NSA Deletes 'Honesty' and 'Openness' From Core Values (theintercept.com)

An anonymous shares a report: The National Security Agency maintains a page on its website that outlines its mission statement. But earlier this month, the agency made a discreet change: It removed "honesty" as its top priority. Since at least May 2016, the surveillance agency had featured honesty as the first of four "core values" listed on NSA.gov, alongside "respect for the law," "integrity," and "transparency." The agency vowed on the site to "be truthful with each other." On January 12, however, the NSA removed the mission statement page -- which can still be viewed through the Internet Archive -- and replaced it with a new version. Now, the parts about honesty and the pledge to be truthful have been deleted. The agency's new top value is "commitment to service," which it says means "excellence in the pursuit of our critical mission." Those are not the only striking alterations. In its old core values, the NSA explained that it would strive to be deserving of the "great trust" placed in it by national leaders and American citizens. It said that it would "honor the public's need for openness." But those phrases are now gone; all references to "trust," "honor," and "openness" have disappeared.

Comments

Re: They're being honest about one thing....

[ScentCone]

Oh, so you're saying we should pander to the voting of the irredeemably deplorable, huh?

No, I'm saying that people who put their political support and hundreds of millions of dollars of cash behind a candidate that tells millions of people that they're deplorable, while she personally pockets huge piles of cash (directly, or through her husband) from dictators that encourage things like throwing gay people from rooftops and treating women like farm animals ... are pretty funny when they call other people deplorable.

If you think that not wanting a Supreme Court used as a surrogate legislature (see Clinton's public remarks about how she'd choose justices and why - she was very clear on her counter-constitutional sense of how to use the court in the face of what she knew would be a non-rubber-stamp actual legislature), or that not wanting to see more of the Clinton machine's endless pursuit of straight up cash-for-favors-and-access, to say nothing of her demonstrated willingness to look you in the eye and lie about her own criminal behavior surrounding the handling of classified information ... if you think not endorsing her is deplorable, then you're completely not understanding why the voters she took for granted (so much so that she couldn't even trouble herself to set foot in places like Wisconsin) decided they'd had enough. She wanted to be Commander In Chief of military people that can, and have gone to prison for conduct involving sensitive material far less important than her own casual disregard for her responsibilities on such things and her non-stop lying on the matter. She has a long history of throwing people under the bus, including numerous associates who've gone to prison for things done in association with her and her husband. But you think that denying her another several years of power is deplorable, or a matter of convenience? Preventing the Clintons from regaining power (remember, she once again said that she'd be involving Bill Clinton in key matters of running the executive branch) WAS a matter of principle. Most importantly with regard to SCOTUS nominations.