No one went to jail for the Wall Street fiasco.
No one was fired for being wrong about WMDs in Iraq.
We still don't know anything about Benghazi while some poor sap who published a video rots in jail as a scapegoat... no one will suffer consequences.
No one in this administration will cooperate in determining the origins, extent, and details of the IRS attack on conservative political groups.
The list of government protecting its own goes on forever.
Why is anyone surprised that things are the same for this particular scandal? Particularly with this administration that gets a lot of political cover from the press?
More generally it's hard to take Congressional complaints of executive overreaching seriously when Congress refuses to utilize any of the many tools at its disposal.
Our Founding Fathers were very careful to separate executive and legislative powers, very much different and in reaction to the Westminster parliamentary system they had after all rebelled against. So I don't see the Congress having the power to go beyond jailing someone to force them to testify (their being the nation's Grand Inquisitor is part of our small 'c' constitution if not explicitly in the written one).
If you want to see Clapper clapped in irons, elect a non-Democratic Party President with a spine, and hope he doesn't get a pardon before then.
Minor correction: One person did to go jail[1].
[1]http://www.propublica.org/article/the-rise-of-corporate-impu...
I had always assumed that for everyone except those with something to lose (e.g. politicians, bureaucrats) that Snowden 's actions were seen in high regard.
If you believe public opinion polling, a majority of Americans don't like what he did and think he should return to face trial: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-s...
I imagine this is entirely a function of your social circle. The polls conducted this year have been marginally in favor of his prosecution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_on_Edward_Snowden's_.... It's a deeply divisive issue for Americans, though it breaks along the usual lines (age, etc).
My dad, for example, who is very liberal on most things, is no fan of Snowden. Especially among the older generation who grew up during the Cold War, nothing Snowden revealed rises to the level of invasiveness that would be cause for alarm.
Most of the people I know simply do not care about surveillance. They're in the ideological majority, they don't have controversial opinions, and they (rightly) believe the government has no interest in using the fruits surveillance against them. They certainly don't sympathize with the ideas of hypothetical political dissidents that might be hypothetically suppressed using surveillance.
Oh jeez, not this shit again. It's not even relevant to the topic of the OP this time.
That is to say, here comes another giant pointless derail that will distract from the actual topic at hand.
What's unfortunate is that it's not controversial. It seems Clapper has the backing of a pretty big group in Congress.
That is absolutely, 100% not the case. Dodging the question, for this particular question is as much a leak of classified information as giving up the answer directly.
This is by the same principle used by hacktivists called the "warrant canary", which they think they invented: But the same thing happened to a CIA director (Helms?) in the 1970s and he did the same thing because the same principle applied back then too.
You can read the letter: http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2013-0...
There were ways to answer the question without jeopardizing a classified program. It has been done before and will be done again.
A little known fact: under UCC and UNCITRAL, you have 72 hours to modify any contracts you make in court via private correspondence. With 3 days to receive, and 3 days to send a response (and one day for a Sunday) tacked on. If the other party goes silent afterwards (as the committee did), clapper can use that silence as tacit acquiescence to his modified statements. In this case, the senate committee accepted that "least untruthful" was considered sufficient reason to make false public statements. Clapper brought that private agreement public via the press, and now it's nicely cemented in stone, as a valid process that anyone else can use in case they're ever caught lying to congress.
Someone really should be teaching Ed Snowden contract and trade law. I bet he'd pick it up rather quickly, and it'd make his current situation easier to deal with.
I think Congress is unsure about how to proceed on this issue because not all members of Congress are of one mind about what is best for the country in administration of NSA. I categorically reject the assertion that Congress is still moving forward slowly to change NSA oversight because "NSA has Congress by the balls." Nope. One of the most common kinds of comments here on Hacker News about issues like this is a comment that ASSUMES that if government leaders are under pervasive surveillance they are all afraid of blackmail. But I don't believe that, because some government leaders and some political candidates are essentially shameless. Even after they are caught (by old-fashioned journalism, or by a jilted lover or some unrelated criminal investigation) doing something unsavory, they are still willing to run for office, and SOME ARE REELECTED. United States Senator David Vitter was reelected in 2010 even after a scandal involving behavior that I would consider shameful,[1] and the antics of former DC mayor Marion Barry[2] are probably still notorious enough that they don't need further discussion here. In short, I call baloney on the idea that NSA can keep politicians on its leash simply by knowing their secrets. Some politicians have PUBLIC lives full of dirt, and still get elected and influence policy anyway.
The other reason I don't believe this HN hivemind theory of politics is that I by no means assume that everyone in politics lacks personal integrity. Some politicians, I am quite sure, could have all their secrets revealed only to have voters think "Why is that person such a straight-arrow? Why not have some fun once in a while?" The simple fact is that there is value system diversity in the United States electorate, and there is personal conduct probity variance among United States politicians, and there isn't any universal way to unduly influence politicians merely through even the most diligent efforts to discover personal secrets. If politicians think that NSA is going too far (as evidently several politicians from more than one party do think), then they will receive plenty of support from the general public to rein in the surveillance. (Obligatory disclaimer: Yes, I am a lawyer, who as a judicial clerk for my state's Supreme Court used to review case files on attorney misconduct, and, yes, some of my law school classmates are elected officials, including one member of Congress. I am absolutely certain that there are enough politicians ready to mobilize to roll back NSA surveillance programs if they really think the programs are excessive in their scope.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter#D.C._Madam_scanda...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry#1990_arrest_.26_d...
Pelosi added that she has always fought for checks and balances on CIA activity and its interactions with Congress: “You don’t fight it without a price because they come after you and they don’t always tell the truth."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140317/07441526589/nancy-...
> I think Congress is unsure about how to proceed on this issue because not all members of Congress are of one mind about what is best for the country in administration of NSA.
> The other reason I don't believe this HN hivemind theory of politics is that I by no means assume that everyone in politics lacks personal integrity.
None of these points should be controversial, but oh well.
1) Every nation should protect their citizens against intelligence gathering from outsiders. 2) Intelligence-gathering must be subject of the rule of law. 3) Military forces must be under democratic control.
Surely, neither of those are controversial either?
The controversy stems from cost/benefit judgements on individual spy programs AND from the fact that Clapper perjured himself in front of congress and the american people. The latter is a far more clearcut issue than the former, and it's what we were talking about before the lawyer came in and changed the subject.
All the possible "radicalism" ends up at one end of the scale: PRISM, NDAA, and "least untruthful" causing barely a ripple.
The statement "Every national government in the civilized world needs an intelligence-gathering agency that can operate with some degree of operational secrecy." is true, but it's true at every scale. Suppose someone spilled ALL the beans, and the US had to start over in deciding what's secret and what isn't, going forward. How long would it take to accumulate our current trove of secrets, and what does that say about the necessity of most of them?
1. Rumors and innuendo are not the same as hard evidence. While some politicians may survive a controversy, in most cases reputation-damaging information has a negative effect on a political career (especially if it's indisputable evidence). "Nobody wants a scandal". Furthermore, what an old enemy might leak to the press is a far cry from what might be uncovered through comprehensive digital surveillance. Having access to raw, captured Internet traffic is a game-changer.
2. If the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence don't feel that they are getting completely accurate and inclusive information from the NSA, why wouldn't they feel vulnerable? Who could know the truth if the NSA doesn't give straight information to the very people who are supposed to be overseeing their work?
What is the basis for this assertion? What would happen to a nation that didn't have that?
Terrorism? It's a pretty pedestrian intelligence agency whose primary aim is to prevent terrorism. The NSA is stuffed full of paranoid people with information addiction. They don't care about terrorism; they just want all the world's secrets. An intelligence guy is just as likely to respect other's privacy as a security researcher is to accept other people reading his files. It's in their nature not to.
First, there is a tremendous difference between (having already been exposed) choosing to run in the face of that difficulty (possibly not showing sufficient shame, to be sure, but dealing with what is effectively a sunk cost) and choosing to take (or postpone taking) that blow in the first place.
Second, even if there are congresspersons who wouldn't comply in the face of blackmail, are there enough or are they insufficiently identifiable that they can't simply be avoided?
Note that I'm not saying that I think blackmail of many in congress by the NSA is hugely likely, I'm just not sure your reasoning is sound.
As for your examples, the fact that politicians use drugs or have sex is no surprise to anyone, for example, but what if it was exposed that Berry secretly supported something that his constituency disagreed with? That's real political damage that's harder to survive.
I do think it's kinda far fetched that everyone is sufficiently intimidated that no one says anything.
Also, how do you explain Jane Harman? Google "jane harman alberto gonzalez" for details.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991375#up_5992149
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7071480#up_7072301
Among those types, what Snowden did was considered, at BEST, a warranted discussion but highly unprofessional and a breach of trust. (whether you agree with that or not, but that represents their core interests in serving the federal government)
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-ope...
To make this more than mere snark, seriously, committees of the size of Congress are nearly entirely structurally incapable of taking serious stands of this nature. That's not sarcasm, it's a real structural problem with committees, and despite how we often refer to it in humor, it's a fully real thing, not a joke. This is why the US still needs an executive branch, which is structured in such a way that it can take a stand, potentially very quickly.
