The American Socio-Political climate is kaliedoscopic in the variety of
issues at the fore. Let's start by looking at the NSA wiretapping/phone
record collection issue. In this country, the land of the free and the
home of the 4th Amendment, Independent Americans are correct to be
leery of the idea of domestically-focused intelligence gathering. Some
in the media have attempted to frame the issue as an idea Americans
"don't mind", which is what a recent Washington Post poll
that attempts to do:
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it. 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.
At first glance, the Post is providing evidence of wide support for the NSA's program that involves acquiring millions of phone call records without warrants or congressional oversight. However, it amounts to not much more than a textbook example of spin, and here's why.
The opening statement is a half-truth. The actual question that the 63% answered "acceptable to" was:
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?
The conclusion the Post draws does not factor in the effect of the phrase "without listening to or recording the conversations." This dramatically alters the nature of what "acceptability" means relative to the larger issue.
To be sure, the vast majority of Americans are not involved in terrorist activities ala Al Qaida, thus it is of little consequence to them if somebody knows who they call, when they call, or who calls them. The rationale is, "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide." Another take on this could be: "I'm innocent, so go ahead and prove I'm guilty." The problem with this attitude is that it accepts Government pursuit of criminal investigations based on two things:
1. Assumed Guilt
2. Lack of Probable Cause
People who take the "I have nothing to hide" attitude are placing personal pride above the Canon Law upon which the existence of this country depends. Accepting a dismissal of fundamental constitutional rights in the name of "national security" has to make one wonder exactly what happened to the spirit of "Don't Tread on Me" that once defined America.
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it. 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.
At first glance, the Post is providing evidence of wide support for the NSA's program that involves acquiring millions of phone call records without warrants or congressional oversight. However, it amounts to not much more than a textbook example of spin, and here's why.
The opening statement is a half-truth. The actual question that the 63% answered "acceptable to" was:
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?
The conclusion the Post draws does not factor in the effect of the phrase "without listening to or recording the conversations." This dramatically alters the nature of what "acceptability" means relative to the larger issue.
To be sure, the vast majority of Americans are not involved in terrorist activities ala Al Qaida, thus it is of little consequence to them if somebody knows who they call, when they call, or who calls them. The rationale is, "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide." Another take on this could be: "I'm innocent, so go ahead and prove I'm guilty." The problem with this attitude is that it accepts Government pursuit of criminal investigations based on two things:
1. Assumed Guilt
2. Lack of Probable Cause
People who take the "I have nothing to hide" attitude are placing personal pride above the Canon Law upon which the existence of this country depends. Accepting a dismissal of fundamental constitutional rights in the name of "national security" has to make one wonder exactly what happened to the spirit of "Don't Tread on Me" that once defined America.
No comments:
Post a Comment