Curious: Why are NatSec hawks always so much more concerned w/leakers than w/China's ability to get THE SAME STUFF at will?
-
-
@emptywheel@DrJJoyner Is the classification of the program absurd? How do you declassify the use of the statute for the program w/o u know? -
@MikeDrewWhat I realize they don't want us to know abt it. BUt not knowing has everything to do w/consent, not efficacy.@DrJJoyner -
@emptywheel@DrJJoyner > the way the statute is being used. -
@MikeDrewWhat So? My point is twofold: 1) secrecy not necessary AT ALL for program, 2) they've lied under oath abt this.@DrJJoyner -
@emptywheel@DrJJoyner Sure, but your view on benefit of secrecy of prgm can be disputed, and publicity of statute use is necessary for >> -
@emptywheel@DrJJoyner ...Sorry, *secrecy* of statute use nec. for sec. of prgm. So only absurd if sec. of program is. If wrong, wrong, etc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel@MikeDrewWhat@seanpaulkelly Protecting sources and methods of a ongoing intelligence op is classic case for classification. -
@DrJJoyner Calling this an op, while convenient, is a farce (tho one they are using). It is a program.@MikeDrewWhat@seanpaulkelly
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel@DrJJoyner >> declassifying the program? Fine if you want the program done with public knowledge but don't pretend otherwise.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.