
Snowden: Why hasn’t DNI Clapper been punished for lying to Congress? - ryutin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/snowden-why-hasnt-the-director-of-national-intelligence-been-punished-for-lying-to-congress/2014/05/01/4f4aaa2d-fc94-4eee-9782-0b2566b4b4a1_story.html
======
gottasayit
Of course Clapper isn't going to be punished. Holder was held in contempt of
Congress for stonewalling on Fast and Furious, but since pursuit of his
punishment would require action from an Obama political appointee, nothing
will happen.

No one went to jail for the Wall Street fiasco.

No one was fired for being wrong about WMDs in Iraq.

We still don't know anything about Benghazi while some poor sap who published
a video rots in jail as a scapegoat... no one will suffer consequences.

No one in this administration will cooperate in determining the origins,
extent, and details of the IRS attack on conservative political groups.

The list of government protecting its own goes on forever.

Why is anyone surprised that things are the same for this particular scandal?
Particularly with this administration that gets a lot of political cover from
the press?

~~~
bradleyjg
Each house of Congress has inherent contempt powers and can jail people, in
the Capitol if necessary. They haven't exercised that power since 1934, these
days they refer contemptors to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia.
The older power still remains though and is on very firm Constitutional
grounds (though for a cabinet official there are issues of executive
privilege).

More generally it's hard to take Congressional complaints of executive
overreaching seriously when Congress refuses to utilize any of the many tools
at its disposal.

~~~
hga
Thing is, though, I don't think Clapper would fit into this slot. Unlike other
examples, he testified, the only problem is that he lied in it.

Our Founding Fathers were very careful to separate executive and legislative
powers, very much different and in reaction to the Westminster parliamentary
system they had after all rebelled against. So I don't see the Congress having
the power to go beyond jailing someone to force them to testify (their being
the nation's Grand Inquisitor is part of our small 'c' constitution if not
explicitly in the written one).

If you want to see Clapper clapped in irons, elect a non-Democratic Party
President with a spine, and hope he doesn't get a pardon before then.

~~~
bradleyjg
There have been several cases over the years of punitive contempt (as opposed
to contempt to compel testimony) by Congress. In fact, in early US history it
was most often used to punish bribery attempts.

------
danielweber
I'm frequently not on Snowden's side (and Clapper being wrong doesn't
necessarily make Snowden right), but he's completely on point here. Clapper
directly lied to Congress under oath. He needs some kind of censure.

~~~
josho
Oh, great. I'm very curious. I am honestly very interested to hear what you
feel Snowden has done wrong?

I had always assumed that for everyone except those with something to lose
(e.g. politicians, bureaucrats) that Snowden 's actions were seen in high
regard.

~~~
rayiner
> I had always assumed that for everyone except those with something to lose
> (e.g. politicians, bureaucrats) that Snowden 's actions were seen in high
> regard.

I imagine this is entirely a function of your social circle. The polls
conducted this year have been marginally in favor of his prosecution:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_on_Edward_Snowden's_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_on_Edward_Snowden's_disclosure#Public_opinion_polls).
It's a deeply divisive issue for Americans, though it breaks along the usual
lines (age, etc).

My dad, for example, who is very liberal on most things, is no fan of Snowden.
Especially among the older generation who grew up during the Cold War, nothing
Snowden revealed rises to the level of invasiveness that would be cause for
alarm.

Most of the people I know simply do not care about surveillance. They're in
the ideological majority, they don't have controversial opinions, and they
(rightly) believe the government has no interest in using the fruits
surveillance against them. They certainly don't sympathize with the ideas of
hypothetical political dissidents that might be hypothetically suppressed
using surveillance.

~~~
lettergram
My Dad is the same way, so a few months after first discussing Snowden I
decided to write a little satire about living in communist Russia.

It was fairly short, probably 3 pages of dark humor, however he got the point
and in now at the very least understands why this is important. I think many
Americans (especially those who grew up in the cold war) do not realize how
serious this is.

There was a campaign to white wash all the information, NPR, CNN, Fox, they
really did not cover the story in a clear cut manner. The fact the government
denied everything, and there was an abundance of information shut a lot of
people down and out of the conversation.

That being said, every (older - 40+) person I talk to think Snowden was bad,
until I ask the question, "Why did we fight the cold war?" You cannot spend
decades battling Nazism/Communism only to accept the same practices a decade
later. It's pathetic. Often after a clear explanation of what the NSA (or what
we know the NSA) actually does, quickly changes their minds.

All they really need is an explanation.

~~~
genericresponse
Well I'm younger and I still think what Snowden did was bad. Moreover, I think
you're going a bit far by saying that these are "the same practices" that we
fought against in the cold war. I would argue that we don't have nearly the
grievances that those living under late 20th century communism did.

My big two are: 1\. Food and goods shortages requiring long lines. 2\. Extreme
restrictions on freedom to travel. (You must have your papers to go to the
next town, state, etc.) Overall my biggest issue is that communism sought to
convert the entire world and that it was intrusive into its citizen's daily
lives.

My big issues with Snowden: 1\. Most of this was strongly suspected/known. See
the Wired article from 2 years before about the Utah data center. 2\. If he
did this on principle why not face the consequences of his actions. This has
been a principle of resistance for years. 3\. The documentation he leaked went
beyond the scope of potential constitutional violations into tradecraft and
technique. He turned over a treasure trove of information to foreign spy
services.

------
Involute
As far as I can tell, Clapper was asked about a classified program during an
open session of Congress. Confronted with a conflict between his oath to tell
the truth and his obligation to preserve the secrecy of the program, he chose
the latter and corrected his testimony later in private. Maybe I'm
misconstruing what happened, but, if not, why is this controversial?

~~~
couchand
The legitimate response in such a situation is to officially dodge the
question. It doesn't even have to be public since they're given the questions
in advance and have veto power. But Clapper went before Congress explicitly
allowing them to ask him about this program and knowingly lied about it.

What's unfortunate is that it's not controversial. It seems Clapper has the
backing of a pretty big group in Congress.

~~~
involute1344
According to the article, ODNI's attorney was given the question in advance,
but it wasn't passed on to Clapper, so he improvised. Maybe the attorney's
just covering for him, but that's what it says.

------
mgamache
Congressional testimony is just political kabuki. No one involved wants the
truth they just want the show. It reminds me of pro wrestling without the
steroids.

~~~
gcb0
So more reason to go to the bottom of this.

------
Tloewald
Why does it take _Snowden_ to ask this question? Since when is blatant perjury
before Congress not a punishable offense? I guess if you perjure yourself over
drug use in baseball that's a lot more important.

~~~
gknoy
In the article, they mention that several senators wrote a letter to the
president asking for his removal on this basis, but I agree: it seems strange
that there have been no charges.

------
anonbanker
The short answer: because his written response, and the committee's acceptance
of his written response, absolved him of any criminal wrongdoing caused by his
testimony.

A little known fact: under UCC and UNCITRAL, you have 72 hours to modify any
contracts you make in court via private correspondence. With 3 days to
receive, and 3 days to send a response (and one day for a Sunday) tacked on.
If the other party goes silent afterwards (as the committee did), clapper can
use that silence as tacit acquiescence to his modified statements. In this
case, the senate committee accepted that "least untruthful" was considered
sufficient reason to make false public statements. Clapper brought that
private agreement public via the press, and now it's nicely cemented in stone,
as a valid process that anyone else can use in case they're ever caught lying
to congress.

Someone really should be teaching Ed Snowden contract and trade law. I bet
he'd pick it up rather quickly, and it'd make his current situation easier to
deal with.

------
tokenadult
There is some good reporting here by the Washington Post about the
circumstances of Clapper's testimony to Congress. Readers here who know my
comments know that I'm not fully happy with how Snowden chose to disclose
information from inside NSA, and particularly not about his travel to China
(Hong Kong) and Russia, but I think Snowden raises a fair point here. There is
some genuine difference of opinion among Americans about how Clapper's
statement to Congress should be characterized (whether "lie" or "erroneous
statement") and plenty of us who agree with another comment here posted before
mine that two wrongs don't make a right. Every national government in the
civilized world needs an intelligence-gathering agency that can operate with
some degree of operational secrecy.

I think Congress is unsure about how to proceed on this issue because not all
members of Congress are of one mind about what is best for the country in
administration of NSA. I categorically reject the assertion that Congress is
still moving forward slowly to change NSA oversight because "NSA has Congress
by the balls." Nope. One of the most common kinds of comments here on Hacker
News about issues like this is a comment that ASSUMES that if government
leaders are under pervasive surveillance they are all afraid of blackmail. But
I don't believe that, because some government leaders and some political
candidates are essentially shameless. Even after they are caught (by old-
fashioned journalism, or by a jilted lover or some unrelated criminal
investigation) doing something unsavory, they are still willing to run for
office, and SOME ARE REELECTED. United States Senator David Vitter was
reelected in 2010 even after a scandal involving behavior that I would
consider shameful,[1] and the antics of former DC mayor Marion Barry[2] are
probably still notorious enough that they don't need further discussion here.
In short, I call baloney on the idea that NSA can keep politicians on its
leash simply by knowing their secrets. Some politicians have PUBLIC lives full
of dirt, and still get elected and influence policy anyway.

The other reason I don't believe this HN hivemind theory of politics is that I
by no means assume that everyone in politics lacks personal integrity. Some
politicians, I am quite sure, could have all their secrets revealed only to
have voters think "Why is that person such a straight-arrow? Why not have some
fun once in a while?" The simple fact is that there is value system diversity
in the United States electorate, and there is personal conduct probity
variance among United States politicians, and there isn't any universal way to
unduly influence politicians merely through even the most diligent efforts to
discover personal secrets. If politicians think that NSA is going too far (as
evidently several politicians from more than one party do think), then they
will receive plenty of support from the general public to rein in the
surveillance. (Obligatory disclaimer: Yes, I am a lawyer, who as a judicial
clerk for my state's Supreme Court used to review case files on attorney
misconduct, and, yes, some of my law school classmates are elected officials,
including one member of Congress. I am absolutely certain that there are
enough politicians ready to mobilize to roll back NSA surveillance programs if
they really think the programs are excessive in their scope.)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter#D.C._Madam_scanda...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter#D.C._Madam_scandal)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry#1990_arrest_.26_d...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry#1990_arrest_.26_drug_conviction)

~~~
rayiner
> Every national government in the civilized world needs an intelligence-
> gathering agency that can operate with some degree of operational secrecy.

> I think Congress is unsure about how to proceed on this issue because not
> all members of Congress are of one mind about what is best for the country
> in administration of NSA.

> The other reason I don't believe this HN hivemind theory of politics is that
> I by no means assume that everyone in politics lacks personal integrity.

None of these points should be controversial, but oh well.

~~~
belorn
Let me add a few others:

1) Every nation should protect their citizens against intelligence gathering
from outsiders. 2) Intelligence-gathering must be subject of the rule of law.
3) Military forces must be under democratic control.

Surely, neither of those are controversial either?

~~~
mpyne
No, not even in the U.S. where all 3 conditions are in effect (unless you mean
to quibble about oligarchy vs. democracy, in which case that's a whole 'nother
level of argument).

~~~
belorn
I guess you could argue the definition of "protect", but sabotaging security
standards and hording security vulnerabilities is not it.

And if the rule of law require says every citizen is protected against
warrant-less searches, you can not "steal" personal information about those
citizens when it rest in care of a service provider.

But I take it that what is controversial is not that every national government
in the civilized world needs an intelligence-gathering agency that can operate
with some degree of operational secrecy. The controversy how an intelligence-
gathering agency may behave.

------
mpyne
This is the answer, whether you agree with it or not:
[http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/dishonor-in-high-
places-s...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/07/dishonor-in-high-places-
sandbagging-the-intelligence-chief-again/)

------
geetee
I'm surprised by the amount of anti-Snowden sentiment in the WaPo comments.

~~~
hadoukenio
See "Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to
spread pro-American propaganda":

[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-
ope...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-
social-networks)

~~~
krapp
Also see people actually having an opposing point of view. Not everything has
to be parallel construction, false flag operations and conspiracy.

~~~
scrrr
Yeah but come on, it's happening.

~~~
krapp
There's a difference between it happening, and it happening so often that it
can be taken for granted. The CIA trying to plant microphones into stray cats
hoping they'd wander within earshot of Soviet dignitaries happened too.

The truth is, it isn't known, the scale of these operations, and you can
assume everything is full of spooks or not. But the more reasonable
assumption, absent evidence to the contrary, is that it's likely not a
conspiracy. Particularly when you're describing points of view which a lot of
Americans actually do hold.

Although then I suppose you could suggest that the reason Americans believe
certain things, or even the appearance of that belief, is the result of
propaganda but, again - who knows?

------
noir_lord
Because he has congress by the balls.

~~~
jerf
Impossible... Congress has no balls.

To make this more than mere snark, seriously, committees of the size of
Congress are nearly entirely structurally incapable of taking serious stands
of this nature. That's not sarcasm, it's a real structural problem with
committees, and despite how we often refer to it in humor, it's a fully real
thing, not a joke. This is why the US still needs an executive branch, which
is structured in such a way that it can take a stand, potentially very
quickly.

~~~
rooster8
I thought OP was implying that he had dirt on anyone who would try to
reprimand him. Everyone hesitates in a surveillance state.

~~~
noir_lord
That is exactly what I was implying maybe it was unclear.

You don't need dirt on all of congress (though I wouldn't be surprised if they
had it on most of them) just key players committee leaders etc.

Hell the stuff doesn't even have to be illegal to be useful, illicit affairs
have brought down presidents before.

------
hadoukenio
Answer: Because the United States is an Oligarchy.

~~~
higherpurpose
It seems HN didn't like your comment. Maybe a citation is needed:

[https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14](https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14)

~~~
eli
I think it's more that it is flippant and doesn't really advance the
conversation in any meaningful way. You could post that comment on every story
that touches on politics.

~~~
pessimizer
...that asks a question about why a powerful person wasn't prosecuted, or why
the polled will of the people wasn't followed and the opinion of a few wealthy
people was enshrined as law. Otherwise it wouldn't be relevant.

In this thread, it's the talking around in circles about "what the American
people think about Snowden" and whether the speaker lives in a tech bubble or
not that's irrelevant. We already know statistically that what people outside
of the top 10% think has absolutely no relevance to policy.

