MyDD :: Spy Scandal Poll Update

Spy Scandal Poll Update

by Matt Stoller, Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 06:42:30 PM EST

This spy scandal is a very important development. One of the problems with the blogosphere and the media landscape in general is that it feels like the outrage-meter is always turned up to maximum hot setting. You're hearing a lot of chatter on the blogs, and I would suggest that this time, you pay special attention to it. This story cuts across all the themes of modern Republicanism - national security, 9/11, abuses of power, political opportunism, media manipulation, violation of civil rights, attacks on privacy, and the evisceration of checks and balances in the American system. Rarely is there such a narrative that ties so many threads together.

So do Americablog's action items. If you have a blog, blog about this.

There are legal, political, and constitutional issues here. I have never seen Steve Clemons, Atrios, Think Progress, Americablog, Talkleft, Firedoglake, and Josh Marshall all on the same page before. The blogosphere is really unified on this.

Right now, we're untangling the legal threads, and setting up the constitutional questions. There are political dimensions as well, and here at MyDD hopefully we'll be able to contribute to how this scandal is being perceived as affecting candidates and campaigns. The poll you kindly offered to fund is part of that. You showed tremendous intelligence in responding the way you did, and we will do our best to keep this a community project. Several polling firms have contacted us already.

If you wouldn't mind, could you start framing questions to ask about this issue. Read Atrios for the backstory. Should we ask about Bush making lists of who was spied on public? Censure? Rumsfeld's role? Impeachment? Republican Congressional involvement?

Tags: Ideology (all tags)

Permalink :: 33 Comments :: Post a Comment

Censure (none / 0)

Impeachment would be a bold course of action at time there isn't enought votes for impeachment. I do not see this as a Watergate moment. Censuring the president for his disregard of civil liberties and authorization for domestic spying would be more appropriate. We should ask respondents baseline questions:

Are civil liberties important to you? Y/N
Should we sacrifice civil liberties for the war on terrorism? Y/N

Then measure the outrage...

Did Bush commit a crime? Y/N
Should he be punished? Y/N If so, censure or impeachment?

For each response we should track along party lines - D,R,Ind.

by optimusprime on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 06:54:50 PM EST

Re: Censure (3.00 / 1)

So we vote on whether people commit crimes now? According to certain Senators it is a crime. I suspect it is a crime. Though I doubt Republicans agree. Regardless if it is a crime, and if he so flagrantly violates it, and he says he will continue to do so, then I see impeachment as the only course of action with censure the only viable alternative for Republicans. Shoot for impeachment and hope to embarras a few Republicans along the way.

"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III

by jrflorida on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

outrage.... (none / 0)

Given that the ReThugs control both houses of Congress and the media, I'm not optimistic about justice rearing its head anytime before '08. But we need to keep hammering on the bastards anyway in order to prepare the ground for the '06 midterm elections and the main event in '08.

by global yokel on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 07:56:26 PM EST

Also you can FOIA (none / 0)

the NSA and help create a class action civil lawsuit that the President must testify in, a la Paula Jones.

by Sean Paul on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 09:24:24 PM EST

"We are at war!" (none / 0)

Come on, Bush would simply argue that the Supreme Court was wrong when they decided the President was subject to civil suits while in office, and then proceed to argue that that is double so in wartime.

And on this one they would be right. Clinton argued that allowing Presidents to be sued in civil actions is a huge distraction from running the government, the Court ruled it would only be a minor burden, then boom we had Ken Starr, Monicagate and Impeachment. I suspect Scalia and Thomas will have a change of heart on this topic when it comes to a Republican President: "man did we get that one wrong!? who knew??" (accompany with sound of hand slapping head),

PollKatz: Bush Approval in 15 polls

by Bruce Webb on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:31:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "We are at war!" (none / 0)

There is a crucial difference.

When Ex parte Milligan,71 U.S. 2 (1866); Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942); Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950); along with Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)[separation of powers] get cited in the mix:

The courts will have to consider that Congress has not declared war.

James Staab, a constitutional scholar, writes on military commissions:

...Even though Quirin [in 1942] does represent an important exception to Milligan, a crucial basis for the Court's decision upholding the use of military tribunals was that Congress had declared war...[emphasis mine]

Staab concludes:

....In the "war on terrorism" it is important that we lead by example. A cardinal principle of our Constitution is the doctrine of separation of powers. By placing all three powers of government in the same hands, military commissions violate Madison's balanced system of government. Under certain circumstances (i.e., military government or a state of martial law), Congress can authorize the use of military commissions. Yet, since 9/11 the nation's lawmakers have not chosen to do so....In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson warned against having "the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power." The use of military commissions continues the trend toward what one constitutional scholar has aptly called "the military pocket republic." This is a trend that all Americans should be concerned about.

James B. Staab, "'With the Stroke of a Pen': President Bush Cannot Unilaterally Establish Military Commissions", Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies: Papers from the March 2003 Counter-Terrorism & Civil Liberties Conference, Central Missouri State University, 3, pp. 53-65 [as numbered]. ISSN 1-538-7909

What does this all mean for domestic spying? The Constitution doesn't let the president suspend the IV Amendment either - only we can do that by our inattention and inaction.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 12:21:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is from AOL news it is a good balence (none / 0)

Between the right and the left. It's a poll on the spying.

How would you characterize any domestic spying without a warrant?
Never acceptable 62%
A necessity 30%
I'm not sure 7%
Do you think such eavesdropping should be legal?
No 63%
Yes 31%
I don't know 6%
Total Votes: 145,672

Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.

by Liberal on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 09:44:29 PM EST

A series of questions (3.00 / 1)

To do this right there needs to be a series of questions. I tend to like Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree) questions because you can gage the aggregate intensity of the responses (and quantify them for comparison).

Preface: President Bush has recently acknowledged that at his direction and with his approval the National Security Agency has been monitoring the communications of American citizens for some time within the United States without first obtaining a court warrant. Critics of this activity have pointed out that this violates federal law and the prohibitions against such in the United States Constitution.

I am going to read you a list of statements on this subject. I'd like you to rate your opinion on each issue as either strongly agree, agree, neutral/don't know, disagree, and strongly disagree.

1. This is an abuse of power by the president.
(strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

2. When one person's civil rights are violated in this fashion, everyone else's are, too.
(strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

3. It seems like more and more we're all losing any expectation of privacy.
(strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

4. The president should be impeached for this serious violation of the law.
(strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

5. If we're going to remain safe we need to give up some of our rights.
(strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

There are all kinds of questions along these lines. The order can (and should be) rotated to eliminate question fatigue bias.

If this comes to pass, release the top line results to the media and the blogosphere. Keep the crosstabs out of it - you don't need to spend the money to help show dubya's administration how to spin their way out of this.

Make sure the opinion research firm you choose has really good interviewers. Don't go cheap. And find out their typical refusal rate for a national poll.

You'll need to decide on a sample of "adults nationwide", "registered voters nationwide", or "likely voters nationwide" - or however the firm you ultimately choose labels these.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:00:34 PM EST

A Very Good Framework (3.00 / 1)

A battery of questions asked this way is definitely a good way to go. But balanced alternatives are also a good methodology to use. I'm going to suggest a slight variation. This is only a suggestion, and I welcome others to suggest improvements, replacements or additions:

Preface: President Bush has recently acknowledged that at his direction and with his approval the National Security Agency has been monitoring the communications of American citizens for some time within the United States without obtaining a court warrant. Critics have pointed out that this violates the Constitution as well as specific federal laws--including the statute establishing the secret FISA court, which has only rejected 4 warrant applications since 1979. Bush's defenders have cited the need for speed. But the FISA process was designed for speed, and allows for immediate wiretapping, provided a warrant is applied for within 72 hours.

I am going to read you a list of contrasting statements on this subject. I'd like you to rate which alternative comes closest to your viewpoint, say and how strongly you agree. So you'll say: strongly agree with first alternative, agree with first alternative, neutral/don't know, agree with second alternative, strongly agree with second alternative.

1. Which comes closest to your viewpoint: (A) The President can't break the law. If the President does it, then that makes it legal. Or (B) We're a nation of laws, not of men. If the President breaks the law, he has committed a crime.
(A, strongly; A; neutral/don't know; B; B, strongly)

2. Which comes closest to your viewpoint: (A) We're involved in a war on terror, and we need to do whatever we can to win--even if it breaks our own laws. Or: (B) We're involved in a war of ideas. In the end, our enemies can only win if we betray our own ideals.
(A, strongly; A; neutral/don't know; B; B, strongly)

3. Which comes closest to your viewpoint: (A) When one person's civil rights are violated in this fashion, everyone else's are, too. Or: (B) If we're going to remain safe we need to give up some of our rights.
(A, strongly; A; neutral/don't know; B; B, strongly)

Now I am going to read you a list of statements on this subject. I'd like you to rate your opinion on each issue as either strongly agree, agree, neutral/don't know, disagree, and strongly disagree.

4. This is an abuse of power by the president.
(strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

5. If the President thought it was the right thing to do, he should have said so openly. The fact that he did it in secret shows that he knew it was wrong.
(strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

6. The president should be impeached for this serious violation of the law.
(strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree)

I also think we should ask for partisan ID. And we should release cross-tabs on that.

As for holing back the other cross-tabs, I don't know that I agree. I'm pretty sure the President and his allies will be doing ten times the amount of polling on this that we are. I doubt we would give them much they don't already have. The American people, however, need to know as much as they can.

But I'm open to persuasion. (Although, this is more like Pride & Prejudice.)

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 11:36:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

foreign people (3.00 / 2)

The thing I found most interesting was, I think it was described this way:

"The people being spied on were people who had contact with people from over seas."

My mind instantly jumped back to Cheney reprimanding Kerry for seeking help from foreign soil. Cheney basically challenged Kerry to tell him who he contacted, as if Cheney already knew.

Did that bell ring for anyone else?

Is it possible that these powers were used to spy on political enemies?

That to me is the crux.

DAGGER

by goplies on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:00:41 PM EST

It's in their nature (3.00 / 1)

...Is it possible that these powers were used to spy on political enemies?...

Does a bear shit in the woods?

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:06:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: foreign people (none / 0)

No thought is too paranoid when it comes to these thugs.

by Keone Michaels on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 12:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For Me (3.00 / 3)

the bottom line has to be the eternal severing of the so-called libertarians and classic conservatives from the Republican electoral camp. I'm not expecting them to vote for Democrats. After all, they consider the Welfare State to be "The Road to Serfdom" (actually, it's the road to freedom, prosperity, and a strong middle class...).

No, I don't expect that. But the Republicans have exposed themselves; they are fascists. I would classify anyone who would vote for them now as a fascist, or mentally ill.

by Paul Goodman on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:26:13 PM EST

Politically (none / 0)

it all depends on WHO the people Bush spied on WERE. It doesn't much matter to me (OK, maybe a little) and it's reprehensible no matter how you slice it, but if this is to become to huge, tsunami-like scandal it's going to have to turn out that a significant number of targets were blue-haired ladies doing a peace bake sale, Quaker meetings, or God forbid the deliberations of organized Democratic organizations. If it really is all "suspicious bad guys," this goes away fast, I'm afraid. That doesn't mean we don't scream as loud as we can, though.

by ColoDem on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:32:44 PM EST

The wind is blowing (3.00 / 2)

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

A Man for All Seasons (1966)

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:51:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The most important thing is to stop the behavior. (none / 0)

The most amazing thing to me about this story is Bush's decision that he will continue to order the NSA to conduct these searches.

Bush has an argument that the surveillance in question isn't illegal, although the argument is thin (for those interested in learning more about F.I.S.A. and the legal issues involved, this is a fantastic resource: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf )

Even in the unlikely event that the surveillance is legal, however, U.S. citizens still shouldn't be subject to warrantless wiretaps unless there's a damn good reason (i.e. a Kiefer-Sutherland-in-24 scenario). And that clearly isn't the case in most of these cases.

The most important question the poll should ask is whether or not the respondent thinks that these wiretaps should continue. And that's also what I think Dems should focus on - getting the President to stop this immoral and probably illegal behavior.

by TomGilpin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 10:33:04 PM EST

Re: The most important thing is to stop the behavi (none / 0)

They have 72 hours according to a report I heard earlier today, 72 hours in which they can eavesdrop before they need to seek a warrant. This notion that time is of the essence is one they would like to play, but I suspect even they know its a card that doesn't belong in the deck. They have no high ground here.

"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III

by jrflorida on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 11:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The most important thing is to stop the behavi (none / 0)

I dont know what happens. I would hope it all gets destroyed. I dont think they call up the person and inform them of their eavesdropping. I think that should be done as well. It is all handled in current law though and has nothing to do with this presidential order. The issue here is they dont need to go beyond the law. The law accounts for eavesdropping in and not having time right then to go get a warrant. 72 hours is plenty of time. Now the question is why did they find it necessary to go beyond this level of oversight? I believe this government is fascist and to believe that I have to also think they believe in lists of people in our nation that they find to be an enemy. I don't believe they really fundamentally see a difference between political enemies and foreign. So do I think they have it in them to spy on policital enemies or people like me? Yes and I think its this very topic that might help shed light on just how nasty this government is. I am amazed at how many secrets are coming out one after the other. It could also be that Bush simply feels that no one should be able to see what he is doing, not even that secret court (one I dont believe should exist). That is less sinister, more childish, but still wrong.

"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III

by jrflorida on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 01:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The most important thing is to stop the behavi (none / 0)

Interesting, Tom.

by Matt Stoller on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 12:41:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Special Prosecutor? (none / 0)

There is going to be a call for a special prosecutor to investigate this. Here is a suggested question:

Should a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate if President Bush broke the law when he ordered wiretaps of American citizens?

by Alvord on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 11:17:19 PM EST

Re: Special Prosecutor? (none / 0)

So far, every opinion I've seen or read from the legal experts quotes them as saying this action is unconstitutional or illegal. Therefore, I would frame your question as: "Since a majority of legal experts believe this action to be unconstitutional, should a special prosecutor be appointed to........"

Memo to neocons: I respect your right to have an opinion, but I just don't want to hear it anymore.

by blogus on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 10:22:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Special Prosecutor? (none / 0)

That's a leading question based on your sampling of opinion. The goal here is to get a credible answer.

by ZamboniGuy on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 07:14:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some Questions... (none / 0)

As progressive liberals who care deeply about our country and the way it's run, it's important that we immediately start formulating questions, as Matt suggested, to help us get to the bottom of this. Here are my humble suggestions:

Do you think that Bush was justified in using domestic surveillance to protect national security?
Should Bush have to consult Congress before taking extra legal actions, even in the interest of national security?
Would you support Congress in initiating impeachment procedures against the president?

by freakyfrenchie on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 02:45:20 AM EST

For now, I want to know one thing. (none / 0)

Who was on that list?

by steve expat on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 05:47:44 AM EST

Operation Flabbergasted! (none / 0)

Smintheus has a great action diary on this: Operation Flabbergasted!

and Doctor Who makes an excellent point:

don't let them deflect the seriousness of their crimes onto the leakers!

by Cedwyn on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 05:59:24 AM EST

Freedom Too Precious to Let Us Keep? (none / 0)

The emerging BushCorp logic in defending King George's action seems run like this: In this time of unending war against shadowy enemies, the American People's freedom is too precious and endangered a thing to let them keep it themselves, so the government had to take their Freedom away, in order to keep it safe.

So, ask people whether they'd prefer to keep their freedom for themselves, or turn their freedom over to the government for safekeeping.

Government, as in "Big Brother".

by dricey on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 08:40:19 AM EST

Re: Freedom Too Precious to Let Us Keep? (none / 0)

It's pretty much always that same 30%. Republican neocon insurgents.

by blues on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 07:04:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so many angles (none / 0)

There are so many angles to this scandal, all of them very damaging to Bush. I would like to see a progression of questions that lead the interviewee to the final questions of what to do about the (hopefully obvious by then) illegal behavior.

My suggestions (more for an indication of progression, rather than actual questions):

did Bush order the NSA to spy on US citizens?
did Bush order spying without getting a warrant as provided by FISA?
did Bush order spying in secret without allowing for court oversight?
now that this program has come to light, do you think Bush should stop ordering the NSA to spy on Americans in secret and without a warrant?
do you believe that any laws were broken by Bush in ordering the NSA to spy on Americans in secret and without a warrant?
If it is true that Bush approved spying in violation of federal statues, should Congress consider censuring the president?
If it is true that Bush approved spying in violation of federal statues, should congress consider impeaching the president?

-----

I'm guessing at least 50% will say yes to the last two questions if the interviewee hears all the angles on this scandal, hopefully leading to the headline "Majority of americans think congress should consider impeachment".

end the occupation of Iraq

by aip on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 12:50:11 PM EST

Re: so many angles (none / 0)

oh, and forgot this just before the censure/impeach questions:

* do you believe this secret spying on americans violated the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure?

end the occupation of Iraq

by aip on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 12:56:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For lack of a trackback mechanism... (none / 0)

See If You Can Figure This Out

Solve for X.
Fitzgerald + Quo Warranto (George W. Bush + Ultra vires) SCOTUS = X

UPDATE:
Here is hint #1
Here is hint #2
Here is hint #3
Here is hint #4

Comments From Left Field

by Goose3five on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 01:12:02 PM EST

Polling Questions (none / 0)

Does the domestic espionage in violation of FISA by the Bush Administration rise to the level of the high crimes and midemeanors necessary for impeachment?

Do you support a Constitutional Amendment specifically protecting Privacy?

Do you favor repealing the tax cuts that have benefitted the wealthiest at the expense of middle class and working class Americans?

Do you favor a universal health care system?

by Retired Catholic on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 03:47:32 PM EST

Re: Impeach Who ??? (none / 0)

For that matter, why not:

Impeach Samuel Alito Now.

by blues on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 04:27:33 PM EST

poll questions (none / 0)

On these questions, if you don't keep the language at least somewhat neutral, you're inviting valid criticism of your polling methods which will detract from the overall message of the outcome. You need to have enough faith in the correctness of the position you hold to poll the questions honestly. Also, if you make the language too technical, you select out "average folks" with little knowledge of the way the system works--again allowing the poll, rather than the opinions it unearths to become the story.

ON another note, Goose3five, that info about Gonzalez is VERY interesting. He, too, can be impeached. And it might just stick in the Senate's craw a bit to discover that they were looked in the eye and lied to when they questioned him.

by Jilliker on Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 02:24:58 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.