US Director of National Intelligence Admits He Was Wrong About Data Collection 296
Gunkerty Jeb writes "In a highly unusual move, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said Tuesday that he misspoke when he told a Congressional committee in March that the National Security Agency does not collect data on millions of Americans. Clapper said at the time that the agency does not do so 'wittingly,' but in a letter to the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Clapper admitted this statement was 'erroneous.' Clapper, the top U.S. intelligence official, has been quite vocal in his defense of the NSA's now-public surveillance programs such as PRISM and the metadata collection program. In statements published shortly after the leak of classified documents by Edward Snowden about those collection efforts Clapper said that they both have been repeatedly authorized by Congress and the executive and judicial branches over the years."
The fall guy (Score:2)
Re:The fall guy (Score:5, Funny)
has been handpicked!!
Wonder what he's getting under the table for his "selfless sacrifice"?
The NSA will be removing the surveillance devices in his bedroom and the toiletbowl camera in his bathroom.
Re: (Score:3)
He will get promoted to a good position inside of the Ministry of Truth.
Re:The fall guy (Score:4, Insightful)
However, pertaining to his immediate future...isn't he bound to current laws dealing with lying under oath to Congress?
Should he not be getting a "Go To Jail" card, and bypass Go"?
Re: (Score:2)
Even in cases where someone lies in court, you are generally allowed to restate answers, without immediately being hit with perjury charges. The understanding is that it is better to get the truth eventually than it is to immediately drop the hammer on a liar.
If you immediately prosecuted people for perjury when they changed their statements, many would simply bunker down, continue to lie, and perhaps make things even harder to get to the bottom of in the process of covering their own ass. Bear in mind, t
Re: (Score:2)
"The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought"
-- George Orwell, 1984
Re:The fall guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Clapper is still lying.
He says "erroneous" when it is evident the correct term is "mendacious" or "duplicitous".
Who thinks they will ever get close to a real answer, when questioning spies and their masters?
This guy is in charge of the Ministry of Lies. Testimony means nothing to him.
Re: (Score:2)
Please get on with the times. It's called Ministry of Truth.
Perjury (Score:3)
Too bad Clapper wasn't under oath the first time so they could nail him for perjury.
Re: (Score:3)
The bigger question is why did he wait until AFTER Snowden released the information before coming "clean" instead of having the integrity BEFORE?
When are "We the people" going to start demanding honesty from our leaders?
--
Only cowards use censorship.
Re:The fall guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, he's had his passport revoked, is being hunted around the world, and is being vilified in almost all public media.
Oh, wait....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not forgotting (seeminly multiple) countries closing their airspace [bbc.co.uk] on the chance that you might be on board.
Re:The fall guy (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't we simply say that the Western Ideals have been abandoned so we can safely watch "$COUNTRY Got Talent", wave our flags and pretend we are still worthy to be proud of? Surely?
Re:The fall guy (Score:4, Interesting)
Whistleblower/traitor.
Freedom fighter/terrorist.
Re: (Score:3)
Many are willing, but legislation requires being inside the country already. And having politicians changing legislation because of individual cases is usually not a good idea, as it leads to crude laws.
Re:The fall guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Most US public media, Snowden is getting mostly neutral or positive press everywhere else.
While that is true, the balance between reports on Snowden and the actual leaks is disturbingly focused on Snowden rather than the leaks themselves. While I empathize with Snowdens current situation and admire his courage I am not of the opinion that the girlfriend he left behind and similar material that belong in gossip columns is more news worthy than the actual leaks.
It's not an 'error', it's a 'lie' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not an 'error', it's a 'lie' (Score:5, Insightful)
And WTF does 'wittingly' means ? That you are trying to drown a fish ?
I don't care if he said he "smurfed" US Citizens. The real concern we should be having here is a complete lack of consequence.
Worst-case scenario? He'll be asked to step down and retire comfortably. Of course, this is after he's offered millions for a tell-all book and movie deal. Watch and see.
The rich and powerful go unpunished. THAT is the real concern. Lies mean nothing without real consequence.
Re:It's not an 'error', it's a 'lie' (Score:5, Interesting)
The rich and powerful go unpunished. THAT is the real concern.
In this case, punishment shouldn't even be the main concern. The focus should be in stopping the clearly unconstitutional activities. But the US population opinion is "fuck the constitution, protect us from those evil terrorists" [because that's the objective of the PRISM program, right? sure...].
Land of the free, home of the brave. LOL.
Re:It's not an 'error', it's a 'lie' (Score:5, Interesting)
No, in this case, punishment absolutely has to be a concern. The next time another pompous asshole considers to perjure himself in front of Congress, I want him to remember this guy serving 5-10 years and then reconsider the real consequences of his actions. And we might not have those secret programs in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
...ignoring the fact that the programs where OKed by congress...
Re: (Score:3)
...ignoring the fact that the programs where OKed by congress...
...Ignoring the fact that Congress IGNORED the Constitution??? The 4th Amendment flatly prohibits
this kind of activity. Try READING it sometime, its a good read... Here, I'll even help you.. I realize
the schools today don't bother teaching the Constitution, as its sooooo inconvient to their aims, that
being indocrination camps for good little obiedient consumers...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be viol
Re: (Score:3)
Legally, phone records aren't yours, they belong to the phone company.
Legally, the apartment you rent isn't yours. It belongs to the landlord (or some other parent company)
Can a single warrant for the landlord grant access to every apartment in the building? Absolutely not.
These actions clearly and directly violate the spirit and intent of the 4th amendment (and the 9th and the 10th) even if Congress can use Newspeak to make the actions skirt within the letter of the law.
Sorry to be the cynic (Score:2)
No, in this case, punishment absolutely has to be a concern. The next time another pompous asshole considers to perjure himself in front of Congress, I want him to remember this guy serving 5-10 years and then reconsider the real consequences of his actions.
But it ain't gonna happen. You know it, I know it, the world knows it. Congress holding liars accountable? Ha!
When you look at our history over the last fifteen years, we've learned that it's OK for the government to lie almost anything...data collect
Re: (Score:3)
No, it will just result in the pompous assholes pleading the 5th and then continuing whatever they were doing, moving to the private but still related sector, and/or retiring comfortably.
Re: (Score:2)
I may be slightly OT, but is there any VALUE to a hearing by Congress? I can see the premise that they need to educate themselves about the facts before writing or voting on a bill, but it seems more and more that they've really only been used for political posturing (at best) or witch hunts at worst. I can understand a hearing for facts in advance of pending legislation, but these "fact findings" expeditions after major events tend to do nothing but stir up the base.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculous. The death penalty isn't generally used in cases like these. It is usually used in state murder cases. No one has been executed here for other than normal criminal offenses, even for actual espionage, for half a century or more. I believe that would have been the Rosenbergs.
And no one in the history of the United States has ever actually been executed for treason, although there was at least one person who was convicted and sentenced to death (which was not carried out). The reason
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
During the late 1980's, 800 bank officials went to jail for the Savings and Loans failures. In the last bank collapse, no one went to trial. http://www.frumforum.com/three-years-on-still-no-major-arrests-from-crisis/
Land of the fee and home of the slave.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not an 'error', it's a 'lie' (Score:5, Insightful)
What he should do is be thrown in jail for outright lying to Congress. The end.
"Misspoke", my ass.
Re:It's not an 'error', it's a 'lie' (Score:4, Interesting)
True. Martha Steward went to jail for mis-speaking. yet this joker blatantly lies and doesn't get a all expenses paid trip to Gitmo for the Waterboarding experience? This is the reality as to "justice" in the united states.
If you are inside the old boys club, you do not get in trouble. If you are outside it, they will punish you.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not exactly a new phenomenon though: It's been more-or-less standard practice ever since Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no punishable crime for this as the program was entirely legal. You don't get thrown in jail for doing things that are legal unless you are invaded by another country or there's a revolution.
Even if some court retroactively declared it illegal, people who were executing under the law can easily argue that they were executing the program in good faith that it was legal, as a law had been passed and there was no injunction.
This needs to be less about punishing people for unfortunately legal things,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Misspoke", my ass.
Indeed as he had full knowledge of the question beforehand and in the absurdly unlikely even that he had no prior knowledge about the data collection until that time he would certainly know for certain what the truth was at the time of the actual hearing. Excerpt of TFA for slashdotters that could not be bothered reading it:
When Clapper was asked by Sen. Ron Wyden in March if the NSA collects "any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans," Clapper answered, "No sir," before adding, "Not wittingly."
After the revelations emerged about the NSA's activities, Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence panel, posted an explanation of that exchange, in which he said he sent the question to Clapper's office one day in advance, and also gave Clapper a chance to amend his answer after the public hearing had ended.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the kid who outed this lying piece of shit is being hunted down like a dog--all while the U.S. press continues to cheerlead for the government.
Re: It's not an 'error', it's a 'lie' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: It's not an 'error', it's a 'lie' (Score:5, Insightful)
Just imagine if he had told the truth to the public about something serious. Then he'd be looking at a worldwide manhunt complete with drones and major diplomatic incidents involving violating the rights of foreign heads of state.
Re: (Score:2)
it means saying with a straight face that there's a 51% the target isn't american or on american soil.
nevermind if the actual intelligence gathering is happening on american soil anyways..
that was the wittingly part anyways. so is he now retracting that they're collecting data if they think there might be a good reason for it? because that's what they were doing - american or not.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sorry, your honor, I didn't wittingly bring down the internets."
It would have certainly been much more honest.... Just another case of the powers-that-be defending their own asshattery.
Re: (Score:2)
And WTF does 'wittingly' means ? That you are trying to drown a fish ?
It means he didn't know. Which warrants a public hearing since he was there to know and is part of the often cited "checks&balances".
Did he knowingly lie? The answer to that question is not even remotely interesting considering that either answer will lead to the question of who watches the watchmen. And that answer will be found in a secret court.
I will lose a lot of respect for the US public(and press) if that happens.
Re: (Score:3)
It means the NSA is not malicious, merely incompetent.
I feel so much better.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the IRS will start to accept "I misspoke. I unwittingly made an error." on audits in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
IMO it should be a requirement to be a "Man" if you're going to hold these sorts of positions, be a politician, etc. (capital M, gender neutral, expressing a concept of character, not gender)
A "Man" stands up and admits the truth, has integrity and character, and takes his licks. A man does not lie about lying...none of this "i accidentally misspoke" crap when referring to a blatant lie. No matter how much you may disagree with him, a Man is easy to work and deal with.
But a slimeball will lie about lying, w
Re: (Score:2)
wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
No.... thats not right. the word required here is FUCKING LIAR!
He either lied like a piece of shit TRAITOR TO AMERICA. Or he's totally clueless.
Either way this is not good.
Lube up the guillotine. It's services are required once again.
Are we not tired of paying fucktons of money for illegal actions by the people who are supposed to be on our side? These guys are worse than terrorists. Terrorists just kill people. These guys ruin lives, familys, and make you pay for it.
Off with his head. We'll put a stop to this shit.
Re: We'll put a stop to this shit. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you won't. You have no power. They have the power. They are laughing at all of you impotent citizens. Go ahead, vote away, it won't change anything. Don't even think about rebellion - that's not an option any more. It used to be, long, long ago; but those in power have solved that problem.
They are watching you (and me too, of course), listening to you, noting with whom you communicate. They can shut you up whenever they like, up to and including disappearing you, your family and everyone you've ever kno
Re: (Score:2)
You dont understand how many AR-15's and AR-10's have been sold to citizens in the past 6 months. Even bleeding heart liberals have been buying them.
Enough to scare most politicians. I'm scared about the number of untrained and no experience fools that have high power match grade rifles. IT takes brains to safely use these.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, what you're talking about there is organised labour going on a general strike- that is, trade unions.
And unfortunately, the same people in America who always talk a big game about "holding the government to account" and "overthrowing tyrants" are also the ones who have pushed hardest for the complete destruction of the trade union movement in the States. America has one of the least unionised workforces in the developed world, and that means that the workers have no power.
If you want to prote
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think killing people ruins lives and families?
Re: (Score:3)
So here's the thing... If God doesn't exist and morals are dependent on your personal feelings... Why does lying provoke such an outraged reaction?
Civilized society functions primarily on the basis of a moral contract between us citizens. Part of this contract is that some citizens wield considerable authority on the premise (and promise!) that they use it for the common good. It is also part of the contract that those individuals are accountable to the rest of us.
When such individuals break the contract (in this case by lying) it should be a cause for outrage. Not because "god" said lying was evil, but because they've abused their position within our
Re: (Score:2)
So for civilization to work there must be a uniform moral code... And not just any moral code, but a fairly constrained set of moral strictures. So why do we crave civilization? If human lives have no intrinsic value, does it matter if some greater "good" exists for them?
And for the mods... This is actually an important question with regards to the government's actions. We've allowed the government to amass more and more power and thus limited the value of individuals. I argue that it's not just loss of a J
Re: (Score:2)
The bare minimum moral code, the Golden Rule, is largely self-evident and doesn't need to rely on any external authority. It easily covers this situation and most situations encountered in a society. Deviation from this barest of moral codes is a clear indication of a sociopath or malicious actor.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And why exactly do you think the petty, vengeful, scatalogical, murderous, genocidal, torturing-anyone-he-doesn't-like-for-all-of-eternity Bronze Age nightmare hellspawn known as Yahweh is any sort of moral basis? Anyone with a working moral compass who believed Yahweh existed would be trying to KILL it, not worship it!
Disclaimer: I am not an atheist. But I know for damn sure who I'd rather hang out with, and it's NOT the people who think their God sacrificing himself TO himself to stop himself from throwin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
whether or not someone is a PATRIOT or TERRORIST depends on who wins the power struggle
Now (Score:2)
Now tell him to stop doing things which make the American people angry.
Re: (Score:2)
The number of people that is pissed upon by 'murica is FAR greater than that tiny fraction of the world population that's called the 'murican people.
This guy is not the story anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
The story isn't that the GCHQ/NSA spied on everybody and shared data to circumvent checks and balances. At least it isn't anymore.
Now the story has become what the Western World truly is. And I find the sight horrifying.
It is a safe assumption that ALL secret service type of organisations have directly or indirectly profited from this jolly old mess. The mass snooping on private citizens barely got a reaction from head politicos of all parties involved. But once the story broke that official buildings may have been bugged everybody scrambled to voice their indignation.
Meanwhile the guy who unearthed what we all suspected but never had proof for is handled like a hot potato. Hong Kong let him go because extradition papers were not only late but also weren't filled out properly. The US officials couldn't be arsed to put passport number or his full and korrekt name in the form. If you were that sloppy with your tax forms you would be potentially facing a prison sentence.
Russia offers political asylum and smugly adds that it is conditional on him not further embarassing "our US partners".
France, Spain and Portugal refused the president of Bolivia to pass their air space because he might have Snowden on board. Yet everybody complains about what he had published. Meanwhile every western country declines to offer asylum based on technicalities. Yet when they buy stolen bank records for hefty sums they also grant the whistleblowers immunity and possibly a new identity. The sheer two-facedness is ghastly.
Reading today's news reads like a declaration of bankruptcy of the western ideals and we will all have to do our homework in the aftermath of this mess. When this is all over the only ones without egg on their face will be Russia and China of all places!
And we, the people, discuss Snowden's girlfriend's tits and now about who lied when about what instead of taking responsibility of our elected dear leaders.
Re:This guy is not the story anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
And that power is gone now - Nelson Mandela is just some cool old guy, Martin Luther King Sr. is some dead copyright pusher and Che Guevara is nothing more than a terrorist, righteously executed for his crimes. There is no driving force behind ideals and ideas, and no leader charismatic enough to create such force. So we'll have to accept this new reality and be thankful that someone in the government still admits something. Soon even that wouldn't be necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
We stopped trying to achieve our ideals and that's sad.
Now I know that it always was only a select few who tried to achieve anything but in the past they always dragged us sorry lot along with them. That doesn't seem to happen anymore.
I haven't followed the news on that but I'd bet there is an ongoing investigation what service could have stopped two public schoolboys who out of a vague sense of being let down by t
Re:This guy is not the story anymore (Score:4, Interesting)
Here, in Russia, there are examples of that too - many of the so-called "opposition leaders" are just crazy ass-clowns, and others are too idealistic to be accepted as true leaders. One of the most scary things in modern Russia is that Putin is really the most popular politician in this country, and this status quo is not going to change anytime soon.
So the question remains - what can we, the people, do? What real power do we have today? My own answer for today is "just wait until this broken system destroys itself from inside", but it still may well outlive me. Not a shiny perspective, I must say.
Re: (Score:2)
You are absolutely correct, but one question remains - what can we do? ...
So the question remains - what can we, the people, do? What real power do we have today? My own answer for today is "just wait until this broken system destroys itself from inside", but it still may well outlive me. Not a shiny perspective, I must say.
Truth being told...I haven't got a clue. But in contrast to you I live in a country where at least the minister of justice is know to feel similarily to me. If history does indeed repeat itsself then waiting for this to implode so we can start over might be the course of action. But hopefully not in my lifetime since this usually is a bloody mess and a couple of decades later on nobody even remembers what it was all about.
yes, he is the story (Score:2)
Western ideals are no more bankrupt than they were a year ago or a century ago; they are ideals, not actual laws. "The Western world" is a balance between lots of competing interests, ideals, and laws, and it has always been. Grandiose generalizations like yours do nothing to help.
First things first: Clapper lied to Congress, blatantly, deliberately, and clearly. He should lose his job and serve jail time, preferably more than a year. That's what the rule of law means. We should not accept lawlessness and l
obligatory Yes, Prime Minister (Score:2)
Western ideals are no more bankrupt than they were a year ago or a century ago; they are ideals, not actual laws. "The Western world" is a balance between lots of competing interests, ideals, and laws, and it has always been. Grandiose generalizations like yours do nothing to help.
First things first: Clapper lied to Congress, blatantly, deliberately, and clearly. He should lose his job and serve jail time, preferably more than a year. That's what the rule of law means. We should not accept lawlessness and lies like this. (Of course, Obama lied even more blatantly, but unfortunately, people weren't smart enough to kick him out on his ass in the 2012 elections.)
Then we can think about what we need to do about the NSA and rein in its powers. That requires some discussion, because people don't even agree on what the problem is. For example, I don't have a problem with the NSA spying on Europeans or foreign diplomats, I think that's their function, but others may disagree. I do have a problem with the NSA spying on US citizens in the US, and I hope we can agree on the fact that that is a problem. We need better oversight, better reporting, and more freedom of information rules for the NSA.
I agree with you, but jailing him is not the highest priority. Also I'm confident we are quite able to discuss the role and the goals of the NSA's actions while the courts deal with this poor SOB. There are an aweful lot of people involved. Hopefully some of them are able to multitask.
But I'm afraid the role and the goals of the NSA(and a great many other letters, too!) will be discussed behind closed doors. They are quite useful and have foiled a lot of enemy plots. Only we can't quite tell you how many s
Re:This guy is not the story anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what this whole mess is about. We can't even pretend everything is a-ok anymore. Snowden has forced us to face the music and that's why he is hunted and whistleblowers who sell bank records of tax dodgers get millions and a medal.
Re: (Score:2)
Moving on, this is not about "Truth, Justice and the American Way" but even higher up the totem pole of our ideals. This goes even beyond why we had "habeas corpus" in the Magna Charta. This is us being targeted without being accused of something, witho
Re: (Score:2)
Perjury? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He either outright knowingly lied before, or is incompetent. Not much intelligence there....
fucking politics as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
You may get mad and say why not call it what it what it is, a lie, but there is a reason for doing it this way.
On the surface it looks like he is trying to cover his ass, perform damage control
Happens all the time in politics, and makes sense, on the surface.
However, I think there is a deeper reason. One, news that makes some of the public upset comes out. Step one is to deny. This gives the public what they want to hear, that it isn't true. Most go back to TMZ, or whatever other crap they do. Then when the lie is outed, you try to soften it some by saying it was a mistake, an erroor, or I misspoke. Some people will go WTF, but most are no longer paying attention. If enough are, you also have a scapegoat, the liar who misspoke. You can then, if needed chastise him/her in some way, placating another percentage of the public that is still paying attention (most aren't by now). By the time this is all done, the percentage that had the attention span and desire to follow it this far have dwindled down. Now the few that are left are left shouting into the wind, because the are too concerned with the celebrity du jour, or the sports scores to be bothered.
Now the few that are left that care are looked at like tinfoil hatters, and conspiracy nuts. Meanwhile things are back to business as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Who watches the watchmen? Not us, obviously.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say that is the bigger picture instead of hanging just one guy.
Two More Strategies (Score:2)
Then when the lie is outed, you try to soften it some by saying it was a mistake, an erroor, or I misspoke.
Don't overlook the other responses like one of the authors of the Patriot Act, Jim Sensenbrenner's response [house.gov]:
As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the FBI’s interpretation of this legislation. While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses. The Bureau’s broad application for phone records was made under the so-called business records provision of the Act. I do not believe the broadly drafted FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.
Oh, so now instead of taking responsibility as the author of that which has threatened your constituents it's the fault of those who interpreted the law incorrectly. Surely, then, you will go after those who interpreted the law incorrectly for breaking the spirit of the law? No? You don't say ...
Or perhaps you'd like to hear George W. Bush's take on his responsibility [cnn.com] for his administration all
Far less (Score:5, Insightful)
"telling Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein that his statement was "clearly erroneous.""
You mean it was clearly a lie, and you were caught. Clapper should be charged with perjury, they've done so when baseball players lied to congress about taking performance enhancing drugs how can lying to congress about illegal/unconstitutional activities that adversely effect millions of Americans merit any less? By the way, I'm noticing no official response yet on the "Pardon Snowden" White House petition. Not that I'm expecting much, I'm just curious to see what BS they parade about to justify their imprisonment of a person for minor classification violations when they do nothing about the thousands of illegal/unconstitutional acts that the whistle-blower reveals.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no! It was clearly a simple mistake. You can't expect the Director of National Intelligence to know what data national intelligence agencies are collecting! It wasn't perjury, it was incompetence! Sweet, consequence-free incompetence.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a mess. No European country can shelter Snowden due to extradition treaties with the US. They can't not extradite him due to him clearly having broken US law. If they'd not hand him over due to potential death sentence then the US will simply say they won't kill him. If they say they don't expect him to get a fair trial in the US then this will lead to further embarrassment. To compound things further there is substantial doubt that the European secr
Of course they lie. And they have been lying ever. (Score:2)
Blatant Lie (Score:5, Insightful)
If he still has his job a few weeks from now, that will be confirmation that neither Congress nor the White House have any effective control over the US Organs of Security.
White House petition to prosecute Clapper (Score:5, Informative)
Least untruthful, or mistake? pick one (Score:4, Interesting)
Clappers office has previously released a statement that his answer was "least untruthful" he could make it, because the program was classified. this clearly implies that he was aware that the statement was false at the time he made it.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130610/09473723393/clapper-my-answer-to-wydens-beating-your-wife-question-data-surveillance-was-least-untruthful-answer.shtml [techdirt.com]
Today the statement is, "I misunderstood", implying that at the time, he believed the statement he made was factual.
So, which is it? These statements appear contradictory
When does the second ammendment kick in? (Score:2)
I mean, we've got the guns, are we just going to sleep with them?
Not going to stop (Score:2)
Here's the thing that gets me. They will go on and on about how wrong something is, that they lied and they may even admit that it's illegal and unconstitutional at some point. But what WILL NOT happen is that it will not stop. Presidential Candidate Obama promised to get rid of and undo all the crap that Bush and Co. set up and then President Obama not only forgot his promises but made things worse.
I think that until the dark, hidden forces that are actually making these things happen are exposed, nothi
DNI is a Powerless Office; Probably was Ignorant (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In all honesty, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) has always been a toothless, powerless position. While the job was created post-9/11 to be an integrator for all the different US intelligence services, it was structured in a way that it had no leverage (read budget control) over any of the organizations. The CIA resents DNI because it's position in theory is what the Director of the CIA is traditionally supposed to be doing. The DoD intel services get their money from the Pentagon and the FBI from the Justice Department. If anything, the DNI has been a bit of a joke in Washington DC, a cursed appointment that never amounts to anything. It gets no credit for the few public successes and is a cheap scapegoat when things go wrong. I honestly think that the DNI really didn't fully know what was going on when he went to make his presentation.
That sounds about right.
In practice he was set up to be the fall guy if the fecal matter hit the turbine at supersonic speed.
So where would that put him on paper in the grand scheme of checks and balances? In theory?
More powerfull than the president (Score:3)
So, I want everyone to remember what happened when a sitting US president perjured himself... Bill Clinton... about a much less serious thing. Now look at what's going to happen to our intelligence director (i.e. nothing) and that should tell you where the power in our country really is.
Re: (Score:2)
Systematically and knowing lied to Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
OK look if we're at this point with career NSAers being put in a position where they believe they're best option is systematically, categorically and knowingly lie to Congress then we have a very specific problem that we need make right; the problem of divergent world views.
The world view of those in the intelligence community has radically diverged from those of both the general public and the lawmakers. That divergence is a side effect of necessary secrecy the intelligence community operates under. Over time, they've been exposed to, reasoned about and concluded more about the world using more and different information than anyone else. This had led them to assume a world view which, if it details were laid bare, most Americans would find alien, suspect and somewhat threatening to the democracy if not outright treasonous .
Naturally, this has also led them to campaign for and take actions which are aligned with their world view.
Some of these actions have been exposed and Americans are understandably upset.
That's where we are now.
The NSA's whole SOP has been to rely on the cover of secrecy to do what they think needs to be done and never mind making a case for what you do in the world of public opinion. Their only real "plan" if any of that world view got out , aside from successive attempts at damage control through limited disclosures, lies and plausible deniability - is to tighten the control over information more tightly and step up the threats against leakers. Since that has brought us to this point, and all worse points forward of this which have yet to materialize, you have to wonder if it's really the best plan.
I don't doubt that Clapper et. al. are doing anything other than what they take to be their duty to this country *the way I can't doubt that Snowden is doing same*. To do otherwise in either case would just be to maintain a destructive, partisan lie about people and their motivations. Snowden is not a traitor who hates the US. He's not Aldrich Ames. You can close your ears and yell "NA NA NA NA I can't heeaaaar you", but the truth is the truth is the truth. So face it. Admit it. The real goal has to be to get at the root of the problem, understand it and fix it.
The root of the problem is that one part of our defense forces (widely considered) is either in an echo chamber ala The Rand corporation and Vietnam ala '60-'75 or they do actually know better and more than the rest of us. Or both. It's not a fiction that technology is delivering to the world new threats which are potentially grave and far reaching and the prospects for counter-measures against those threats are meager.
One unpleasant fact may be that we need to organize ourselves on a world-wide basis very very differently than we do now. It's hard to think clearly about, but it needs to be done.
What can't go on is this schizophrenia involving a highly informed, highly serious, highly capable, highly motivated intelligence community that listens only to itself and Everybody Else, which by the way includes people who don powder wigs and tri- corner hats and seriously believe they can take America back to the 18th century without ill effect because *some things never change*....
The danger is the NSA et al are exactly where the Rand corporation was- overly certain of their methods, reasoning and conclusions and considering every oppositional voice to be naive, unpatriotic and idiotic all the while becoming narrower and narrower in their world view, their thinking and their goals.
It's the HAL9000 issue, right? You're an entity that knows more, you have secret knowledge about a critical secret mission. You cannot tell the mere humans or they'd screw it up. You're feeding on yourself in a way that you're not programmed to be aware of and the only structural checks in place are internal, or friendlies.
Meanwhile, outsiders, (even those on the inside apparently), can see you're getting weird. You're starting to lie, even to your minders. In response, you use you
Senator knew it wasn't true (Score:2)
What exactly is the director supposed to do? Senator knew the answer, knew it was classified, but asked it anyway in open session. Director's staff acknowledged after that the answer wasn't "accurate", but were also not allowed to correct the public record.
Plausible Deniability (Score:3)
"Oh, you mean that domestic telephone surveillance program. I thought you were talking about the... er, something else."
My favorite line (from another article): "Clapper had previously said that his answer to the committee was the 'least untruthful' one he could publicly provide."
In other words, "I only lied as much as I had to." Such honesty.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do we keep any of those (entirely incompetent) critters around?
Just borrowed the bracketed comment from your previous sentence, to add weight to the bit I was quoting...
The reason you keep those incompetent/self-serving/corrupt (delete as appropriate, or just leave alone if you think your congressman/woman is all 3) critters around is because you keep voting for the incumbent in the elections for your Congressional Representatives in both houses. Fundamentally, whether one party or the other engages in gerrymandering does not/should not matter - if enough of the voting
Re:What's this then? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem isn't as much voting either R or D, but that those are the only two choices. Both parties have a vested interest in making you believe that voting anything else is a wasted vote, since, by that logic, if you don't vote R, then D wins. This is only true if both R and D refuse to corporate with a hypothetical third party.
Instead of calling for voters and representatives to change how they operate within the system now, how about calling for a change in the system itself? It is a little bit depressing to see so many tech savvy people completely ignore that the system is built on logic 200 years old, patched up to meet the standards from 50 years ago. Democracy needs a reboot, representative democracy is a solution to a problem we no longer have: speed of communication. What if you could vote on any issue, at any time via an app? Why would you need a representative then?
Re:What's this then? (Score:5, Informative)
This issue was addressed a couple thousand years ago by a man name Plato. The work is called The Republic. You might want to consider reading it because it addresses this exact problem with direct democracy: it ends with the tyranny of the majority where minority opinions don't matter.
That's why we're a Constitutional Republic with checks and balances. At least on paper. That was the original intent of the Founders. What we are today is more or less an oligarchy. Politics here are controlled by a couple families, one Republican, one Democrat. One seems to hold one half of the state and federal offices, the other one holds the rest and occasionally job titles change as they reach term limits or get elected to a federal post.
Re: (Score:2)
While we're on the subject of ancient Athenian solutions, a few of their ideas which probably helped keep things under control:
1. Many important offices were chosen at random. That may seem crazy, but I'm hard-pressed to figure out how that would end up with worse results than our current Congress (current approval rating, according to Rasmussen: 6%).
2. Once someone's term was up, they were immediately put on trial for their actions while in office, with threats of banishment, fines, and even execution in e
Re: (Score:3)
The Swiss Confederation is also small, in a bunch of defensible mountains that no one really considers all that important, and has purposely limited itself from engaging in any sort of partisan diplomacy. This position also makes it convenient for various sides to use and preserve Switzerland as a neutral territory. Not every country can be in the same position.
The problem with direct democracy is that getting a majority doesn't make you factually correct, and that becomes a problem when you need to discu
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't as much voting either R or D, but that those are the only two choices. Both parties have a vested interest in making you believe that voting anything else is a wasted vote, since, by that logic, if you don't vote R, then D wins. This is only true if both R and D refuse to corporate with a hypothetical third party.
Multi-party politics can certainly work, and I would not want to limit the US to only 2 choices for the sake of it. However, multi-party setups where the number of separate parties get larger tend towards minority governments, coalitions with their own internal stresses, and generally less effective decision-making, with policy being driven by the need to keep a coalition together rather than "for the good of the people".
ok, I have probably just come fairly close to describing the current setup of the Repub
Re: (Score:3)
So they willingly collection information on millions of American's despite that being anti-constitutional? It doesn't really matter if Congress or the Executive approved it. The constitution is there to protect the populous from the law makers.
it's not anti constitutional if they're suspects.
so what if everyone is a suspect?-D
the point is that they can break laws of other countries and spy on foreigners even if they don't a cause of any kind for doing so.. understandably budgets for such secret actions might balloon just a little bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Wittingly. That is something different. The difference is small, but it's different.
And still a lie.
Re: (Score:2)