> 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.”
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.”