

US intelligence chief Clapper defends spying policy - GFuller
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24729628

======
malandrew
What I don't get is why this guy isn't in a courtroom defending himself on
perjury charges. Many people, including some congressmen and women has made
statements stating that what he did was illegal, so why has he not yet been
indicted? What's the process?

------
PeterisP
If, according to Clapper, "knowing what foreign leaders were thinking was
critical to US policymaking", then why do the US policymakers - president and
congress (it's intelligence committee) - claim that they weren't informed
about that?

As far as I understand, Mr. Clapper should be working for their needs, and
noone else, shouldn't he?

~~~
joshdulac
The intelligence community extols the virtues of "need to know" and obsesses
over OPSEC [1]. They protect both methods and sources, above all else. A
sitting President will only ask for methods and sources if he absolutely needs
to know (in order to make an imperative and difficult decision). Otherwise,
the data flows in via daily briefings [2], with sources and methods likely
removed. This allows for plausible deniability. // Side note: Just imagine how
long it would take to explain every HUMINT, SIGINT, OSINT, etc operation to a
lawmaker.

The intel committee knows better than to ask for methods and sources, as it
does not want to accidentally leak a national security secret. Their data is
often received via NIEs [3]. They might ask for a few methods to cover their
butt, but you know for sure that the DCI is never going to give up REAL source
- it could cost lives.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_security)
[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Daily_Brief](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Daily_Brief)
[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Estimate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Estimate)

EDIT: words

~~~
PeterisP
I'm not saying that they need to detail how they get the calls and who/when
they managed and who/when failed to intercept.

However, even if the individual interception targets aren't discussed, 100% of
them (not 99%) should be according to policy explicitly decided by the
lawmakers - not arbitrarily by NSA leadership, but by President and/or
Congress.

Should NSA wiretap governments of NATO countries? Should NSA record
communications of all americans? The answer may be yes or no, there are all
kinds of reasons, but it's definitely not the right of NSA to decide on that
answer; they are allowed to do that if and only if the democratically elected
policymakers have, well, made policies that allow that. These policies need
not be public, but they need to be there - it would be completely
understandable if Obama had authorised the wiretapping of Merkel and everyone
else but denies it for diplomatic reasons, but it's unforgiveable sabotage if
the same thing happened against the direction that president and secretary of
state desired.

It's quite likely that the intel coming from German politician phones is more
important than the effect of it on German relations, as the scandal will
likely wash away soon. However, it's not the job or privilege of mr. Clapper
to decide on that compromise; his job is to implement whatever decision the
lawmakers and commander in chief come up with, even if he disagrees with that
decision. And if the lawmakers ask him to testify under oath, as they had with
earlier surveillance questions then his absolute duty is to obey them, not the
intelligence community.

The intel committee does know better than to ask for methods and sources, but
if they do explicitly ask for some reason and keep up the request after being
warned - then he'd damn well give up the real sources, even if it costs lives;
if in such a situation he provides a fake source then he deserves (forgive me
for some exaggeration) to be executed for treason - it's not 'his' agency or
data, it all belongs to the elected representatives of 'we the people'. How
would mr. Clapper personally react in his previous USAF position, if one of
his subordinate officers had deliberately mislead him to cause a decision that
the subordinate wanted? Wouldn't court martial be the obvious, immediate,
mandatory response?

------
csandreasen
It's VERY lengthy, but the entire House Intelligence Committee hearing was
public and the video is available on C-SPAN's website.

[http://www.c-span.org/Events/Intel-Officials-Discuss-
Propose...](http://www.c-span.org/Events/Intel-Officials-Discuss-Proposed-
Changes-to-NSA-Spying-Programs/10737442346-1/)

