NYTimes: Clapper's a liar. [rquoter] June 11, 2013, 3:12 pm 43 Comments Making Alberto Gonzales Look Good By ANDREW ROSENTHAL Government officials employ various tactics to avoid actually saying anything at intelligence hearings, mostly by fogging up the room with references to national security and with vague generalities. It’s part of a dance, which the public and the media may grumble about but which we also expect. Outright lying is another matter. On March 12, James Clapper, director of national intelligence, testified at an open congressional hearing. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, asked him whether the National Security Agency collects “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” His answer: “No sir.” Then he added: “Not wittingly.” It was a lie, as everyone now knows from the articles about the N.S.A.’s data-mining program. Mr. Wyden knew it wasn’t true at the time, since he is on the Senate Intelligence Committee and is privy to secret briefings from people like, well, Mr. Clapper. On Sunday, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked Mr. Clapper about the exchange. “First, I have great respect for Senator Wyden,” Mr. Clapper said, using a Washington code phrase to indicate that he has no respect for the senator. “I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked ‘when are you going to start–stop beating your wife’ kind of question, which is, meaning not answerable necessarily, by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful or least untruthful manner, by saying, ‘No.’” Mr. Clapper further explained his least-untruthiness by saying he thought Mr. Wyden was asking whether the N.S.A. was actually listening to phone conversations (which Mr. Wyden clearly was not). “Going back to my metaphor, what I was thinking of is looking at the Dewey Decimal numbers of those books in the metaphorical library,” he said. “To me collection of U.S. persons data would mean taking the books off the shelf, opening it up and reading it.” Senator Dianne Feinstein defended Mr. Clapper, saying “you can misunderstand the question.” But what’s so muddy about “any type of data at all”? Besides, Mr. Wyden said in a statement on Tuesday that he actually sent the question to Mr. Clapper’s office a day in advance, and even gave him a chance to amend his answer. He had plenty of time to consider what, precisely, Mr. Wyden wanted to know. This was not, by the way, the first time data-collection came up at a Senate hearing. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in July 2006, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked whether the government had accumulated large amounts of data on Americans’ routine phone calls. “The programs and activities you ask about, to the extent that they exist, would be highly classified,” Mr. Gonzales said. You have to wonder about giving a position of vast responsibility to someone who can beat Mr. Gonzales in dishonesty. Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate today that Mr. Clapper should be fired. I doubt Mr. Obama is going to do that. But, as Mr. Kaplan said, Mr. Clapper’s participation in any public discussion of the limits of data mining will be of no value, since we are going to have to parse his meanings of complex words like “yes” and “no.”[/rquoter] http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/making-alberto-gonzales-look-good/?src=twr
What the flying heck does that even mean? If oaths meant "I'll keep it until my superiors do something I don't like, and then screw them", then oaths mean absolutely jack **** to begin with. And there was a suitable authority, Snowden just decided said authority wasn't good enough. Which conservatives? Basso and bobmarley value bashing Obama over anything else, so they're right in line with the rest of you guys in this circlejerk. And Major and myself aren't conservatives either, and I certainly haven't said Snowden should go to another country - in fact I say the damn opposite, that the fact that he's fled to another country, especially one that is far worse with human rights abuses whatever the civil libertarian nuts may claim, is a huge problem for me regarding him. Honestly? I'm pretty sure that if I was born around that time, I'd probably be a loyalist. But I'm not, and the past is the past, and I'm not overly fond of judging the past with our values like so much of ridiculous postmodernist historiography has become. But I value loyalty and oaths extremely highly and take them very seriously. If they're to be broken just because they're inconvenient, then don't freaking swear them.
would do well to learn from Walder Frey if an oath-breaker breaks an oath to reveal another oath-breaker's oath-breaking, where does your oath-swearing stand?
The oath of army officers is to defend the constitution and then listen to the president. I don't think contractors take oaths. You would have no problem interning the Japanese? Or wiping out the Native Americans? or Gassing a bunch of Jews. Governments around the world have done terrible things including this one. The trail of tears was as bad as the holocaust if not worse. Let us not forget the targeting of civil rights leaders. I am concerned that people don't seem to care how big a deal this is.
Secret Service "Visits" Outspoken Critic of Obama - Because of Twitter? http://www.examiner.com/article/secret-service-visits-outspoken-critic-of-obama-because-of-twitter After you read this- you will wonder what country we are in. Tom Francois is an outspoken critic of Barack Hussein Obama- and has a robust Twitter presence. He also likes to dabble with his "paint" program to create funny cartoons. He has never threatened the President in any way, manner or form. On April 11, 2013, he heard relentless pounding on his door shouts of "Police!" The officers introduced themselves as members of The Secret Service and asked if they could "take a look around." Since Tom had nothing to hide (and he didn't want any return visits) - he complied fully with their request. He even signed a consent to search his premises AND an "Authorization To Review Medical and Mental Health Records!" They asked Tom if he ever left his state or traveled to Washington, D.C. One Agent asked Tom if he has any intentions of "whacking" the President." To which Tom replied- "Of course not. I wish him no harm. I disagree with his policies and actions and I make no bones about it. It's my First Amendment Right and I intend to exercise it." Freedom! STAND UP and BE HEARD! Don't "Sit Down and SHUT UP!" When I spoke to Tom he said, "Yes, I am EXTREMELY critical of Obama in my posts, but I never cross the line and threaten his being. EVER. It's just the idea of Obama's Secret Service intruding on my life when they knew I wasn't really a threat." The Secret Service had a thick FBI file- filled with screenshots of hundreds of posts. Said Tom, "I flat out told them 'I have NEVER threatened Obama's life! Yes, I despise him as you can plainly see, but I have that right!' They actually ADMITTED and agreed with me that I hadn't threatened Obama." They had run a background check and discovered that Tom legally owned two guns- and they asked to see them. Tom showed them his firearms. They asked, "Are they loaded?" Tom replied in the affirmative. "What good are guns if they aren't loaded?" So why harass Tom? "The Secret Service officers claimed that "they were concerned that since I have a large Twitter following, and the things I said could be acted upon by some nut case out there! What the hell? They turned my life upside down for THAT?" Tom didn't refuse the search because they just would have gone and gotten a warrant. "They would have proceeded to tear my house apart. No thanks. I have nothing to hide. They left empty-handed and my house is still intact." When they left Tom's house, one Secret Service Agent 'advised'- "Keep in mind, if you step over the line, we'll come back for your guns." After the "visit" to Tom, the Secret Service also visited Tom's 22 year old daughter- terrifying her and making her fear for her father's safety. She asked them what they were going to do with the information about her Dad. They said they were going to "turn it over to Eric Holder- he has the last word on what to do, if anything." Should anyone have any doubt about the veracity of this report, Mr. Francois had the presence of mind to make copies of the Consent To Search (which expressly included computers, hardware, software, recording devices, cell phones, data storage, etc). It also states: "I understand that any contraband or evidence may be used against me in a court of law." The "Consent To Search" and the "Authorization To Review Medical and Mental Health Records" signed and dated by the special agents of the Secret Service- were furnished to this reporter.
^^^pffffft. he got off easy; he could have been arrested for wearing a shirt. This sudden concern for civil liberties from the right is ****ing hilarious to watch.
To be fair, most of them aren't even pretending to care. It's only a few devoted Obama bashers who are actually flip flopping on this issue like Limbaugh. What's more concerning to me than a few right wingers flip flopping and suddenly caring is the the enormous shift on the left to suddenly not care. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/h2qgU8kJt-0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2qgU8kJt-0&feature=player_embedded
Completely and totally agree. But then, I've been saying for a long time that there is no "left" in the US. Just right and super-right. If you ask me, Obama is kind of a "nail-in-the-coffin" for progressive politics in America.
I don't think there's really a right either, but that's just me. It is illogical to me to claim to be anti-big government and a strict interpreter of the Constitution and yet support programs like these or various other actions in the name of security. That being opposed to programs like these makes you a liberal, or progressive seems counter intuitive honestly and just shows how out of whack and hypocritical the parties are.
No I knew what you meant, I was just arguing that there isn't really a "right wing" in the US sense either. It's a phony right wing that hangs its hat on ideological issues that don't really mesh with what a logical extension of the core beliefs of conservatism should be. Both sides are morally bankrupt and sell their souls for political power.
This argument that both sides are the same is true to an extent but there are still some big differences between the parties and also between Presidents Obama and GW Bush. I agree with you that when it comes to issues of civil liberties vs. national security there isn't that much of a difference given though that Obama in the summer of 2008 had voted for the expansion and reauthorization of FISA this isn't necessarily a surprise to me. On top of that Modern Democrats have actually never won with dovish Presidents and some of the greatest defeats the party suffered were with candidates who were considered weak on National Security (deserved or not). None of this is to say that many on the Dem. side aren't hypocrites on this issue or that this issue isn't something to be worried about but that this issue cuts across party lines and while the previous Admin. and the current Admin are very similar on this issue there are still many differences between them.
To be fair, there are many brands of conservatism, and you have people on the Republican Party who are sincerely decrying this and are not just "Obama did it so it's bad". But conservatism, as a movement based on reaction, has plenty of problems with it.
As for oath breaking. You also swear an oath to defend the constitution of the united states...the ultimate law of the land. When preserving state secrets and defending the constitution come into conflict, you make a choice.
