4 ms·

> "They chose to make these statements in public that weren’t accurate," Wyden added. "They could have declined to answer the question in an open hearing. They

by Pyxl101 11y ago

> "They chose to make these statements in public that weren’t accurate," Wyden added. "They could have declined to answer the question in an open hearing. They have declined to answer questions in an open hearing before. At that hearing, he declined to answer other questions." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/james-clappers-testimony-one-year-later/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/mar/11/...

res0nat0r 11y ago
Declining to answer is the same as admitting it exists, which he wasn't permitted to do. It is no matter anyway, the chairman knew the answer to the question before it was asked, and he just wanted to expose the program, which Clapper wasn't going to allow to happen. Just because you are able to chair a public committee doesn't mean you also have the right to expose top secret government programs you happen to not like.
- facetube 11y ago
  In Citizenfour, Snowden specifically highlights Clapper's testimony as one of the factors that solidified his decision to go public. Clapper not only deceived the American public, he quite literally was one of the reasons the program was ultimately exposed. And I'm glad it was exposed. Spying on every single one of your citizens' interactions and logging that information indefinitely in secret for later inspection has no place in a free society. Re: declining to answer, other questions were presented in advance for that very hearing and declined in advance by Clapper – they were not asked, and they were not entered in to the record. See the parent Politifact article for sources. Did declining those questions expose secrets?
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    Most of what Snowden revealed wasn't illegal and metadata collection has been deemed OK long ago and written about at length previously. > Did declining those questions expose secrets? Unsure, but not relevant to the parent argument.
    - facetube 11y ago
      The Second Circuit Court of Appeals at the federal level ruled that the metadata collection program "exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized" and is therefore not supported by law, i.e. illegal. This happened on May 7th, 2015 and is public record.
      - res0nat0r 11y ago
        Great, but Clapper testified in 2013.
        facetube 11y ago
        It was illegal then and it's illegal now. The circuit court didn't say "as of May 7th, 2015 this is illegal"; they said that the NSA exceeded the scope of surveillance authorized by Congress in October of 2001.
        res0nat0r 11y ago
        That isn't relevant to him having to lie to an open commission about a top secret program they already knew about.
        facetube 11y ago
        You claimed the metadata collection program was "written about at length" and viewed as "OK". This is evidence from the judicial branch of the US government it is not, in fact, viewed as okay.

by Pyxl101 11y ago

res0nat0r 11y ago

Declining to answer is the same as admitting it exists, which he wasn't permitted to do. It is no matter anyway, the chairman knew the answer to the question before it was asked, and he just wanted to expose the program, which Clapper wasn't going to allow to happen. Just because you are able to chair a public committee doesn't mean you also have the right to expose top secret government programs you happen to not like.

facetube 11y ago
In Citizenfour, Snowden specifically highlights Clapper's testimony as one of the factors that solidified his decision to go public. Clapper not only deceived the American public, he quite literally was one of the reasons the program was ultimately exposed. And I'm glad it was exposed. Spying on every single one of your citizens' interactions and logging that information indefinitely in secret for later inspection has no place in a free society. Re: declining to answer, other questions were presented in advance for that very hearing and declined in advance by Clapper – they were not asked, and they were not entered in to the record. See the parent Politifact article for sources. Did declining those questions expose secrets?
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  Most of what Snowden revealed wasn't illegal and metadata collection has been deemed OK long ago and written about at length previously. > Did declining those questions expose secrets? Unsure, but not relevant to the parent argument.
  - facetube 11y ago
    The Second Circuit Court of Appeals at the federal level ruled that the metadata collection program "exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized" and is therefore not supported by law, i.e. illegal. This happened on May 7th, 2015 and is public record.
    - res0nat0r 11y ago
      Great, but Clapper testified in 2013.
      - facetube 11y ago
        It was illegal then and it's illegal now. The circuit court didn't say "as of May 7th, 2015 this is illegal"; they said that the NSA exceeded the scope of surveillance authorized by Congress in October of 2001.
        res0nat0r 11y ago
        That isn't relevant to him having to lie to an open commission about a top secret program they already knew about.
        facetube 11y ago
        You claimed the metadata collection program was "written about at length" and viewed as "OK". This is evidence from the judicial branch of the US government it is not, in fact, viewed as okay.