NY Times Gets It Right: Officials Calling For More Surveillance Are Proven Liars; Don't Listen To Them

from the don't-do-it dept

Even though the NY Times helped kick off the stupidity by publishing a nearly fact-free article (since deleted, and then replaced with an entirely different article) claiming that the Paris attackers used encryption to communicate, it appears the editorial board of the NY Times gets things exactly right with the editorial they pushed out last night: Mass Surveillance Isn’t the Answer to Fighting Terrorism. Not only does it point out why expanding mass surveillance won’t help much, it also points out that the people calling for it, like CIA director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, are not exactly trustworthy — in fact, they’re known liars:

It is hard to believe anything Mr. Brennan says. Last year, he bluntly denied that the C.I.A. had illegally hacked into the computers of Senate staff members conducting an investigation into the agency?s detention and torture programs when, in fact, it did. In 2011, when he was President Obama?s top counterterrorism adviser, he claimed that American drone strikes had not killed any civilians, despite clear evidence that they had. And his boss, James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, has admitted lying to the Senate on the N.S.A.?s bulk collection of data. Even putting this lack of credibility aside, it?s not clear what extra powers Mr. Brennan is seeking.

This is refreshing to see, because the mainstream press has been ridiculously reticent to call these guys out for the fact that they lied. Of course, President Obama should be faulted too. In allowing both men to keep their jobs after they were caught lying, both publicly and to Congress, he set the tone that says “it’s okay for you to perjure yourself before Congress and to lie to the American public about how we’re violating their rights.” And so, it continues.

Still, the NY Times, rightly also calls bullshit on the hand-wringing among the intelligence community with its claims about how their hands are tied if they can’t get more surveillance powers:

Listening to Mr. Brennan and other officials, like James Comey, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, one might believe that the government has been rendered helpless to defend Americans against the threat of future terror attacks….

In truth, intelligence authorities are still able to do most of what they did before ? only now with a little more oversight by the courts and the public. There is no dispute that they and law enforcement agencies should have the necessary powers to detect and stop attacks before they happen. But that does not mean unquestioning acceptance of ineffective and very likely unconstitutional tactics that reduce civil liberties without making the public safer.

Now if only the views of the editorial board actually filtered down to the paper’s reporters, who seem amazingly willing to simply act as stenographers for these officials as they lie to the public and push their agenda.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: ny times

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “NY Times Gets It Right: Officials Calling For More Surveillance Are Proven Liars; Don't Listen To Them”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
27 Comments
Rekrul says:

Of course, President Obama should be faulted too. In allowing both men to keep their jobs after they were caught lying, both publicly and to Congress, he set the tone that says “it’s okay for you to perjure yourself before Congress and to lie to the American public about how we’re violating their rights.”

Why would Obama punish others for doing the same things that he does himself?

FM Hilton (profile) says:

So, they've changed their minds?

Sure, today they’re against surveillance. Yesterday they weren’t.

They try to have it both ways. They’ve gone on record before saying that we’re helpless without it, and helpless with it.

Which is it, today? Oh, that Snowden guy? ‘He’s a terrorist too..’

Doesn’t make them right all the time. Just some of it. Today is one exception. Tomorrow they’ll have a different opinion.

Doesn’t mean they mean it, either.

Because they were one of the loudest proponents for the Iraq war-which is why we’re now here. If we hadn’t gone and done stupid things like invade the wrong fucking country after 9/11, this possibly would not have happened.

But those are facts that we won’t talk about now.

Eldakka (profile) says:

Minority Report reality

There is no dispute that they and law enforcement agencies should have the necessary powers to detect and stop attacks before they happen.

Wow, and here I thought it was Law enforcements job to enforce the law. Arresting people for actually breaking the law. Dissuading people from breaking the law by being a visible, and practical deterrence to breaking the law by arresting people when they do break the law. Seems these people think it is law enforcements job to arrest people for thinking about breaking the law. Thought-crime police a reality.

I would suggest it’s the military’s job to stop these types of attacks before they occur. It is not the military’s job to enforce the law, it’s their job to ‘defend/protect the country’.

studmuffins says:

Re: Minority Report reality

Don’t be absurd. This isn’t Minority Report where people are arrested before they even think of the crime. There are laws against conspiracy, legitimizing the prevention of a crime before it’s committed. There’s a middle ground between foreseeing the future and reacting after the fact.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Minority Report reality

“Don’t be absurd. This isn’t Minority Report where people are arrested before they even think of the crime. There are laws against conspiracy, legitimizing the prevention of a crime.”

My crystal ball says you’re thinking about raping babies, studmuffins. The question now is how do we stop you?

Leave a Reply to Kevin Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...