[photochemsyn]

Shouldn't the title be "Espionage or Whistleblowing?" Journalism would just be reporting on the events.

For example, Daniel Ellsberg, leaking Pentagon Papers - basically everyone now agrees that was legitimate whistleblowing as it proved leading government figures were lying through their teeth to the American public about the reality on the ground in Vietnam. In contrast, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were CIA and FBI employees who sold all kinds of secrets to the Soviet Union for several decades - pretty sure we can safely call that espionage.

So Edward Snowden... proved the likes of James Clapper were lying through their teeth to Congress about mass warrantless collection of the private communications of American citizens. Hmmm... is it whistleblowing or espionage? Gosh what a tough question.

[mc32]

Isn't lying to congress punishable by up to 5 years in prison? Has mr. Clapper served any time for his perjury?

[jacobolus]

Here’s a Quora answer from someone in the US intel community, explaining why this was not “perjury” despite being misleading to the public watching the hearing: https://www.quora.com/Why-wasnt-James-Clapper-convicted-for-...

> This claim that Clapper lied before Congress has an interesting mix of supporters—some people on the far left who view Clapper as some part of a nefarious intelligence state out to spy on all of us, and then Trump supporters who look for any way to discredit someone who’s been a critic of Trump.

> Jim Clapper has served the US with honor and distinction. The role of DNI has been much like that of the Spinal Tap drummer—no-one who has been in that role has been around much and seems to just disappear in a poof. Clapper is the exception. People who follow the IC will tell you that Clapper was outstanding.

> As for the claim that he “lied,” this requires a little explanation. In a closed session, he had briefed the Congressional committee about US monitoring of telecommunications. He was then asked in an open hearing if the US did this. This was a classified program. Anyone who says that he should have said “I’m not authorized to talk about that” is being naive—that would automatically say “we do indeed have a classified program in this area.” So Clapper did what anyone when asked a question about the existence of a specific classified program would do—gave an answer that didn’t hint that we did indeed have such a program. After the public testimony, he then contacted the committee and said what the correct answer was—and that it was classified.

> I have been asked questions before (including by co-workers in the IC) about programs they weren’t cleared for and when you’re not supposed to give hints that the program exists, you can’t say “I’m not authorized to comment on that” or “sorry but that’s classified” because those are answers, you’re saying “yes, we do have such a program.” So in those cases you maintain the security of the program and only reveal it in a setting and audience that is cleared for discussion.

> And that’s why he was never censured or reprimanded by Congress for “lying.”

[paulryanrogers]

Still strikes me as cowardly since the program was/is grossly unconstitutional.

And I think Snowden has proven the constitution can survive the disclosure that the government had an illegal, poorly overseen dragnet. Clapper is ultimately responsible for what is considered classified. Feels like circular logic to say he was forced to lie to the public and non-committee representatives about things he had authority to disclose.

[mc32]

Yes, exactly. It was an illegal program and instead of denouncing a grossly illegal program he sought to protect it through procedural means.

[jacobolus]

It’s fair to criticize the whole US intelligence establishment (and their congressional overseers, and every president of both parties for the past 40+ years) without thinking that Clapper should be personally criminally liable for following standard practice here.

* * *

While we are talking about cowardly though, why has Edward Snowden, president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (!), neither said anything publicly nor resigned after 2 months of Russian crackdown on journalists and dissidents (in Russia they are now arresting people holding up invisible signs based on the imagined anti-government messages on them, and arresting journalists for no reason at all), explicit orders to the Russian military to murder journalists in Ukraine, etc.?

I was generally a fan of Snowden (with some reservations) before the past 2 months, considering him a flawed but courageous man of principle, but wow is he letting us all down this time.

[mc32]

I think it's pretty obvious why. He's between a rock and a hard place. He was not beyond the reach of the US on allegations of spying releasing government secrets and a whole bunch of other laws he broke in order to become a whistleblower against the government's illicit programs --the only place which provided him refuge was Russia. No one else would take him. What do you expect, that he bite the cruel hand that feeds him? Be realistic.

PS. that's a very unwarranted swipe. Might as well request Obama to turn in his Nobel Peace Prize speaking of incongruencies.

[jacobolus]

> What do you expect, that he bite the cruel hand that feeds him?

Snowden’s claim to fame is “biting the hand” in service of humanity. Is he still a man of principle or has living in an actual police state turned him into a compliant pet? You tell me.

> very unwarranted swipe. Might as well request Obama

The name “Snowden” is in the title of this discussion topic. But requesting Obama return his Nobel Prize seems reasonable enough to me; feel free to do that here or wherever else.

[ncmncm]

What do you imagine Snowden is supposed to do? He has exactly zero control over any single detail of any of it. He is under the thumb of a murderous thug. Not speaking up says more than he ever could aloud.

[jacobolus]

He is supposed to resign as president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, or even urge its dissolution.

Remaining there implies to the world that the Foundation does not believe its stated founding principles and is little more than a front organization for the Russian state, and undermines any past work he has done to promote press freedom.

[theknocker]

No, and now he gets paid by CNN to spread more lies.

[paulpauper]

For example, Daniel Ellsberg, leaking Pentagon Papers - basically everyone now agrees that was legitimate whistleblowing as it proved leading government figures were lying through their teeth to the American public about the reality on the ground in Vietnam. In contrast, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were CIA and FBI employees who sold all kinds of secrets to the Soviet Union for several decades - pretty sure we can safely call that espionage.

I am surprised that Ellsberg was let off. I think Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were punished because they betrayed their oaths and the material was more important or pertinent.

[ncmncm]

He wasn't let off. They knew they could not convict him.

Now they have things sewed up better. Pliant judges, extortion, secret charges, secret "evidence", secret "testimony".

[boomboomsubban]

They had all those things for Ellsberg, he was barred from presenting a defense and the judge admitted the administration attempted to bribe him.

His charges were dropped because the prosecution's gross misconduct and illegal evidence collection had become national news. Without Watergate, Ellsberg would have spent years in prison.

[boomboomsubban]

The story is about whether Gellman was a spy like many in the intelligence community including Clapper claim he is. It's about his works with Snowden's documents, not Snowden himself.

[photochemsyn]

What I don't understand is why Clapper wasn't at the very least charged with perjury for lying to Congress under oath.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-...

[dragonwriter]

> What I don’t understand is why Clapper wasn’t at the very least charged with perjury for lying to Congress under oath.

What I don’t understand is why Clapper has to settle with merely “not being charged with perjury” while Brett Kavanaugh not only wasn’t charged with perjury, and continued in government service (in a position he got through his perjury) when his lies were established, but got promoted to the Supreme Court (note, I’m referring to his blatant lies about his involvement with the Bush-era torture program during his Court of Appeals confirmation hearing, not any perjury he may have committed during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.)

[jacobolus]

Kavanaugh spent literally his entire career as a GOP partisan activist. That was and is his chief qualification for the Court.

He started his career clerking for conservative judges including Judge Kozinski and Justice Kennedy. Then in the late 90s he worked for Ken Starr doing trumped up anti-Clinton “investigations”, and authored the Starr Report. In 2000 he was part of George W. Bush’s legal team that worked with the GOP-majority Supreme Court to prevent Florida from counting all of the votes from the 2000 election, blatantly unconstitutionally (and against all precedent) stomping on the Florida Supreme Court. For his services he was hired by Alberto Gonzalez at the Bush DOJ. Then later during the Bush administration he was at the Federalist Society, in charge of choosing which judicial activists the GOP should promote to federal courts (he also perjured himself answering Senate questions about his work there, FWIW).

[V_Terranova_Jr]

Who would do the charging? The executive branch for whom it was most convenient for him to <pick euphemism for lie>? The legislative branch, many of who see taking on the "intelligence community" as something for which they would get branded as non-patriotic? You need a critical mass to pursue any form of actual accountability - lone brave senators or congresspersons won't have enough momentum to get past the activation energy barrier.

Prior comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28098290

[pmoriarty]

"The legislative branch, many of who see taking on the "intelligence community" as something for which they would get branded as non-patriotic?"

I've never gotten the impression that Americans have very much love for the intelligence community. The military, yes, the intelligence community, no.

Congress has slapped the intelligence committee before (in the aftermath of the Church Committee[1]).

It's just that post-9/11 the powers of America's intelligence agencies were tremendously increased and they were given a much longer leash.

Now that 9/11 is more than 20 years in the past they might get slapped again, but it'll probably take a bigger scandal than Snowden's revelations to do it.. and such a scandal has to happen in peace time if it's to have any effect.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

[ncmncm]

Nobody lost their job, or suffered any particular inconvenience over anything the Church Committee did. They all continued on to retirement unbothered, with full pensions, then mostly cycled quietly into military contractors' management at a big markup, billed to us.

The COINTELPRO revelations were promoted as ending the program, but there is no public evidence anything changed. The stories about attempts at spying via ESP were themselves successful disinformation campaigns conducted against the American public. Most people who have heard of them believe them, wholesale.

[V_Terranova_Jr]

The lack of any accountability for the actions taken by the IC both prior to and in the wake of September 11, or any real accountability stemming from the Snowden revelations, should be taken as proof that the statement/sentiment "they are keeping us safe" sufficiently moderates public outcry. Again, not to mention Snowden-level stuff is typically signed-off at the White House level, so not just overzealous IC people operating autonomously.

If you get caught in one of these scandals, you just have to wait out the news cycles in the shadows where you typically are anyway. Or you "take one for the team" like Clapper did - no doubt with a lot of legal advice from civil servant lawyers. It doesn't really matter whether or not the public tells intelligence officers/operatives "Thank you for your service!" You can also see the retroactive immunity congress granted these organizations and impassioned defenses they offered.

There is no stomach (or understanding) to demand better of the IC in any way reminiscent of the Church or Pike committee times.

I can't really fathom the magnitude of wrongdoing that would now be needed to change how these organizations think and work, or have key staff actually slapped with enduring punishments.

[sudosysgen]

I don't call promoting people who did these things a slap. The Church Committee was basically useless.

[boomboomsubban]

While I agree, that's not very relevant to the subject of this article, which is more about how Clapper labeled Greenwald, Poitras and Gellman as "accomplices" of Snowden.

[willis936]

You're allowed to lie to congress if asked about state secrets. You just need to make sure you classify all of your shady activities.

[ncmncm]

He should have replied to Mueller asking who was being protected against criminal prosecution by keeping the material classified.

[sha256sum]

Well if you’re going to post three-letter-agency FUD at least include some links to backup your claims?

[boomboomsubban]

Huh? The article discusses his conversations with several high ranking members of the intelligence community. And their programs monitoring the press and their lengthy classified dossier on the author. For example

>Mueller cross-examined me: Were the NSA documents not lawfully classified? Were they not stolen? Did I not publish them anyway?

[sha256sum]

I misunderstood the context, thank you.

[anothernewdude]

As far as I understand it, Snowden wasn't trying to leak any program in particular, he just copied as much material as he could.