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. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Sep 2013 @ 10:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry, but "my time has run out" is no excuse for not forcefully responding to what those here deem to be a damnable lie. He knew the answer. He knew Clapper was not being forthright, and why. Yet, he was apparently content to leave matters as they were, with everyone other than those on the committee none the wiser, until someone with guts came forward and did that for which he lacked the requisite fortitude. Absent Snowden, it could fairly be said that Wyden aided and abetted a "lie" and is at least as culpable as Clapper.

    I just want to highlight that and repeat for people to marvel at the insanity and utter wrongness you spew after being proven wrong already. You are all ready to claim that Clapper had to flat out lie (which is false) to answer Wyden's question, but in the very same breath claim that it's crazy that Wyden himself didn't reveal the classified info that you insist Clapper couldn't even indicate he'd answer in a classified manner? Holy shit, you're insane.

    You claim I don't know what I'm talking about and then spew *that* bit of pure nonsense? I know better than you'll ever know the lengths and efforts that Senator Wyden has gone through to expose these programs.

    You do not know what you are talking about and confirm it each time you try to dig in on this point on which you are 100% wrong. You may remember the descriptive phrase I have used towards you in the past. Why you seek to reinforce that at ever interaction I do not know, but it is, most certainly, true yet again here.

    You are almost always explicitly and provably wrong, and yet you can never admit it. It's stunning.

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
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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