NSA Domestic Spying Polls--It's What You Ask
By Lee Russ
Monday, January 16, 2006 at 05:20 PM
Semantics, semantics, semantics. Not a day goes by without another headline about what "the people" think of the NSA domestic spying issue. And you'd go nuts if you put all the headlines on a table and tried to reconcile their very different conclusions.
Which prompted me to collect several recent polls and try to make sense out of them.
It's all semantics. With a touch of opinions based on nothing. But mostly semantics.
Poll Number 1, Zogby poll: headlined "Majority supports impeaching Bush for wiretapping"Certainly to my taste and liking.
What they asked :
"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
What the prople said:
Agree Disagree No Op/No
Answer
ALL 52 43 6
Dems 76
Indep 50
Repub 29
Analysis:
Well, at least the question was objectively worded to focus on wiretapping of American citizens, without some confusing and misleading crap about those citizens being "suspected of involvement with terrorism." On the other hand, it asks if Congress "should consider" impeachment--they want the thing investigated--so the results can't support the headline conclusion that the majority are actually in favor of impeachment.
Poll Number 2, CNN/USA Today/Gallup:
What they asked on Jan 6-8, 2006:
a. "As you may know, the Bush Administration has been wiretapping telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so. How closely have you been following the news about this: very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?"
What the people said:
Very Somewhat Not Too Closely Not at All
29 46 16 9
b. "Do you think the Bush Administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?"
What the people said:
Right Wrong Unsure
50 46 4
Analysis:
Just how bad are these questions? Well:
a. It isn't necessarily JUST "telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries"; that's what the admin claims, but without objective oversight, no one KNOWS. There's pretty good evidence that they are tapping EVERYTHING available to them, storing it, and using computer programs to analyze things later.
b. "Without getting a court order" sounds like you're asking if they should have gotten a court order BEFORE the wiretapping; as we all know, the law allows them to get warrants AFTER the wiretap, as long as it's within 72 hours. Did the people answering the question understand that they haven't bothered to get RETROACTIVE warrants?
c. 96% of the respondents had an opinion on the right/wrong question, but 25% of the respondents had not been following the issue very closely, or at all. So, of the 96% with a right/wrong opinion, at least 21% were answering without any real understanding of the issue.
Poll Number 3, ABC News/Washington Post:
What they asked on Jan. 5-8, 2006:
a. "According to recent news reports, the National Security Agency has been investigating people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so. How closely have you been following this story: very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely or not closely at all?"
What the people said:
Very Somewhat Not Too Closely Not Closely At All
20 46 21 13
b. "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?"
What the people said:
Acceptable Unacceptable Unsure
51 47 2
Analysis:
This is even worse than number 2, as it explicitly restricts itself to "without FIRST getting court approval." And the discrepancy is even greater between those who have been following it very/somewhat closely, and those who have opinions on its rightness/wrongness--98% have a right/wrong opinion, but only 66% followed it very or somewhat closely.
This was more extensive on the spying issue:
What they asked on Jan 5-8, 2006:
a. "During wartime, some presidents have either received or assumed special war powers, which give the president more authority to act independently when he feels it is necessary. In the current campaign against terrorism, is it a good idea or a bad idea for the president to have the authority to make changes in the rights usually guaranteed by the Constitution?"
What the people said:
Good Idea Bad Idea Unsure
36 57 7
b. "In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of ordinary Americans on a regular basis?"
What the people said:
Willing Not Willing Unsure
28 68 4
c. "In order to reduce the threat of terrorism, would you be willing or not willing to allow government agencies to monitor the telephone calls and e-mails of Americans that the government is suspicious of?"
What the people said:
Willing Not Willing Unsure
69 26 5
d. "Do you think that in order to fight terrorism, the federal government should have more authority to use wiretaps, or would this violate Americans' constitutional rights?"
.
What the people said:
Have More Violate Rights Unsure
40 53 7
e. "In general, how much confidence do you have that government agencies are able to correctly tell whose phone calls and e-mails should be monitored and whose should not? Do you have a great deal of confidence, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?"
.
What the people said:
Great Fair Not Much None At All Unsure
10 45 30 13 2
Analysis
This is really interesting and revealing. The majority think it's a bad idea for the president to have the power to change the protections under the constitution (a), and a better than two-thirds majority think it's a bad idea to spy on "ordinary Americans" (b), and a similarly large majority think it's okay to spy on "Americans that the government is suspicious of."
If you stopped there, you could say that "the people" don't like expanding presidential power, and really don't like spying on ordinary folks, but they seem to think that, hey, if the government is suspicious of you, you must not be ordinary. But then ther's question e, which indicates that a full 43% of the people don't have much confidence in the government's suspicions. Net result? You've got me. Schizophrenia?
Poll Number 5, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:
What they asked on Jan. 4-8, 2006:
a. "Would you favor or oppose allowing the U.S. government to monitor your personal telephone calls and e-mails to curb terrorism"
What the people said:
Favor Oppose Unsure
24 73 3
b. "Would you favor or oppose allowing the U.S. government to monitor your credit card purchases to curb terrorism"
What the people said:
Favor Oppose Unsure
29 68 3
c. "Do you think it is generally right or generally wrong for the government to monitor telephone and e-mail communications of Americans suspected of having terrorist ties without first obtaining permission from the courts?"
What the people said:
Right Wrong Unsure
48 47 5
Analysis:
Questions a and b here get right to the heart of it. We're not talking about the abstract, we're not talking about some people who've already been tainted by suspicion, we're talking about YOU. YOUR phone. YOUR e-mail. And what a shock--big majorities, at least two-thirds, say, hey, no spying on me, man. The minute you muddle it up in question c with the idea that the government is only spying on those about whom they have "suspicions," voila--split opinion again.
Poll Number 6, Associated Press/Ipsos:
What they asked on Jan. 3-5, 2006:
"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, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?"
What the people said:
Get Warrant OK Without Warrant Unsure
56 42 2
Analysis:
Well, in this one we're talking about nice, innocent U.S. citizens, with the only suspicious people being the terrorists, so people are more likely to want a warrant (after all THEY'RE U.S. citizens), but this also specifies that the warrant be obtained BEFORE monitoring. I'm a little surprised, and pleased, that 56% of the people think a warrant is required under this wording.
Conclusion:
In evaluating any of these polls, you need to pay attention to, at a minimum:
--whether the hypothetical people being spied on are described as "you," innocent citizens, or people under suspicion
--whether the question specifies a warrant before spying, entertains the option of getting one after the spying, or doesn't address that issue
--whether the people have been following the issue they are now voicing an opinion on (especially a gap between the number of people who say they're following it and the number of people who express a definite opinion)
--how the nature of the spying is described--is it called a change in the law, or is that left for the respondents to decide for themselves?