Centerfield

If you have a point, next time say it. You just parroted back the question and the percentages.

What's your opinion?

I'll tell you mine. None of these questions asks the important issue; "Since wiretapping is illegal without a warrant..." then ask the question.

Well, Ryan, ask for nuanced opinions and get the exact opposite...

Of course, rob, your statement is no more correct than the phrasing of most of the questions provided.

According to everything I've read to date, and I've read a lot, the NSA program involves listening to phone conversations between individuals linked to Al Qaeda who are physically not in this country and other individuals, some of whom are in this country. Far too few of the polls cited ask the question accurately based on the known facts.

The Supreme Court has held for the last 2 centuries that the rules change for all sorts of issues related to the 4th Amendment when border crossings are involved. For example, when you fly back into this country, Customs does not need probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to open your bags and briefcase and anything else they want. Unlike, say, regular airport screening, it's not optional, and you can avoid it by not flying or even by turning away after you get to the airport. Even if you say, nevermind, let me catch the next flight back to France, they have the Constitutional authority to search you, your things, and your person at the border crossing. International phone calls work the same way... the constitutional rules are different.

To veer back to the subject, I'd like to thank Ryan for showing the assorted poll wordings. Having been heavily involved in political campaigns and having worded more than a few polls myself, I'm well aware of how poll wording can affects results. But most people never get a chance to compare differently worded polls to see exactly how that works. Instead, they get incomplete and inaccurate sound-bite reports from media outlets and partisan sources, and parrot them as gospel.

All too often the poll questions misrepresent the facts or leave them too vague for an intelligent and relevant response, and thereby "force" a desired answer. The technique is called "push polling." Sometimes it's inadvertant, sometimes it's quite intentional. Expect to see a lot of it once you start actually looking.

Wonderful examples.

Pat, the fly in the ointment is this: today _some_ phone calls may be between two persons in the same country. BUT even so they may, thanks to the way that the Internet works, end up crossing borders in transmission.

For most calls, or in the cases that are specifically at issue in the current NSA wiretapping, this may not happen. But with the rise of telephone-over-Internet communications (for those not familiar with the concept, Google "Skype" for one example) it is going to be a rising issue. Just another case of technology creating a need to rethink the old rules.

To return to Ryan's original point: isn't this just another case of the political point we see all the time? "If you get to frame the issue, you can control the result." At most, it points out just how delicate "framing the issue" actually is.

Seems crystal clear to me. I think we already knew the answer. Some people are hardcore partisans and will vote against the other guy no matter what, however, most Americans are informed and intellegent enough to interpert the nuanced wording and respond apropriately. Americans want to use all the tools available used to the maximum extent required to capture or kill the terrorist but limited to prevent unnessisary intrusion into inocent Americans lives. Congress needs to update the laws to reflect the current technology. unfortunately they are going to have public hearings with a lot of posturing and posing for the cameras. This is an important issue where the discussion should be closed door where congress can do whats right for the country instead of what benifits their political party.

To return to Ryan's original point: isn't this just another case of the political point we see all the time? "If you get to frame the issue, you can control the result." At most, it points out just how delicate "framing the issue" actually is.

Well. that's one point you can take from it, if you are looking at it as a way to "play politics." But the thing that stands out to me is that in playing this game, you can push the results best when the respondents are uninformed and you don't inform them. Which suggests to me that informed people may be harder to push.

I'd love to see pollsters either consider it crucial to provide relevant information or to ask respondents to self-assess how well-informed they are about given issues. Because one of the biggest things polls conceal or fail to measure when opinion is measured is this: what's the interaction between opinion and information. When a poll says 44% favor A and 56% favor B, we don't know what percent of the people are basically talking out their @sses. How about if every poll allowed people to answer each question, but also asked respondent to check off a box only if they felt the following statement were true "I feel that I am well-informed enough about this issue and that my opinion has a solid basic in the facts and details of the matter." (and if you check it off, maybe you have to take a pop quiz to prove it! :-) )

That's what I think is REALLY missing in the diversity of opinions on this wiretapping issue: an understanding of the details of the wiretapping involved, and the relevant law. Please, someone do a poll measuring the depth of understanding of people on this issue. What percent of Americans knows that the wiretapping in question is (at least in intent) constrained to communications between foreign terrorism suspects and domestically-located Americans?

And what percent understands how this detail relates to the legality of such actions?

And when you get down to the people who understand those 2 things, what do THEY think, not just about whether these actions are legitimate, but about how best to allow them to go on for legitimate national security purposes, but in such a way as to continue to try to protect the privacy and civil rights of Americans.

My take is that if such wiretapping is to be allowed, the strong reason for its being alloweable is basically expedience...eschewing the eavesdropping due to a lack of warrant may mean losing forever an opportunity to collect important information, simply because of issues of timing. That doesn't make sense to me, because I value national security. But it seems to me that if such eavesdropping is allowed for reasons of expedience, it should be subject to timely review.

Because even if one understand the details of the actions and their relation to the relevant law, this doesn't preclude the need to discuss whether or not the current law is a good match for what Americans think the law should be. Because much of public discussion about politics is based upon individual ideals. It does seem to me that the current actions, if they are limited to the types of eavesdropping we've been told about, are within the rules as written. But it also seems possible or even likely that such rules may be insufficient to safeguard American civil liberty.

I always say there are 2 kinds of polls.

One kind ask people their opinion about something that has no right answer.

Do you favor progressive or regressive taxes?

For or against abortion? Capital punishment?

For or against protective tariffs?

For or against public campaign financing? Instant run-off voting?

Etc. Etc.

Others measure the public's knowledge when the correct answer can be had elsewhere.

Do you SS will available when you retire?

Were WMD's found in Iraq after Saddam fell?

Would eliminating food staps and welfare stop deficit spending?

What percentage of the budget is X,Y or Z?

Etc. Etc. Etc.

This NSA polling is hazy.

Some seem to ask basically: If X law is valid and Bush broke it, should he be impeached?

Well, by law, the answer SHOULD BE "Yes".

Others say:

Should the president be allowed to do X, even if the law does or may probihit it?

This is a matter of the public saying that reagrdless of the law, the president should or should not be allowed to do X. We can debate this one all day.