17 ms·

response offered by DNI counsel Robert Litt. Asked by committee chairman Bob Goodlatte if the government really thought the massive collection of phone records

response offered by DNI counsel Robert Litt. Asked by committee chairman Bob Goodlatte if the government really thought the massive collection of phone records could be kept from the American people, Litt replied, "Well, um, we tried." I don't get why they are so "shoulder shruggy" about all of this.

scottshea 13y ago
I think it is because they live in a world where secrets are to be kept no matter the cost in the end. This article is just another step in the progressive revelations that have totally destroyed their credibility yet they do not care.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  Silly question- do any of these comments count as perjury? If you say you're not doing $thing, then it's later revealed that you indeed did $thing, then you come out and say "Yeah, we do $thing" How.. how do we not penalize and punish people for this? When they make knowingly false statements in official government capacity?
  - TillE 13y ago
    Yes, almost certainly. The problem is that the government which endorses these programs is the same government that decides who to prosecute. This is why nobody involved with the Bush torture programs was ever prosecuted, not then and not now (Obama: "look forward, not backward").
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - j_baker 13y ago
      I think those are two separate issues. I think the key difference is public support. Once all the facts about the NSA have come out, I think the public will be against what the NSA is doing. Bush's torture program divided the country more, and I suspect it's largely because 9/11 isn't as fresh on our minds now. Truthfully, I think that the torture programs are to Prism as the McCarthy Committee is to the Vietnam War.
      - Karunamon 13y ago
        That last bit is what worries me (9/11 not fresh in people's minds). A disaster any day now facilit^H^H^H^H^H^H allowed to happen would serve the political status quo very well. Am I being overly paranoid? I don't think the people in charge of the NSA shenanigans care one whit for loss of life if it would consolidate their power further.
      - checker 13y ago
        There is a difference in separation too. Prism could be spying on you or me, while the torture programs are torturing someone somewhere. Not saying this is right, but direct impact tends to motivate people more.
  - eksith 13y ago
    That's not how justice works. Unless you're found with a dead prostitute covered in blood, you don't owe anything to anyone if you're already powerful.
    - mynameishere 13y ago
      Well, politics can intervene. Nixon and Clinton were so detested by their opposing parties that they were (or nearly were) impeached for fairly trivial reasons.
      - eksith 13y ago
        That's very true. But look at the political atmosphere now. I feel that there's opposition theater rather than true opposition. Some of the things in opposition don't even make sense. People bicker over trite best left to late night "reality" TV, and how many actually believe the things they spout? Nixon, though he's one of my least favorite politicians, and Clinton actually believed in something; what do today's career politicians truly believe now? With the rise for 24/7 news and the internet, live performance to an ever vigilant target demographic is taking precedence over substantive action. I don't blame the politicians. I blame the people.
      - rodgerd 13y ago
        Characterisimg illegal espionage for political advantage as "trivial reasons" is a remarkable piece of false equivocation.
        eksith 13y ago
        I think what was meant was the opposition can play a large part in an intervention for trivial reasons so a grave reason should be more than enough motivation. ...If there is true opposition.
        LoganCale 13y ago
        I think he was referring to Nixon's illegal espionage not being trivial.
  - Fuzzwah 13y ago
    The words "[not] under this program" are crucial.
    - mhurron 13y ago
      Exactly. Most likely, unless someone really goofed, no one has perjured themselves because they answered questions very specifically.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Its only perjury if you're testifying under oath.
    - mrt0mat0 13y ago
      all testimonies before congress are under oath, i believe
      - Kylekramer 13y ago
        Nope: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/02/when_congress_makes_you_swear.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
        mrt0mat0 13y ago
        good catch. I know i had heard that there was someone testifying to congress under oath, so I made the assumption that that was the process. It's interesting that there is no true reason to stop congress from always having people offer a testimony under oath, yet they allow it. another blatant loop hole.
  - j_baker 13y ago
    Justice takes time sometimes, especially when we're talking about powerful people who can claim "national secrets" at the drop of a hat. Think about how much work federal prosecutors have to do to convict someone like James Clapper (or anybody else that's lied to Congress). For reference, the Enron scandal was revealed in 2001, but it wasn't until 2006 that Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were found guilty. And they didn't even have a national security excuse. Truthfully, now that public opinion has come out against Prism, I think that the politicians are going to do everything in their power to publicly punish the people responsible. We just need to be patient.

scottshea 13y ago

I think it is because they live in a world where secrets are to be kept no matter the cost in the end. This article is just another step in the progressive revelations that have totally destroyed their credibility yet they do not care.

Karunamon 13y ago
Silly question- do any of these comments count as perjury? If you say you're not doing $thing, then it's later revealed that you indeed did $thing, then you come out and say "Yeah, we do $thing" How.. how do we not penalize and punish people for this? When they make knowingly false statements in official government capacity?
- TillE 13y ago
  Yes, almost certainly. The problem is that the government which endorses these programs is the same government that decides who to prosecute. This is why nobody involved with the Bush torture programs was ever prosecuted, not then and not now (Obama: "look forward, not backward").
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - j_baker 13y ago
    I think those are two separate issues. I think the key difference is public support. Once all the facts about the NSA have come out, I think the public will be against what the NSA is doing. Bush's torture program divided the country more, and I suspect it's largely because 9/11 isn't as fresh on our minds now. Truthfully, I think that the torture programs are to Prism as the McCarthy Committee is to the Vietnam War.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      That last bit is what worries me (9/11 not fresh in people's minds). A disaster any day now facilit^H^H^H^H^H^H allowed to happen would serve the political status quo very well. Am I being overly paranoid? I don't think the people in charge of the NSA shenanigans care one whit for loss of life if it would consolidate their power further.
    - checker 13y ago
      There is a difference in separation too. Prism could be spying on you or me, while the torture programs are torturing someone somewhere. Not saying this is right, but direct impact tends to motivate people more.
- eksith 13y ago
  That's not how justice works. Unless you're found with a dead prostitute covered in blood, you don't owe anything to anyone if you're already powerful.
  - mynameishere 13y ago
    Well, politics can intervene. Nixon and Clinton were so detested by their opposing parties that they were (or nearly were) impeached for fairly trivial reasons.
    - eksith 13y ago
      That's very true. But look at the political atmosphere now. I feel that there's opposition theater rather than true opposition. Some of the things in opposition don't even make sense. People bicker over trite best left to late night "reality" TV, and how many actually believe the things they spout? Nixon, though he's one of my least favorite politicians, and Clinton actually believed in something; what do today's career politicians truly believe now? With the rise for 24/7 news and the internet, live performance to an ever vigilant target demographic is taking precedence over substantive action. I don't blame the politicians. I blame the people.
    - rodgerd 13y ago
      Characterisimg illegal espionage for political advantage as "trivial reasons" is a remarkable piece of false equivocation.
      - eksith 13y ago
        I think what was meant was the opposition can play a large part in an intervention for trivial reasons so a grave reason should be more than enough motivation. ...If there is true opposition.
        LoganCale 13y ago
        I think he was referring to Nixon's illegal espionage not being trivial.
- Fuzzwah 13y ago
  The words "[not] under this program" are crucial.
  - mhurron 13y ago
    Exactly. Most likely, unless someone really goofed, no one has perjured themselves because they answered questions very specifically.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Its only perjury if you're testifying under oath.
  - mrt0mat0 13y ago
    all testimonies before congress are under oath, i believe
    - Kylekramer 13y ago
      Nope: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/02/when_congress_makes_you_swear.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
      - mrt0mat0 13y ago
        good catch. I know i had heard that there was someone testifying to congress under oath, so I made the assumption that that was the process. It's interesting that there is no true reason to stop congress from always having people offer a testimony under oath, yet they allow it. another blatant loop hole.
- j_baker 13y ago
  Justice takes time sometimes, especially when we're talking about powerful people who can claim "national secrets" at the drop of a hat. Think about how much work federal prosecutors have to do to convict someone like James Clapper (or anybody else that's lied to Congress). For reference, the Enron scandal was revealed in 2001, but it wasn't until 2006 that Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were found guilty. And they didn't even have a national security excuse. Truthfully, now that public opinion has come out against Prism, I think that the politicians are going to do everything in their power to publicly punish the people responsible. We just need to be patient.