Isn't lying to congress punishable by up to 5 years in prison? Has mr. Clapper served any time for his perjury?
> This claim that Clapper lied before Congress has an interesting mix of supporters—some people on the far left who view Clapper as some part of a nefarious intelligence state out to spy on all of us, and then Trump supporters who look for any way to discredit someone who’s been a critic of Trump.
> Jim Clapper has served the US with honor and distinction. The role of DNI has been much like that of the Spinal Tap drummer—no-one who has been in that role has been around much and seems to just disappear in a poof. Clapper is the exception. People who follow the IC will tell you that Clapper was outstanding.
> As for the claim that he “lied,” this requires a little explanation. In a closed session, he had briefed the Congressional committee about US monitoring of telecommunications. He was then asked in an open hearing if the US did this. This was a classified program. Anyone who says that he should have said “I’m not authorized to talk about that” is being naive—that would automatically say “we do indeed have a classified program in this area.” So Clapper did what anyone when asked a question about the existence of a specific classified program would do—gave an answer that didn’t hint that we did indeed have such a program. After the public testimony, he then contacted the committee and said what the correct answer was—and that it was classified.
> I have been asked questions before (including by co-workers in the IC) about programs they weren’t cleared for and when you’re not supposed to give hints that the program exists, you can’t say “I’m not authorized to comment on that” or “sorry but that’s classified” because those are answers, you’re saying “yes, we do have such a program.” So in those cases you maintain the security of the program and only reveal it in a setting and audience that is cleared for discussion.
> And that’s why he was never censured or reprimanded by Congress for “lying.”
And I think Snowden has proven the constitution can survive the disclosure that the government had an illegal, poorly overseen dragnet. Clapper is ultimately responsible for what is considered classified. Feels like circular logic to say he was forced to lie to the public and non-committee representatives about things he had authority to disclose.
* * *
While we are talking about cowardly though, why has Edward Snowden, president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation (!), neither said anything publicly nor resigned after 2 months of Russian crackdown on journalists and dissidents (in Russia they are now arresting people holding up invisible signs based on the imagined anti-government messages on them, and arresting journalists for no reason at all), explicit orders to the Russian military to murder journalists in Ukraine, etc.?
I was generally a fan of Snowden (with some reservations) before the past 2 months, considering him a flawed but courageous man of principle, but wow is he letting us all down this time.
PS. that's a very unwarranted swipe. Might as well request Obama to turn in his Nobel Peace Prize speaking of incongruencies.
Snowden’s claim to fame is “biting the hand” in service of humanity. Is he still a man of principle or has living in an actual police state turned him into a compliant pet? You tell me.
> very unwarranted swipe. Might as well request Obama
The name “Snowden” is in the title of this discussion topic. But requesting Obama return his Nobel Prize seems reasonable enough to me; feel free to do that here or wherever else.
Remaining there implies to the world that the Foundation does not believe its stated founding principles and is little more than a front organization for the Russian state, and undermines any past work he has done to promote press freedom.
Who do you imagine you are fooling? I doubt you are even being paid for such clumsy stooging.
You have no problem with the president of the “Freedom of the Press Foundation” giving Putin a free pass for (a) mass murder of civilians and (b) systematic attack on freedom of the press in Russia and around the world? What do you imagine the Freedom of the Press Foundation is supposed to stand for?
Who am I supposed to be a stooge for? The people of Ukraine and their supporters? The (former) independent Russian press? A secret cabal of CIA-funded Ukrainian gay Jewish Nazis using their secret biolabs to turn us all into lizard people?
I’m all for holding the USA (and Britain, Germany, Saudia Arabia, Israel, China, Turkey, India, ...) accountable for censorship, crimes against journalists, illegal surveillance, etc., but the ongoing atrocities in Ukraine and linked press crackdown are without any doubt the most acute threat to freedom of the press (and more generally to Enlightenment values / classical liberalism / democracy) in the world in April 2022. Those who don’t even acknowledge that Russian actions are illegal and morally unjustifiable are completely undermining whatever principles they purported to hold.
Oh, that wasn't what you meant?
Snowden has no ability to offer or withhold passes to anybody. Which you already knew.
He has the ability to resign as president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. He should exercise it.
My friends in Ukraine are not so fortunate; they are profoundly unsafe and uncomfortable and they and many of their friends and family are now dead, refugees, or Russian prisoners, and their neighbors’ houses were turned to rubble.
Neither are the Russian journalists recently murdered or thrown in prison for nothing. Neither are the at least 14 journalists killed so far in Ukraine, some directly targeted by the Russian military.
If I were president of the Freedom of the Press foundation, I would either say something about it or resign. Someone who is under such grave threat (or so embarrassed/ashamed) that he cannot speak at all is in no position to remain president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
And, I know you would do no different, in his shoes. But you are not, and never will be.
Presidents of environmental justice NGOs should speak out when governments (including those where they live) allow toxic sludge to flow into rivers.
Presidents of journalistic freedom NGOs should speak out when journalists are being killed, imprisoned, and censored.
Presidents of consumer rights NGOs should speak out when popular products kill consumers.
Presidents of veterans NGOs should speak out when veterans are denied healthcare.
Presidents of children’s rights NGOs should speak out when children are systematically abused.
Etc.
Fortunately, presidents of NGOs don’t fear for their life in the USA, because the USA is substantially governed by laws, and American residents enjoy freedom of speech and association. NGO presidents who criticize the US leadership don’t get defenestrated or disappeared to a gulag.
If someone is president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and is not in a position to advocate for freedom of the press because they are so afraid for their life they must live in total silence (note though: Snowden did make one post specifically disavowing this scenario), then they are completely useless in that role, and their silence calls into question their past activities and motivations. At that point they should resign and pass the job to someone who can actually do it.