The first thing you notice about the question is the how far down in the question the mention of "court approval" is. Okay, maybe the not the first thing, but it is the substantively important issue behind the question, and is so relegated to obscurity and to mistatement, that it promotes bias in the reader for a more "acceptable" response. First and foremost the NSA is collecting non-specific electronic communications of every domestic to international (and by that we have learned that if a person or group or corporation operates outside the US in some way, even if they live and work in the US and are US citizens they are included as international for this purpose) connection then screening it for possible terrorist relations. I have to really appreciate the line "between some people" as if the Post has evidence that suggests the NSA filters are person specific in all cases. This is not true and is a fictitious and false premise placed into the question to promote their agenda. Where is the real question regarding FISA warrants and the various Constitutional protections of US citizens?Washington Post/ABC (Jan. 23-26) “As you may know, 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. 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?”
Acceptable 56%. Unacceptable 43%.
Properly asked this question would need to say the NSA is secretly screening every telecommunications and electronic communications connection that flows through the major switching networks in the US without bothering to abide by the 4th amendment. The NSA is not and has not been just "investigating people suspected of involvement in terrorism," but rather sifting through everyones communications to find possible links. It has been doing so since before 9/11 under instructions from the VP who insisted his boss authorize such unconstitutional intrusions to observe various US officials and citizens. Is this acceptable?? I don't think so. And ABC/WaPo's question begs to ignore reality and fact and hopes that it can influence and promote agendas that enable and empower it to remain in a profitable condition for a little while longer. I guess the US Constitution is a mere triviality when compared with generating and insuring profitability in the short term.
