I think it is because they live in a world where secrets are to be kept no matter the cost in the end. This article is just another step in the progressive revelations that have totally destroyed their credibility yet they do not care.

Silly question- do any of these comments count as perjury? If you say you're not doing $thing, then it's later revealed that you indeed did $thing, then you come out and say "Yeah, we do $thing"

How.. how do we not penalize and punish people for this? When they make knowingly false statements in official government capacity?

Yes, almost certainly. The problem is that the government which endorses these programs is the same government that decides who to prosecute.

This is why nobody involved with the Bush torture programs was ever prosecuted, not then and not now (Obama: "look forward, not backward").

I think those are two separate issues. I think the key difference is public support. Once all the facts about the NSA have come out, I think the public will be against what the NSA is doing. Bush's torture program divided the country more, and I suspect it's largely because 9/11 isn't as fresh on our minds now.

Truthfully, I think that the torture programs are to Prism as the McCarthy Committee is to the Vietnam War.

That last bit is what worries me (9/11 not fresh in people's minds).

A disaster any day now facilit^H^H^H^H^H^H allowed to happen would serve the political status quo very well.

Am I being overly paranoid? I don't think the people in charge of the NSA shenanigans care one whit for loss of life if it would consolidate their power further.

There is a difference in separation too. Prism could be spying on you or me, while the torture programs are torturing someone somewhere. Not saying this is right, but direct impact tends to motivate people more.

Justice takes time sometimes, especially when we're talking about powerful people who can claim "national secrets" at the drop of a hat. Think about how much work federal prosecutors have to do to convict someone like James Clapper (or anybody else that's lied to Congress). For reference, the Enron scandal was revealed in 2001, but it wasn't until 2006 that Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were found guilty. And they didn't even have a national security excuse.

Truthfully, now that public opinion has come out against Prism, I think that the politicians are going to do everything in their power to publicly punish the people responsible. We just need to be patient.

The words "[not] under this program" are crucial.

Exactly. Most likely, unless someone really goofed, no one has perjured themselves because they answered questions very specifically.

Its only perjury if you're testifying under oath.

all testimonies before congress are under oath, i believe

Nope: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

good catch. I know i had heard that there was someone testifying to congress under oath, so I made the assumption that that was the process. It's interesting that there is no true reason to stop congress from always having people offer a testimony under oath, yet they allow it. another blatant loop hole.

That's not how justice works. Unless you're found with a dead prostitute covered in blood, you don't owe anything to anyone if you're already powerful.

Well, politics can intervene. Nixon and Clinton were so detested by their opposing parties that they were (or nearly were) impeached for fairly trivial reasons.

Trivial? Nixon committed obvious non-political criminal activities in the oval office.

Sure. His real personal blunder was recording his conversations. High-level politics is mostly gangsterism. That has been true...forever. Nixon's out-in-open crimes like bombing Cambodia were much worse than his celebrated two-bit break-in, but no one did a thing about it.

Hell, LBJ should have been put before a firing squad. Does anyone think that was a real possibility?

Characterisimg illegal espionage for political advantage as "trivial reasons" is a remarkable piece of false equivocation.

I think what was meant was the opposition can play a large part in an intervention for trivial reasons so a grave reason should be more than enough motivation.

...If there is true opposition.

I think he was referring to Nixon's illegal espionage not being trivial.

That's very true. But look at the political atmosphere now.

I feel that there's opposition theater rather than true opposition. Some of the things in opposition don't even make sense. People bicker over trite best left to late night "reality" TV, and how many actually believe the things they spout? Nixon, though he's one of my least favorite politicians, and Clinton actually believed in something; what do today's career politicians truly believe now?

With the rise for 24/7 news and the internet, live performance to an ever vigilant target demographic is taking precedence over substantive action.

I don't blame the politicians. I blame the people.

So, using CIA "plumbers" to spy on the opposing party is trivial?

They were planning to do a lot more than spy, too. They were planning to kill both Daniel Ellsberg (if they couldn't discredit him first, e.g. by giving him LSD to make him nonsensical just before making a public appearance) and the journalist Jack Anderson.

Classy. Though considering how it was recently revealed that Nixon intentionally torpedoed the talks with Vietnam before he got elected, that's totally in line with the character.