4 ms·
The charge of hypocrisy rises due to her change of attitude when she is herself the victim of unlawful surveillance. Keep in mind that the NSA's surveillance h
by argumentum 13y ago
The charge of hypocrisy rises due to her change of attitude when she is herself the victim of unlawful surveillance.
Keep in mind that the NSA's surveillance has already been ruled unlawful by both courts and committees appointed by the government that supervises the NSA.
So in both cases, "legal remit" was violated. She only feels this violation when it comes to herself.
We call this hypocrisy.
- vidarh 13y agoI don't agree that it is a change of attitude. That's the point. Unless you can point to her excusing previous instances of surveillance of the intelligence committee, there's no basis for the claim of hypocrisy. It's perfectly possible she is, but her statements so far does not appear to provide any evidence of it. She can consider the intelligence committee to be in a special position on the basis of its oversight responsibility: Even if every other person on the planet is fair game, she can still hold that the CIA has gone to far when conducting surveillance against the intelligence committee without being hypocritical just on the basis of a belief that it violates the ability of Congress to carry out its mandated oversight role. The arguments she has made about separation of powers etc. are all in line with a line of thinking that makes this a special case.
- argumentum 13y agoYou can very easily replace "intelligence committee" in your comment with "herself" without interrupting your logic one bit. > She can consider herself (the intelligence committee) to be in a special position on the basis of her own (its) oversight responsibility .. I.e. you're not really saying much of anything.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- brianmcdonough 13y agoLoves power when wielding it, hates its being wielded against. It's not hypocrisy. It's human.