> It would help people on your side a lot if you studied how the defense sector & classification rules actually work when trying to get people to work within that in a different way. Clapper's job is to basically do exactly what he was doing since Executive branch and Congress's intelligence committee both authorized it.
Yes. But they don't have the authority because the actions taken greatly exceeded the authority granted to the government as a whole.
> So, he's gotta do the surveillance stuff while keeping it a secret by law.
Well, no. As Snowden showed, he didn't have to do that. Treason is just the easy choice.
> Wyden asks a guy that legally has to keep it secret from public to deliver classified information to the public on the spot. Clapper's was squirming around trying to figure out how to deal with it. He was obviously lying & didn't want to be there.
And he could have kept his mouth shut. You say he'd risk looking like a liar and giving away the secret, but he did anyways.
> So, Clapper decided to hide the information.
Right, and if I'd committed capital crimes I'd have "decided to hide the information" too. Makes perfect sense, for a criminal to do that...
> Now, how to hide the information? You incorrectly determined he should've just stayed silent.
No, I correctly determined that he could have. He had a legal alternative so he's a criminal for not taking it.
You might be right that he'd be screwed either way, but that's doesn't work as an excuse for anyone else.
> The reason is saying yes to specific questions then getting silent on others implies that what they're asking is probably true.
Right. As does getting caught in his stupid lies. By opening his mouth he enabled the newspapers to selectively publish refutations of everything he said.
He could have kept his mouth shut and looked guilty, instead he opened it and proved the guilt.
> Our rules need to change so that people can be honest for huge discrepencies between perception and intelligence work without being nailed to a cross.
Right, we need to bring Snowden home to a hero's welcome. Just before we throw the traitors in jail for the rest of their lives. He didn't perform "intelligence work", he spied on his own country for political advancement. J Edgar Hoover all over again.
> Once again, I recommend some deep study of law in general and regarding national security before talking about what's legal. The Constitution set the baseline.
Right, and anything under that baseline is granted and anything over is not. Any law that goes beyond the powers granted to the government is, by definition, unconstitutional.
> The combination of Constitutional basics, laws Congress passes, and court interpretations (esp Supreme Court) make up the actual law
Sure, but their powers flow from the constitution and thus are always subservient to it. If they go beyond, it's in error (well, intentional error, but...)
> Congress not only allows this but [...]
If I allow you to rob a bank it's still illegal because I don't have the authority the dictate that. Congress was given some authority to do some things, but not unlimited authority, and not to commit treason.
> Far as the voters, where's the mass exodus of votes going away from surveillance state supporters toward strong constitutionalists?
Right, because the government lied to them. With the veil of authority and no conscience you could make people believe some pretty fucked up things.
> There was also no push of any significance to arrest all the people on the top involved in this stuff post-Snowden.
Having used political connections to hide the facts, threaten witnesses and judges, and make a fair trial impossible means that they're innocent! John Gotti for president!
> I think that describes the voter support of this stuff pretty well.
> Right now the majority of them are pushing two candidates
Yeah, because the first-past-the-post system is almost mathematically guaranteed to converge towards two nearly identical parties who think they're polar opposites.
But I've never heard people praising the system. They're always cynically trying to have as much say as possible when their only real choice is Kang or Kodos. Don't waste your vote or the wrong lizard may win!
Yes. But they don't have the authority because the actions taken greatly exceeded the authority granted to the government as a whole.
> So, he's gotta do the surveillance stuff while keeping it a secret by law.
Well, no. As Snowden showed, he didn't have to do that. Treason is just the easy choice.
> Wyden asks a guy that legally has to keep it secret from public to deliver classified information to the public on the spot. Clapper's was squirming around trying to figure out how to deal with it. He was obviously lying & didn't want to be there.
And he could have kept his mouth shut. You say he'd risk looking like a liar and giving away the secret, but he did anyways.
> So, Clapper decided to hide the information.
Right, and if I'd committed capital crimes I'd have "decided to hide the information" too. Makes perfect sense, for a criminal to do that...
> Now, how to hide the information? You incorrectly determined he should've just stayed silent.
No, I correctly determined that he could have. He had a legal alternative so he's a criminal for not taking it.
You might be right that he'd be screwed either way, but that's doesn't work as an excuse for anyone else.
> The reason is saying yes to specific questions then getting silent on others implies that what they're asking is probably true.
Right. As does getting caught in his stupid lies. By opening his mouth he enabled the newspapers to selectively publish refutations of everything he said.
He could have kept his mouth shut and looked guilty, instead he opened it and proved the guilt.
> Our rules need to change so that people can be honest for huge discrepencies between perception and intelligence work without being nailed to a cross.
Right, we need to bring Snowden home to a hero's welcome. Just before we throw the traitors in jail for the rest of their lives. He didn't perform "intelligence work", he spied on his own country for political advancement. J Edgar Hoover all over again.
> Once again, I recommend some deep study of law in general and regarding national security before talking about what's legal. The Constitution set the baseline.
Right, and anything under that baseline is granted and anything over is not. Any law that goes beyond the powers granted to the government is, by definition, unconstitutional.
> The combination of Constitutional basics, laws Congress passes, and court interpretations (esp Supreme Court) make up the actual law
Sure, but their powers flow from the constitution and thus are always subservient to it. If they go beyond, it's in error (well, intentional error, but...)
> Congress not only allows this but [...]
If I allow you to rob a bank it's still illegal because I don't have the authority the dictate that. Congress was given some authority to do some things, but not unlimited authority, and not to commit treason.
> Far as the voters, where's the mass exodus of votes going away from surveillance state supporters toward strong constitutionalists?
Right, because the government lied to them. With the veil of authority and no conscience you could make people believe some pretty fucked up things.
> There was also no push of any significance to arrest all the people on the top involved in this stuff post-Snowden.
Having used political connections to hide the facts, threaten witnesses and judges, and make a fair trial impossible means that they're innocent! John Gotti for president!
> I think that describes the voter support of this stuff pretty well.
> Right now the majority of them are pushing two candidates
Yeah, because the first-past-the-post system is almost mathematically guaranteed to converge towards two nearly identical parties who think they're polar opposites.
But I've never heard people praising the system. They're always cynically trying to have as much say as possible when their only real choice is Kang or Kodos. Don't waste your vote or the wrong lizard may win!