Security emphasis seen as impinging on liberties

It is good to see (via Vicezilla at My View of It) that the nation is beginning to realize that this administration has gone too far in taking away personal liberties from its citizens:

Americans think the Bush administration has tipped the balance of security versus liberty too far toward security, a new poll shows.

But the public remains closely divided on President Bush's most contentious security programs, favoring by small margins warrantless wiretaps against terrorist suspects and the broad mining by federal agencies of personal data about U.S. citizens, according to the survey by UPI/Zogby International.

Thirty-three percent of the 5,932 persons polled said the administration had "found the right balance between personal security and personal freedom," and 49 percent said the administration had gone too far in its efforts. Seven percent said the administration had weakened security by tipping the balance too far toward personal freedoms.

It makes me wonder what exactly the remaining 7 % would like to see done since they feel that the government should take away more personal liberties in order to make the country more secure. I agree with Vice but some of the results also leave some additional questions:

Two-thirds of respondents said the U.S. government has the right to collect personal data about foreign airline passengers coming to the country, a source of ongoing friction with the European Union.

Makes you wonder if US citizens have no objections to the EU doing similar data collection on their travels?

55% percent said the Terrorism Surveillance Program is "a necessary and legal tool to protect Americans." Under the program, the National Security Agency conducts court-authorized but warrantless surveillance of international communications by Americans with terrorist suspects.

Awfully fuzzy logic on who would need a warrant and who would not. I much prefer a warrant for anyone suspected or under surveillance. What is the harm, if you have probably cause get the warrant. I believe the law allows 3 days post surveillance so if there is an immediate (gun to the head situation) need there is still an opportunity to get it done within our laws, or is that asking too much?

But 62% also said the "government should always be required to get a warrant or court order before monitoring the phone conversations or e-mails of American citizens or legal immigrants."

Good to see the majority of the citizens polled here waking up, smelling the coffee and seeing the light. Especially in light of last nights Heroes episode, which is exactly what can happen if the government is given enough power to take away our civil liberties in order to defeat terrorists.