James Clapper Admits That The Debate Snowden Created 'Needed To Happen'

from the then-why-didn't-it-happen dept

Director of National Intelligence and confessed liar to Congress, James Clapper, has now admitted that the debate over what the intelligence community has been doing, brought on by Ed Snowden's leaks, "needed to happen."
"I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen," Clapper told a defense and intelligence contractor trade group. "If there's a good side to this, maybe that's it."
Well, isn't that interesting? Of course, considering that he was the Director of National Intelligence and that the oversight committee, which is supposed to keep him in line, tried to start that debate a few months ago and Clapper's response was to flat-out lie to them, it seems worth questioning why it appears that he did everything possible to avoid having that debate? It also raises the question of why he's still in a job (and not facing charges).

Clapper also admits that he knows that the leaks aren't done:
"Unfortunately, there is more to come," he said.
Seeing as the existing leaks helped push forward a debate that "needed to happen," I don't see what's so unfortunate about that.

Clapper also insisted that those awful journalists covering the story have been letting their minds run wild:
Journalists examining the surveillance programs that Snowden disclosed "go to the deepest darkest place they can and make the most conspiratorial case for what the intelligence community is doing."
Two things about that. First, so far what we've seen after pretty much every leak is that Clapper's office or others in the administration make a statement that includes a bunch of weasel words that are redefined to mean something different than what the public actually thinks -- and those "non-lie lies" are then exposed in later revelations from the leaks. Given that, is it really any surprise that people have little trust in what the intelligence community is saying?

Second, you know how you avoid having journalists take the details of the program and "going to the deepest darkest place and making the most conspiratorial case for what the intelligence community is doing"? It's called being more open and transparent and actually having the debate that you're now running from.

Besides, considering some of the existing leaks about rampant abuses (some not defined as abuses), dreadful coverups, the inability to know what Snowden took or how he took it, the economic espionage, the finding internal informants to help get around encryption and a variety of other very questionable things, is it any wonder that people don't trust the NSA?

Filed Under: debate, ed snowden, intelligence community, james clapper, nsa, nsa surveillance

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2013 @ 8:38am

    Bret Easton Ellis - Your are remarkably consistent about this matter from the past, but continue carrying forward a misstatement of what I actually said. I used the term "doubtful", which is certainly not the same as "not a snowball's chance"

    I am pleased he and his partner met their Kickstarter goal with a 159% subscription, got Lindsay Lohan to play a role (presumably in between visits to rehab...this is a joke directed to LL, and not the persons honchoing the movie), got the movie released in short order, but unfortunately did not meet with financial success and positive acclaim. Not making the list for Sundance and some other of the larger indie film festivals did not, of course, help. The same can be said of non-stellar reviews by movie critics.

    Now, it you took the time to really read my comment you would have noted it opined about the importance of a producer in film projects. Many years ago I had not a clue what a producer actually does. After my daughter did a stint with one of the most successful producers on Broadway, and after I was able to explore in detail with her (the producer) what precisely a producer brings to the table, I had an entirely newly found appreciation of how stage plays, movies, and other aspects of the performing arts move from paper to the stage, big screen, etc. They move forward almost exactly like products in the tech and other business sectors.

    Now, perhaps a truly experienced producer may have turned the tide, or perhaps it would have flopped notwithstanding who the producer was, experience in other fields informs me that a producer, the one who handles the business (as opposed to the artistic) side of the house and is basically the CEO and COO of a production, is a critical position, and in proceeding without one one does so at his peril if it is a role in which they lack significant experience.

    I would like to think my comment here may finally lay this matter to rest with you. If questions still remain you should feel not the slightest reluctance to ask any questions you deem pertinent.

    With kindest regards I remain...

    Sincerely yours,


Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.