8 ms·

Another important question is whether or not the NSA should be pardoned for their illegal activity: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0N

Another important question is whether or not the NSA should be pardoned for their illegal activity: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0N... Or whether James Clapper deserves a pardon for committing perjury during a testimony to Congress: http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com Edit: /s

d33 10y ago
Excuse me, why would they?
- tfinniga 10y ago
  I haven't heard any arguments that they should receive a pardon, or any news of them being prosecuted. In the absence of that I'm just assuming that nothing will happen.
- Kinnard 10y ago
  He's being sarcastic.
  - irishcoffee 10y ago
    I sure hope so. I'm trying to wrap my head around his logic and its not clicking.
    - peterkelly 10y ago
      Just to confirm, yes I was being sarcastic :)
mozumder 10y ago
What illegal activities did the NSA perform here? In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens. Why would the NSA have these compliance filters as part of a classified program if they were allegedly performing illegal activities?
- peterkelly 10y ago
  > What illegal activities did the NSA perform here? See the first link in my comment. > In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens. So what? As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. I regard suggestions to the contrary as insulting. (for the record, I'm Australian, and I consider my own government's participation in these programs to be reprehensible)
  - emddudley 10y ago
    So are countries sovereign or not? Are you saying that the US should be subject to the constitutions and laws of other nations, and vice versa?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - nashashmi 10y ago
    NSA cannot target Americans or American residents for spying. But they are allowed to spy and are in fact tasked with spying on non-Americans. It is what a U.S. spy agency does. And the spy agency of other countries, western and non-western, are supposed to be doing, e.g. spying on people outside of their countries. (Spying on your own people is akin to living in a totalitarian state.) What Snowden did was reveal to the world how extensive and deep the NSA's reach was. His initial objection was NSA's ability to spy on Americans, but when he blew the whistle, the entire world found out they too were being spied on. Misfire! Should he be punished or rewarded? It is a double edged sword.
  - canttestthis 10y ago
    > As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. Citizens of other countries in fact don't have the same rights and protections against the NSA as citizens. It's why the NSA exists.
tzs 10y ago
It's not at all clear that Clapper committed perjury. He took an oath long before he testified at that hearing to not reveal certain secrets to unauthorized people, and that oath was backed by laws passed by Congress. He also took an oath later to testify truthfully at that Congressional committee hearing. When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority? Note that due to the nature of Wyden's question, Clapper could not simply say that he could not answer and give as the reason for not answering that it would require revealing classified information, because that itself would strongly imply that the answer was "yes". Also, didn't Wyden already know the answer to the question? I thought I read that the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and also those of the corresponding House committee) knew about these programs. If so, then Clapper's answer (no matter what he said) would convey no relevant information to the Committee. At common law, that would rule out any possibility of it being perjury. I don't know if there is a similar exception in the relevant perjury statutes for Congressional testimony.
- imagist 10y ago
  > It's not at all clear that Clapper committed perjury. He took an oath long before he testified at that hearing to not reveal certain secrets to unauthorized people, and that oath was backed by laws passed by Congress. This is true, but it's bizarre that that the "Unauthorized people" would include Congress. > When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority? That might be a relevant question for whether or not he should be pardoned for committing perjury, but it's not a relevant question to deciding whether he committed perjury.
  - hsod 10y ago
    > That might be a relevant question for whether or not he should be pardoned for committing perjury, but it's not a relevant question to deciding whether he committed perjury. I'm not a lawyer, but it could perhaps be an affirmative defense [0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
- vaadu 10y ago
  When oaths conflict, lying to Congress is still a crime. His non-criminal response should have been "I am not at liberty to discuss program details" or something along those lines.
lern_too_spel 10y ago
That ruling was overturned. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/28/435506021/u-s-appeals-court-overturns-decision-that-nsa-metadata-collection-was-illegal http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/28/435506021/...

d33 10y ago

Excuse me, why would they?

tfinniga 10y ago
I haven't heard any arguments that they should receive a pardon, or any news of them being prosecuted. In the absence of that I'm just assuming that nothing will happen.
Kinnard 10y ago
He's being sarcastic.
- irishcoffee 10y ago
  I sure hope so. I'm trying to wrap my head around his logic and its not clicking.
  - peterkelly 10y ago
    Just to confirm, yes I was being sarcastic :)

mozumder 10y ago

What illegal activities did the NSA perform here? In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens. Why would the NSA have these compliance filters as part of a classified program if they were allegedly performing illegal activities?

peterkelly 10y ago
> What illegal activities did the NSA perform here? See the first link in my comment. > In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens. So what? As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. I regard suggestions to the contrary as insulting. (for the record, I'm Australian, and I consider my own government's participation in these programs to be reprehensible)
- emddudley 10y ago
  So are countries sovereign or not? Are you saying that the US should be subject to the constitutions and laws of other nations, and vice versa?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nashashmi 10y ago
  NSA cannot target Americans or American residents for spying. But they are allowed to spy and are in fact tasked with spying on non-Americans. It is what a U.S. spy agency does. And the spy agency of other countries, western and non-western, are supposed to be doing, e.g. spying on people outside of their countries. (Spying on your own people is akin to living in a totalitarian state.) What Snowden did was reveal to the world how extensive and deep the NSA's reach was. His initial objection was NSA's ability to spy on Americans, but when he blew the whistle, the entire world found out they too were being spied on. Misfire! Should he be punished or rewarded? It is a double edged sword.
- canttestthis 10y ago
  > As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. Citizens of other countries in fact don't have the same rights and protections against the NSA as citizens. It's why the NSA exists.

tzs 10y ago

It's not at all clear that Clapper committed perjury. He took an oath long before he testified at that hearing to not reveal certain secrets to unauthorized people, and that oath was backed by laws passed by Congress. He also took an oath later to testify truthfully at that Congressional committee hearing. When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority? Note that due to the nature of Wyden's question, Clapper could not simply say that he could not answer and give as the reason for not answering that it would require revealing classified information, because that itself would strongly imply that the answer was "yes". Also, didn't Wyden already know the answer to the question? I thought I read that the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and also those of the corresponding House committee) knew about these programs. If so, then Clapper's answer (no matter what he said) would convey no relevant information to the Committee. At common law, that would rule out any possibility of it being perjury. I don't know if there is a similar exception in the relevant perjury statutes for Congressional testimony.

imagist 10y ago
> It's not at all clear that Clapper committed perjury. He took an oath long before he testified at that hearing to not reveal certain secrets to unauthorized people, and that oath was backed by laws passed by Congress. This is true, but it's bizarre that that the "Unauthorized people" would include Congress. > When those oaths conflict, which one takes priority? That might be a relevant question for whether or not he should be pardoned for committing perjury, but it's not a relevant question to deciding whether he committed perjury.
- hsod 10y ago
  > That might be a relevant question for whether or not he should be pardoned for committing perjury, but it's not a relevant question to deciding whether he committed perjury. I'm not a lawyer, but it could perhaps be an affirmative defense [0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
vaadu 10y ago
When oaths conflict, lying to Congress is still a crime. His non-criminal response should have been "I am not at liberty to discuss program details" or something along those lines.

lern_too_spel 10y ago

That ruling was overturned. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/28/435506021/u-s-appeals-court-overturns-decision-that-nsa-metadata-collection-was-illegal http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/28/435506021/...