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), 15 Sep 2013 @ 9:56pm

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

    People express opinions with which you disagree, and your response is to proclaim them wrong and uninformed, resort to degrading comments, and then assert your unshakeable belief in the correctness of your opinions.

    This is untrue. There are plenty of people who I disagree with who I will have a nice discussion with. That is not the case with you, because it's not that I disagree with you, it's that you are obnoxious, pedantic, typically entirely sure of yourself despite being almost entirely wrong, and absolutely unable to admit that you are wrong.

    Shall I ask yet again when you'll admit that you were full of shit over Brett Easton Ellis not having any fans?

    It's a pattern you show regularly. You step in, say something absolutely stupid, wrong and condescending in the same breath -- usually insinuating that only someone of your unique stature could possibly comprehend the nuances. And then everyone proves that you're full of shit.

    And rather than admit it, you double down. You did that here. You were proven wrong, and you kept at it. Eventually it reaches the point where it becomes obvious that you are so clueless, so unable to comprehend basic concepts, that the only possible response is just to call you out for being totally full of it.

    So. Yeah, we've reached that level again.

    Many people here have pointed out why you are wrong. Wyden did nothing wrong. He asked a question and he was lied to, in a Congressional hearing, which is a felony. Clapper had multiple ways to answer the question without revealing any classified information. You are simply, totally, wrong.

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.