From an ABC News poll:

“Phone-Records Surveillance Is Broadly Acceptable to Public—

"Americans by nearly a 2-1 ratio call the surveillance of telephone records an acceptable way for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, expressing broad unconcern even if their own calling patterns are scrutinized.”

Does this mean we're doomed because we're surrounded by idiots? Maybe not, look at how they loaded the questions.   

(1) —“What do you think is more important right now - for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy; or for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats?”     

(2) —“It’s been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?”

The first question may as well read: “Would you shoot that dog if it kept Momma from being thrown out the window?” 

And the NSA “analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations?” Why not just print the whole White House press release?

Notice the questions never mention whether the intrusion on “personal privacy” is the legal kind, or the illegal kind.

There have always been legal ways to intrude on personal privacy in the investigation of wrongdoing. It's called a warrant.

If they are collecting records and then trolling through them, that is a search. That is what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court was created to oversee.

Not that the FISA court is a bastion of civil liberties.  The court's proceedings, although recorded, are secret.  From 1978 through 2004, 18,761 warrants were granted, while only five were rejected. It should give pause that such a friendly court wasn't friendly enough for the Bush administration, and they felt they had to go around it. 

I wonder how the ABC News poll would have turned out if they had asked this question:

“Is it always necessary for the government to trample Fourth Amendment constitutional rights in order to conduct effective terror investigations?”

Or how about: “When conducting terror investigations, should the government stay within the law”

Or: “Do you think the power to conduct warrantless intrusions on personal privacy could ever be abused by the government?”

Or my favorite: “If it turns out that the president clearly violated established law in his conduct of alleged terror investigations, should he be impeached?” Mark me down for “yes.”

Ralph Lopez is the author of "The Elephant in the Room," at Amazon.com