Hillary Clinton: All For Vague, Undefined Surveillance Reform, But Screw That Snowden Guy

Politics

from the because-that's-how-politics-work dept

Thu, Jun 19th 2014 9:01am — Mike Masnick

Hillary Clinton is, of course, making her big ~~Presidential campaign~~ book tour, commenting on all sorts of big issues, as she gears up for the real campaign. It's causing some controversy, of course, including her wacky, angry response to Fresh Air host Terry Gross simply asking if she had changed her opinion on gay marriage (Clinton refused to directly answer the question, and when Gross called her on that, Clinton accused her of trying to claim she changed her opinion for political reasons, even though that was pretty clearly not Gross' intent). However, in that same interview, Clinton also took some ridiculous and uninformed shots at Ed Snowden. After Gross pointed out that Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, had called Snowden an "imperfect messenger" but also suggesting that perhaps the national security state has gone too far, Hillary said:

Well, I usually agree with my husband, but let me say on this point that there were many ways to start this conversation. And in fact, the conversation was starting. Members of Congress - a few notable examples like Senator Wyden and Senator Udall and others - were beginning to raise issues that it was time for us to take a hard look at all of the laws that have been passed and how they were implemented since 9/11.

The president was addressing this. In fact, he had given a speech that basically made that point shortly before these disclosures were made. And of course, I think it's imperative that in our political system, in our society at large, we have these debates. So I welcome the conversation. But I think that he was not only an imperfect messenger, but he was a messenger who could have chosen other ways to raise the very specific issues about the impact on Americans. But that's not all he did.

Of course, this is misleading to wrong. Lots of defenders of the President on surveillance like to point to his speech at the National Defense University a couple weeks before the first Snowden revelation, but that speech did not address the issues now being discussed at all. It mostly focuses on fighting overseas, and actually (a few times) praises the work of the intelligence community and how useful that's been. That was not starting any sort of real debate. As for Wyden and Udall -- they'd been making these points for years and having them virtually ignored by most, in both the press and among their colleagues (we wrote about it, but we don't count).

There were other ways that Mr. Snowden could have expressed his concerns, by reaching out to some of the senators or other members of Congress or journalists in order to convey his questions about the implementation of the laws surrounding the collection of information concerning Americans' calls and emails. I think everyone would have applauded that because it would have added to the debate that was already started. Instead, he left the country - first to China, then to Russia - taking with him a huge amount of information about how we track the Chinese military's investments and testing of military equipment, how we monitor the communications between al-Qaida operatives. Just two examples.

Except, of course, the failure of Wyden and Udall's claims to get any attention made it quite clear that reaching out to Senators wouldn't help. And he did reach out to journalists. But, of course, Clinton's former boss has also been using the Espionage Act against leakers and journalists at an astounding rate. If Obama hadn't been doing so, perhaps Snowden would have been more comfortable just sharing a few documents. However, knowing that there was a good chance he was about to disappear for life, it makes sense that Snowden handed over the whole pile of documents to Greenwald and Poitras. And, yes, this is one of the consequences of Obama's use of the Espionage Act. It encourages leakers to leak big while they can.

If Clinton honestly thinks everyone would have "applauded... because it would have added to the debate," she is either clueless about how people have responded to various similar (less explosive) leaks, or trying to rewrite history in her favor.

And the whole "go to China and Russia" bit is tired, old and misleading. As is the suggestion that he took any of that info to Russia. That's been debunked in the past, no need to do so again.

Still, what's amazing is that a week later, we now get this headline from the Guardian: Hillary Clinton backs overhaul of surveillance powers in NSA criticism, and then, in the article:

"Laws that were passed after 9/11 gave the executive very broad authority ... what has happened is that people have said, OK, the emergency is over and we want to get back to regular order," she said.

"It's a really difficult balancing act, but you are absolutely right that we need to make some changes to secure that constitutional right to privacy that Americans are due."

Wait, what? If it weren't for Snowden, we wouldn't even be having the debate about the PATRIOT Act, and there wouldn't be a discussion about "the emergency is over." Hell, to hear Keith Alexander talk about it, the "threat" is bigger now than ever before. Because fear is the key.

Separately, notice that Clinton doesn't actually back any real proposal for reform, but just sorta dances around the idea that maybe reform is good. It's the ultimate in political nothingness. Stake out a bunch of vague positions without anything concrete that can come back to haunt you later, and do it all while bizarrely attacking the guy who made the issue an issue in the first place. And people wonder why the public is so cynical about politicians.

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: ed snowden, hillary clinton, nsa, politics, surveillance, surveillance reform

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Baron von Robber, 19 Jun 2014 @ 9:04am

/facepalm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 9:05am

Anyone against Snowden
Will never get my vote!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 9:39am
  
  Re: Anyone against Snowden
  Nor mine. There surely must be a more hideous political family besides the Clintons, but I can't for the life of me think of who that family might be. Nobody lies like a Clinton....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 9:40am
    
    Re: Re: Anyone against Snowden
    Well, there's Dick Cheney.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 9:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Anyone against Snowden
      He will just shoot you in the face and then secure a public apology from you.
      
      And as much as I think Cheney is just another putrid politician... I am not sure that he is as bad as a Clinton.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Anyone against Snowden
        The Cheney family, while clearly evil, also doesn't have that Clinton all-encompassing gravitas. Plus, I'm pretty sure Dick Cheney never sexually assaulted someone....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anyone against Snowden
        I would not be sure that Cheney would understand/perceive that anyone was violated or assaulted unless it was a member of his own family that was the victim.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael, 19 Jun 2014 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anyone against Snowden
        I'm pretty sure Dick Cheney never sexually assaulted someone
        
        He did spray someone in the face...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 10:31am
    
    Re: Re: Anyone against Snowden
    People keep saying, "do you think we're ready for a woman as President?" I answer, "sure, but not that woman." (I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren if she ran, for example.)
    
    It's a bit scary to realize that we will have registered voters in the next Presidential election who are too young to remember the scandal-plagued Clinton administration or the disastrous election that resulted directly from it. (Remember how Bush Jr. ran on "restoring dignity to the White House"?) Does anyone really want more of that?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 4:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Anyone against Snowden
      Does anyone really want more of that?
      
      Better than more Bushes...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 4:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Anyone against Snowden
        Define "better". 0_o
        
        I LOATHED the Bush Administration. ...so I voted for Obama. ...twice.
        
        Now all I have is regret and difficulty making up my mind as to who was worse.
        
        THE FALLACY OF VOTING FOR �THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS�
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - theskyrider, 21 Jun 2014 @ 8:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Anyone against Snowden
      "It's a bit scary to realize that we will have registered voters in the next Presidential election who are too young to remember the scandal-plagued Clinton administration...."
      
      We have registered voters that don't even remember the First 9-11 (which was actually on 2-26-93) and Oklahoma City which both happened on Clinton's watch.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 9:32am

clueless about scope of loot
Even if the NSA knows exactly what Snowden took, how would "we" know what "they" know, if they don't tell us?

Sounds like an episode from "Friends."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 4:05pm
  
  Re: clueless about scope of loot
  Sounds like an episode from "Friends."
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpl4D3_b6DU&t=1m37s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 9:44am

She is one angry person
She doesn't seem to have any tolerance for people who don't fall in line. She is right, everyone else is wrong. But I am sure the left will elect her this time regardless of her attitude or her lies about Benghazi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 10:06am
  
  Re: She is one angry person
  Seriously, being interviewed by Terry Gross is like petting a kitten. If you get angry there's something wrong with you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonsters (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 2:42pm
    
    Re: Re: She is one angry person
    Petting kittens... grr.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 10:18am
  
  Re: She is one angry person
  Each side has a few yesman yuppies. I think there should be a new law... No family member that was alive during a Presidents time in office should be allowed to server as President. This would prevent Jeb, Hillary, & Chelsea from running.
  
  I think the idea of Families of Politicians should be abhorrent to any well operating Republic or Democracy because it would help to keep corruption out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 10:30am
  
  Re: She is one angry person
  Nether her "anger" nor the Benghazi nonsense have anything to do with my disinclination to vote for her. I am not a Democrat, but I expect that most Dems would be equally unmoved by those things.
  
  The reason that I won't vote for her is because she, like her husband, is a hard-line corporatist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 9:59am

Is mainstream media really going to force the mindless two-party voters to choose between Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton? I couldn't think of anyone less qualified to run as POTUS. Why does the media want these two assclowns to further degrade and ruin this country further?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 19 Jun 2014 @ 10:50am
  
  Re:
  While he has his issues, I would vote for Chris Christie in a second given that choice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pragmatic, 28 Jun 2014 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    What, Chris "We are committed to a free market society" Christie? He's as corporate as Clinton is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 4:06pm
  
  Re:
  I couldn't think of anyone less qualified to run as POTUS.
  
  You must not have a very good imagination. ;-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 19 Jun 2014 @ 10:19am

"constitutional right to privacy that Americans are due"
What a euphemism for "the government has bluntly spit on the Constitution and is on a downward spiral of hiding the evidence while exacerbating the crimes".

It's more like "American voters deserve to be bullshitted in a more thorough and less transparent manner in order to make them believe in the virtues of the U.S. government again."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 10:29am

Benghazi
Strange to see Mrs Clinton defend an agency that caused her a lot of trouble by failing to provide adequate warning before the Al Quaida-attack on the embassy in Benghazi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 11:39am
  
  Re: Benghazi
  That's sarcasm right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 10:47am

Sit back and play the game.
Hillary, Bush, Obama, Cheney are all criminals.

We just need to play the waiting game. They will all be in their 80's at some point and putting an 80 year old away for treason against the citizens is just as refreshing as putting away a 50 year old.

They will get theirs eventually. We all think we are invincible while we are in charge. But when we are in a wheelchair having our diapers changed, it is a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 10:50am

"The president was addressing this. In fact, he had given a speech that basically made that point shortly before these disclosures were made."

Ironic that there hasn't been a real debate even since Snowden. There has been Congress/public pushing on one side and the White House/Judicial system pushing back & hiding what they can at the same time. Heaven forbid an actual discussion... that's exactly what the White House and intelligence organizations don't want!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 11:04am

9/11
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/6b/6b9431f1e52979648a23bbe487587ed93d669ea5aca938baff51bf7dd8e7c3a0.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 11:14am

However, knowing that there was a good chance he was about to disappear for life, it makes sense that Snowden handed over the whole pile of documents to Greenwald and Poitras. And, yes, this is one of the consequences of Obama's use of the Espionage Act. It encourages leakers to leak big while they can.

Indeed. Might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, as they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 11:47am

Hey, you know what'd be great? If politicians (from any party) who got elected had to have bombs strapped to their necks that explode if they break their campaign promises. Just a thought.

(Wonder if Hillary plans on trying to break Obama's record for persecuting people who expose government corruption?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2014 @ 11:53am

I've had about enough of these people running for POTUS that have no business being in that office. I'd had enough of NSA, enough of the two party system that is broken, and enough of government being used by the political parties as their personal go to and fetch it.

I'll not be voting for either party until recognizable changes occur. I'll go for the independent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bshock, 19 Jun 2014 @ 12:13pm

I'm Ready For Oligarchy!
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Except female.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2014 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re: I'm Ready For Oligarchy!
  Well, look how much distance they got out of a black male.
  Pretty obvious that they'll try a white female next.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personanongrata, 19 Jun 2014 @ 1:24pm

Worthless!
Aside from feeding at the public trough and looking out for her campaign's benefactors best interests Hillary Clinton is absolutely worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 2:31pm

Simple rule of politics:
Vague claims = Lying and/or dodging the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Padpaw (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 3:07pm

I would hope wherever she goes people would ask her, "what does it matter". That should haunt her to her grave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Padpaw (profile), 19 Jun 2014 @ 3:08pm
  
  Re:
  Meant to write "what difference does it make"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jun 2014 @ 5:00pm

Chelsy Manning leaked a bunch of state cable emails sent by Hillary Clinton. In those emails, she instructs US diplomats to collect biometric samples of foreign diplomats. She's deep in the spy game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]