Thread: Bush Orders Domestic Spying.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

In this case, yes. I believe that the New York Times article did not do that much damage, if any. This is because Bush had already detailed these surveillance methods to a sufficient degree that bin Laden could easily have had the information before now. Metaphorically, the 'cat was out of the bag.'

Wrong. No basis in fact. If this had already been revealed, then why the big brouhaha?

Originally Posted by shek

First, it was satellite cmmunications that OBL was tipped off to through MSM reporting, and the intelligence community links it specifically to a Washington Times piece that was written a day prior to cruise missile attacks on his training camps using information provided by an administration official (yes, I'm aware that there was other MSM reporting; however, there has to be a reason that the intelligence community picks this specific report and not the others).

I'm going to find that source.

Second, OBL is not in operational control of AQ, and certainly not its affiliates, based on nearly all open source reporter. Therefore, addressing the problem through the lens of OBL is not a solid construct to examine this issue. You have to remember that there are all sorts of AQ operatives with varying levels of intelligence, experience (i.e. lessons learned). Just because one cell understands something about counter-surveillance techniques doesn't mean that other cells do too. You can't just send out a global email stating "don't do this or that." They operate in a cellular structure, meaning that disseminating information can be difficult. Posting to AQ sites can disseminate the information, but then you risk the chance of having Western intelligence agencies intercept this, allowing them to adapt their techniques. So, this is a much more complicated issue except for the simple fact that any new public domain reports will cause a severe reaction - in the NSA program's case, the NYT.

Lastly, the fact that the program has intercepted known AQ calls into the US indicates that AQ wasn't aware of this capability or didn't have the discipline to not conduct such communications. In other words, this program wouldn't exist if the foreign communications from AQ weren't made to the US.

Are there any trustworthy figures on how many Al Qaeda communications have been intercepted?

1. It is a strawman argument based on the examples he uses. He cites examples of the Patriot Act, a public domain law that has been debated in Congress for the past year or more as the sunset provisions approached. The NSA is (was) a secret executive order whose existence outside of the NSA, the top Congressmen, and some high ranking executive branch officials was unknown. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

It is not a strawman. The point is not that President Bush talked specifically about the NSA program. The point is that he listed comparable intelligence techniques. He did so in very public settings. The most important Al-Qaeda operatives, had they been listening, could have easily postulated about the danger of communicating through phone lines, e-mail, facsimile machine, etc.

Furthermore, if Al-Qaeda already knew its satellite and/or cellular telephones conversations were watched, as you referred to in the leading part of your post, don't you think it is logical that Al-Qaeda would have made the next logical step? That is, would not they view phone conversations with caution?

For these reasons, I think the danger that the New York Times story posed is overrated. When I heard the story, I wasn't surprised that the government was doing something like this. I imagine that a young Arab male, well acquainted to the stereotype about his kind, would be even less surprised. I think if the New York Times article was a revelation to al-Qaeda, then that group is very stupid.

Again, it is true that he was speaking about the Patriot Act. What is important is that Bush disclosed very similar techniques to those that are apparently carried out by the NSA. In fact, if one reads the documents, Bush states that tapping phones is part of the intelligence procedures. Wasn't the NSA largely concerned with phone recordings?

From the Greenwald blog, I followed the links to President Bush's statements.
I've compiled a list of the intelligence-gathering techniques President Bush detailed. These are all availible from the blog and White House official statements.

I - In Columbus, Ohio, 9 June 2005, Mr. Bush mentioned the following:
1. Phone surveillance for terrorists.
2. Wire tapping on terrorists.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050609-2.html

II - In Hershey Pennsylvania, 19 April 2005, Mr. Bush mentioned the following:
1. Fingerprinting of people at ariports, comparison of prints to terrorists.
2. Roving wire taps, especially on cell phones.
3. The use of delayed warrants for search and seizure.
4. Following money trails of terrorists.
5. Monitoring e-mails and internet activity of terrorists.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040419-4.html

III - In Baltimore, Maryland, 20 July 2005, Mr. Bush mentioned the following:
1. Container Safety Intiative, security and surveillance of ports.
2. Visual surveillance of suspicious terrorist activity.
3. Tracing credit cards.
4. Tracing phone records and conversations.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050720-4.html

So, President Bush really has layed it out for any terrorist to see. The things he talked about were very similar, if not identical, to the substanc of the NSA procedures as reported thus far.

Originally Posted by shek

Wrong. No basis in fact. If this had already been revealed, then why the big brouhaha?

The ruckus (I prefer Wu-Tang terminology) was brought on several accounts.

To my eyes, the Bush Administration was very annoyed at the New York Times because it is the political enemy of Bush, in some cases. Take a look at what I just posted. Bush has laid out many things that an educated terrorist could use to conclude, "talking on our phones is not safe anymore."

I agree with Mr. Greenwald that the Bush Administration labeled the New York Times a traitorous organization in order to discredit them politically. They did this because the New York Times exposed potentially illegal activities on the part of the Bush Administration.

For now, I want to exhaust the issue of whether or not the New York Times article was injurious to national security. In time, I will discuss whether or not I view the NSA actions as unconstitutional or not.

The public outcry was probably because most people don't read the newspaper or follow government news. Most seniors in my highschool have troubling naming the Secretary of State. So, when the New York Times broke the story, everyone was surprised at something they really should have expected.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

The ruckus (I prefer Wu-Tang terminology) was brought on several accounts.

To my eyes, the Bush Administration was very annoyed at the New York Times because it is the political enemy of Bush, in some cases. Take a look at what I just posted. Bush has laid out many things that an educated terrorist could use to conclude, "talking on our phones is not safe anymore."

I agree with Mr. Greenwald that the Bush Administration labeled the New York Times a traitorous organization in order to discredit them politically. They did this because the New York Times exposed potentially illegal activities on the part of the Bush Administration.

For now, I want to exhaust the issue of whether or not the New York Times article was injurious to national security. In time, I will discuss whether or not I view the NSA actions as unconstitutional or not.

The public outcry was probably because most people don't read the newspaper or follow government news. Most seniors in my highschool have troubling naming the Secretary of State. So, when the New York Times broke the story, everyone was surprised at something they really should have expected.

The Patriot Act USA is a tool for fighting terror within our domestic borders. The Congressional debate over its enactment as well as recent hearings are all part of the public record and can be accessed online. Democrats and Republicans alike have debated the Patriot Act. If you need me to point to you the tools to search this, let me know. This isn't a President Bush issue, but rather, a political issue. Furthermore, should President Bush not campaign for a renewal of an Act that provides tools that allow law enforcement to protect the homeland?

Now, how does the Patriot Act differ from the NSA program?

Patriot Act = domestic law enforcement
NSA = foreign intelligence gathering

Patriot Act = end state is criminal prosecution
NSA = immediate detection of potential terrorist act tips

Patriot Act/FISA = requires court warrant and probable cause (in the case of FISA, PC is whether or not the suspect is an agent of a foreign power), which requires evidence to demonstrate PC
NSA = is for foreign intelligence purposes, and so the intercept occurs immediately without any lag, especially to exploit newly acquired communication sources

In short, the Patriot Act allows "loopholes" from the AQ perspective that can be exploited. For example, even if you have a roving wiretap on a terrorist who communicates overseas from the US with other AQ members, you have to actually have the phone number to in order to intercept. If a terrorist switches phone numbers every day, the roving wiretap won't be able to keep up to monitor the communications.

On the other hand, the NSA program can catch these communications because it isn't restricted to a specific target, but instead monitors a category of targets, i.e. foreign communications that originate from AQ.

Thus, there is a huge substantive difference between the two that the blog you like so much misses 100%.

Lastly, I return to a point that I made earlier. If AQ had been tipped off by the remarks of the President or the Congress or anybody about the Patriot Act USA, then the NSA program wouldn't yield anything, and then there wouldn't be a need to continue it, would there? The fact it was was continuously renewed, even during and after all the selected quotes demonstrates that it was still a substantive program that was intercepting important terrorist communications.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I'm going to find that source.

Search earlier in the thread. I posted about it.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Are there any trustworthy figures on how many Al Qaeda communications have been intercepted?

It's classified information, although the categorization of the program is that it is very limited, most likely because at some point AQ realizes that when Abu Mohammed "The Beheader" hasn't answered his cell phone for a few days, it's time to stop calling that phone and to stop using the numbers that were used to call his cell. Thus, it is most likely a constant battle to get current AQ numbers.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

It is not a strawman. The point is not that President Bush talked specifically about the NSA program. The point is that he listed comparable intelligence techniques. He did so in very public settings. The most important Al-Qaeda operatives, had they been listening, could have easily postulated about the danger of communicating through phone lines, e-mail, facsimile machine, etc.

Furthermore, if Al-Qaeda already knew its satellite and/or cellular telephones conversations were watched, as you referred to in the leading part of your post, don't you think it is logical that Al-Qaeda would have made the next logical step? That is, would not they view phone conversations with caution?

It's a strawman because there are huge substantive differences between Patriot Act USA and the NSA program. It's comparing apples and oranges. See my prior post for some basic contrasts.

As far as AQ using sat phone and cell phones, there are ways to avoid intercepts (code words to prevent data mining, changing cell phones frequently, plus many more). You have to communicate somehow, and all forms of communication are subject to interception (e.g. the intercept Zawahiri letter to Zarqawi). You have to pick your poison and then find ways to make it less poisonous.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

For these reasons, I think the danger that the New York Times story posed is overrated. When I heard the story, I wasn't surprised that the government was doing something like this. I imagine that a young Arab male, well acquainted to the stereotype about his kind, would be even less surprised. I think if the New York Times article was a revelation to al-Qaeda, then that group is very stupid.

Remember, AQ had at least 20 operatives in the US who communicated overseas without any problems. The Patriot Act, while making it more difficult, provides ample space for operatives to communicate overseas effective. Because of the substantive difference in the NSA program, this advantage is now less effective because countermeasures can be adopted.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Again, it is true that he was speaking about the Patriot Act. What is important is that Bush disclosed very similar techniques to those that are apparently carried out by the NSA. In fact, if one reads the documents, Bush states that tapping phones is part of the intelligence procedures. Wasn't the NSA largely concerned with phone recordings?

Remember, apples and oranges. Patriot Act = specific persons based on a warrant for law enforcement purpose, NSA = known AQ communications originating from outside the US for intelligence and terrorist prevention. The trigger between the two is worlds apart.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

From the Greenwald blog, I followed the links to President Bush's statements.

Apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I've compiled a list of the intelligence-gathering techniques President Bush detailed. These are all availible from the blog and White House official statements.

***

So, President Bush really has layed it out for any terrorist to see. The things he talked about were very similar, if not identical, to the substanc of the NSA procedures as reported thus far.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

In this case, yes. I believe that the New York Times article did not do that much damage, if any. This is because Bush had already detailed these surveillance methods to a sufficient degree that bin Laden could easily have had the information before now. Metaphorically, the 'cat was out of the bag.'

If you haven't, read the blog.


Your example is different from the current situation. The Allies never told Hitler that they were going to invade Normandy, although people like Rommel may have suspected it. On the other hand, President Bush has talked at length about our surveillance programs, so its hardly any secret if the New York Times publishes it.

So such acts are okay if only one or two Good Guys get killed because of it, or only one or two Bad Guys get away with their plans because of it.

And the significance of the fact that the President specifically asked the NYT to specifically hold off from printing this specific story means nothing in regard to its particular potential for harm?

-dale

Shek,

I am aware of the substantive differences between the PATRIOT Act and the NSA.

My argument is very simple.

President Bush has revealed enough about intelligence gathering, in general, so that any educated terrorist could formulate accurate ideas about what not to do.

For example, President Bush revealed that we tap terrorists phone calls. Yes, it is true he made this in reference to the PATRIOT Act. However, any smart person (i.e. a terrorist) could make the following connections:

1. President Bush taps phone calls for domestic intelligence purposes.

Hmmm....

2. He probably does the same for international calls.

You know what?

3. Since the NSA is in charge of such international intelligence gathering, we should suspect that the NSA taps international phone calls.

The substantive differences of the two organizations don't seem that important if they are collecting intelligence in basically the same way. After all, how many different ways can you tap a phone? Do these methods change between the PATRIOT Act provisions and the NSA?

As to the successes of the NSA program: Well we can't really debate it yet if it is classified material. If I saw figures that, for example, 40 al-Qaeda plans had been interrupted because of the NSA, I might be inclined to look favorably upon the program.

However, I don't have any proof of its utility right now. As I write this, I'm researching this whole affair. So, expect that my opinions might change.

Originally Posted by dalem

So such acts are okay if only one or two Good Guys get killed because of it, or only one or two Bad Guys get away with their plans because of it.

Sure.

But that doesn't seem like a real reply to my post.

And the significance of the fact that the President specifically asked the NYT to specifically hold off from printing this specific story means nothing in regard to its particular potential for harm?

It could certainly have potential for political harm.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Sure.

But that doesn't seem like a real reply to my post.

On the contrary, I felt that your post was overly-minimizing the potential harm done by the leaker and the NYT, and I was trying to compare and contrast. I'm not saying that the NSA leak/story is going to cause the downfall of Western civilisation, but I'm also unwilling to grant that it was not, in some way, potentially helpful to the enemy.

I think it's important to take a step back and see things from your enemy's perspective once in a while - not every terrorist, not even every terrorist leader, is an educated professional. Some portion of them believe that the U.S. is so weak and squeamish and decadent that they (our enemies) become arrogant and overconfident.

That is good for us and bad for them.

Anything, anything, that educates them on how good and effective we really are at electronic intel is good for them and bad for us. To take it a step further, we all know that one of our biggest failings in the Middle East as shown over the last 20 years is actual humint - real live agents getting to know real live citizens in the regions we need information. What if our humint has increased a hundredfold since those days? Do you want to trumpet that fact out loud, or do you want to let the enemy sit back and comfortably discuss his deepest plans and portents with the same people he always has?

Think about it.

It could certainly have potential for political harm.

And again, more than political harm, as I outline above.

-dale

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Shek,

I am aware of the substantive differences between the PATRIOT Act and the NSA.

My argument is very simple.

President Bush has revealed enough about intelligence gathering, in general, so that any educated terrorist could formulate accurate ideas about what not to do.

For example, President Bush revealed that we tap terrorists phone calls. Yes, it is true he made this in reference to the PATRIOT Act. However, any smart person (i.e. a terrorist) could make the following connections:

1. President Bush taps phone calls for domestic intelligence purposes.

Hmmm....

2. He probably does the same for international calls.

You know what?

3. Since the NSA is in charge of such international intelligence gathering, we should suspect that the NSA taps international phone calls.

The substantive differences of the two organizations don't seem that important if they are collecting intelligence in basically the same way. After all, how many different ways can you tap a phone? Do these methods change between the PATRIOT Act provisions and the NSA?

As to the successes of the NSA program: Well we can't really debate it yet if it is classified material. If I saw figures that, for example, 40 al-Qaeda plans had been interrupted because of the NSA, I might be inclined to look favorably upon the program.

However, I don't have any proof of its utility right now. As I write this, I'm researching this whole affair. So, expect that my opinions might change.

Bulgar,

I have a few questions that I hope will better highlight my logic. If you can kindly answer them, I'd appreciate it - that way I can better focus my discussion.

1. Can you please explain how President Bush revealed more information about tools available under the unclassified Patriot Act USA 2001 than what is contained here?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162:

2. Can you recommend what President Bush should do to dispel the myths surrounding the unclassified Patriot Act USA so that sunset provisions are repassed?

I would agree that by highlighting the exact same information that was already available on the public domain, you do increase the chances of it becoming known to those who didn't already know about it; however, when placed in context, your choices are to not mention the Patriot Act (even though it will be debated in the public domain in late 2005 anyway as the sunset provisions are set to expire) and risk losing a vote to renew the sunets, thereby weaking your domestic counterterrorism efforts, or you can campaign for renewal of the sunsets.

3. Next, if all the political discussion surrounding the Patriot Act USA 2001 caused a 100% cessation in electronic communications between AQ members and the USA, then there wouldn't be a need for the NSA program, would there?

4. Since you speculate that President Bush didn't want the article published for political fallout reasons (notwithstanding the heavy classification of the program), wouldn't it follow that the program must have a great utility in fighting AQ to be worth risking the fallout by renewing the program more than 30 times? Afterall, it would be illogical to risk political capital over a worthless program, right?

5. If AQ doesn't use electronic means of communication (phone, email, internet), then how can they communicate? What are the strategic impacts of this? What are the operational impacts of this? What are the tactical impacts of this? Is it an advantage or disadvantage to abandon all forms of electronic communications? When do you risk electronic communications?

6. What are the ways to gain intelligence about an organization? What are the ways that an organization can conduct counter-intelligence (CI) operations? Where do you focus your resources for CI operations? What impacts do your CI efforts have on your own operations?

Some interesting analysis of some of the latest poll questions over the NSA program.

I do have two criticisms:

The math in the analysis doesn't fully hold up (e.g., they talk about 13% being non-voters in 2004, and then say that 19% of registered voters in 2004 didn't actually vote, and then they try to add the two up to get 32% didn't vote; the way the language reads, they should have taken 19% of 87%, which yields 17% of the overall sample was registered but didn't vote, or 30% didn't vote in 2004).

Also, while they did a lengthy discussion of the most likely voter demographics, voting in 2004 isn't an exact predictor of voting in 2008, so you can't fully depend upon 2004 demographics to bless a current poll. Furthermore, they never really came out and gave a numerical approximation of what they felt the bias would be based on the demographics. From looking at the poll vs. 2004 demographics, while I'd agree it isn't a perfect match, it didn't look like there would be a huge bias (e.g. there was a larger discrepancy in the religious affiliation demographics, but the issue here wasn't abortion, which is impacted heavily by religion, but rather, terrorism, which I doubt has an extremely strong correlation to religion).

So, I think the point of a demographic bias is correct, resulting in a potentially slight skewing of the results, but I don't see such a huge bias to completely invalidate the results.

In the end, I think the more important point is to illuminate how important wording of a question is, and how apparently similar questions can get completely different results.

http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/in...rder=1&thold=0

This was a private message of mine some time ago, but I think everyone can benefit from the legal arguments here.

Right now, I am looking at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I can't find much justification for NSA action.

Shek, much earlier in the thread [1] you linked a Glenn Greenwald blog [2] . I'm taking another look at it. I advise everyone to look at the blog's legal argument and actually look at the FISA, which is an extremely pertinent piece of U.S. law to this situation.

I'm also looking at Al Maviva's conservative blog [3] .

I can see why Greenwald is objecting to President Bush's actions. Apparently, Bush and conservative bloggers have justified the NSA spying by looking at the FISA Subchapter I 1802 (a): [4]

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Alright, so 1802 refers us back to section (a) subsections (1-3). The President may authorize electronic surveillance on those entities. Mr. Malviva mentioned this in his blog, but he omitted the subsection numbers!

Therefore, I looked back at 1801, section (a) subsections (1-3). They are as follows: [5]

(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;

(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;

(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;

---------------------------------------------------

Notice that terrorist groups are not mentioned. A foreign power is only defined as a terrorist organization in subsection (4):

(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;

------------------------------------------------------

However, this falls outside of the President's authority for warrantless electronic surveillance. Since the NSA actions are apparently against terrorists, they must have a warrant. However, they do not have warrants right now. Hence, they are illegal.

It seems the law is simple here.

Notes:
1.http://worldaffairsboard.com/showpos...0&postcount=27

2. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/...-to-defend.html

3. http://coldfury.com/index.php/?p=6116

4. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...02----000-.html

5. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...01----000-.html

The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/po...rtner=homepage
January 27, 2006
New Poll Finds Mixed Support for Wiretaps
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER

Americans are willing to tolerate eavesdropping without warrants to fight terrorism, but are concerned that the aggressive antiterrorism programs championed by the Bush administration are encroaching on civil liberties, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...oll_graph.html)

In a sign that public opinion about the trade-offs between national security and individual rights is nuanced and remains highly unresolved, responses to questions about the administration's eavesdropping program varied significantly depending on how the questions were worded, underlining the importance of the effort by the White House this week to define the issue on its terms.

The poll, conducted as President Bush defended his surveillance program in the face of criticism from Democrats and some Republicans that it is illegal, found that Americans were willing to give the administration some latitude for its surveillance program if they believed it was intended to protect them. Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they supported eavesdropping without warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."

The results suggest that Americans' view of the program depends in large part on whether they perceive it as a bulwark in the fight against terrorism, as Mr. Bush has sought to cast it, or as an unnecessary and unwarranted infringement on civil liberties, as critics have said.

In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported e-mail and telephone monitoring directed at "Americans that the government is suspicious of;" they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at "ordinary Americans."

Mr. Bush, at a White House press conference yesterday, twice used the phrase "terrorist surveillance program" to describe an operation in which the administration has eavesdropped on telephone calls and other communications like e-mail that it says could involve operatives of Al Qaeda overseas talking to Americans. Critics say the administration could conduct such surveillance while still getting prior court approval, as spelled out in a 1978 law intended to guard against governmental abuses.

The findings came in a poll conducted as Mr. Bush prepares to deliver his fifth State of the Union address on Tuesday. It found that Mr. Bush will face a nation that has grown sour on Washington and skeptical that he will be able to achieve significant progress in health care, the economy, the Iraq war and the cost of prescription drugs for older patients before he leaves office in three years.

The poll also signaled concern for Republicans as they prepare to defend their control of the House and the Senate in midterm elections this November. Investigations into Congressional corruption are taking a toll as the elections approach: 61 percent of Americans now hold an unfavorable view of Congress, the highest in 10 years.

This finding holds particular peril for Republicans as the party that has been in charge. More than half of the respondents said they believed that most members of Congress would exchange votes for money or favors.

Republicans were seen as more likely to be unduly influenced by lobbyists. And the Republican Party is now viewed unfavorably by 51 percent of the nation, its worst rating since Mr. Bush took office. By contrast, 53 percent said they held a favorable view of Democrats.

The telephone poll was conducted with 1,229 adults, starting Friday and ending Wednesday. Its margin of sampling error was plus or minus three percentage points.

The poll found that Americans were to a large extent perplexed as they weighed conflicting forces: the need presented by Mr. Bush to take extraordinary action to fight terrorism, and a historical aversion to an overly intrusive government.

The poll found that 53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism"; 46 percent disapproved. When the question was asked stripped of any mention of terrorism, 46 percent of those respondents approved, and 50 percent said they disapproved.

At the same time, 64 percent said they were very or somewhat concerned about losing civil liberties as a result of antiterrorism measures put in place by Mr. Bush since the attacks of Sept. 11. And respondents were more likely to be concerned that the government would enact strong antiterrorism laws that excessively restrict civil liberties than they were that the government would fail to enact antiterrorism laws.

The poll was conducted just as the White House commenced an elaborate campaign to defend the surveillance program, and thus may have been too early to offer a full measure of that campaign's effectiveness. There were no measurable changes in the poll findings from one day to the next.

The findings, and follow-up interviews with some participants, clearly suggest that Mr. Bush has an opportunity to make the dispute over the program play to his political advantage. He has been pointing to the threat of another terrorist attack to justify the eavesdropping program and is trying, for the third election in a row, to suggest that he and his party are more aggressive about protecting the nation than are Democrats.

"Say they're targeting someone in Al Qaeda outside the country, and that person then calls someone in the United States about a plot or something really bad: I don't have a problem with that phone being monitored," Debbie Viebranz, 51, a Republican from Ohio, said in a follow-up interview. "But I don't think they should do it for no reason."

Donnis Wells, 69, a Republican from Florence, Miss., said: "I don't think civil liberties are the more important thing we need to handle right now. I think we need to protect our people."

Still, interviews reflected clear apprehension about the program. "If there is a warrant and done by the courts, I would agree," said Robert Ray, 54, an independent from Kentucky. "But they're trying to do it without using the courts. I just don't trust them."

In the poll, 70 percent of respondents said they would not be willing to support governmental monitoring of the communications of "ordinary Americans"; 68 percent said they would be willing to support such monitoring of "Americans the government is suspicious of."

Beyond surveillance, the poll found that Americans hold unfavorable views of the president and the Republican-controlled Congress as Mr. Bush prepares to give his State of the Union speech. Americans, while declaring themselves generally optimistic about the next three years under Mr. Bush, do not expect him to accomplish very much in that time.

When Mr. Bush leaves office, respondents said, the deficit will be larger than it is today, the elderly will be being paying more for prescription drugs, and the economy and the health care system will be the same as today, or worse.

Mr. Bush is viewed favorably by 42 percent of the respondents, statistically the same as in the last Times/CBS News poll, in early December, a lackluster rating that could hamper his ability to rally public opinion behind his agenda and push legislation through a divided Congress. Beyond that, nearly two-thirds of the country thinks the nation is on the wrong track, a level that has historically proved to be a matter of concern for a party in power.

A majority said they were dissatisfied with the way Mr. Bush was managing the economy and the war in Iraq. Public approval for his handling of the campaign against terrorism, once one of his greatest political strengths, has rebounded somewhat from last fall, but remains well below where it was for the first two years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Most strikingly, the poll found abundant evidence of public unhappiness with Congress. While it is risky to draw conclusions about Congressional elections from national measurements of discontent — for example, more than half of all Americans said they were satisfied with the job their member of Congress was doing — the findings underscored the tough electoral environment that has led some analysts to predict significant Republican losses this fall.

The corruption investigations appear to account for a lot of the dissatisfaction. Nearly 80 percent of respondents said that the kind of influence-peddling revelations that have emerged in the investigation of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff reflected the "way things work in Congress" and were not isolated incidents. More than 50 percent said most members of Congress "accept bribes or gifts that affect their votes."

"It seems like the integrity of Congress members in the last few years has just gone to pot," said Donald Pertuis, 54, an independent voter from Hot Springs, Ark. Mr. Pertuis added: "In the last 20 years, greed has accelerated. People expect more, I suppose, and want to work less."

Marjorie Connelly, Marina Stefan and Megan Thee contributed reporting for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27mbox.html
January 27, 2006
How the Poll Was Conducted
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll is based on telephone interviews conducted Jan. 20 through Jan. 25 with 1,229 adults throughout the United States.

The sample of telephone exchanges called was randomly selected by a computer from a complete list of more than 42,000 active residential exchanges across the country. Within each exchange, random digits were added to form a complete telephone number, thus permitting access to listed and unlisted numbers alike.

Within each household, one adult was designated by a random procedure to be the respondent for the survey.

The results have been weighted to take account of household size and number of telephone lines into the residence and to adjust for variation in the sample relating to geographic region, sex, race, marital status, age and education.

In theory, in 19 cases out of 20, overall results based on such samples will differ by no more than three percentage points in either direction from what would have been obtained by seeking out all American adults. For smaller subgroups, the margin of sampling error is larger.

In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey of public opinion may introduce other sources of error into the poll. Variation in the wording and order of questions, for example, may lead to somewhat different results.

Dr. Michael R. Kagay of Princeton, N. J., assisted The Times in its polling analysis.