Snowden: Why hasn’t DNI Clapper been punished for lying to Congress?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/snowden-why-hasnt-the-director-of-national-intelligence-been-punished-for-lying-to-congress/2014/05/01/4f4aaa2d-fc94-4eee-9782-0b2566b4b4a1_story.html

by ryutin • 12 years ago

131 112 12 years ago

washingtonpost.com

noir_lord2• 12 years ago

Because he has congress by the balls.

jerf• 12 years ago

Impossible... Congress has no balls.

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.

rooster8• 12 years ago

I thought OP was implying that he had dirt on anyone who would try to reprimand him. Everyone hesitates in a surveillance state.

talmand6• 12 years ago

For all the size of both houses of US Congress, they are essentially run by a handful of people.

geetee• 12 years ago

I'm surprised by the amount of anti-Snowden sentiment in the WaPo comments.

1337biz• 12 years ago

Oh, these are just your taxpayer dollars at work...

scrrr2• 12 years ago

Yep, it's likely they have some "public opinion making" going on. After all psychology teaches us that people look to other people first to find out what to think and do. These guys spoiled the Internet.

hadoukenio2• 12 years ago

See "Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda":

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-ope...

krapp4• 12 years ago

Also see people actually having an opposing point of view. Not everything has to be parallel construction, false flag operations and conspiracy.

ianhawes• 12 years ago

I'm personally sick and tired of Snowden opponents being immediately written off as "shills" and "sock-puppets".

antidaily• 12 years ago

NEVER READ THE COMMENTS.

Volscio• 12 years ago

Consider WaPo's chief readership: people interested in domestic/foreign policy probably living in the DMV area and associated with the federal government.

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)

izzydata• 12 years ago

I was kind of surprised at that as well. Then I noticed it was the same few people who seem to be very upset. It isn't too unreasonable for a vocal minority to waste their time on something like that.

Ihmahr• 12 years ago

I'm even more surprised by all the anti-Snowden comments here on HN.

Haul4ss• 12 years ago

Why? Reasonable people aren't allowed to disagree anymore?

puppetmaster3• 12 years ago

I suspect that it is 'opinion shaping'

danielweber2• 12 years ago

I'm frequently not on Snowden's side (and Clapper being wrong doesn't necessarily make Snowden right), but he's completely on point here. Clapper directly lied to Congress under oath. He needs some kind of censure.

josho4• 12 years ago

Oh, great. I'm very curious. I am honestly very interested to hear what you feel Snowden has done wrong?

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.

eli4• 12 years ago

I think perhaps you've been consuming only media that mirrors your own viewpoint. Many people are upset that Snowden "violated his oath," that he took it upon himself to effectively dismantle programs he disagreed with (even if the program was indeed out of line), and that he fled from the consequences of his actions.

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...

rayiner2• 12 years ago

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.

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.

donutello• 12 years ago

I feel he was right to disclose the illegal collection of phone records. However, he was wrong to disclose pretty much everything else that he did. He disclosed details of activities that weren't illegal and has hurt the NSAs ability to do its job on behalf of the United States.

bmm6o• 12 years ago

Oh, great. I'm very curious. I am honestly very interested to hear what you feel Snowden has done wrong?

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.

hadoukenio2• 12 years ago

Answer: Because the United States is an Oligarchy.

bsenftner• 12 years ago

You are correct! Now, off to your waterboarding for leaking that truth.

higherpurpose2• 12 years ago

It seems HN didn't like your comment. Maybe a citation is needed:

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14

eli4• 12 years ago

I think it's more that it is flippant and doesn't really advance the conversation in any meaningful way. You could post that comment on every story that touches on politics.

mgamache• 12 years ago

Congressional testimony is just political kabuki. No one involved wants the truth they just want the show. It reminds me of pro wrestling without the steroids.

gcb03• 12 years ago

So more reason to go to the bottom of this.

tokenadult2• 12 years ago

There is some good reporting here by the Washington Post about the circumstances of Clapper's testimony to Congress. Readers here who know my comments know that I'm not fully happy with how Snowden chose to disclose information from inside NSA, and particularly not about his travel to China (Hong Kong) and Russia, but I think Snowden raises a fair point here. There is some genuine difference of opinion among Americans about how Clapper's statement to Congress should be characterized (whether "lie" or "erroneous statement") and plenty of us who agree with another comment here posted before mine that two wrongs don't make a right. Every national government in the civilized world needs an intelligence-gathering agency that can operate with some degree of operational secrecy.

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...

rayiner2• 12 years ago

Every national government in the civilized world needs an intelligence-gathering agency that can operate with some degree of operational secrecy.
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.

jjoonathan• 12 years ago

They aren't. They wouldn't even be controversial at the EFF.

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.

belorn2• 12 years ago

Let me add a few others:

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?

mikeash4• 12 years ago

I agree on the first two, but I have a hard time believing that anyone in national office possesses any personal integrity. Perhaps maybe one or two, but that's it.

Zigurd• 12 years ago

Politics in the security state selects for the kind of politician at the national level who is bought-in to the rightness and necessity of the security state, early in their careers, long before the people choose among them. It doesn't have to be powered by blackmail, assassination, or other exotic methods 99.99% of the time to be effective. It's the water they swim in. They hardly notice.

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?

MisterWebz• 12 years ago

“I salute Sen. Feinstein,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference of the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I’ll tell you, you take on the intelligence community, you’re a person of courage, and she does not do that lightly. Not without evidence, and when I say evidence, documentation of what it is that she is putting forth.”

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-...

higherpurpose2• 12 years ago

So are you saying the agencies should be "rogue" and completely independent from Congress?

gcb03• 12 years ago

Yes, his comment is just a winded way of saying ends justifies means.

tokenadult2• 12 years ago

No. A diligent search of my previous comments on HN will remind readers that I participated in the Restore the Fourth public protests in Minneapolis last summer,[1] and in general I support effective civilian oversight by elected officials of all intelligence and covert action operations of the United States government.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991375#up_5992149

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7071480#up_7072301

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5985285#up_5985720

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6258037

crunchcaptain• 12 years ago

Two things to point out here...

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?

dllthomas• 12 years ago

Narrowly regarding "But I don't believe that, because some government leaders and some political candidates are essentially shameless.":

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.

resu_nimda2• 12 years ago

Every national government in the civilized world needs an intelligence-gathering agency that can operate with some degree of operational secrecy.

What is the basis for this assertion? What would happen to a nation that didn't have that?

gcb03• 12 years ago

It would be ...gasp... Following its own and iteration law.

tormeh6• 12 years ago

It would lose wars, basically. Now, this matters less than it used to in this age of the nuclear bomb, but knowing what other nations are doing and planning is still useful in trade and technology. Knowing more about the market than others means you get better deals and China isn't the only nation doing industrial espionage.

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.

bediger40003• 12 years ago

I doubt that the public lives full of dirt are the problem. If the dirt is out there, it's not a problem. It's the Larry Craigs of the Senate and House that are the problem. Dirt swept into the closet is the problem.

Also, how do you explain Jane Harman? Google "jane harman alberto gonzalez" for details.

makmanalp• 12 years ago

I am not so sure. Taking a scandal you're in and spinning it or making the most of it is not a guaranteed success. I don't think politicians willingly put themselves into such situations, they just survive them sometimes.

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.

gottasayit• 12 years ago

Of course Clapper isn't going to be punished. Holder was held in contempt of Congress for stonewalling on Fast and Furious, but since pursuit of his punishment would require action from an Obama political appointee, nothing will happen.

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?

bradleyjg2• 12 years ago

Each house of Congress has inherent contempt powers and can jail people, in the Capitol if necessary. They haven't exercised that power since 1934, these days they refer contemptors to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia. The older power still remains though and is on very firm Constitutional grounds (though for a cabinet official there are issues of executive privilege).

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.

talmand6• 12 years ago

Any member of Congress that starts putting Administration personnel in jail will be committing political suicide.

hga• 12 years ago

Thing is, though, I don't think Clapper would fit into this slot. Unlike other examples, he testified, the only problem is that he lied in it.

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.

gameshot911• 12 years ago

No one went to jail for the Wall Street fiasco.

Minor correction: One person did to go jail[1].

[1]http://www.propublica.org/article/the-rise-of-corporate-impu...

Involute• 12 years ago

As far as I can tell, Clapper was asked about a classified program during an open session of Congress. Confronted with a conflict between his oath to tell the truth and his obligation to preserve the secrecy of the program, he chose the latter and corrected his testimony later in private. Maybe I'm misconstruing what happened, but, if not, why is this controversial?

talmand6• 12 years ago

Because he lied during testimony in front of Congress without any consequences?

There were ways to answer the question without jeopardizing a classified program. It has been done before and will be done again.

couchand2• 12 years ago

The legitimate response in such a situation is to officially dodge the question. It doesn't even have to be public since they're given the questions in advance and have veto power. But Clapper went before Congress explicitly allowing them to ask him about this program and knowingly lied about it.

What's unfortunate is that it's not controversial. It seems Clapper has the backing of a pretty big group in Congress.

involute1344• 12 years ago

According to the article, ODNI's attorney was given the question in advance, but it wasn't passed on to Clapper, so he improvised. Maybe the attorney's just covering for him, but that's what it says.

mpyne8• 12 years ago

The legitimate response in such a situation is to officially dodge the question.

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.

eli4• 12 years ago

That's actually not 100% right. He did correct his testimony, but he said he testified in error essentially because, under the strain of coming up with an unclassified answer, he forgot about the collections authorized under the Patriot Act.

You can read the letter: http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2013-0...

Tloewald• 12 years ago

Why does it take Snowden to ask this question? Since when is blatant perjury before Congress not a punishable offense? I guess if you perjure yourself over drug use in baseball that's a lot more important.

gknoy• 12 years ago

In the article, they mention that several senators wrote a letter to the president asking for his removal on this basis, but I agree: it seems strange that there have been no charges.

mpyne8• 12 years ago

This is the answer, whether you agree with it or not: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/dishonor-in-high-places-s...

anonbanker• 12 years ago

The short answer: because his written response, and the committee's acceptance of his written response, absolved him of any criminal wrongdoing caused by his testimony.

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.

Snowden: Why hasn’t DNI Clapper been punished for lying to Congress?

Related Stories