Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (9880)	1/26/2006 5:18:18 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541429

Perhaps you get a slight shift to agreement over what you would get if you asked the same question in the opposite way. But I don't think the main issue is which side constitutes agreement in the question. Look at the questions in the polls where people disagree with the presidents policies - " If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge..." "Should the Bush administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists..." In both cases citizens are mentioned first. Terrorist either later or not at all. In both questions the emphasis is on procedure "...approval of a judge..." or "to get a warrant..." Now the questions where the results support the presidents policy. "Do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants..." Warrants are mentioned but the emphasis is on terrorists. Citizens are not mentioned at all. "Would you consider this wiretapping of telephone calls and e-mails without court approval as an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?..." Again emphasis on investigating terrorism. No mention of US citizens or communication in general. "Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?" This time not only are ordinary communications of citizens not mentioned, but warrants or court approval isn't mentioned. It almost "should we be able to investigate terrorists". I'm surprised that even 23% said no. It probably would have been single digits if it wasn't for the recent controversy. Tim

To: Dale Baker who wrote (9880)	1/26/2006 7:47:17 PM
From: MrLucky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541429

Sounds like 50-60% of the people will agree with damn near anything they are asked. ;<) And that is the American electorate. Scary. DB, You clearly put too much faith into these polls. Looked to me like the average person polled demonstrated some common sense about this NSA non-issue.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (9880)	1/27/2006 1:56:43 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541429

Interesting - starting off with a scrap... New Canadian PM rebuffs US envoy Stephen Harper BBC Canadian Prime Minister-elect Stephen Harper has defended plans to send military ice-breakers to the Arctic in defiance of criticism from Washington. US ambassador David Wilkins said on Wednesday that Washington opposed the plan and, like most other countries, did not recognise Canada's claims. Mr Harper said his mandate was from the Canadian people, not Mr Wilkins. Mr Harper's Conservatives have promised to defend Canada's northern waters from claims by the US, Russia and Denmark. The party won a narrow victory over the outgoing Liberal administration in Monday's election, but failed to secure an overall majority. 'Non-existent problem' The Conservative plans include the construction and deployment of three new armed heavy ice-breaking ships and an underground network of listening posts. The BBC's Lee Carter in Toronto says Canada has only recently woken up to the fact that, with global warming being blamed for melting ice in the Arctic, the so-far-mythical northwest passage, which could link the Atlantic and the Pacific, may in fact become a reality. But the US has challenged Canada's claims, saying that it considers much of the region to be international waters. Ambassador Wilkins described the Canadian position as creating a problem that did not exist, prompting an angry reaction from Mr Harper. "The United States defends its sovereignty, the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," he said. "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States." Mr Harper had criticised election opponents for attacking the US in a bid to win votes.