boingboing — 2014-01-29T16:47:23-05:00 — #1
speedracer — 2014-01-29T17:11:51-05:00 — #2
That's rich. I am willing to entertain an argument that Snowden broke the law. He at least broke a contract. I'm probably willing to be lenient, because he did it to expose significant corruption in the gov't.
Reporting on it is not a crime, and the courts have ruled numerous times that it isn't.
What is a crime is lying before Congress while under oath. Mr. Clapper, how about you go some way to restoring faith in the gov't by turning yourself in? You have admitted in public that you broke the law.
imb — 2014-01-29T17:14:59-05:00 — #3
He is one evil fucker. Since he mentioned that Snowden said he won, Clapper has a hard-on for anyone who makes him look like a loser. And that's what I think it is about with people like him, winning at all costs, even if the game has no purpose. It's just about being on top and in control. he doesn't care how he wins, makes the rules as he goes along, but everyone else better follow them.
imb — 2014-01-29T17:29:06-05:00 — #4
Hey, not only did he commit a crime and get away with it, but he hasn't even lost his position. This speaks not only to him, but about everyone who worships him and permits him to remain in his job.
angusm — 2014-01-29T17:29:59-05:00 — #5
What part of "You're either with us or against us" don't you understand?
Circle the wagons, everyone into the bunker. The peasants are revolting!
llamaspit — 2014-01-29T17:48:50-05:00 — #6
Any other normal person, having been caught in a bald faced lie on national television, would lay low and defer commenting on the legality of the activity of others. Not Clapper…oh, no, he is still willing to condemn others for activity which might illuminate his own illegality.
You can't make this shit up.
vadym_zakrevsky — 2014-01-29T18:05:45-05:00 — #7
There, fixed the post pic.
stevelaudig — 2014-01-29T18:11:20-05:00 — #8
That's unindicted serial perjurer James Clapper, to you.
ratel — 2014-01-29T18:14:00-05:00 — #9
He's very anxious to see someone hang for all this. I wonder if Mr. Clapper has any crows, for whose sport he might adorn a gibbet.
danegeld — 2014-01-29T18:39:06-05:00 — #10
And this, ladies and gentlemen is the reason why we have separation between the executive and the judicial branches of government! I'm sure Snowden has caused this guy a lot of extra work. I'm equally sure that reporting can never be a crime.
openfly — 2014-01-29T19:54:37-05:00 — #11
I don't understand why Clapper isn't in prison yet. I truly don't. This guy straight up got caught dead to rights lying to congress, repeatedly. That's a HUGE crime. That's tantamount to treason. When you consider what he was covering up, and the damage it's done to the US economy and military, you can totally make a legitimate claim of actual treason. And yet there is ZERO accountability for this criminal piece of shit.
It boggles the mind.
l_mariachi — 2014-01-29T20:24:35-05:00 — #12
“I call on him and his accomplices to facilitate the return of the remaining stolen documents.”
Does Clapper really not understand how information works in the 21st century? Snowden didn’t crack some NSA safe and purloin the sole copies. The NSA still has all the same documents it had before, but now so do a bunch of other people. And Snowden returning whatever he has in his possession doesn’t get the cat back into the bag.
openfly — 2014-01-29T20:27:05-05:00 — #13
I call on DNI Clapper to turn himself in. And face justice for his crimes.
avocado — 2014-01-29T20:28:07-05:00 — #14
The incompetency is staggering and why this man still has a job is beyond me. The question of how you are going to limit access to documents is a basic security question.The NSA lost 1.7 million documents because they failed to have and/or adequately follow security policies to protect those documents. And this is not some random organization, but rather one of the main organizations in charge of security for our nation. One that specializes in keeping secrets. If Snowden was able to get the documents so easily, then who else could have stolen documents prior to Snowden? Regardless of Snowden or the journalists involved until leadership at the NSA is replaced with people who actually understand security, there is little reason we should trust in the NSA with our security.
darntonviolins — 2014-01-29T21:03:59-05:00 — #15
The only responsible thing for Snowden to do is turn it all over to the world court in The Hague. If Clapper and his gang haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about--isn't that the concept they've been trying to sell us to convince us that all their spying on us shouldn't bother us ?
teapot — 2014-01-29T21:35:26-05:00 — #16
I think the reason they keep asking for this is because they're not entirely sure exactly what has been taken by Snowden and they'd like to figure out excuses for various abuses ahead of time.
I love that he thinks we, or anyone, cares about his opinion any more.
bzishi — 2014-01-29T21:50:52-05:00 — #17
No it isn't. In the US, treason has a specific definition. It is the only crime defined in the Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
For the same reason that Snowden didn't commit treason (he must have waged war or adhered to enemies), Clapper didn't commit treason. Clapper did commit perjury, there is no question on that. But let's stop throwing around the word 'treason' as if it isn't formally defined. I would also recommend that anybody wondering about this very specific definition of treason in the US Constitution to research why it was so specifically defined with such narrow limits. There is a lot of history behind why it is the only crime defined in the Constitution and how this specific definition came about to restrain the government from attacking its critics.
openfly — 2014-01-29T22:16:30-05:00 — #18
I'd argue that launching an attack on NIST ( as US Government entity ) with the intent to weaken crypto ( considered munitions under ITAR ) without authorization or legal precedent an act of war against the United States.
bzishi — 2014-01-29T22:28:52-05:00 — #19
This only indicates that you didn't even take the time to read the Wikipedia article on it.
The reason treason is defined narrowly in the Constitution is because it was a crime whose definition was abused when it wasn't. You are doing the same thing with your 'interpretation'. The Founders meant "levying war" to mean actually, no shit, levying war (civil war, coup d'etat, assassinations).
There are a lot of things that can be interpreted from the Constitution. Treason is not one of them, nor should it ever be. The definition is narrow enough to prevent its abuse while still being focused enough to ensure that people who do things like start civil wars, assassinate political leaders, or defect to an enemy can be punished.
openfly — 2014-01-29T22:33:21-05:00 — #20
you are saying a military operation ( NSA is a branch of the DOD ) attacking ( sabotage ) a US government standards body responsible for standardization and recommendation of strategic deployment of military resources... is not an act of war? no they didn't march troops into DC and seize the offices of the US Dept of Commerce, but they did launch a miltary sabotage operation aimed at them.
That's an act of war. It may not be a direct Coup D'tat but it is an act of war. As in ... levying war.
next page →