Saturday, January 28, 2006

Mitchell mischaracterized NSA surveillance program, polling

Mitchell mischaracterized NSA surveillance program, polling
Summary: NBC's Andrea Mitchell claimed that recent polls on President Bush's authorization of warrantless wiretapping showed "little public outcry over the program, especially when [the administration] tell[s] people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda." What Mitchell did not note is that the administration's characterization of the program understates its scope. Moreover, recent polling shows that support for the program is at best split.
During the January 25 edition of NBC's Nightly News, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell claimed that recent polls on President Bush's authorization of warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA) showed "little public outcry over the program, especially when [the administration] tell[s] people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda." What Mitchell did not note is that the administration's characterization of the program as limited to Al Qaeda communications significantly understates its reported scope. Moreover, recent polling shows that support for the program is at best split, even when respondents are asked whether they approve or disapprove of the program based on the administration's limited and disputed characterization. The most recent polls -- released before Mitchell's statement -- show that 51 percent of Americans do not approve of the program. In addition, a January 23 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Americans believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the wiretapping authorization, while 39 percent disagree.
Reporting on the Bush administration's effort, over the past week, to defend the NSA program, Mitchell said: "Democrats think their best argument is that the program is a power grab by the president and will ultimately prove to be unpopular. Despite the political furor, the White House is encouraged by recent polls, showing little public outcry over the program, especially when they tell people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda."
However, according to The New York Times' initial report and its subsequent reporting on the surveillance program, government sources tell quite a different story from the one suggested by the administration and advanced by Mitchell, namely that the program involves only the surveillance of "those who talk to Al Qaeda" and that only international calls are monitored.
Contrary to the administration's characterization of the program as monitoring only international calls, a December 21 Times article reported that the NSA program captured "purely domestic" calls. Further, a January 17 Times report quoted FBI officials saying that the NSA program produced a high volume of leads but the vast majority led to individuals within the United States who had no connection to terrorism.
Moreover, surveillance is reportedly far from limited to "those who talk to Al Qaeda." Far from the certainty implied by Mitchell's statement that only those who are actually "talk[ing] to Al Qaeda" are surveillance targets, President Bush and White House spokesman Scott McClellan have acknowledged that all the NSA requires is that it "reasonably suspect" someone of links to Al Qaeda to have that person's communications intercepted.
While no national polls have yet presented a description of the program broad enough to encompass what has been reported to be its scope -- none have asked respondents whether they support the surveillance of persons without proven links to Al Qaeda within the United States without first obtaining a warrant required by law -- public opinion has been split and is turning increasingly negative. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll presented the administration's limited characterization of the program as monitoring strictly international calls that involved individuals suspected of terrorism. Nevertheless, the poll found that 51 percent of respondents said that the Bush administration was wrong to "wiretap[ ] 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." The poll also found that 58 percent support appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. Because Mitchell's comments were made before the releases of the January 27 New York Times/CBS News and Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg polls, we have not cited them in the analysis of her comments, but they are consistent with our conclusions that polling shows Americans to be split on the question, with changes in approval percentages very much a function of the wording of questions.
From the January 25 edition of NBC's Nightly News, which featured Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:
MITCHELL: Democrats think their best argument is that the program is a power grab by the president and will ultimately prove to be unpopular. Despite the political furor, the White House is encouraged by recent polls, showing little public outcry over the program, especially when they tell people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda.
KOHUT [clip]: The public is concerned about civil liberties but what they tell us in the polls is they're more concerned about whether the government is doing enough to -- to protect it from another terrorist attack.
MITCHELL: And tonight the president pledged to reauthorize the eavesdropping for as long as terrorists remain a threat. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.
From the December 21 New York Times article:
A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.
The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact ''international.''
From the January 17 New York Times article:
More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

Contact information:
NBCNBC News
NBC News 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, N.Y. 10112
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

1 comment:

Woody said...

Ron, old buddy, I do not like blogs. I know they are very popular, but it is this popularity itself that I find so counterproductive and objectionable.

It used to be that there were dozens, maybe a couple hundred, political forums set up for the give and take of political rhetoric. Many had between 500 and 10,000 members and so what was written was generally widely read.

On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands of blogs, most of which are peopled by maybe five to a hundred members. This dilutes whatever message we wish to convey to the point at which we might as well stand on a solitary mountaintop and howl at the moon.

Blogs, because of their ubiquity and personal nature, keep our opinions from being widely heard, and that's a darn shame. It is why I don't advertise them and seldom use them, and post on the big Democratic groups instead.

However, at your request, I shall post my reply here, in addition to the other groups to which I distribute what passes in my besotted brain for "thoughts."

Woody,
Please go to:
http://ronnmills.blogspot.com/2006/01/mitchell-mischaracterized-nsa.html

and post this reply to our comments @ the end of the Article

Thanks for your input

Ron Mills
Woody Smith wrote:
At 08:45 AM 1/28/2006, Ron Mills wrote:


NBC's Andrea Mitchell claimed that recent polls on President Bush's authorization of warrantless wiretapping showed "little public outcry over the program, especially when [the administration] tell[s] people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda." What Mitchell did not note is that the administration's characterization of the program understates its scope. Moreover, recent polling shows that support for the program is at best split.

This, of course, is because only one side of this issue, Bush's side, is receiving prominent airplay on televised newscasts.

The CBS Evening News actually led off their newscast the other day with a glowing report of Bush's groundless defense of his wiretapping, and did not examine his statements with even the least degree of curiosity. ABC put the story in third place, but still transmitted Bush's claims as if they carried legal authority and without even the least pretense of a critical eye.

And of course, the 24-hour stations have been all Bush, all the time, with an occasional Democrat surrounded by Bush apologists to provide an illusion of "balance."

But what has raised my hackles a bit is their almost universal characterization of his ridiculous claim that this SPECIFICALLY ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL program is "legal," and Bush's obstinate refusal to provide any actual data about the targets of this eavesdropping or any examples of its success in thwarting terrorist activities, constitutes a "strong defense" or "hanging tough." I would think it more apt and accurate to characterize this attitude on the part of the Bush administration as "stonewalling" rather than using descriptions of this, well, childish excuse-making that carry implicit praise.

As long as Bush dominates the airwaves, his point will receive a wide hearing and it will be reflected in the polls. His supporters are not particularly distinguished by their capacity to think critically in the face of political demagoguery.

Other than stating that it is "legal" without providing any actual foundation or documentation for that claim, Bush's chief defense is that he is doing it for our protection. Spying on ME, for MY protection? No thanks!

One doesn't generally examine the motives behind an illegal act when deciding guilt or innocence, but instead only as a possible mitigating or aggravating factor in determining the appropriate sentence to impose on the criminal. A bank robber doesn't get off because he needed the money, but even such claims of motive require at least some evidentiary support beyond the self-serving claims of the perpetrator.

Of course, if Bush's true motive was to protect us from terrorism, he would have no difficulty obtaining a warrant, even after the fact. This self-serving claim is, therefore, false on its face. I believe that his administration's true motive is to eavesdrop on his political adversaries so as to counter opposition strategies and tactics during campaigns, because only this is explicable and consistent with his desire to keep the targets of his eavesdropping secret even from the FISA court.

Another argument in favor of my theory is that the Bush administration has a long and glorious history of doing whatever they are able to do to obtain political advantage. If they CAN do it, they WILL, and I believe they would consider it to be a foolishly squandered opportunity if they eschewed such a chance.

We aren't framing this issue correctly. Yes, it's illegal and it must remain illegal, but that's not the point right now (maybe later, though). The point right now is that Bush is eavesdropping on YOUR conversations, and yours and yours and yours. We must put an end to this or we have forfeited our very freedom of speech itself.

Woody Smith

http://www.bareknuckles.org/bkp - Bare-Knuckles Politics, the Freeper-Free Forum
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich."


VIDEO NEWS WIRE

Politico 44 President's Calendar

AlterNet.org: Video




Days Since Michael Steele Said He Won't Resign

23 Days, 23 Hours, 32 Minutes, 38 Seconds.

"The Playa" said he wouldn't resign as head of the RNC ("Not me Baby! Nuh-uh. Not happening. No way, no how.")

Followers

ShareThis

http://feeds.salon.com/salon/greenwald_podcast_rss

The Real News Network

  

Learn more about the Neighborhood Volunteer Program

John McCain

The 50 State Strategy

Buy a Democracy Bond

My site was nominated for Best Pop Culture Blog!

Politics on HuffingtonPost.com

MSNBC.com: Countdown With Olbermann

RawStory.com Headlines

The Nation: Top Stories

Evri Skyscraper Widget

YouTube :: Videos by politicstv

Contributors

Blog Archive