to happen in the real world than a terror attack is.

Most of America isn't bent out of shape about this particular thing because most of America isn't crazy.

Interesting you should mention my tax bill. I put down one hell of a lot more personal information on my tax forms every year than would ever be gleaned from the phone numbers I call.

There's a long history of this "private" information being abused by various elected and non-elected officials, not to mention an IRS that is sometimes guided in targeting audits by political forces. These are things that really have happened, a matter of record, unlike the Fall of Democracy everyone worries about. So why doesn't anyone get bent out of shape about all this information sitting in a database?

Or, to put it more briefly, people screaming that we will fall into a dictatorship unless their party is put in charge are exploiting irrational fear for political ends as much as anybody.

I fantasize about Dubya's codpiece constantly.

I want to suck Kim Jong Il's cock.

This might be a beltway phenomenon believe it or not. I've heard that it feels like Ground Zero there. Some people have been storing canned food and preparing for the worst.

And yet those of us who spend our lives actually right next to Ground Zero go on our merry way....

One point of my post is that, on boards like this, it seems to be considered irrational to worry about a terror attack, but perfectly rational to work oneself up into a lather with wild speculations on imminent dictatorship, destruction of the Constitution, or a lot of other paranoid delusions that are, frankly, a lot less likely to happen in the real world than a terror attack is.

If you can't see the difference between those two events, then your libertarian pose is pretty threadbare.

Nobody is raping any of your civil liberties.

This is just a bald assertion without any support.

If one of my civil liberties is the right to be free from unreasonable search without probable cause -- and the government is searching all my personal info without probably cause or the appropriate judicial oversight -- then, yes, my civil liberties are being raped, QED.

If another of my civil liberties is the right to due process and yet the government forbids me from boarding a plane and refuses even to tell me why, essentially finding me guilty in advance of some sort of crime -- then yes, my civil liberties are being raped.

Shortstop was correct, you were a mewling whore for your ideology as usual.

Most of America isn't bent out of shape about this particular thing because most of America isn't crazy.

Mmmm, poor choice of argument. Most of America voted for Al Gore, most of America thinks ever invading Iraq was a mistake, most of America thinks Bush is dishonest -- I can go and on and on citing what "most of America" thinks that directly contradicts so many of your views as they've been expressed here.

But enough with addressing your misdirection, the truth of the matter is that the majority of Americans aren't experts in constitutional law or the history of the rise of tyrannies and abuse of power by the state.

There's a long history of this "private" information being abused by various elected and non-elected officials, not to mention an IRS that is sometimes guided in targeting audits by political forces.

Yes, crimes have happened in the past. Crime is unstoppable. So why should we worry about it now?

That's the best you got?

Or, to put it more briefly, people screaming that we will fall into a dictatorship unless their party is put in charge are exploiting irrational fear for political ends as much as anybody.

By anybody, you must mean Elizabeth Dole, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee:

"If Democrats take control of the Senate in '06, they will cancel the Bush tax cuts, allow liberal activist judges to run our courts and undermine all Republican efforts to win the War on Terror. Even worse, they will call for endless congressional investigations and possibly call for the impeachment of President Bush!"

tbrosz,

The Great Man uses 'signing statements' to say he can ignore anything about a law he doesn't like, including the entire thing. You don't have a problem with that?

If you can't see the difference between those two events, then your libertarian pose is pretty threadbare.
Posted by: craigie

tom's not a libertarian ... he's just greedy and wants his tax cuts.

Tom,

people screaming that we will fall into a dictatorship

Have you ever noticed that you have this habit of exaggeration when trying to make a point? It greatly reduces your credibility.

I think it comes under the general heading of 'strawman.'

Exaggeration - strawman - sarcasm - insult. Did I miss a step?

I'm a cheap whore and a troll. I'd kill myself if I weren't such a sniveling little coward.

"If Democrats take control of the Senate in '06, they will cancel the Bush tax cuts, allow liberal activist judges to run our courts and undermine all Republican efforts to win the War on Terror. Even worse, they will call for endless congressional investigations and possibly call for the impeachment of President Bush!"

I love the "even worse" -- really shows where her priorities lie. Democrats will undermine the War on Terror (TM) and even worse investigate Bush -- so I guess keeping the lid on Bush's crimes is even more important than actually defeating terrorism, then?

OT: using other people's nicks is really lame.

The major difference between the use of our personal information by commercial entities on the one hand and the NSA on the other is that if my grocery store misuses my personal information I can sue them in a court of law. Good luck trying to sue NSA.

tbrosz must be a figment of Kevin's imagination. No real human being could be so stubbornly supportive of anything and everything that GWB does.

Exaggeration - strawman - sarcasm - insult. Did I miss a step?

Yes: false analogy - ignorance of the facts -outright lie.

"OT: using other people's nicks is really lame."

I'm a troll and a whore to power. I have no sense of shame.

Umm, Frequency Kenneth, still waiting for that information about your real name, address, phone numbers and S.S. number.....

Several people have made the point that the framing on this issue needs to be changed. There is what is being done and there is how it is done. It would have been nice if the poll asked a question such as:

Do you think it's important that the NSA's program be subject to judicial or congressional approval or oversight?

More Unlawful NSA Activity?

Bush hates us for our freedom.

Should we give Tommy Tbozo a break?

After all, at least he stopped posting as "American Hawk."

Of course the fact that he did so, and that he gave off all sorts of odors to the contrary, is argument enough to spit in his face every time he shows.

Pile it on.

His manifest duplicity is a succinct reminder of what this repug administration is all about.

Go fuck yourself Tbozo...

i live in NYC and i'm too damn busy to spend my days worrying about another attack -- maybe this is becuase i'm also too busy to watch CNN or FOX every night.

but occasionally i stop to think about it, and i figure it is just a matter of time. they will hit us again, and i don't believe that this administration has made us safer in any way, shape or form. in fact, i believe they have made the world a MORE dangerous place. that includes spending my tax money on things like surveilling 10 million American citizens. how does that make us safer, exactly? in my opinion, we should be concentrating on encouraging a more moderate mainstream Islamicism, paying closer attention to our borders and improving our intelligence (instead of dismantling the CIA).

Nobody is raping your civil liberties.

This is one of those recurring themes of Bushlickers' defense along the lines of 'how has this poilicy or that of our dear leader has personally affected you?'

I suppose that Monica's BJ affected all the Bushistas personally as Clinton's ejaculates spread all over the country and spoilt the Bushlickers' pink panties.

The good news is that terrorists now know not to pose as leftists .... the most likely hiding place now for enemies of America is to pose as rightwing loudmouths.

Dear NSA,
Please check out "Frequency Kenneth."
Read his email.
Put a tap on his phone.
Monitor his finances and web brousing.
See what kind of dirt he is into.

Methinks he doth protest too much.
Methinks he may be merely a pretend rightwing loudmouth.
Methinks he may be a terrorist.

I have three thoughts on the public's attitude toward domestic spying and privacy rights. There really aren't enough facts out yet about what the government is doing for the average person to make a judgment about whether they are more concerned about terrorists or their own government. Second, the public debate has not yet been joined, the opposition party such as it is hsa only timidly spoken out. the public is entitled to bothsides and they have not yet gotten that. Third the minority party is missing a bet by not jumping on this issue hard. Whatever the final public reaction turns out to be, this is a wonderful wedge issue to seperate those in the south and west with libertarian leanings from the repubs.

Bush hates us for our freedom.

You know, that's actually it.

The fake tbrosz is starting to use my standard e-mail address. I guess when you run out of arguments, you burn down the podium.

In LA, I more worried about the asshole on his cellphone who just crossed three lanes in his Land Rover and came perilously close to running me off the 405. Statistically speaking he is much more likely to kill me than some derrange Saudi.
If I lived in the Midwest however I would be afraid of the Mexislamofacist who works at the meat packing plant or the construction site. It is only a matter of time before he strikes a blow for Aztlan.

Yes I am still an assclown

You cowering liberals can't handle the truth that the Brosz brings. Bunch of candyasses. Oh wait there is a Mexican outside my house - my god he must be coming to get me. where can I hide?

This is the article linked above at ThinkProgress,

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/12/more-unlawful-activity/

"CongressDaily reports that former NSA staffer Russell Tice will testify to the Senate Armed Services Committee next week that not only do employees at the agency believe the activities they are being asked to perform are unlawful, but that what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg. Tice will tell Congress that former NSA head Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush’s nominee to be the next CIA director, oversaw more illegal activity that has yet to be disclosed:

A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said Thursday he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens. …

[Tice] said he plans to tell the committee staffers the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens while he was there with the knowledge of Hayden. … “I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. It’s pretty hard to believe,” Tice said. “I hope that they’ll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn’t exist right now.” …

Tice said his information is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program that Bush acknowledged in December and from news accounts this week that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of millions of Americans. “It’s an angle that you haven’t heard about yet,” he said. … He would not discuss with a reporter the details of his allegations, saying doing so would compromise classified information and put him at risk of going to jail. He said he “will not confirm or deny” if his allegations involve the illegal use of space systems and satellites.

Tice has a history for blowing the whistle on serious misconduct. He was one of the sources that revealed the administration’s warrantless domestic spying program to the New York Times."

I am not a bit afraid of another terrist attack and think we have been taken to the cleaners by the Bush administration to get more executive power. Clinton didn't go nuts over the OK bombing. Bush's doom and gloom folks were just waiting for a chance to grab power. Grab they did and we are the poorer for it!

I've lived in bad places and countries where terrorist attacks were pretty common in the 80's. You just go about your business and hope that the local government has a clue what it is doing. Obviously ours did not have a clue before 9-11 and now they are trying to make it up to us by smothering us with security that is meaningless. I wonder how Bush and chaney will like it when they are civilians and their phones are in the database also.

We seem to be having a power takeover that is beginning to feel more and more like the beginnings of a dictatorship. All these things are going on with no real oversight and we the people haven't a clue. I thought this was our government and our constitution?? God, get these guys out of Washington, PLEASE before the government falls!!

I guess when you run out of arguments, you burn down the podium.

That's an interesting little visual. I think I might hang on to it, for later use as the Bush administration completely melts down.

So long as George W Bush is President I am not afraid. I know he will do everything possible to prevent another terrorist attack from happening including storing the phone records of suspected terrorists.

WHATS HE GONNA DO AL READ ANOTHER FECKING BOOK?
HOW IN THE HELL DOES ONE WIMP, WHO CAN'T EVEN PROTECT HIMSELF, MUCH LESS YOU, GONNA STOP ANYTHING?
AS USUAL YOUR A CHICKEN.

YOU KNOW WHAT SCARES ME AL, IS HAVING SOME CHICKEN LITTLE LIKE YOU AS A NEIGHBOR.

BUSH CANT EVEN STOP CORRUPTION, HOW THE FECK CAN HE STOP, OR EVEN FIND, {and Hasn't]
OSAMA BIN LADEN, LAST I HEARD, GEORGE DOESNT CARE ABOUT OSAMA.

AL WORRIES ME.
HEY PICK A BAD NEIGHBORHOOD AND WALK THRU IT, GUESS WHAT?
GEORGE AINT GONNA SWOOP DOWN OUT OF THE SKY AND SAVE YOU.
I DOUBT THE POLICE WILL EITHER UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.

ITS PEOPLE LIKE AL WHOM ALLOW BUSH TO MURDER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS BECAUSE HES SUCH A LAZY WEAK SCARED LITTLE MAN.

YOU GUYS MAKE ME ILL, DO YOU EVER GO OUTSIDE?

Alice has been reincarnated as a hamster. I think that's fitting somehow.

HELL IM MORE SCARED OF BEING SUCKED INTO A JET ENGINE, OR HAVING MY FINGERS CHOPPED OFF BY SOME 3000 LB HYDRAULIC SYSTEM, THE DRUNK DRIVER BEHIND ME, THE RUSH LIMBAUGH DRUGGIES SPOUTING HATE OVER THE AIRWAVES,

A PRESIDENT THAT PLAYS FEAR FACTOR, A CONGRESS THAT GIVES THE WIMP UNITARY POWERS, A PRESIDENT THAT IGNORES HUNDREDS OF LAWS, THAT SCARES ME.

OSAMA? TERRORISTS? GUESS WHAT, YOU HAVE A MUCH BETTER CHANCE OF BEING STRUCK BY LIGHTENING OR WINNING THE LOTTERY.

WHO MAKES UP THIS FEAR FACTOR IDIOCY?
HAVE YOU PEOPLE EVER LIVED IN A DECREPIT NEIGHBORHOOD? WHERE THE POLICE DON"T
PATROL? OR CARE?

PATHETIC WIMPS, ALL OF YOU.

tbrosz: Or, to put it more briefly, people screaming that we will fall into a dictatorship unless their party is put in charge are exploiting irrational fear for political ends as much as anybody.

Yep. People fearful that Chavez will establish a dictatorship if left in power are just bonkers!

And, people who were fearful that Hitler would establish a dictatorship if left in power were also bonkers.

And, peole who were fearful that Castro would establish a dictatorship if left in power were doubly bonkers.

All talk about any leader becoming a dictator is just Chicken Little shit.

As usual, tbrosz or fake-tbrosz, no matter, has his head up his ass.

I have no Idea whom alice is, but I will take you places where you will crap on yourself, right here in America..
Bring your Ass on Down Craigie Clown

Yeh CRaigie, come on, I promise I wont leave you in the Hood alone all Scared and Shaking

Cmon, Grow some Nads Internet bubble bufoons.
AL your welcome to TAG along.

I will take you to crack houses that have guys with machine guns patrolling..and they won't hesitate to shoot your stoopid asses.

You feckers are nothing.

This poll is propagandistic garbage. No mention of laws broken, warrants... and less than 24 hours after the story broke. Thanks so much, Richard Morin, for another push poll!

Still too soon to poll on impeachment, though, eh? Wouldn't want to rush anything...

Actually, after Oklahoma City, when Clinton proposed measures to improve surveillance of potential and actual terrorists, the current crop of Republican yahoos donned their civil libertarian hats and screamed so loudly that they were not enacted (until after 9/11 with the USA Patriot Act).

Afaik the way the question was asked, it doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal wiretapping by the NSA. I guess that about 60% are for legal wiretapping, even of purely national calls. But imho the poll doesn't say that Americans want or like illegal, unregulated spying without any checks and balances.

"PATHETIC WIMPS, ALL OF YOU."

Stop screaming, troll, we're not deaf.

stefan, your questions are reasonable, but I was responding to this comment, and to the claim that the administration is unreasonably whipping up fear: I almost never think about the possibility of another terrorist attack, and it doesn’t seem to me that anybody I know does either.

Before we even begin to address your questions, we should have an agreement that the al Qaeda threat is real.

We already know two of the reasons that they do not want court supervision: (i) they are afraid that the information will be leaked to the enemies, as happened in the trial of the first WTC bombers (granted, that was trial, not surveillance); (ii) they believe that they have the authority under the constitution, antecendent to the FISA law.

What's been revealed so far is roughly equivalent to the police obtaining credit card receipts from commercial establishments when attempting to identify or track a person of interest. granted, they are getting phone records of hundreds of millions of people, and doing social network analyses, so the scale is different; granted also, they have information on the telephone numbers of some terrorists. As to the fourth ammendment, none of the information is probative in a criminal case, so nobody's life, liberty or property can be taken, any more than if the government learns that you and I communicate this way. If you and I are involved in a criminal conspiracy, they need more than the fact of our communicating to arrest and bring charges against either of us, much less try and convict.

That's about as long an answer as this means of cummunication can tolerate.

here's from the Volokh conspiracy:

[Orin Kerr, May 12, 2006 at 3:35am] 4 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
More Thoughts on the Legality of the NSA Call Records Program: We now have a slightly better idea of the factual and legal issues surrounding the newly-disclosed NSA Call Records program, and I thought I would offer a second analysis that is more focused and more factually informed than the one I posted this morning. My still-very-tentative bottom line: The companies were probably violating the Stored Communications Act by disclosing the records to the NSA before the Patriot Act renewal in March 2006, although the new language in the Patriot Act renewal at least arguably made it more likely that the disclosure was legal under the emergency exception.

First, let's update the facts. It now looks relatively clear that the NSA was not directing the telephone companies to conduct any particular monitoring on the NSA's behalf. Rather, NSA officials were persuading the telephone companies to voluntarily disclose their call records to the government. In other words, the government wasn't actually doing the monitoring, but instead was encouraging the telephone companies to disclose call records to them that the telephone companies already had collected.

In light of those apparent facts, the key issue to me becomes whether the disclosures were permitted under the Stored Communications Act, and specificially 18 U.S.C. 2702. (For a "user's guide" to the Stored Communications Act, see here). Telephone companies are providers of "electronic communications service to the public" under the Act, and the Act regulates when providers can disclose non-content records of account information to the government. The ban is in Section 2702(a)(3):

[A] provider of . . . electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications . . . ) to any governmental entity.

Of the possible exceptions to the statute, three are most likely to be relevant. They permit disclosure under the circumstances listed in 18 U.S.C. 2702(c), as amended by the Patriot Act renewal of 2006:

(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;
(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;
(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency[.]

(Note that the link to the Cornell site's text of 2702 does not have the latest version of the exceptions, as it was last updated in the fall of 2005 and the exceptions were amended in March 2006. I was unable to find the new version on a website, and ended up taking it from Westlaw.).

Let's take each of these exceptions in turn.

(1) The first exception permits disclosure if the subscriber consents. There are no cases interpreting eactly what consent means in 2702(c)(2), but like many of the exceptions in the SCA it is clearly a copy of an analogous exception in the close cousin of the SCA, the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-22. We do have lots of cases on what consent means in the context of the Wiretap Act, so those cases presumably create the applicable standard here. The basic rule: Consent means that the user actually agreed to the action, either explicitly or implicitly based on the user's decision to proceed in light of actual notice. Here's what the First Circuit said on this in United States v. Lanoue, 71 F.3d 966, 981 (1st Cir. 1995):

Keeping in mind that implied consent is not constructive consent but 'consent in fact,' consent might be implied in spite of deficient notice, but only in a rare case where the court can conclude with assurance from surrounding circumstances that the party knowingly agreed to the surveillance. We emphasize that consent should not casually be inferred, particularly in a case of deficient notice. The surrounding circumstances must convincingly show that the party knew about and consented to the interception in spite of the lack of formal notice or deficient formal notice.

Did users consent to the disclosure under this standard? The Washington Post reports that government lawyers seemed to think so, based on small print in the Terms of Service of the telephone service customer agreements:

One government lawyer who has participated in negotiations with telecommunications providers said the Bush administration has argued that a company can turn over its entire database of customer records — and even the stored content of calls and e-mails — because customers "have consented to that" when they establish accounts. The fine print of many telephone and Internet service contracts includes catchall provisions, the lawyer said, authorizing the company to disclose such records to protect public safety or national security, or in compliance with a lawful government request. . . . Verizon's customer agreement, for example, acknowledges the company's 'duty under federal law to protect the confidentiality of information about the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, and amount of your use of our service,' but it provides for exceptions to 'protect the safety of customers, employees or property.' Verizon will disclose confidential records, it says, "as required by law, legal process, or exigent circumstances."

This seems like a very unpersuasive argument in light of the cases construing consent under the Wiretap Act, of which the consent provision in the SCA is a mirror. It reminds me of the argument that a DOJ lawyer once tried to make that monitoring prison phones was allowed because language in the Code of Federal Regulations clearly notified prisoners that their phones would be monitored. According to the lawyer, the notice in the fine print of the CFR was sufficient to make the monitoring consensual. Judge Posner rejected the argument, calling it "the kind of argument that makes lawyers figures of fun to the lay community." United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238 (7th Cir. 1990). In light of these cases, I think the consent argument is weak. (Incidentally, if you look up Daniels, note that Posner incorrectly states later in the opinion that the Second Circuit accepted such a weak notice argument. If you read the Second Circuit case, it is clear that the CA2 did no such thing and that Posner was just being sloppy.)

(2) The next possible exception is disclosure "as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service." This is known as the provider exception, and is also a copy of an analogous exception from the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(i). You can read all about this exception here: basically, it gives providers rights to disclose information to the government to help the providers combat illegal service and unauthorized use of the network. It seems pretty clear that this doesn't apply: The cases make clear that the provider exception exists to further provider interests, not government interests.

(3) The third and final exception is the emergency exception, which permits providers to disclose "if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency." At the outset, it's worth noticing something very interesting about this language: It is almost brand spanking new. The language that passed as part of the Patriot Act in 2001 allowed disclosure only when "the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information." This was the language in place from October 2001 until March 2006. Did the phone companies have such a belief under the 2001-06 language? I gather they had a reasonable belief of danger, but I don't know of a reason to think that they had a reasonable belief of "immediate" danger. If this was a program ongoing for several years, then it's hard to say that there was a continuing reasonable belief of immediate danger over that entire time.

As noted above, though, the Patriot Act renewal passed in March 2006 changed this language. And it did so in a way with potentially important implications for the legality of the NSA call records program. The new exception states that disclosure is permitted "if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency." Few people were paying attention to this change at the time, but I would guess that it was very important to the telephone companies: The change expanded the exception to allow disclosure when there is a good faith belief instead of a reasonable belief, and when there was a danger instead of an "immediate" danger. I wouldn't be surprised if the telephone companies were pushing the change in part out of concern for civil liability for their participation in the NSA call records program. (Or perhaps not, come to think of it: Does the new language suggest that the information disclosed needs to relate to the emergency to be covered? What if the provider doesn't know what information relates to the emergency?)

More tomorrow, I hope.

(cross posted at OrinKerr.com)

I don't fear a terrorist attack (I live in small town America), but I expect it. I also know we've stopped a few budding plans.

I travel to DC regularly, and everytime I crest the mountain on I-70 just west of Frederick, MD, I think to myself, "I hope the blinding white light doesn't come today."

Which is not to say I'm OK with the NSA spying. At a minimum we need to be sure it falls under current laws, and that a bi-partisan group of dems and repubs provides oversight. Not just the executive branch, whether the dems or repubs hold it. I'm willing to lose a few thousand innocent Americans in a terrorist attack as a tradeoff for preserving our freedoms. Live free or die, I say. I've risked my life defending the constitution for years.

tbrosz: It was fun to see how the polling process suddenly became fatally flawed around here, including the wording of the questions and the demographics, when the numbers came out the "wrong" way.

Fair enough. I think you're right that most of the people on this board had a knee-jerk reaction to the news that a majority of Americans didn't seem to share their perspective on the NSA database issue (I know I did). But I think the driver behind that reaction is a passion and concern for constitutional issues like privacy and freedom from intrusive and unnecessary searches.

Is such passion really a bad thing? And is this passion really just the provence of liberals on this board? Or perhaps also Senator Hagel? And when newt Gingrish says "I don’t think the way they’ve handled this can be defended by reasonable people", doesn't this suggest that what is being discussed is a rather singularly egregious act on the part of this administration?

You are certainly right that at times the people on this board can make some of the same logical and rhetorical errors that so insense us when the Republicans make them. But let's not lose sight of what makes discussions of this NSA database so important: this database is most likely an ineffecient waste of time, unconstitutional, and a waste of money.

Is it really wise to trade any freedoms for the illusion of safety?

Wise? We're talking about fear here. There is no wisdom when you can make people afraid.

It's the only skill the clowns in charge actually have.

I'm not certain it's true that Americans don't care. All the stories that say that are based one Washington Post poll with dodgy methodology. Jane Hamsher deconstructs it on Firedoglake http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/12/bush-league/

craigie,

I guess it's fear (that's a *bit* more understandable), but there are times when I think that the issues which matter to me, don't matter to a lot of the other people out there. We'll see how this plays out over the next week or two, and I'll be hoping I'm wrong.

Hey, it looks like most of my phone calls are in the clear after all.

Frankly, I don't really mind my govt snooping into my calls. After all, I am white, married, and devout born-again christian, dotes my children, loves my wife, born and loves this country and my church.

I think all citizen should not be afraid of their govt snooping into their calls. After all, I like feeling SAFE, knowing that GW Bush, is always protecting, and watching me and my loved ones every move, and preventing us from committing any mistakes, hence sin.

I believe, and trust that our president, GW Bush, is just doing his christian job of materializing the second coming of Christ, to rid and purify this god loving country from all evils and terrorists.

I think losing my privacy is a trade off I am willing take, compared to the eternal damnation in hell, which I will have if I remain in our ways.

GW Bush will remain in history as the only president bold enough and has the foresight to save us all, Americans, from God's anger.

More from Powerline:

There has been a lot of discussion about the legality of the NSA's telephone data collection and analysis program, most of it not very illuminating. I haven't had an opportunity to form an opinion, and I'm not an expert in telecommunications law. In my quick review of what seems to be the relevant law, I've encountered several puzzling provisions. But one section I haven't yet seen cited, which seems relevant, is Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2709 of the U.S. Code. It specifically allows the government to obtain telephone records for purposes of investigating terrorist threats. Here is Sec. 2709 in its entirety; I have highlighted some of the pertinent language:

beginquotefromlaw

§ 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records

(a) Duty to provide.--A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Required certification.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may--

(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Prohibition of certain disclosure.--No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.

(d) Dissemination by bureau.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation may disseminate information and records obtained under this section only as provided in guidelines approved by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence collection and foreign counterintelligence investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, with respect to dissemination to an agency of the United States, only if such information is clearly relevant to the authorized responsibilities of such agency.

(e) Requirement that certain congressional bodies be informed.--On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section.

endquotefromlaw

So there is no question about the fact that the federal government can obtain anyone's telephone billing records simply by requesting them, if they are relevant to a terrorism investigation, and the telecom companies "shall comply" with such requests. Under this section, the FBI can pass the phone records on to another government agency, like the NSA, if the information is relevant to that agency's duties.

The question, it seems to me, is whether Sec. 2709 authorizes a blanket request not for the records of a particular person, or the records relating to a particular phone number, but for the records of all of the company's subscribers. Such a broad request probably wasn't contemplated when the statute was adopted, and it might be argued that all of the records can't possibly be relevant to any terrorism investigation. But why not? I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that, for a data mining project like the one carried out by the NSA, the records of all telephone subscribers are relevant. If that is the case, there is no obvious reason why this provision wouldn't authorize a request for all subscriber records, with which the companies would be required to comply.

You could datamine the database of the gun owners and datamine the database of telephone calls to a particular manufacturer of armor piercing rounds and then establish whether that person has called rural Pakistan, for example.

You can pretty much do that now. With information that a particular number frequently phoned rural Pakistan, you could get a warrant for the identity associated with the phone (possibly that is already in a public compendium) and search for records fo guns registered to that person. It wouldn't work that well for unregistered guns, loads of fertilizer as in the OK City bombings, or knives.

cyntax: Is it really wise to trade any freedoms for the illusion of safety?

In return for a license to drive, did you agree to take an alcolizer test, thus forfeiting your 5th ammendment right against self incrimination (or your 4th ammendment right against unreaqsonable search)? Did you gain more than an illusion of safety?

I read this Blog all the time, and rarely comment.

Tomaskey's dead right: most Americans are scared right now. They may not even know they're scared. And why...? Because the Bush Administration has done everything in it's power to KEEP them scared.

The elephant in the room is that no one will stand up and say that we ARE SAFER TODAY than we were in 1988.

In 1988, two superpowers faced each other with enough firepower to incinerate the world 50 times over pointed directly at each other and poised on a hair trigger.

This is no longer the case.

Now, Terrorist groups of various stripes have been trying to hit the US and the West for almost 50 years now. On 9/11, due to fiendish cleverness and the "they only have to get lucky once" rule, they slipped one by us, and stung us but good.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to the victims, but World War III, Armageddon, this was not.

It was a personal armegeddon for all the victims, their families and friends, and for America as a community too - BUT, in the end it was a lucky punch.

Not reason to rip up the constitution. The rights and the freedoms that we maintian in this country through the constitution ARE what keeps us strong - not our armed forces alone or even the armed forces primarily.

Despite all the blemishes, there still is a magic and dynamism about this nation that really IS a light to the world.

Our conservative pals LOVE to mouth these sentiments. But they seem a little slower when it comes to TRUSTING these concepts.

I truly feel that the vast majority of the victims would not be happy to see the way their deaths are being exploited and misused. The way their FAMILIES are attacked if any of them question what is beng done in the name of their lost loved ones.

Allow me to step out of character and play the role of devil's advocate. I think the explanation is much simpler: Most Americans think they have nothing to hide and don't see what the threat to their liberties is. As a matter of fact, offhand, I don't see what the threat to my liberties is. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some, I just don't see them now. Perhaps it would be worth everybody's time to work up a picture that could be sold to the population at large?

republicrat: In return for a license to drive, did you agree to take an alcolizer test, thus forfeiting your 5th ammendment right against self incrimination (or your 4th ammendment right against unreaqsonable search)?

No, I did not agree to take an "alcolizer" test the last time I was at the DMV. Maybe that would be an issue if I were pulled over for drunk driving, at which point I could choose to take the test or not. But if I've been pulled over for drunk driving, then the police should be able to demonstrate probable cause in court. Demonstrating probable cause for collection of tens of millions of people's phone records seems a little trickier, maybe that's why the NSA never presented Qwest with a warrant.

Jeezus X Christ! When will the first courageous soul on the national scene stand up and scream it?

“What goddam ‘war’? Four years without so much as a firecracker set off in anger and we call this a ‘war’? What kind of pussies are we? We quake in fear at every bump in the night, while the Republicans use this bogus ‘war’ bullshit to justify every encroachment on our liberties! The Republicans use this bogus war bullshit to justify their very existence! Stop playing into their hands you wimpy Democrats and tell the truth for once. There is no goddam ‘WAR’!”

And another thing, every time I hear a Republican say something like, “These are extraordinary times, we need to take extraordinary measures,” I feel like running screaming from the room and puke on the first Republican I see!

(That’s not as easy as it sounds. Most of the Republicans in this town work behind 67 layers of security and don’t go home until after midnight in big black SUVs with curtains drawn. Everyone else in DC is a Democrat.)

We had a real shooting war with millions of people killed fifty years ago, you idiots. And after that, the Russians had a nuke aimed at every square foot of ground in the whole country and you think THESE are extraordinary times?

If only I had a time machine so I could shoot you guys back to the 14th century. I’m sure you would find the politics much more to your liking!

cyntax: Maybe that would be an issue if I were pulled over for drunk driving,

You can't be pulled over for "drunk driving", you can olnly be pulled over for an officer's suspicion of "drunk driving", because the drunkenness is discovered post hoc. This depends entirely on the discretion of a single officer as to whether your driving looked suspicious; no other "probable cause" is required except the officer's suspicion, which need not be based on anything objectively verifiable, and no warrant is required.

with about 18,000 deaths per year as a result of drunk driving, most not the drunk driver himself or herself, this practice might result in an "illusion of safety" as in your post that I quoted. You and millions of others may indeed have relinquished your 4th and 5th ammendment rights for an illusion of safety.

In like fashion, most people have allowed their luggage to be searched in exchange for boarding an aircraft. These trade-offs between rights and safeties are made all the time, and some of the perceived safety is an illusion.

“What goddam ‘war’? Four years without so much as a firecracker set off in anger and we call this a ‘war’? What kind of pussies are we? We quake in fear at every bump in the night, while the Republicans use this bogus ‘war’ bullshit to justify every encroachment on our liberties! The Republicans use this bogus war bullshit to justify their very existence! Stop playing into their hands you wimpy Democrats and tell the truth for once. There is no goddam ‘WAR’!”

Beirut Marine Barracks
WTC 1991
Somalia (backed by Al Qaeda)
Khobar Towers
Achille Lauro
USS Cole
Our African Embassies
Failed millenium plot
Failed multi-hijack plot
9/11

There's been an ongoing conflict, that luckily has rarely touched our shores.

OOOH how about this? The polling data is RIGGED and phony! Gee Johnny, the MSM, all of which is owned by defense contractors, wouldn't fake a poll would it???

Naaah

Um, Red State Mike, perhaps you should go read James of DC's post a little more carefully. He wrote "four years" w/o so much as a firecracker being set off. All of your examples are 9/11 or earlier.

James of DC's very fine point remains unsuccessfully assailed.

Red State Mike Look at your list and check locations. Way to make a man's point for him.
Google scares me more than a lot of malicious daydreams in someone's mind in the Middle East. I can run my own pseudonym on it and the spider has produced my name from Typekey's registry. I listen to people wondering if they just shouldn't "shut up" because of the likelihood of being targeted by government agencies running under the aegis of a trumped up national emergency that requires using nukes on a country that had appeared to be living up to its international agreements ; unlike some I could name. Ain't free speech wonderful ?

I just realized that whenever I use Google ads pop up specific to the state I live in. How does it know that?