The Intercept Publishes A Post From James Clapper's Classified Blog... the 'Intercept'
from the stupid-spoiled-Americans-and-their-rights dept
The Intercept, a site that regularly publishes classified documents, reports that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, also publishes a classified internal blog -- called (serendipitously enough) the "Intercept."
It even offers a secret RSS feed so analysts will never miss a post. Clapper’s Intercept blog has no relationship to The Intercept, except that he hates pretty much everything we stand for.
In a blog post [PDF] obtained by The Intercept, Clapper responds to a redacted "constituent" in Nevada who -- two months prior to the first Snowden leak -- wants to reassure the Intelligence Community that Americans have far too many rights.
“If the american [sic] people are not willing to release some freedoms, they cannot blame the IC when they can’t stop” domestic terror attacks because of the intelligence agencies “having their hands tied by Law [sic] & policy,” the “constituent” wrote. He adds that Americans “cannot have your cake and eat it too,” and then offers what has become a dangerous cliche in the post-Snowden mentality of the intelligence community: “So if one has nothing to hide why would a little government watching for mass protection be such a big question.” The letter ends: “WE SUPPORT YOU.”
In his response to this outpouring of love for government overreach, James Clapper -- perhaps feeling he was writing for the "home team" -- dispenses with niceties about honest government employees doing their damndest to protect American civil liberties while still keeping the government safe from international terrorism.
Instead, he becomes an echo chamber.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your letter… I say this on behalf of all the women and men in the Intelligence Community. In my view you have very accurately described the issue that the Boston Bombings represent! Just how small do the Americans want the holes in the security fish net to be?
Clapper has greatly overestimated his affinity with the rank-and-file of the IC, as the comments on his blog post attest.
The first two intelligence people to comment on his post took Clapper, and his “constituent,” to the woodshed. “I think it was inappropriate for DNI Clapper to respond in a way that indicates he agrees with the premise of the writer’s letter, namely, that government must expand its domestic “watching” and the people must give up “some ‘rights’ in the interest of the greater good,” one IC commenter posted. “The head of the US Intelligence Community — the business of which is foreign intelligence —should not be taking sides on matters of domestic intelligence policy.”
Another commenter wrote that, like Clapper, he agreed with the letter’s author about “the fact that it is impossible to defend 100% against these kinds of attacks given the restrictions placed on America’s security forces and the freedom and range of targets enjoyed by the attackers.” However, this commenter, who went by the name Wormy, warned against being “too quick to release your freedoms and “rights” in the name of security.”
The head of the intelligence community is at odds with his own underlings. Clapper and Gen. Keith Alexander have long been fans of unrestricted mass surveillance that helps the agency pursue its "collect it all" goals. Clapper has lied about the existence of surveillance programs and followed those lies up with spirited arguments against any narrowing of their scope.
Clapper apparently believes Americans can get by with fewer rights in exchange for security he can't possibly guarantee. And all to save the nation from something less likely to kill Americans than lightning strikes.
On the other hand, if these two commenters are more indicative of the attitudes of the bulk of the NSA's workforce, then Clapper's assertions about analysts' concern for protecting American civil liberties have been accurate. Of course, they would be accurate despite Clapper, not because of him. If the general NSA attitude was more aligned with his views on the rights v. security debate, Clapper's statements would have been identical. They just would have been less factual.
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: blog, civil liberties, dni, intercept, james clapper, nsa, odni, rights, terrorism
Companies: the intercept
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Act now, for a limited time only you can get one Safety for the low price of one Freedom!"
Another commenter wrote that, like Clapper, he agreed with the letter’s author about “the fact that it is impossible to defend 100% against these kinds of attacks given the restrictions placed on America’s security forces and the freedom and range of targets enjoyed by the attackers.”
If they had no restrictions whatsoever they still couldn't guarantee 100% safety, and the mere act of gutting the rights of the public would do far more damage than any unofficial terrorist could ever dream of.
They're putting forwards a false dichotomy, where you either have rights or safety, and if the public just gives up enough rights then finally the mythical 'perfect safety/security' can be achieved, and that's simply not how it works.
Beyond the fact that some prices are simply too high to pay, it's impossible to 'defend 100% against these kinds of attacks', so they should stop wasting time on that idea and focus on doing the best they can with the tools they have and within the limits those pesky 'rights' impose on their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Act now, for a limited time only you can get one Safety for the low price of one Freedom!"
it's impossible to 'defend 100% against these kinds of attacks'
I disagree. They could always push the concept of security to it's logical extreme: simply beat the baddies to the punch and kill off every last American; then, technically, not a single one of us could be harmed in a terrorist attack.
Why do I have the weird feeling that somewhere in the IC, this idea has been considered as more than just a bad joke in poor taste?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Act now, for a limited time only you can get one Safety for the low price of one Freedom!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Act now, for a limited time only you can get one Safety for the low price of one Freedom!"
Instead we could teach tolerance to our kids and let the seed slowly bloom on future generations. It's happened before, that's why we don't burn people accusing them of witchcraft and homosexuality and when some morons do we as a society frown on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Act now, for a limited time only you can get one Safety for the low price of one Freedom!"
AC said:
Therefore there wouldn't be an "own land" left either ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Act now, for a limited time only you can get one Safety for the low price of one Freedom!"
No freedom should be exchanged for security. None.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Act now, for a limited time only you can get one Safety for the low price of one Freedom!"
Good news: You can't. Because privacy is paramount to security.
Bad news: Every time your freedom gets curtailed, you also get less secure, in spite of what your government tells you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Act now, for a limited time only you can get one Safety for the low price of one Freedom!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Act now, for a limited time only you can get one Safety for the low price of one Freedom!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pick up that can
A good citizen is a compliant citizen. Only a criminal would even think to question the government or it's claims, as the government is in a much better position to know what's best for the public, so if they say that what they are doing is good and working then it's nigh treasonous to so much as suggest that that might not be the case or ask for evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pick up that can
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pick up that can
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other news
The wheels of justice turned a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In other news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In other news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The oath we took
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The oath we took
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The oath we took
His oath to defend the Constitution is the one he and all others must be held accountable to.
I tried sticking to that oath. Not well received, believe it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The oath we took
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The oath we took
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It'sNotTheCommonPeople
Around the world citizens don't feel their representatives care about them, from South Korea marching in the hundreds of thousands (at least they take to the streets unlike in the U.S. where they blog to feel good about themselves), the whole Syria thing started when a man set himself on fire, in Russia where speaking out lands you either dead or in jail or China where trying to get past the great firewall means you simply disappear to end up as an unwilling organ donor (or so the internet claims).
This is all a game to those who 'claim' power and we're all unwilling participants forced to live with the results of their actions taken on 'our behalf'.
I trust 'the intercept" as much as I trust Clapper, zero percent. Greenwald is linked to Wikileaks which chose what information to leak before an election, zero trust... These guys are acting on their own just like the officials in government, they aren't elected and act on our behalf as judge and jury, that's not how it's supposed to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It'sNotTheCommonPeople
Maybe Clintonites should take a step back and consider the fact that it's a really fucking stupid idea to keep trying to destroy the credibility of an organization like Wikileaks right before Donald Trump becomes president.
We get it, you're mad that the evil misogynist racist Russians time-traveled to the past and forced Hillary Clinton and her campaign to engage in a bunch of questionable behaviors so that they could leak information about them in the future and stop her from becoming president... but get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It'sNotTheCommonPeople
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It'sNotTheCommonPeople
Good idea, Clintonians, let's attack the few people and organizations we have calling out corruption in government, just in time for a Trump presidency -- when we're going to need them the most.
The Trump administration thanks you in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It'sNotTheCommonPeople
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
clapper: n. - one who produces or transmits...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: clapper: n. - one who produces or transmits...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Q: Have you ever done anything wrong in your entire life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fractions of Americans and Their Defective Dystopia
“If the american [sic] people are not willing to release some freedoms, they cannot blame the IC when they can’t stop” domestic terror attacks because of the intelligence agencies “having their hands tied by Law [sic] & policy,” the “constituent” wrote. He adds that Americans “cannot have your cake and eat it too,” and then offers what has become a dangerous cliche in the post-Snowden mentality of the intelligence community: “So if one has nothing to hide why would a little government watching for mass protection be such a big question.” The letter ends: “WE SUPPORT YOU.”
Dear loser (aka constituent) if you seek total security you can find it in prison simply request to be placed in solitary confinement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Freedom Worth Dying For?
Think of those who sacrificed their lives in order that we might enjoy the freedoms we have today. Are we going to give up those freedoms because we feel a little fearful that our own lives may be impacted in some way? Do we value their sacrifices so lightly?
The terrorists want to take away our freedoms. Are we going to save them the trouble by doing their job for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Freedom Worth Dying For?
The terrorists want to take away our freedoms. Are we going to save them the trouble by doing their job for them?
We're doing national security ironically. God help us, we're ruled by hipsters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Freedom Worth Dying For?
Vets are getting tired of this bullshit.
If we can not support them upon their return, let's not send them in the first place.
Troops are to be used for defense of the country, not some corporate take over of a third world country.
The terrorist boogie man is old and tired, its usefulness is nearing its end. Time to find a new boogie man to scare little children into doing what the overlords demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is Freedom Worth Dying For?
It's been a few decades, and with the Russia stuff getting so much attention maybe they can bring back the good old Red Scare?
'Have you re-affirmed your loyalty to the Homeland in defense against the encroaching Red Menace today? Remember, communist sympathizers are everywhere, report any suspicious activity such as questioning the government or it's agencies to the police or government immediately.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: maybe they can bring back the good old Red Scare?
Wonder why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: maybe they can bring back the good old Red Scare?
Jokes aside, the Hillarybots have been flogging the Red Scare horse corpse to shreds for weeks now. At first I was like, "Whut?!" It was such a switch, and ridiculously illiberal of them.
Now the joke is old. Shut up, moonbats, you lost because your candidate did not inspire the confidence of the American people — not even for a protest vote like Trumpy McTrumpface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: maybe they can bring back the good old Red Scare?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Freedom Worth Dying For?
They have already won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You could say
YEEEEEEAAAAH!....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]