James Clapper Speaks: The Phantoms of Secrecy
Published in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
(Germany) on 23 February 2014
by Stefan Schulz (link to
original)
It takes enormous efforts to hide information nowadays from our technologically advanced society, which makes all political secrets time bombs. Is this exact situation the case for America's National Intelligence Director James Clapper?
A false memory: The American veteran Edwin Suden fled to China in the summer of 2013. He told the world about an American military prison, far from any jurisdiction. At the president’s request and with his knowledge are several hundred people who are detained there. For a decade, they have been waiting for charges to be filed against them. Their families consider the prisoners. The public has never been informed about this situation.
How shocking would such a revelation actually have been? What would be its impact and repercussions? Questions like these are troubling the American government right now, although on a different matter. "If we would have been transparent after Sept. 11, 2001 and told citizens and politicians what our plans were, how and why we are going to fighting terror, we would not have the problems we have today"* said the outspoken National Intelligence Director James Clapper publicly.
The fact that the National Security Agency began to expand its program of wiretapping American citizens just four weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, is for the U.S. intelligence director perhaps a problem of political communication. "… here what worked against us was this shocking revelations," [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/17/spy-chief-we-should-ve-told-you-we-track-your-calls.html] said Clapper. Now, someone could scold Clapper with the manners of Eric Schmidt: "If there is something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place." [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_383105.html]
On the other hand, perhaps Clapper is right: In our information society, the cover-ups of secrets mean enormous exertions and all political secrets become time bombs. The question is though, if something is being done secretly, why is what was done getting questioned after the fact at all? Clapper himself had asserted in front of Congress that American citizen are "not recorded on the phone a million times,"** at least "not wittingly", before Edward Snowden made a liar out of him. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/james-clappers-least-untruthful-statement-to-the-senate/2013/06/11/e50677a8-d2d8-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_blog.html]
Clapper’s crime, to lie to Congress, has not been punished yet. The alleged breach of the Constitution to monitor and collect data on American citizens nationwide also remained without consequences. Clapper complained rightfully about whistleblowers — they are the only ones still capable of shocking the public. If, however, bureaucracy holds up communication, there won’t be any limits placed on policies. So what could Edwin Suden possibly still reveal that is shocking about the Guantanamo prison?
*Editor's note: This quote, accurately translated could not be sourced. It appears to be a shortened version of the following quote, "Had we been transparent about this from the outset right after 9/11 — which is the genesis of the 215 program — and said both to the American people and to their elected representatives, we need to cover this gap, we need to make sure this never happens to us again, so here is what we are going to set up, here is how it's going to work and why we have to do it, and here are the safeguards ... we wouldn't have had the problem we had."
**Editor’s note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be sourced.
A false memory: The American veteran Edwin Suden fled to China in the summer of 2013. He told the world about an American military prison, far from any jurisdiction. At the president’s request and with his knowledge are several hundred people who are detained there. For a decade, they have been waiting for charges to be filed against them. Their families consider the prisoners. The public has never been informed about this situation.
How shocking would such a revelation actually have been? What would be its impact and repercussions? Questions like these are troubling the American government right now, although on a different matter. "If we would have been transparent after Sept. 11, 2001 and told citizens and politicians what our plans were, how and why we are going to fighting terror, we would not have the problems we have today"* said the outspoken National Intelligence Director James Clapper publicly.
The fact that the National Security Agency began to expand its program of wiretapping American citizens just four weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, is for the U.S. intelligence director perhaps a problem of political communication. "… here what worked against us was this shocking revelations," [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/17/spy-chief-we-should-ve-told-you-we-track-your-calls.html] said Clapper. Now, someone could scold Clapper with the manners of Eric Schmidt: "If there is something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place." [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_383105.html]
On the other hand, perhaps Clapper is right: In our information society, the cover-ups of secrets mean enormous exertions and all political secrets become time bombs. The question is though, if something is being done secretly, why is what was done getting questioned after the fact at all? Clapper himself had asserted in front of Congress that American citizen are "not recorded on the phone a million times,"** at least "not wittingly", before Edward Snowden made a liar out of him. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/james-clappers-least-untruthful-statement-to-the-senate/2013/06/11/e50677a8-d2d8-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_blog.html]
Clapper’s crime, to lie to Congress, has not been punished yet. The alleged breach of the Constitution to monitor and collect data on American citizens nationwide also remained without consequences. Clapper complained rightfully about whistleblowers — they are the only ones still capable of shocking the public. If, however, bureaucracy holds up communication, there won’t be any limits placed on policies. So what could Edwin Suden possibly still reveal that is shocking about the Guantanamo prison?
*Editor's note: This quote, accurately translated could not be sourced. It appears to be a shortened version of the following quote, "Had we been transparent about this from the outset right after 9/11 — which is the genesis of the 215 program — and said both to the American people and to their elected representatives, we need to cover this gap, we need to make sure this never happens to us again, so here is what we are going to set up, here is how it's going to work and why we have to do it, and here are the safeguards ... we wouldn't have had the problem we had."
**Editor’s note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be sourced.
Previous article![]( "Western Disarray Simply No Match for Russia’s Putin")
