Actually, it is. We've had whistleblowers before who tried to censor what they told us and it didn't have half the impact. As long as the leadership of the NSA keeps treasonously lying, all leaks are necessary and thus justified.
Whisleblower protections typically don't have clauses that protect dumping a bunch of juicy, exciting tidbits so that people pay attention. You're informing the public of what they need to know, not making a Jason Bourne movie.
In this case Snowden was legally required to refuse and report illegal orders. He knew the leaders were well aware of their infractions and wouldn't stop, so he couldn't just report the abuse internally.
Unfortunately, dumping juicy tidbits is the only way to get the attention needed to change things. The bad guys are spending our money lying to our politicians about it. Without showing them to be liars again and again (with the release) of these tidbits, they'd simply spin their way out of it.
Except they didn't lie. He said he saw them lie to Congress but that was for the open-door, public session. If you think Congress isn't getting the details in closed-door, classified briefs, then you don't understand the relationship Intelligence Agencies have with Congress.
None of this came as a surprise to any Congressman with interactions with Intel Agencies. Hell, none of this should have come as a surprise if you know anything about security/cybersecurity. As long as there are systems which hide info, there will be backdoors and people trying to break them.
The exact same things are being done by every "first world" government on the planet. And sadly, what they do is FAR less intrusive than what Google does. They make text documents out of your phone calls to try and find new products to sell you... They have copies of every text you ever made on an Android device, every site you have visited, every e-mail you wrote or received on Gmail... All the info the NSA gathered that Snowden was "abhorred" by, was less than 1% of what Google has on you. What's the difference? Google will sell it. The NSA may look through it, but they won't sell it to the highest bidder.
Every device Google makes is just another way to gather info on their users. They are, first and foremost, an advertising company. And they are the best in the world at that because of all the info they have on all their users.
Testifying to congress, on the public open record, is an important way that "We the People" of the US can audit the government that we hired.
It is even more treasonous to lie in such a circumstance. It would be better to refuse to answer the question if you are unable to speak in an open session (though better still is being able to not lie about how you protect the country).
That's a common misconception. The laws on protecting classified information allow you to lie to protect it if other parties aren't all cleared for it. Congress passed and continues to uphold those laws. They also uphold an Espionage Act so strong even leaking evidence of crimes might be considered misusing classified information. Until Congress fixes those laws, they're in a grey area where they're justified in deceiving others to protect those programs.
This is why I've long pushed for people to push for a reform of our classification system. Last I checked, it couldn't be used to hide illegal information as that couldn't be classified in the first place. However, they were operating in a bunch of grey areas related to the Patriot Act, Executive Orders, and the FISC. So, these aren't obviously illegal. Needless to say, I'm for canceling that crap too.
> The laws on protecting classified information allow you to lie
But it wasn't required. It's not like Clapper was being tortured and had to say something. He should have simply shut up and refused to answer. By lying to congress when he didn't have to, he broke the law.
Moreover, by doing/ordering the illegal things we was already a criminal before the investigation. Even if allowed to lie, he's not allowed to violate the constitution. (And such permission could never be granted by anyone chartered by the constitution. Our president can't authorize this, for instance.)
> operating in a bunch of grey areas
There isn't a grey area.
If you're part of government and your actions are outside of what the constitution enumerates, you're breaking the law. If you're a citizen and your actions are outside those forbidden by law, you're not doing anything illegal. It's very clear.
As a part of government, he is clearly doing things the people don't think the constitution covers and as such, is a traitor. (It doesn't matter that he can spin a justification, it matter that citizens don't accept it.)
I know you aren't arguing that it should be legal, etc. I'm just pointing out that this isn't questionable. It's clearly illegal. Powerful incumbents never get charged for breaking the law but that doesn't make it legal.
"But it wasn't required. It's not like Clapper was being tortured and had to say something. He should have simply shut up and refused to answer. By lying to congress when he didn't have to, he broke the law."
It would help people on your side a lot if you studied how the defense sector & classification rules actually work when trying to get people to work within that in a different way. Clapper's job is to basically do exactly what he was doing since Executive branch and Congress's intelligence committee both authorized it. That's how our system is set up by Congress. There's lots of Americans that were supporting a surveillance state, too. So, he's gotta do the surveillance stuff while keeping it a secret by law.
Now, we get to this interview. Wyden knows about these programs. The Speech and Debate Clause implies he could just tell us himself with probable immunity. Clapper could in theory. Instead of telling us, Wyden asks a guy that legally has to keep it secret from public to deliver classified information to the public on the spot. Clapper's was squirming around trying to figure out how to deal with it. He was obviously lying & didn't want to be there. He simultaneously looks like a piece of shit... which he is that I can tell... with Wyden being the hero despite fact Wyden could've just announced it himself. So, Clapper decided to hide the information.
Now, how to hide the information? You incorrectly determined he should've just stayed silent. That's the right we Americans have. They have additional one if it's a Special Access Program to lie & are expected to in many cases. The reason is saying yes to specific questions then getting silent on others implies that what they're asking is probably true. Clapper's was perfect example because it was worded so a no comment would make them look guilty as hell. Instead, as with other SAP's, he was supposed to have a cover story (probably metadata diversion) to push as their activity while saying no about Wyden's question. That's what Alexander did showing off some great lying skills. It's also what military people did for about every spy plane, middle east strategy, SIGINT advance (esp Ultra)... you name it. Anything considered a major advantage is often in a black program with members required to end an interview immediately so nothing can be inferred or lie with a cover story. The phone numbers and mailing addresses don't even go to the same geographical location.
The real outcome is we need reform of the classification system where they can't mislead Americans like this. Also, to treat both Clapper and Wyden as self-serving liars in this situation. You might also try to consider why it would be risky for Wyden to tell the truth but none for Clapper to be honest. There's definitely risk. Clapper knows Congress might forgive but Executive branch might use Espionage Act in retaliation. Our rules need to change so that people can be honest for huge discrepencies between perception and intelligence work without being nailed to a cross.
"If you're part of government and your actions are outside of what the constitution enumerates, you're breaking the law. If you're a citizen and your actions are outside those forbidden by law, you're not doing anything illegal. It's very clear."
Once again, I recommend some deep study of law in general and regarding national security before talking about what's legal. The Constitution set the baseline. Congress then passes laws which may or may not go with that. Courts with their case law then interpret that in general plus many specific situations. The combination of Constitutional basics, laws Congress passes, and court interpretations (esp Supreme Court) make up the actual law that is enormously more complex & inconsistent than the Constitution. Three of those laws include the National Security Act, Espionage Act, and Patriot Act. They collectively let the intelligence community do about whatever it wants where it even has a special court... Congress outsourced the law to secret judges... to decide what it can do and directors running violations don't get prosecuted. I.C. might even have criminal immunity but I can't remember. Do in practice... Hell, even Congress is not legally allowed to know what they're doing in SAP's where only the Defense-related committees have to be briefed & OK it. In USAP's, it's just the heads of the committees. Congress not only allows this but also puts tens of billions of dollars into such programs annually.
Far as the voters, where's the mass exodus of votes going away from surveillance state supporters toward strong constitutionalists? Didn't happen. They didn't give a shit past another subject to shout about. Right now the majority of them are pushing two candidates that both support surveillance states, have criminal/fraudulent history, and mocked the First Amendment. There was also no push of any significance to arrest all the people on the top involved in this stuff post-Snowden. I think that describes the voter support of this stuff pretty well. They either support it or don't give a shit while putting surveillance & defense supporters in Congress who keep re-authorizing all these Defense laws (esp Patriot & Espionage Acts).
If I thought America would act, I'd say Clapper should've told them the truth after asking for immunity under Speech and Debate Clause. These days I'm thinking he should've lied given what America has done with others' sacrifices. They're just not worth it. I try to avoid getting in such situations so I can do right thing on principle but I doubt I'd help them if they're legally enabling villains all the time or putting all their activist activity into warning about the dangers of clown attacks.
> It would help people on your side a lot if you studied how the defense sector & classification rules actually work when trying to get people to work within that in a different way. Clapper's job is to basically do exactly what he was doing since Executive branch and Congress's intelligence committee both authorized it.
Yes. But they don't have the authority because the actions taken greatly exceeded the authority granted to the government as a whole.
> So, he's gotta do the surveillance stuff while keeping it a secret by law.
Well, no. As Snowden showed, he didn't have to do that. Treason is just the easy choice.
> Wyden asks a guy that legally has to keep it secret from public to deliver classified information to the public on the spot. Clapper's was squirming around trying to figure out how to deal with it. He was obviously lying & didn't want to be there.
And he could have kept his mouth shut. You say he'd risk looking like a liar and giving away the secret, but he did anyways.
> So, Clapper decided to hide the information.
Right, and if I'd committed capital crimes I'd have "decided to hide the information" too. Makes perfect sense, for a criminal to do that...
> Now, how to hide the information? You incorrectly determined he should've just stayed silent.
No, I correctly determined that he could have. He had a legal alternative so he's a criminal for not taking it.
You might be right that he'd be screwed either way, but that's doesn't work as an excuse for anyone else.
> The reason is saying yes to specific questions then getting silent on others implies that what they're asking is probably true.
Right. As does getting caught in his stupid lies. By opening his mouth he enabled the newspapers to selectively publish refutations of everything he said.
He could have kept his mouth shut and looked guilty, instead he opened it and proved the guilt.
> Our rules need to change so that people can be honest for huge discrepencies between perception and intelligence work without being nailed to a cross.
Right, we need to bring Snowden home to a hero's welcome. Just before we throw the traitors in jail for the rest of their lives. He didn't perform "intelligence work", he spied on his own country for political advancement. J Edgar Hoover all over again.
> Once again, I recommend some deep study of law in general and regarding national security before talking about what's legal. The Constitution set the baseline.
Right, and anything under that baseline is granted and anything over is not. Any law that goes beyond the powers granted to the government is, by definition, unconstitutional.
> The combination of Constitutional basics, laws Congress passes, and court interpretations (esp Supreme Court) make up the actual law
Sure, but their powers flow from the constitution and thus are always subservient to it. If they go beyond, it's in error (well, intentional error, but...)
> Congress not only allows this but [...]
If I allow you to rob a bank it's still illegal because I don't have the authority the dictate that. Congress was given some authority to do some things, but not unlimited authority, and not to commit treason.
> Far as the voters, where's the mass exodus of votes going away from surveillance state supporters toward strong constitutionalists?
Right, because the government lied to them. With the veil of authority and no conscience you could make people believe some pretty fucked up things.
> There was also no push of any significance to arrest all the people on the top involved in this stuff post-Snowden.
Having used political connections to hide the facts, threaten witnesses and judges, and make a fair trial impossible means that they're innocent! John Gotti for president!
> I think that describes the voter support of this stuff pretty well.
> Right now the majority of them are pushing two candidates
Yeah, because the first-past-the-post system is almost mathematically guaranteed to converge towards two nearly identical parties who think they're polar opposites.
But I've never heard people praising the system. They're always cynically trying to have as much say as possible when their only real choice is Kang or Kodos. Don't waste your vote or the wrong lizard may win!
Their NSA spies on us, our NSA spies on them, they trade to subvert their local laws.
That is maybe the most important disclosure that Snowden helped make happen.