Now That The Intelligence Community Got Away With Lying, How Can You Trust Anything They Say?
from the there's-no-punishment dept
We've already discussed how Director of National Intelligence James Clapper flat out lied to Congress (and the American public) and gets away with it completely. While the Obama administration and other surveillance defenders have been almost universal in support for Clapper, despite his lying to Congress and the American public, this seems like a really bad strategy. As has been discussed, at the Black Hat conference, NSA director General Keith Alexander was heckled by someone who accused him of lying to Congress as well, perhaps confusing Alexander for Clapper or perhaps assuming that Alexander told lies another time.But here's the thing: given Clapper's admitted lying combined with the complete lack of any direct consequences for doing so, there's simply no reason at all to take anything that Clapper or Alexander says at face value. Alexander, especially, has been trying to go on a charm offensive to convince people that the press reports are exaggerated. He even "cursed" during his speech at Black Hat, and then pretended that it was by accident, and asked that it not be mentioned, trying to show how "honest" he was being. But all the charm in the world can't overcome the simple fact that everyone knows that there appear to be no direct consequences for lying. Even if we want to believe him, it's pretty difficult.
If the administration really wants to convince us that the surveillance programs are above board, it seems that keeping on an admitted liar to both Congress and the American public as the "face" of such programs isn't a particularly intelligent idea. It just makes people that much less likely to believe anything that Clapper, Alexander or others say about the program in their attempts to defend it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: james clapper, keith alexander, lies, nsa, nsa surveillance, trust
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Now That The Intelligence Community Got Away With Lying, How Can You Trust Anything They Say?
What little credibility they had is long gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now That The Intelligence Community Got Away With Lying, How Can You Trust Anything They Say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now That The Intelligence Community Got Away With Lying, How Can You Trust Anything They Say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course if Clapper had lied and blew the whistle on his lying, he'd be locked in solitary right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USSR saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhhhh....
And as far as "not doing anything about the lying"--what could they possibly do? I mean, how do you prove that you aren't lying?
Note that I am not defending the NSA by any stretch. I just always assumed they were doing this kind of thing. What surprises me about it is that they were so stupid as to allow an IT contractor to gain access, and that they are so very bad at covering this kind of stuff up. I mean, if they can't keep this kind of stuff from our politicians, they must just be spewing information at foreign operatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhhhh....
Yes, but when you lie to the people you're spying FOR, it puts into question not only your actions, but the "intelligence" you gather as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is exactly what I've been saying here off and on about you can't believe anything you are being told about what the NSA is doing from the Executive branch, the security apparatus, the Intelligence committee, the FISA court, nor from congress supposedly having been in the know about all this from back in 1997. Hello!
The only solution that will once again provide trust in government is for a totally outside independent agent revealing just what is the truth in these matters and that's not going to happen as long as they have any say in the matter.
The trust in government here has been totally shattered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both Alexander and Clapper have lied to Congress
In April 2012, William Binney said Alexander's testimony was intentionally misleading if not blatantly lying. Snowden's revelations confirmed that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the moral of the American story. The more you lie, the bigger the promotion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A new meme?
Govt: we are not spying!
People: oh- shut the clapper. we can detect a lie
~~~~
ex-boss: i fired him for running his clapper too much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two problems with that:
2. Clapper knew days in advance what questions were going to be asked, as they had been sent to him for review and so he would have his answers ready without having to dig for needed information, which means the fact that he still lied was very much deliberate, and not something caused by being 'boxed in' and not having answers ready.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two problems with that:
Yes, he knew a day in advance...but it is virtually impossible to say "no" to oversight committees that can influence whether or not your agency gets funded.
What Wyden did was squeeze Clapper in public, knowing full well there was nothing Clapper could do other than deny the activity asked about by Wyden.
Perhaps to persons like Manning and Snowden dealing with classified information in a public manner comes more easily, but it is obviously rare for such information to be treated as such. BTW, it is not that information is classified that concerns me. What does concern me is the manner by which determinations are made about who has a "need to know". It is the latter by which dissemination is controlled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two problems with that:
Saying 'that's classified', to the people supposed to be providing oversight to them, is 'giving away too much information'? Saying simply 'yes we do', or 'no we do not' would provide vital intel to the public(otherwise known as the classified 'enemy' they refuse to name)?
Which magically makes lying to the people providing oversight acceptable?
Sorry, but if an agency is allowed to lie to the people who are supposed to provide oversight for them, then the entire idea of oversight is a complete and utter sham, nothing more than something to give an illusion of legitimacy to an agency that in reality has no real checks on what they are allowed to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two problems with that:
Besides, Wyden already knew the answer. He was just trying to get Clapper to admit it publicly, which is not a trivial matter.
If Wyden wanted the answer on the public record, there was nothing keeping him from doing so. But, heck, why not try and get Clapper to do Wyden's dirty work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to name it.
We are not criminals!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alexander Lying Examples
First Alexander said this in congressional testimony:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmBAxEWxDFs&feature=youtu.be&t=1h29m50s
Then this was revealed 4 days later:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-cal ls/
And now this has been revealed:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]