Do you the trust the NSA?

Do you trust the NSA?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 13.0%
  • No

    Votes: 47 87.0%

  • Total voters
    54

Hieveryone

macrumors 601
Original poster
Apr 11, 2014
4,138
1,464
USA
Normally I would, but James Clapper lied under Oath to Congress (like Bill Clinton) about something that affects all American's privacy.

He was not fired for lying under Oath nor was he prosecuted for breaking the law.

The Obama administration has set a new precedent-

It is legal to lie under Oath to Congress as long as it's an accident and you didn't mean to, which is what Clapper said in his defense.
 

Happybunny

macrumors 68000
Sep 9, 2010
1,752
1,351
Of course that's a big NO, but of course as most of the world including your own allies also don't trust NSA, and by implication US Foreign policy.

The world still remembers 2003 and the lies over WMD.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
Of course that's a big NO, but of course as most of the world including your own allies also don't trust NSA, and by implication US Foreign policy.

The world still remembers 2003 and the lies over WMD.

Most of our allies trade information with the NSA.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
Normally I would, but James Clapper lied under Oath to Congress (like Bill Clinton) about something that affects all American's privacy.

He was not fired for lying under Oath nor was he prosecuted for breaking the law.

The Obama administration has set a new precedent-

It is legal to lie under Oath to Congress as long as it's an accident and you didn't mean to, which is what Clapper said in his defense.
Anything to turn this into a right wing circle jerk huh? Good thing america has the republicans, who we all know never lie.
 

Macky-Mac

macrumors 68030
May 18, 2004
2,589
1,142
Normally I would, but James Clapper lied under Oath to Congress (like Bill Clinton) about something that affects all American's privacy.

He was not fired for lying under Oath nor was he prosecuted for breaking the law.

The Obama administration has set a new precedent-

It is legal to lie under Oath to Congress as long as it's an accident and you didn't mean to, which is what Clapper said in his defense.
:rolleyes: remember the watergates investigations? what the heck, "not remembering" under oath is such an old thing that nobody remembers when it started
 

Hieveryone

macrumors 601
Original poster
Apr 11, 2014
4,138
1,464
USA
Anything to turn this into a right wing circle jerk huh? Good thing america has the republicans, who we all know never lie.
No, this not a right wing or left wing at all. My point was Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a personal issue. James Clappers goes away scott free for lying about an issue that affects all of us. That's not fair.

P.S. If Bush broke the law, which from my understanding is that he did through illegal NSA wire-taps, then he should be held accountable as well! Of course!
 

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
993
2,733
Connecticut, USA
Not trying to pick nits here, but what do you mean by trust? Safeguard the information they collect? Tell us the truth about things? Something else?

Trust is kind of a multifaceted topic when used in context with a government agency (or government in general), so I'm trying to figure out what you mean.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,031
16,493
The Misty Mountains
Normally I would, but James Clapper lied under Oath to Congress (like Bill Clinton) about something that affects all American's privacy.

He was not fired for lying under Oath nor was he prosecuted for breaking the law.

The Obama administration has set a new precedent-

It is legal to lie under Oath to Congress as long as it's an accident and you didn't mean to, which is what Clapper said in his defense.
Did he believe he was telling the truth at the time? This is not making an excuse, but a question. If he can reasonably be called a liar, then he should suffer the legal consequences.

Btw how do you feel about Dubya lying to the world and Congress about WMDs and invading a country under false pretenses?
 

Hieveryone

macrumors 601
Original poster
Apr 11, 2014
4,138
1,464
USA
Did he believe he was telling the truth at the time? This is not making an excuse, but a question. If he can reasonably be called a liar, then he should suffer the legal consequences.

Btw how do you feel about Dubya lying to the world and Congress about WMDs and invading a country under false pretenses?
He was told 24 hours in advance he would be asked that question so that he can prepare an accurate and honest answer.

And yeah Bush should've been held accountable for that. Regardless of his motive, he did lie that led to a war. That's not right.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Oct 27, 2009
7,432
8,605
No trust, but I'm much more concerned with corporate data mining and the rest of the population should be too.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,031
16,493
The Misty Mountains
He was told 24 hours in advance he would be asked that question so that he can prepare an accurate and honest answer.

And yeah Bush should've been held accountable for that. Regardless of his motive, he did lie that led to a war. That's not right.
Thanks for your opinion. I remember Obama letting the Bush Administraion off the hook, and I was not pleased. How can you possibly have a respectable legal system that lets the top guys off the hook while locking up regular criminals and throwing the key? It's just not equitable and it reduces respect for the system.
 

tshrimp

macrumors 6502
Mar 30, 2012
366
2,657
He was told 24 hours in advance he would be asked that question so that he can prepare an accurate and honest answer.

And yeah Bush should've been held accountable for that. Regardless of his motive, he did lie that led to a war. That's not right.
As Huntn inferred (correct me Huntn if I misunderstood), but there is a difference between lying and thinking you are telling the truth, but you had incorrect facts so thought you were telling the truth.

In the case of Bush he was acting on the information he receive, so this would not be "lying".

Also we cannot just point the finger at Obama. Bush started a lot of things with the NSA and Obama just expanded it. Yes Obama took it to a new level, but would this have happened if it wasn't for Bush opening the hole in the first place?
 

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
993
2,733
Connecticut, USA
As Huntn inferred (correct me Huntn if I misunderstood), but there is a difference between lying and thinking you are telling the truth, but you had incorrect facts so thought you were telling the truth.

In the case of Bush he was acting on the information he receive, so this would not be "lying".

Also we cannot just point the finger at Obama. Bush started a lot of things with the NSA and Obama just expanded it. Yes Obama took it to a new level, but would this have happened if it wasn't for Bush opening the hole in the first place?
Lying is intentional. In other words, one knew what the truth was but purposely said something else. That's not what happened to Pres. Bush. When he spoke about WMD, etc., he honestly believed what he was saying was true. Some of what he said turned out not to be true, but there was no intention on his part to hide the truth when he spoke about it.

Yes, Obama continued much of the programs, and lest we forget, also kept Gitmo open.
 
Last edited:

tshrimp

macrumors 6502
Mar 30, 2012
366
2,657
Lying is intentional. In other words, one knew what the truth was but purposely said something else. That's not what happened to Pres. Bush. When he spoke about WMD, etc., he honestly believed what he was saying was true. Some of what he said turned out not to be true, but there was no intention on his part to hide the truth.

Yes, Obama continued much of the programs, and lest we forget, also kept Gitmo open.
Well said...

So was Obama Lying about Gitmo , or did he intend to and due circumstances, change his mind?
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
As Huntn inferred (correct me Huntn if I misunderstood), but there is a difference between lying and thinking you are telling the truth, but you had incorrect facts so thought you were telling the truth.

In the case of Bush he was acting on the information he receive, so this would not be "lying".

Also we cannot just point the finger at Obama. Bush started a lot of things with the NSA and Obama just expanded it. Yes Obama took it to a new level, but would this have happened if it wasn't for Bush opening the hole in the first place?
Bush opened the rabbit hole. Obama had a chance to close it but didn't. He just dug the whole bigger.