Poll finds Mixed Support for Wiretaps

So I am riding the train to work this morning, and I spy (get it?) this headline on the NY Times:

Poll finds mixed support for Wiretaps:
Americans are willing to tolerate eavesdropping without warrants to fight terrorism

and I am thinking to myself, that this is a no brainer. It is also interesting to note, the sentence above continued, though not in bold type face.

but are concerned that the aggressive antiterrorism programs championed by the Bush administration are encroaching on civil liberties, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

In spite of my recent rants regarding the legality of the domestic wiretaps, or the "terrorist surveillance program" I suspect that most Americans are ok with the government trying to track down leads and capture bad guys. I have no problem with them using wiretaps, and data mining techniques or any other known or unknown method to help protect this country from a future terrorist attack.

The Republicans (Cheney, Rove) are clearly responding in their circles to the critism sent out on MLK day last week by the Democrats (Senator Clinton and former VP Gore). They are attempting to spin this situation as we are strong on terror and national security and they (Democrats) are weak. This was how they won in 2002, and it seems they are planning the same strategy in 2006. The question is, can the Dems learn from their mistakes, and I am doubting it, since they are too scared or stupid to actually unite and come up with a solid consistent message, but that is another story.

The neocons are saying that this program is helping to make us safer, which is almost impossible to argue with. I have no idea if this program has been any more or less successful than any other initiatives in the war on terror, which in my humble opinion will take at least 15-20 more years to completely determine the winner or even what winning looks like, long after W and company have riden off into the sunset. Most people are willing to sacrifice some in order to feel safer, because who is going to to argue with this strategy and since the Republicans have such a strong propaganda machine and are continously spreading this message people could easily forget that the President admits what he did was illegal.

The main issue here and the primary thorn in my side, is not about protecting the United States. The issue is about the constitutuion and determining what power the President has, and how laws passed by Congress are enforced by the President and how the Judges interprets the laws enacted by Congress and enforced by the President. And the American people should not be so short-sighted as to lose track of the constitutional crisis that is potentially brewing, just to feel safer in the short term.

Remember the terrorists waited 8 years between attacks on the WTC, so they are in no hurry. They will bide their time, plan, wait, then attack when they are ready, on their time frame when we are least expecting another attack. But again, that is a different story

What I do have a problem with, and what I cannot understand for the life of me, is why the President cannot get "legal" approval for what he is doing today, right now! Assuming that he is truly only hunting terrorist and trying to make the US safe, then he should have no problem now even 4 years after the fact, going to a federal judge and obtaining a warrant for the past actions. Since this would still fall under the FISA act, the entire process would still be classified, so the public and more importantly those under observation would not know they are being watched.

However, the President (and by extension the entire executive branch, DOJ, NSA, CIA, BTAF, Agriculture, DOE, etc.) would have to demonstrate to this judge who has been under surveillance, what was the basis for putting this individual or group under surveillance, what information has been obtained to date, and what they plan on doing witht the information they have obtained on individuals within the United States, which they are no longer monitoring. It just makes me wonder what the President is really hiding.

It is interesting to note the words of Katrina Vanden Heuvel, from her blog on the Huffington Post

If NSA spying were really an issue of security, as the all-out media assault by the Bush administration claims it to be, it should accept the deal. But it's not. Rather this is all part of their neocon dream of an American Empire. You see, in a republic the lives of private citizens are private while the workings of public servants are public, but in an empire, Caesar's dealings remains shrouded in secrecy while he spies on citizens looking for threats to the regime. It is up to the Congress to put a stop to this idolatry: the emperor as God, mysterious and omniscient.