[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.