You should. FISA was a rubber stamp and any request was granted. The whistleblower said exactly that. They were tapping every phone call and every email. He said his job was enabling BIg Brother.
Yes, I understand. However. I seriously doubt that anyone requested to tap 16 year old Laura’s cell phone. I assume that the list of those requested to tap would include a very long list of Americans who had absolutely no suspicion of ties to the Middle East or terrorism, but maybe were political or persoanl enemies of folks who could authorize the taps.
It would be their decision with no other input. That is dangerous because they would use it for political purposes and answer to no one.
[nitpick]Can we assume that the transcriber is a good enough listener to detect capitalization?
Don’t we really need to see Olberman’s notes/script to really know?[/nitpick]
CMC +fnord!
I really don’t understand you. Of course it would be their decision w/no other input. Of-fucking- course, they’d use it for political purposes and answer to no one.
However, **even the most nefarious, evil ** would not (generally) bother tapping every single phone in the country. There’s insufficient resources to listen in to every single phone in the country. They’d not bother w/ any number of general classifications - 6 year olds come to mind, for example. However, their list probably would include opposing party bosses, influential people, the cute chick in the next building, etc.
Actually listening is not a problem. But it would have to be like sex monitors. Key words would trigger them. Assassination. Democrat donation. Bush sucks. oil companies are evil…Those kind of things would cause the message to be extracted from the rest and then given more attention. It is about filtering. The total amount of info traveling about would smother anyone who did not have a way to winnow them down.
It would be easy to select your political opposition for singling out. All dem congressmen and senators. Plus all the Repubs. It would be valuable.
As I longtime viewer/website habitué, I think Olbermann/Countdown do(es) supply the written comment for that type of segment, though I have no way to confirm that. The written transcripts tend to be pretty accurate.
It depends on what you mean by “tapping”. There might not be a human being listening to every call, but there could be other forms of data mining going on.
For example, you could run all voice traffic through voice recognition software that looks for calls that contain particular keywords: “bomb”, “attack”, etc. The source and destination numbers for these calls are logged and over time you use that information to build of a database of “suspicious” phone numbers that get closer scrutiny by actual human beings.
I’m almost certain something like this was going on. There’s absolutely no way a program like this could be approved through FISA. Since you’re not tapping an individual there’s no one to issue a warrant for. Instead you’re analyzing the data flow of the entire network and looking for patterns that might emerge.
I think it’s not quite so cut and dried. Yes, you’re correct that they’d like to be able to tap anybody. (wouldn’t just about anyone in power?) Yes, you’re correct that the resources for transcribing and reviewing simply do not exist.
On the other hand, I think you’re not considering the data-mining aspect of the situation. See the kerfluffle about the Total Information Awareness program (oh, sorry, the Terrorist Information Awareness program), for instance.
Not sure how you’d come up w/datamining words that would screen in terrorists, and screen out kids talking about bombing on a test etc. But I see your point. I’m more concerned about the specifics of them selecting ‘personal’ enemy type folks though, which is what I think is happening.
We’ll certainly see in the next few months, leading up to November and, after, if indictments are pursued.
Ain’t no way we’ll find out prior to November, IMHO.
I meant it in an information found on “personal enemies” sense; dirty tricks before November, threats to thwart adminstration indictments after.
You look for patterns and cross-reference it with other data. So, for example, a single mention of a “bomb” wouldn’t merit human attention. But say the word is used a dozen times over the course of a month. And one of the callers has a brother than travelled to Pakistan three years ago. And the other caller’s first name is Saied. You dump all the data in a big expert system, let it crunch away, and then pull the top one hundred names off the top.
FWIW, I don’t think the Bush administration is spying on their political enemies. However I do think they are conducting surveillance in a way that is in violation of federal law and in a way that has a huge potential for abuse.
I wonder if the Big box stores will detect an uptick in duct tape sales tonight?
Those who listen and believe what the president says in his radio address, ought to be busily preparing for the midnight armageddon.
Why do you engage in this kind of “debate”? I’m pretty sure you know the issues, so why do you insist on playing these kinds of games instead of dealing with the actual issues?
Do you see what I mean yet? I suppose you can spend the entire thread nitpicking the rant and ignoring the actual issue. That’s your perogative. If you are satisfied with “well, it’s not technically an ex post facto law” or “stupid terrorists” is a bad argument, have at it.
I know you love the nitpicking, but get to the issue rather than this gameplaying.
If you want a real argument, how about: A great weight of the evidence shows that this President has authorized the illegal wiretapping of US citizens without a warrant.
Or this one: The President’s argument that the old FISA is too burdensome to meet the needs of national security is baseless.
Or this one: The President’s argument that he needs the changes in the FISA law to take permanent effect to save lives rings completely hollow when he insists he will veto the law if it doesn’t grant immunity to telecoms.
Or this one: The President’s desire for the immunity part is based solely on his desire to hide the facts of his lawbreaking rather than any actual concern for national security, because national security will not be effected in the least by the statute.
There were a virtual cornucopia of actual argument to deal with. But, rather than deal with those, you insist on nitpicking Olberman’s inflated rhetoric. Have fun with that.
nicely done.
News shows usually use a transcription service.
Thanks. Do you know if the transcript is vetted by the source before it’s published?
News shows usually use a script. Except for the occasional ad lib and, obviously, interviews, everything already has been written out.
While I have no knowledge of this, I would not be at all surprised if Olbermann has to have his Special Comment scripts vetted by an NBC lawyer before he’s allowed to read them on-air.