4 ms·

Shouldn't the title be "Espionage or Whistleblowing?" Journalism would just be reporting on the events. For example, Daniel Ellsberg, leaking Pentagon Papers

Shouldn't the title be "Espionage or Whistleblowing?" Journalism would just be reporting on the events. For example, Daniel Ellsberg, leaking Pentagon Papers - basically everyone now agrees that was legitimate whistleblowing as it proved leading government figures were lying through their teeth to the American public about the reality on the ground in Vietnam. In contrast, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were CIA and FBI employees who sold all kinds of secrets to the Soviet Union for several decades - pretty sure we can safely call that espionage. So Edward Snowden... proved the likes of James Clapper were lying through their teeth to Congress about mass warrantless collection of the private communications of American citizens. Hmmm... is it whistleblowing or espionage? Gosh what a tough question.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
The story is about whether Gellman was a spy like many in the intelligence community including Clapper claim he is. It's about his works with Snowden's documents, not Snowden himself.
- sha256sum 5y ago
  Well if you’re going to post three-letter-agency FUD at least include some links to backup your claims?
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Huh? The article discusses his conversations with several high ranking members of the intelligence community. And their programs monitoring the press and their lengthy classified dossier on the author. For example >Mueller cross-examined me: Were the NSA documents not lawfully classified? Were they not stolen? Did I not publish them anyway?
    - sha256sum 5y ago
      I misunderstood the context, thank you.
- photochemsyn 5y ago
  What I don't understand is why Clapper wasn't at the very least charged with perjury for lying to Congress under oath. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-congress-what-happened-them-n941936 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-...
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    While I agree, that's not very relevant to the subject of this article, which is more about how Clapper labeled Greenwald, Poitras and Gellman as "accomplices" of Snowden.
  - V_Terranova_Jr 5y ago
    Who would do the charging? The executive branch for whom it was most convenient for him to <pick euphemism for lie>? The legislative branch, many of who see taking on the "intelligence community" as something for which they would get branded as non-patriotic? You need a critical mass to pursue any form of actual accountability - lone brave senators or congresspersons won't have enough momentum to get past the activation energy barrier. Prior comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28098290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28098290
    - pmoriarty 5y ago
      "The legislative branch, many of who see taking on the "intelligence community" as something for which they would get branded as non-patriotic?" I've never gotten the impression that Americans have very much love for the intelligence community. The military, yes, the intelligence community, no. Congress has slapped the intelligence committee before (in the aftermath of the Church Committee[1]). It's just that post-9/11 the powers of America's intelligence agencies were tremendously increased and they were given a much longer leash. Now that 9/11 is more than 20 years in the past they might get slapped again, but it'll probably take a bigger scandal than Snowden's revelations to do it.. and such a scandal has to happen in peace time if it's to have any effect. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
mc32 5y ago
Isn't lying to congress punishable by up to 5 years in prison? Has mr. Clapper served any time for his perjury?
- theknocker 5y ago
  No, and now he gets paid by CNN to spread more lies.
- jacobolus 5y ago
  Here’s a Quora answer from someone in the US intel community, explaining why this was not “perjury” despite being misleading to the public watching the hearing: https://www.quora.com/Why-wasnt-James-Clapper-convicted-for-perjury?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Why-wasnt-James-Clapper-convicted-for-... > This claim that Clapper lied before Congress has an interesting mix of supporters—some people on the far left who view Clapper as some part of a nefarious intelligence state out to spy on all of us, and then Trump supporters who look for any way to discredit someone who’s been a critic of Trump. > Jim Clapper has served the US with honor and distinction. The role of DNI has been much like that of the Spinal Tap drummer—no-one who has been in that role has been around much and seems to just disappear in a poof. Clapper is the exception. People who follow the IC will tell you that Clapper was outstanding. > As for the claim that he “lied,” this requires a little explanation. In a closed session, he had briefed the Congressional committee about US monitoring of telecommunications. He was then asked in an open hearing if the US did this. This was a classified program. Anyone who says that he should have said “I’m not authorized to talk about that” is being naive—that would automatically say “we do indeed have a classified program in this area.” So Clapper did what anyone when asked a question about the existence of a specific classified program would do—gave an answer that didn’t hint that we did indeed have such a program. After the public testimony, he then contacted the committee and said what the correct answer was—and that it was classified. > I have been asked questions before (including by co-workers in the IC) about programs they weren’t cleared for and when you’re not supposed to give hints that the program exists, you can’t say “I’m not authorized to comment on that” or “sorry but that’s classified” because those are answers, you’re saying “yes, we do have such a program.” So in those cases you maintain the security of the program and only reveal it in a setting and audience that is cleared for discussion. > And that’s why he was never censured or reprimanded by Congress for “lying.”
paulpauper 5y ago
For example, Daniel Ellsberg, leaking Pentagon Papers - basically everyone now agrees that was legitimate whistleblowing as it proved leading government figures were lying through their teeth to the American public about the reality on the ground in Vietnam. In contrast, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were CIA and FBI employees who sold all kinds of secrets to the Soviet Union for several decades - pretty sure we can safely call that espionage. I am surprised that Ellsberg was let off. I think Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were punished because they betrayed their oaths and the material was more important or pertinent.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  He wasn't let off. They knew they could not convict him. Now they have things sewed up better. Pliant judges, extortion, secret charges, secret "evidence", secret "testimony".
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    They had all those things for Ellsberg, he was barred from presenting a defense and the judge admitted the administration attempted to bribe him. His charges were dropped because the prosecution's gross misconduct and illegal evidence collection had become national news. Without Watergate, Ellsberg would have spent years in prison.
anothernewdude 5y ago
As far as I understand it, Snowden wasn't trying to leak any program in particular, he just copied as much material as he could.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

The story is about whether Gellman was a spy like many in the intelligence community including Clapper claim he is. It's about his works with Snowden's documents, not Snowden himself.

sha256sum 5y ago
Well if you’re going to post three-letter-agency FUD at least include some links to backup your claims?
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Huh? The article discusses his conversations with several high ranking members of the intelligence community. And their programs monitoring the press and their lengthy classified dossier on the author. For example >Mueller cross-examined me: Were the NSA documents not lawfully classified? Were they not stolen? Did I not publish them anyway?
  - sha256sum 5y ago
    I misunderstood the context, thank you.
photochemsyn 5y ago
What I don't understand is why Clapper wasn't at the very least charged with perjury for lying to Congress under oath. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-congress-what-happened-them-n941936 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-...
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  While I agree, that's not very relevant to the subject of this article, which is more about how Clapper labeled Greenwald, Poitras and Gellman as "accomplices" of Snowden.
- V_Terranova_Jr 5y ago
  Who would do the charging? The executive branch for whom it was most convenient for him to <pick euphemism for lie>? The legislative branch, many of who see taking on the "intelligence community" as something for which they would get branded as non-patriotic? You need a critical mass to pursue any form of actual accountability - lone brave senators or congresspersons won't have enough momentum to get past the activation energy barrier. Prior comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28098290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28098290
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    "The legislative branch, many of who see taking on the "intelligence community" as something for which they would get branded as non-patriotic?" I've never gotten the impression that Americans have very much love for the intelligence community. The military, yes, the intelligence community, no. Congress has slapped the intelligence committee before (in the aftermath of the Church Committee[1]). It's just that post-9/11 the powers of America's intelligence agencies were tremendously increased and they were given a much longer leash. Now that 9/11 is more than 20 years in the past they might get slapped again, but it'll probably take a bigger scandal than Snowden's revelations to do it.. and such a scandal has to happen in peace time if it's to have any effect. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

mc32 5y ago

Isn't lying to congress punishable by up to 5 years in prison? Has mr. Clapper served any time for his perjury?

theknocker 5y ago
No, and now he gets paid by CNN to spread more lies.
jacobolus 5y ago
Here’s a Quora answer from someone in the US intel community, explaining why this was not “perjury” despite being misleading to the public watching the hearing: https://www.quora.com/Why-wasnt-James-Clapper-convicted-for-perjury?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Why-wasnt-James-Clapper-convicted-for-... > This claim that Clapper lied before Congress has an interesting mix of supporters—some people on the far left who view Clapper as some part of a nefarious intelligence state out to spy on all of us, and then Trump supporters who look for any way to discredit someone who’s been a critic of Trump. > Jim Clapper has served the US with honor and distinction. The role of DNI has been much like that of the Spinal Tap drummer—no-one who has been in that role has been around much and seems to just disappear in a poof. Clapper is the exception. People who follow the IC will tell you that Clapper was outstanding. > As for the claim that he “lied,” this requires a little explanation. In a closed session, he had briefed the Congressional committee about US monitoring of telecommunications. He was then asked in an open hearing if the US did this. This was a classified program. Anyone who says that he should have said “I’m not authorized to talk about that” is being naive—that would automatically say “we do indeed have a classified program in this area.” So Clapper did what anyone when asked a question about the existence of a specific classified program would do—gave an answer that didn’t hint that we did indeed have such a program. After the public testimony, he then contacted the committee and said what the correct answer was—and that it was classified. > I have been asked questions before (including by co-workers in the IC) about programs they weren’t cleared for and when you’re not supposed to give hints that the program exists, you can’t say “I’m not authorized to comment on that” or “sorry but that’s classified” because those are answers, you’re saying “yes, we do have such a program.” So in those cases you maintain the security of the program and only reveal it in a setting and audience that is cleared for discussion. > And that’s why he was never censured or reprimanded by Congress for “lying.”

paulpauper 5y ago

For example, Daniel Ellsberg, leaking Pentagon Papers - basically everyone now agrees that was legitimate whistleblowing as it proved leading government figures were lying through their teeth to the American public about the reality on the ground in Vietnam. In contrast, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were CIA and FBI employees who sold all kinds of secrets to the Soviet Union for several decades - pretty sure we can safely call that espionage. I am surprised that Ellsberg was let off. I think Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were punished because they betrayed their oaths and the material was more important or pertinent.

ncmncm 5y ago
He wasn't let off. They knew they could not convict him. Now they have things sewed up better. Pliant judges, extortion, secret charges, secret "evidence", secret "testimony".
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  They had all those things for Ellsberg, he was barred from presenting a defense and the judge admitted the administration attempted to bribe him. His charges were dropped because the prosecution's gross misconduct and illegal evidence collection had become national news. Without Watergate, Ellsberg would have spent years in prison.

anothernewdude 5y ago

As far as I understand it, Snowden wasn't trying to leak any program in particular, he just copied as much material as he could.