Being a spook is incompatible with who I am. If I were forced to be a spook, "drafted into spook-dom", I would do anything necessary to end the coercion. If necessary, I would throw myself under a bus. I believe this to be a principled response to coercion.

Actually on second thought, that is short-sighted. I would leak everything that I could, then I would throw myself under a bus.

If you are asking me what I think spooks, who are not me, should do in this situation, then I think I have answered that. They should either expect the criticism they will receive for their worthless PR spin responses, or they should respond in a way that would not cause such a reaction. I don't care if they think the later is not an option, or even if it actually is not an option. That is their problem, not mine.

Shitty position for a spook to be in? They don't have any other options? So fucking what. They made their bed. Criticism of what they said should not be tempered just because you think it is the only think they could say.

OK, but what about the question I asked? I get that you would never voluntarily go to work for the NSA, CIA, or similar, but my question is whether you think organizations like that should be allowed to exist at all, not whether you would choose to work there.

I'm pointing out a practical limitation on what they can say arising of how such agencies function, you're talking about how they should feel about it on a personal level. I have no interest in how they feel about it as individuals.

You are saying that they cannot release everything. I am saying that I don't care, I will still criticise them for a piss poor response even if that is all that they are capable of giving.

If I require something of them that they cannot provide, I do not stop requiring it of them. If they cannot satisfy me, I will remain unsatisfied. I will not change my standards to accommodate them.

I've answered your question now three times. Are you going to pretend not to hear me again?

So basically you're just throwing a temper tantrum. It seems to me that your problem is with the way these organizations are constituted by law, but your reaction is to make moral criticisms of the individuals who work there and are trying to operate within the law.

I think in this case that there are strong arguments for changing the law, but it seems utterly pointless to blame people for following it when that is what they are sworn to do.

oh the melodrama

What do you mean by this comment?

I don't know if the GP is saying that, but I certainly am. Perhaps it's naive but the problem is; the government simply can't be trusted with this level of power. Every time a government is giving these kind of powers they do something corrupt/evil with it. So better to not have it at all and face the consequences than to keep having shit storms like this current one popping up all the time.

Full transparency in government, consequences be damned.