3 ms·

I realize you won't change your opinion, and I respect that. I responded to a comment below addressing some of this if you'd like to read it. It really just co

I realize you won't change your opinion, and I respect that. I responded to a comment below addressing some of this if you'd like to read it. It really just confuses me that a group like HN, generally very open-minded, are so willing to assume the very worst based on very limited, curated, non-refutable evidence. Non-refutable because of security concerns. Its like someone ripped every 18th page out of a book, and from that subset, created their own version of the book. They changed the ending, and flipped the protagonist and antagonist. The story is not accurate.

DonHopkins 12y ago
Is James Clapper a protagonist or antagonist for lying to congress?
- irishcoffee 12y ago
  We can talk all day about politicians lying in front of congress. Would you like to?
  - DonHopkins 12y ago
    Don't go meta, just answer the question.
    - irishcoffee 12y ago
      Nah. You're not interested in talking about this intellectually. Have a good evening!
      - DonHopkins 12y ago
        Why the sudden 180-degree U-turn? I certainly am interested in talking about this intellectually, and presumably so were you when you just said "We can talk all day about politicians lying in front of congress. Would you like to?" Yes, I would like to. Why do you think I'm not interested in talking about this intellectually? Do you not believe me when I say that? When I asked you a direct question in response to an accusation you made, and you dodged the question by trying to go meta. Did you not mean what you said when you invited me to talk about lying politicians all day? To me, it appears that you are the one who is not interested in talking about this intellectually, so you tried to change the subject to attacks on Snowden's personality, then when that didn't work, you avoided answering a simple question by going meta, then when that didn't work, you projected your own disinterest in having an intellectual discussion onto me. If that's the best line of argument that NSA apologists can come up with, it's no wonder they're having problems recruiting honest intelligent people. You claimed that "They changed the ending, and flipped the protagonist and antagonist. The story is not accurate." Who do you mean, exactly? Please explain your accusations, or withdraw them if you're unwilling to support your unsubstantiated claim that the story is not accurate. All you've offered as evidence against the story so far are your ad-hominem attacks against Snowden, right out of the US Government's playbook to demonize him and distract from the real story, just as Snowden himself predicted. To continue having an intellectual discussion, please answer my question: Is James Clapper a protagonist or antagonist for lying to congress?
- csandreasen 12y ago
  That's a more complicated issue than a simple 'he lied to Congress'. What he said to in front of Congress was flat out wrong - no one's disputing that. Did he lie? That would require an intent to mislead the committee, which would be a difficult thing to do since everyone on the committee had previously been briefed on it. In fact, he corrected his testimony to Sen. Wyden's staffers several days later when he realized the mistake according to the ODNI General Counsel[1]. He couldn't correct himself publicly because the information is classified. This calls into question why Sen. Wyden asked Clapper to begin with. It's illegal for Clapper to disclose classified information publicly, but as a sitting senator, Wyden would have immunity for anything brought to the Senate floor. If Sen. Wyden thought it was an issue that should have been brought forward publicly to the constituents that he represents (which he apparently did, since he asked the question in a public forum), he should have done it himself instead of trying to get Clapper to take the fall for him. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/testimony-of-the-national-intelligence-director.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/testimony-of-the-n...
  - DonHopkins 12y ago
    Intent to mislead the American people counts as lying.
    - csandreasen 12y ago
      Again, that implies that he had intent to mislead. It's easy to prove that he was wrong - it's a lot harder to prove intent. Wyden decided to ask that question to a senior intelligence official who was not part of NSA (Clapper is Director of National Intelligence - responsible primarily for collaboration between the intelligence agencies) and he asked it out of the blue during a hearing that mostly focused on tensions in the Middle East. It's within the realm of possibility that Clapper actually misinterpreted his question, or just plain did not consider a program that we later found only had 23 people working on it (out of around a hundred thousand or so people across all of the intelligence agencies). Wyden clearly knew the answer to his question and wanted the public to know it. Did Wyden lie to his constituents through omission?

DonHopkins 12y ago

Is James Clapper a protagonist or antagonist for lying to congress?

irishcoffee 12y ago
We can talk all day about politicians lying in front of congress. Would you like to?
- DonHopkins 12y ago
  Don't go meta, just answer the question.
  - irishcoffee 12y ago
    Nah. You're not interested in talking about this intellectually. Have a good evening!
    - DonHopkins 12y ago
      Why the sudden 180-degree U-turn? I certainly am interested in talking about this intellectually, and presumably so were you when you just said "We can talk all day about politicians lying in front of congress. Would you like to?" Yes, I would like to. Why do you think I'm not interested in talking about this intellectually? Do you not believe me when I say that? When I asked you a direct question in response to an accusation you made, and you dodged the question by trying to go meta. Did you not mean what you said when you invited me to talk about lying politicians all day? To me, it appears that you are the one who is not interested in talking about this intellectually, so you tried to change the subject to attacks on Snowden's personality, then when that didn't work, you avoided answering a simple question by going meta, then when that didn't work, you projected your own disinterest in having an intellectual discussion onto me. If that's the best line of argument that NSA apologists can come up with, it's no wonder they're having problems recruiting honest intelligent people. You claimed that "They changed the ending, and flipped the protagonist and antagonist. The story is not accurate." Who do you mean, exactly? Please explain your accusations, or withdraw them if you're unwilling to support your unsubstantiated claim that the story is not accurate. All you've offered as evidence against the story so far are your ad-hominem attacks against Snowden, right out of the US Government's playbook to demonize him and distract from the real story, just as Snowden himself predicted. To continue having an intellectual discussion, please answer my question: Is James Clapper a protagonist or antagonist for lying to congress?
csandreasen 12y ago
That's a more complicated issue than a simple 'he lied to Congress'. What he said to in front of Congress was flat out wrong - no one's disputing that. Did he lie? That would require an intent to mislead the committee, which would be a difficult thing to do since everyone on the committee had previously been briefed on it. In fact, he corrected his testimony to Sen. Wyden's staffers several days later when he realized the mistake according to the ODNI General Counsel[1]. He couldn't correct himself publicly because the information is classified. This calls into question why Sen. Wyden asked Clapper to begin with. It's illegal for Clapper to disclose classified information publicly, but as a sitting senator, Wyden would have immunity for anything brought to the Senate floor. If Sen. Wyden thought it was an issue that should have been brought forward publicly to the constituents that he represents (which he apparently did, since he asked the question in a public forum), he should have done it himself instead of trying to get Clapper to take the fall for him. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/testimony-of-the-national-intelligence-director.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/opinion/testimony-of-the-n...
- DonHopkins 12y ago
  Intent to mislead the American people counts as lying.
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    Again, that implies that he had intent to mislead. It's easy to prove that he was wrong - it's a lot harder to prove intent. Wyden decided to ask that question to a senior intelligence official who was not part of NSA (Clapper is Director of National Intelligence - responsible primarily for collaboration between the intelligence agencies) and he asked it out of the blue during a hearing that mostly focused on tensions in the Middle East. It's within the realm of possibility that Clapper actually misinterpreted his question, or just plain did not consider a program that we later found only had 23 people working on it (out of around a hundred thousand or so people across all of the intelligence agencies). Wyden clearly knew the answer to his question and wanted the public to know it. Did Wyden lie to his constituents through omission?