[lbo-talk] If They Can Lie About NSA/Snowden, They Can Lie About Syria and Iran

Jordan Hayes jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com
Wed Jul 3 14:18:07 PDT 2013


Shane Mage says:


>> Article 1, Section 5.
>
> Which governs procedures within the congress.

You were looking for a Constitutional justification (who are you, Scalia?) for government secrecy, and I gave it to you. Ask a dumb question, get a dumb answer ...

The fact is that as soon as the ink was dry on Article 1, Section 5, the Executive (ahem, George Washington himself) began a long history of US government secrets. FDR is basically the architect of the modern secrecy apparatus, and every President since then has expanded and clarified it, most recently Obama in 2009. Every Legislature, and every Justice since the beginning has had ample opportunity to weigh in on the issue. If you want to say you're against government secrets and might only consider it if it were in the Constitution, then I guess we're pretty far apart.

Secrets exist, get over it.

I asked earlier:


>> Did you read his explaination?

And clearly you didn't. Because you ask, somewhat naively:


> How can anybody, anybody speaking English, that is, misunderstand
> the words "any type of data AT ALL?"

To which Clapper says (I'll paraphrase, I'm sure you're busy): he got led down a path of questioning the culminated with Wyden's zinger, and he bobbled it. It makes enough sense to me, especially since he actively righted it on his own. That it has become a shitstorm when so much more interesting and important things are going on is testament to the farce that we've all become.


> Clapper could have requested that the committee go into
> executive session.

Like I said, I think that Clapper thought he was answering a question that he wasn't asked.

Score one for Wyden (who knows the answer already and isn't prepared to do anything about it) up in the center ring of the circus, I guess. Nice that Clapper had to apologize to Feinstein, who also knows all about this program and has done nothing against it (because she supports it!).

If you're into that kind of thing, juicy I suppose.

As for the rest (which appears to mistake my views for those which I do not hold), as they say, deleted.

/jordan



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list