Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
From my perspective. This letter was written not to solve problems but to create "noise and unrest" among the voting public. I'm thinking that the writter should identify themselves and be prepared to defend themselves should charges be brought against them; otherwise, this is just a newspaper publishing a letter written by an unknown spineless person; and, the NY Times printed it so they could sell more newsprint. To me, this is just more "Fake News!" Actually, and again from my perspective, it has worked more against what might have been intended but against it. I'm a registered Democrat who plans to vote Republican come fall.
If the matter was as grave as we were led to believe in the letter there are avenues available to solve these type of problems. Why are they not being followed? After all, if Trump was impeached then Pence becomes President. So, the Republicans still remain in power. Why not follow procedure?
Again, from my perspective, the subject letter is a bunch of crap!
I remember when in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, then-AG John Ashcroft essentially said in a Congressional hearing about the privacy-invading so-called 'PATRIOT' Act that: "“To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies, and pause to America’s friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.”
He was essentially saying if you opposed the bill you were an enemy of the state and/or your views were tantamount to treason. Looking back, as scary as his words were back then (a month after 9/11) his remarks were tame by the declarations made by the Atomic Tangerine nowdays. If there was any doubt as to the type of president we'd have in 2018 on the GOP side, just look back at his rage-filled Republican acceptance speech. "I alone..." "Only I can...." "Only I know how...." It's only gotten worse now that he's in office.
I was vehemently opposed to the Bush 43 administration's policies but respected the office they were elected to and certainly respected the president/VP as a person. I always said I despised W (as president) but would probably enjoy having a beer with him watching a football game. I didn't always agree with Obama, either ... but I'd probably enjoy a beer rhapsodising with him over something-or-other. But the current incumbent in the WH? I have zero respect for him as a person, let alone a president or human being ... I wouldn't even give this despicable excuse for an adult the incorrect time of day.
I daresay McCain's funeral last week was a mourning for American politics of yesteryear. It also showed Tweety what kind of genuine global respect he will never receive and reminded him how the world shunned him in various business, sports, and social circles. When his time comes, even having occupied the most powerful position in the world - president of the USA - he will be remembered as a very little, lonely, and insecure man.
@Old_Skeet : Well first of all I'm not a big fan of the New York Times. For many decades their reportage of any event at which I was present has not squared with what I saw or experienced, and any reportage on topics about which I am well versed has been so wrong as to be absurd. The Times is far from unique in this respect. On the other hand I do understand that it's a big job to meet a deadline every day and go to press at a particular time and that real research can take months or years, so a newspaper should not be expected to be the final word on anything. That said, I'm not sure what you mean by *more* in your reference to fake news. When an accurate report is made by the press that presents Trump in an unfavorable light he calls it "fake news". Favorable coverage, no matter how mendacious, he calls "real news".
I also don't understand why you doubt that the situation is as grave as the letter suggests. Trump's personal instability has been evident from the moment he began his campaign, long before he took office. What I see in the letter is not a report of Trump's character and behavior. This is on display daily anywhere and everywhere, not just in the privacy of White House. What I see is a statement that there are people in Trump's employ who are doing their best to keep him from doing even more harm.
I do not see spinelessness in anonymity. I see a practical way to ensure that the writer of the letter is able to continue to protect America and the rest of the world from the spontaneous acts of vindictive harm that a president with less self-control than a typical small child will do in the heat of rage.
@Old_Skeet: you ask why the available avenues are not being followed. Yes! That is the question. I think it's because the vision of an America with fewer liberties and fewer opportunities for everyone but those already wealthy and powerful is more likely to be realized by keeping Trump in place.
I think the problem might be that we are accustomed to our Presidents issuing “legal” orders. We don’t know what orders these high level administration officials may have resisted. Keep in mind the enormous powers our system vests in the President. In particular, as Commander in Chief of the military, he has the authority to order military actions - including use of nuclear weapons capable of killing and maiming millions just minutes after launch.
Would anyone disagree that an individual, either civilian or military, should refuse to carry out an action they know / believe to be illegal or immoral - even if so ordered by a superior?
We do not know what “orders” the group of cabinet members refused to carry out. Might it had been to “reign down fire and fury” on some small nation half-way around the world after an angry late-night Twitter exchange with their leader? Could it have been to inflict inhumane torture on prisoners at Guantanamo or elsewhere? Or might those orders have involved using the NSA, CIA or FBI to spy on, imprison, or even physically harm the President’s political enemies or members of the press? Crazy? Bizarre? Than you need to go back and read the transcripts of Trump’s campaign speeches - including the ones made in the presence of those frenzied stadium crowds. He’s left plenty of tracks that might lead a reasonable person to suspect the worst. Seen in this light, the op-ed in the NYT might even be viewed in part as a desperate attempt to exculpste the writer (and fellow officials) from possible criminal culpability at some later time.
Below is some text re the question of whether a subordinate can be found guilty under international law for carrying out an illegal command from a superior:
After the first trial ended in October 1946, the United States held 12 other trials at Nuremberg under the authority of the International Military Tribunal. Among those brought to trial were 26 top military leaders; 56 high-ranking SS and other police officers, including 24 leaders of the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units) and key officials in Heinrich Himmler’s central office, which supervised the concentration camps and the extermination program; 23 doctors who participated in the Nazi medical killing program that targeted mentally and physically disabled people and conducted experiments on camp prisoners; and 14 officials of other Nazi organizations that engaged in racial persecution.
Few defendants at any of the trials denied the accusations made against them, and often their own testimony was used to convict them. Otto Ohlendorf, the former commandant of Einsatzgruppe D, was sentenced to death for the murder of about 90,000 Jews, Roma, and Sinti after admitting that he had ordered his men to kill children as well as adults. His defense was simple: he was just following orders.
Another defendant, Rudolf Höss, the commandant at Auschwitz, used the same defense. He explained; “Don’t you see, we SS men were not supposed to think about these things; it never even occurred to us. . . . We were all so trained to obey orders without even thinking that the thought of disobeying an order ... I never gave it thought to whether it was wrong.”
The judges at Nuremberg rejected the “following orders” defense. They said that when an individual follows an order that is illegal under international law, he is responsible for that choice, except under certain circumstances. For instance, if the individual could prove that he was ignorant of the fact that the order was illegal, he would not be responsible. But the judges at Nuremberg maintained that it would have been impossible for members of Einsatzgruppen not to know that murdering civilians was both illegal and immoral. Another exception, the judges said, would be if a person obeyed an illegal order to avoid physical harm, torture, or death. In their judgment at the Einsatzgruppen trial, the judges wrote: “No court will punish a man who, with a loaded pistol at his head, is compelled to pull a lethal lever.
Actually, we've already seen some results of selective "foot dragging" with respect to some orders which are suspect in their legality. A number of things with respect to the military, for instance, regarding various personnel directives which have been "delayed" until "appropriate studies" have been made... that sort of thing.
I shouldn't be surprised if similar things have taken place at other agencies also. Where I am terribly disappointed is in the actions of the border security people. Seems to me that they have not only eagerly carried out every wish of the president, but have done so with excess enthusiasm, as if it's a contest to see who can design the most harsh treatments.
Actually, we've already seen some results of selective "foot dragging" with respect to some orders which are suspect in their legality. A number of things with respect to the military, for instance, regarding various personnel directives which have been "delayed" until "appropriate studies" have been made... that sort of thing.
I shouldn't be surprised if similar things have taken place at other agencies also. Where I am terribly disappointed is in the actions of the border security people. Seems to me that they have not only eagerly carried out every wish of the president, but have done so with excess enthusiasm, as if it's a contest to see who can design the most harsh treatments.
I'm disappointed with "Anonymous" as well as all the other senior level actors. When called upon to do something illegal, there are only a few options for people at that level:
- Persuade the President to do something different - Take action to legally void the directive: remove the President or report to Congress - Resign
Instead, we have senior officials deciding on their own what actions the country is to take. In another place and time that was called a politburo. It's a mini-coup, and unconstitutional.
Personal anecdote: a few years ago I was a board member of a very small (~5 person) company. Statements saying that the company had contracts in hand were circulated outside the company, with the intent of raising capital. Those contracts had not been signed (and as it turned out, never were signed).
I followed all three steps above: I insisted that the board review any future documents sent out; the board agreed but more documents went out without my review. Upon advice of my own counsel (on my own dime; I did not have faith in company counsel), I resigned. Later, a majority of stock voted to remove the board.
@msf: While your suggested options are ethically unassailable, they are also, unfortunately, rather ineffective in the present situation. If it were possible to "persuade the President to do something different", then there would have been no need for the anonymous letter to start with.
Removal of the President is hardly an option at this point. You can't seriously expect that a "report to Congress", that is, this Congress, would have the slightest effect: this Congress needs no "report"- they are already totally aware of the circumstances and are willing partners in the corruption of the executive branch.
With respect to resignation, that is certainly an honorable option. It would also have the unfortunate effect of removing what is perhaps the only existing effort to prevent further and greater Presidential power abuse.
I regard this anonymous letter, coupled with Woodward's book and the continued reporting of what's left of a free press, as an effort to help insure a totally legitimate adjustment of the governing power structure: the election of at least one branch of a new congress which can then take the steps necessary to limit the constitutional destruction of this president.
Since effective direct action is not possible at this point, hopefully the indirect action of the anonymous letter will help to reestablish a reasonable balance of power at the Federal level.
I agree that an attempt to remove the President would not succeed today. I believe it would however provide the legal protection for advisors that Hank speculated about, and in a legal manner.
While somewhat impressive, I regard the op-ed as substantially ineffective. It creates a buzz, but reveals nothing not already known. If anything, it documents the degree to which the executive branch is operating outside the Constitution.
Resignations by key advisors would impede presidential action as effectively as swiping papers from his desk. It would also impede actions that this party committee of advisors have taken upon themselves to deem desirable and proper.
What we have now is a blatant usurping of power. That is illegal, unconstitutional. Even if done for good ends. Governments may be largely Machiavellian, but here at least I do not concur that the ends justify the means.
Well, I'll certainly agree that the situation is less than desirable, but I'm not sure that I would agree that what we have now is a blatant usurping of power. Seems to me more on the order of a non-blatant attempt to moderate power. A group (presumably) of "insiders" trying to limit the potential damage of another group of "key advisors" who are aiding, abetting and in some cases instigating the illegal and unconstitutional actions of the executive branch.
>> blatant usurping of power. That is illegal, unconstitutional.
For sure you do not want a gov where underlings sabotage or even thwart top decisions, policy and otherwise.
Unless, unless, unless the circumstances are just beyond extraordinary, involving illegitimate assumption of power and illegitimate policies and top-level rogue conduct, partywide.
These officials walk a difficult “tight-rope” if divulging these orders to Congress or the public might also reveal / jeopardize legitimately classified information. (Sorry @msf - but the situation may not be analogous to that of running a company.)
This might explain Trump’s decision to take out of the security loop John Brennen who finds himself in general opposition to the Administration, and the President’s suggestions that many others, like former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director and NSA Director General Michael Hayden, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, may also soon find their security clearances revoked.
"All Members of Congress have access to intelligence by virtue of their elected positions."
That may be true, but when the controlling majority of Congress cheerfully assumes voluntary fetters the paths to correcting the situation are very limited.
"These officials walk a difficult “tight-rope” if divulging these orders to Congress... might also reveal / jeopardize legitimately classified information"
My point was simply that there is no such tight-rope. Congress has a near absolute right to that legitimately classified information.
Just as directors but not shareholders have a near absolute right to company secrets, so does Congress but not voters.
My point was simply that there is no such tight-rope. Congress has an absolute right to that legitimately classified information.
Yes, in theory. But I don’t believe this “absolute right” exists in the real world. The executive branch controls that flow of information. It’s top-down with Congress on the receiving end. It’s like saying I have an “absolute right” to win every time I sit down with a professional blackjack dealer.
But let’s assume a moment, for the sake of argument, that all members of Congress are fully informed about everything the CIA, FBI, and NSA do or contemplate doing. The next issue is Congress needs the vote of the citizenry to remain there. They exist only with that support. So, even if fully armed with all this top-secret intelligence, they remain 100% constrained from ever sharing that information with their constituency to justify any actions they might take to rein-in the executive branch. In effect, their hands are tied. They’re powerless to act.
Back to your original observation, what one study concluded in 2009:
- The White House sets the national security and foreign affairs agenda. Congress and the judicial branch have affirmed the executive branch's lead role for conducting national security affairs numerous times. Furthermore, the White House can limit congressional influence in the domain of national security and intelligence.
Access to Information: The White House has the power to control information classification, and even withhold access to information and operational details from certain members of Congress. In this way, the executive branch can directly control what Congress can or cannot see, indirectly influencing the legislative branch's overall ability to make decisions. Thus, despite members of the Intelligence Committees and their staffs holding appropriate security clearances, they may sometimes only have a limited view into specific intelligence activities.
Though the 1947 National Security Act states that Congress must be kept "fully informed" of significant intelligence activities, many Presidents have interpreted this clause to mean they only need to notify the "Gang of Eight" rather than the full membership of the congressional intelligence committees. The Gang of Eight consists of the Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. -
Source: Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Study: “Congressional Oversight of the Intelligence Community”
I think you're getting a little off point here. I said that this information could be brought to Congress. Your response was that we don't even have to consider whether Congress would do anything, because due to security concerms, Congress might not be able to view this information.
In short, yes it could. The paper you cited discusses whether the executive branch could refuse to provide information. That's a different question. The question here is whether Congress could see information that the executive branch (senior advisors) offered to walk up the Hill.
As to needing to answer to constituents, there's already so much stuff going on behind closed doors that IMHO the public is inured to redacted documents and secret hearings.
@msf - Yes - I did “side-track” a bit. Frankly, I wasn’t aware every member of Congress can gain 100% access to top secret information until you brought it to my attention. With over 500 active members of Congress and hundreds more now out of office (some perhaps serving time) that’s a bit disturbing to know. I find it hard to imagine that access to the technical and operational aspects of nuclear weapons, naval vessels, aircraft and spy satellites, as well as the identities of agents and subjects in ongoing counter-intelligence operations, along with the identities of clandestine agents serving abroad, are all within easy reach of so many people.
While there are at least two sides to this thorny issue, personally, I’m grateful someone wrote that op-ed (assuming it’s authentic). With the additional insights you have provided, I’d guess it’s likely that whoever wrote it first attempted to approach someone in Congress with their concerns - but may have been rebuffed. Eventually, the truth will come out.
Linked is a detailed report (apparently from the CIA / government printing office) on how access to secret materials in reality seems to operate. Apparently, the system has evolved over the years. (After all, in George Washington’s time “top-secret” might have related to the source and quality of horse-feed or musket-shot). Certain to try the patience of any reader, I’m copying a few (long) pertinent passages from the linked document. If anyone else has knowledge of how our most sensitive national intelligence / intelligence secrets are handled, please share. —
There are no written rules, agreed to by both branches, governing what intelligence will be shared with the Hill or how it will be handled. The current system is entirely the product of experience, shaped by the needs and concerns of both branches over the last 20 years. While some aspects of current practice appear to have achieved the status of mutually accepted "policy," few represent hard-and-fast rules. "Policy" will give way when it has to.
Classified intelligence reports(1) are routinely provided only to the committees that have responsibilities in the national security area.(2) Members of these committees receive preference from the Intelligence Community in satisfying their requests on an individual basis. Among the national security committees, the intelligence committees and their Members are accorded preferential treatment, as discussed below.
*** Finished intelligence that is not published for general circulation is not routinely shared with Congress.For example, the Hill does not receive copies of the President's Daily Brief (PDB), prepared daily by CIA. Nor does it receive copies of the daily intelligence summaries prepared for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Moreover, it does not receive "memo dissems" prepared by CIA for use by White House principals on various topics or tailored materials requested by top-level officials during their daily briefings. Occasionally, as part of an oversight investigation, intelligence committee staffers are shown portions of such tailored reporting--including the PDB--but regular access has not been accorded.
Intelligence officials distinguish this type of publication--tailored to the needs of the President and other high-level officials--from other finished intelligence that has a more general circulation. Tailored analysis is keyed to the needs and interests of the officials concerned: their contacts with foreign counterparts, the reactions of those counterparts to what the US officials have said, events on their schedules, and particular interests they have voiced. This analysis is so tied to the functioning of the executive branch, said one official, that distribution to Congress would be "inappropriate."
The Members and staff interviewed for this study generally acquiesced in this arrangement. Most believed that Congressional needs were satisfied by access to finished intelligence intended for general circulation, particularly the NID, and that access to intelligence reporting tailored for high-level officials in the executive branch would not substantially improve their knowledge base. While access to this analysis might satisfy their curiosity, they did not see it as worth the "pitched battle" that pressing for routine access would inevitably trigger.
Congress also does not routinely see "raw" intelligence--unevaluated intelligence reporting, usually from a single source. The intelligence committees, however, occasionally receive "nonstandard" distributions of single-source intelligence on matters in which they have expressed a particular interest, such as satellite imagery of suspected mass grave sites in Bosnia. They also are occasionally granted access to "raw" intelligence for purposes of carrying out an oversight investigation.
*** Herein may lie the crux of the issue. Apparently, deliberations at the White House (Executive) level involving national security are not available to / shared with Congress. So, should a cabinet member “leak” content of such deliberations and / or proposals to Congress, that person would be guilty of some type of national security transgression. That’s the best I can offer up in support of my earlier suggestion that officials would be prevented from reporting something to Congress due to national security concerns / rules.
—
The document is from the CIA. I’m not sure whether the same guidelines are applicable to NSA or FBI (domestic counter-intelligence operations).
Hank you said "Frankly, I wasn’t aware every member of Congress can gain 100% access to top secret information until you brought it to my attention. With over 500 active members of Congress and hundreds more now out of office (some perhaps serving time) that’s a bit disturbing to know."
I couldn't agree with you more! It makes you wonder what that vetting process looks like doesn't it? My questions are, just because they may have access to the information isn't there an element of "need to know" buried in the protocol anywhere? Also do they lose these access rights once they are out of office?
2.) Need to know? From Wikipedia "In the United States, a security clearance is an official determination that an individual may access information classified by the United States Government. Security clearances are hierarchical; each level grants the holder access to information in that level and the levels below it. The clearance process requires a background investigation and the signing of a nondisclosure agreement. Access to any particular piece of information requires "need-to-know."[10] In some cases, this requirement is only nominal, as some classified information is widely published on secure networks. In other cases, there is a formal need-to-know determination. In addition to such a determination, Special Access Programs and Sensitive Compartmented Information may require additional investigation and adjudication of the prospective clearance holder.
Pending a full security clearance an applicant may be granted a temporary security clearance of indefinite duration, which gives the applicant access to classified information while the original application is being vetted.[11][12]
The US President can declassify previously classified information.[13]"
@Mark- thanks for the research. Your first link is very interesting, and I think it's worth adding a short excerpt from that link:
"The topic of security clearance for elected officials has long been a complex one. Members of congress – even those in sensitive committee positions – do not receive or obtain security clearances in the same way that a member of the public would go about obtaining a security clearance based on job or military requirement.
Through the process of election and selection to a seat in the House of Representatives or Senate comes with it a certain public seal of access to information of a sensitive nature. Both the House and Senate have security offices and staff – with the responsibility for overseeing access to classified information, among other things."
Additional excerpts from Wickipedia:
"A clearance by itself is normally not sufficient to gain access; the organization must also determine that the cleared individual needs to know specific information. No one is supposed to be granted automatic access to classified information solely because of rank, position, or a security clearance."
Also very interesting is the contemporaneous nature of the footnotes referred to in your post above:
Wickipedia:
[10] "Executive Order 12968" (PDF). gpo.gov. Retrieved 4 April 2018.
[11] The Hill, February 15, 2018, Government watchdog group files complaint to revoke Kushner security clearance
[12] Vox, February 13, 2018, Trump’s White House has a major security clearance problem
[13] Goldman, Adam; Fandos, Nicholas; Savage, Charlie (2018-02-02). "House Republicans Release Secret Memo Accusing Russia Investigators of Bias". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-02-02.
Thanks @Mark and @Old_Joe for all the additional information.
Here’s where I was coming from:
“In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for reduction to absurdity) is a form of argument that attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.” (Wikipedia)
So, while I agree overall with msf’s assertion, I think it’s a bit more complex than it appears on the surface. There appears to be a basic (perhaps unwritten) understanding between the legislature and our national security agencies as regards to whom, when and why certain information is made available. I wasn’t playing fair either, as military secrets (like how to detonate an A-Bomb, how to foil our own air defense systems, or how resilient the armor on our ships or tanks is) should, I think, be completely separate from the kind of “intelligence” being discussed here. @msf was being very kind in not nailing me for making that unfair and incorrect comparison.
I’m currently devouring Woodward’s new book, Fear, which I purchased as soon as it was released this morning. Early into the book Woodward mentions a top-secret program few knew about (until the book came out). Here’s a reference to the program:
The book opens with a dramatic scene. Former chief economic adviser Gary Cohn saw a draft letter he considered dangerous to national security on the Oval Office desk. The letter would have withdrawn the US from a critical trade agreement with South Korea. Trump’s aides feared the fallout could jeopardize a top-secret national security program: the ability to detect a North Korean missile launch within just seven seconds. Woodward reports Cohn was “appalled” that Trump might sign the letter. “I stole it off his desk,” Cohn told an associate. “I wouldn’t let him see it. He’s never going to see that document. Got to protect the country.”
Without the program, Woodward asserts, 15-minutes would elapse before our air defense systems in Alaska would be able to detect the launch. During an on-air interview last night, a former intelligence official (Richard Clarke) seemed shocked to learn the project had been made public and declined to even confirm its existence or go any further into the discussion.
I do think anonymous op-ed pieces should be banned. Protecting your source if the person's life is in danger I understand. Staying anonymous and speaking against Trump IMO riles us his base - who we now know will vote for trump even if he "shoots someone".
Imagine someone publishing such a story about Obama when he was in office. An anonymous source in National Enquirer saying he doesn't know what he is doing. Wait! Did they do that already? Regardless don't tell me "Times" and "Enquirer" are not the same thing. If you do you sound elitist. More fodder to chew for trump's base.
My point is, if you want to diss Trump do it in the open. You can't tell me you need your job in the white house to feed your children. You KNOW at least you will get a book out of it and make a few million.
Comments
If the matter was as grave as we were led to believe in the letter there are avenues available to solve these type of problems. Why are they not being followed? After all, if Trump was impeached then Pence becomes President. So, the Republicans still remain in power. Why not follow procedure?
Again, from my perspective, the subject letter is a bunch of crap!
I remember when in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, then-AG John Ashcroft essentially said in a Congressional hearing about the privacy-invading so-called 'PATRIOT' Act that: "“To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies, and pause to America’s friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.”
He was essentially saying if you opposed the bill you were an enemy of the state and/or your views were tantamount to treason. Looking back, as scary as his words were back then (a month after 9/11) his remarks were tame by the declarations made by the Atomic Tangerine nowdays. If there was any doubt as to the type of president we'd have in 2018 on the GOP side, just look back at his rage-filled Republican acceptance speech. "I alone..." "Only I can...." "Only I know how...." It's only gotten worse now that he's in office.
I was vehemently opposed to the Bush 43 administration's policies but respected the office they were elected to and certainly respected the president/VP as a person. I always said I despised W (as president) but would probably enjoy having a beer with him watching a football game. I didn't always agree with Obama, either ... but I'd probably enjoy a beer rhapsodising with him over something-or-other. But the current incumbent in the WH? I have zero respect for him as a person, let alone a president or human being ... I wouldn't even give this despicable excuse for an adult the incorrect time of day.
I daresay McCain's funeral last week was a mourning for American politics of yesteryear. It also showed Tweety what kind of genuine global respect he will never receive and reminded him how the world shunned him in various business, sports, and social circles. When his time comes, even having occupied the most powerful position in the world - president of the USA - he will be remembered as a very little, lonely, and insecure man.
I also don't understand why you doubt that the situation is as grave as the letter suggests. Trump's personal instability has been evident from the moment he began his campaign, long before he took office. What I see in the letter is not a report of Trump's character and behavior. This is on display daily anywhere and everywhere, not just in the privacy of White House. What I see is a statement that there are people in Trump's employ who are doing their best to keep him from doing even more harm.
I do not see spinelessness in anonymity. I see a practical way to ensure that the writer of the letter is able to continue to protect America and the rest of the world from the spontaneous acts of vindictive harm that a president with less self-control than a typical small child will do in the heat of rage.
Of course I could be wrong.
Of course I could be wrong.
I think the problem might be that we are accustomed to our Presidents issuing “legal” orders. We don’t know what orders these high level administration officials may have resisted. Keep in mind the enormous powers our system vests in the President. In particular, as Commander in Chief of the military, he has the authority to order military actions - including use of nuclear weapons capable of killing and maiming millions just minutes after launch.
Would anyone disagree that an individual, either civilian or military, should refuse to carry out an action they know / believe to be illegal or immoral - even if so ordered by a superior?
We do not know what “orders” the group of cabinet members refused to carry out. Might it had been to “reign down fire and fury” on some small nation half-way around the world after an angry late-night Twitter exchange with their leader? Could it have been to inflict inhumane torture on prisoners at Guantanamo or elsewhere? Or might those orders have involved using the NSA, CIA or FBI to spy on, imprison, or even physically harm the President’s political enemies or members of the press? Crazy? Bizarre? Than you need to go back and read the transcripts of Trump’s campaign speeches - including the ones made in the presence of those frenzied stadium crowds. He’s left plenty of tracks that might lead a reasonable person to suspect the worst. Seen in this light, the op-ed in the NYT might even be viewed in part as a desperate attempt to exculpste the writer (and fellow officials) from possible criminal culpability at some later time.
Below is some text re the question of whether a subordinate can be found guilty under international law for carrying out an illegal command from a superior:
After the first trial ended in October 1946, the United States held 12 other trials at Nuremberg under the authority of the International Military Tribunal. Among those brought to trial were 26 top military leaders; 56 high-ranking SS and other police officers, including 24 leaders of the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units) and key officials in Heinrich Himmler’s central office, which supervised the concentration camps and the extermination program; 23 doctors who participated in the Nazi medical killing program that targeted mentally and physically disabled people and conducted experiments on camp prisoners; and 14 officials of other Nazi organizations that engaged in racial persecution.
Few defendants at any of the trials denied the accusations made against them, and often their own testimony was used to convict them. Otto Ohlendorf, the former commandant of Einsatzgruppe D, was sentenced to death for the murder of about 90,000 Jews, Roma, and Sinti after admitting that he had ordered his men to kill children as well as adults. His defense was simple: he was just following orders.
Another defendant, Rudolf Höss, the commandant at Auschwitz, used the same defense. He explained; “Don’t you see, we SS men were not supposed to think about these things; it never even occurred to us. . . . We were all so trained to obey orders without even thinking that the thought of disobeying an order ... I never gave it thought to whether it was wrong.”
The judges at Nuremberg rejected the “following orders” defense. They said that when an individual follows an order that is illegal under international law, he is responsible for that choice, except under certain circumstances. For instance, if the individual could prove that he was ignorant of the fact that the order was illegal, he would not be responsible. But the judges at Nuremberg maintained that it would have been impossible for members of Einsatzgruppen not to know that murdering civilians was both illegal and immoral. Another exception, the judges said, would be if a person obeyed an illegal order to avoid physical harm, torture, or death. In their judgment at the Einsatzgruppen trial, the judges wrote: “No court will punish a man who, with a loaded pistol at his head, is compelled to pull a lethal lever.
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-10/obeying-orders
I shouldn't be surprised if similar things have taken place at other agencies also. Where I am terribly disappointed is in the actions of the border security people. Seems to me that they have not only eagerly carried out every wish of the president, but have done so with excess enthusiasm, as if it's a contest to see who can design the most harsh treatments.
+1.
- Persuade the President to do something different
- Take action to legally void the directive: remove the President or report to Congress
- Resign
Instead, we have senior officials deciding on their own what actions the country is to take. In another place and time that was called a politburo. It's a mini-coup, and unconstitutional.
Personal anecdote: a few years ago I was a board member of a very small (~5 person) company. Statements saying that the company had contracts in hand were circulated outside the company, with the intent of raising capital. Those contracts had not been signed (and as it turned out, never were signed).
I followed all three steps above: I insisted that the board review any future documents sent out; the board agreed but more documents went out without my review. Upon advice of my own counsel (on my own dime; I did not have faith in company counsel), I resigned. Later, a majority of stock voted to remove the board.
Removal of the President is hardly an option at this point. You can't seriously expect that a "report to Congress", that is, this Congress, would have the slightest effect: this Congress needs no "report"- they are already totally aware of the circumstances and are willing partners in the corruption of the executive branch.
With respect to resignation, that is certainly an honorable option. It would also have the unfortunate effect of removing what is perhaps the only existing effort to prevent further and greater Presidential power abuse.
I regard this anonymous letter, coupled with Woodward's book and the continued reporting of what's left of a free press, as an effort to help insure a totally legitimate adjustment of the governing power structure: the election of at least one branch of a new congress which can then take the steps necessary to limit the constitutional destruction of this president.
Since effective direct action is not possible at this point, hopefully the indirect action of the anonymous letter will help to reestablish a reasonable balance of power at the Federal level.
While somewhat impressive, I regard the op-ed as substantially ineffective. It creates a buzz, but reveals nothing not already known. If anything, it documents the degree to which the executive branch is operating outside the Constitution.
Resignations by key advisors would impede presidential action as effectively as swiping papers from his desk. It would also impede actions that this party committee of advisors have taken upon themselves to deem desirable and proper.
What we have now is a blatant usurping of power. That is illegal, unconstitutional. Even if done for good ends. Governments may be largely Machiavellian, but here at least I do not concur that the ends justify the means.
For sure you do not want a gov where underlings sabotage or even thwart top decisions, policy and otherwise.
Unless, unless, unless the circumstances are just beyond extraordinary, involving illegitimate assumption of power and illegitimate policies and top-level rogue conduct, partywide.
Hmm, what to do in such a circumstance.
This might explain Trump’s decision to take out of the security loop John Brennen who finds himself in general opposition to the Administration, and the President’s suggestions that many others, like former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director and NSA Director General Michael Hayden, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, may also soon find their security clearances revoked.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/24/17605798/trump-brennan-comey-security-clearances-national-security-expert-q-a
CIA, How Intelligence-Sharing Works at Present
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm
Forgot to add: "Unlike shareholder's inspection rights, the right of a director of a corporation to inspect the corporate books and records and access all company information is absolute."
http://www.shareholderoppression.com/directors-right-to-company-information
Oversight is oversight, whether in government or business. Unfettered access is necessary in order to perform this responsibility.
That may be true, but when the controlling majority of Congress cheerfully assumes voluntary fetters the paths to correcting the situation are very limited.
My point was simply that there is no such tight-rope. Congress has a near absolute right to that legitimately classified information.
Just as directors but not shareholders have a near absolute right to company secrets, so does Congress but not voters.
But let’s assume a moment, for the sake of argument, that all members of Congress are fully informed about everything the CIA, FBI, and NSA do or contemplate doing. The next issue is Congress needs the vote of the citizenry to remain there. They exist only with that support. So, even if fully armed with all this top-secret intelligence, they remain 100% constrained from ever sharing that information with their constituency to justify any actions they might take to rein-in the executive branch. In effect, their hands are tied. They’re powerless to act.
Back to your original observation, what one study concluded in 2009:
-
The White House sets the national security and foreign affairs agenda. Congress and the judicial branch have affirmed the executive branch's lead role for conducting national security affairs numerous times. Furthermore, the White House can limit congressional influence in the domain of national security and intelligence.
Access to Information: The White House has the power to control information classification, and even withhold access to information and operational details from certain members of Congress. In this way, the executive branch can directly control what Congress can or cannot see, indirectly influencing the legislative branch's overall ability to make decisions. Thus, despite members of the Intelligence Committees and their staffs holding appropriate security clearances, they may sometimes only have a limited view into specific intelligence activities.
Though the 1947 National Security Act states that Congress must be kept "fully informed" of significant intelligence activities, many Presidents have interpreted this clause to mean they only need to notify the "Gang of Eight" rather than the full membership of the congressional intelligence committees. The Gang of Eight consists of the Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
-
Source: Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Study: “Congressional Oversight of the Intelligence Community”
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/congressional-oversight-intelligence-community
Now carry on!
In short, yes it could. The paper you cited discusses whether the executive branch could refuse to provide information. That's a different question. The question here is whether Congress could see information that the executive branch (senior advisors) offered to walk up the Hill.
As to needing to answer to constituents, there's already so much stuff going on behind closed doors that IMHO the public is inured to redacted documents and secret hearings.
While there are at least two sides to this thorny issue, personally, I’m grateful someone wrote that op-ed (assuming it’s authentic). With the additional insights you have provided, I’d guess it’s likely that whoever wrote it first attempted to approach someone in Congress with their concerns - but may have been rebuffed. Eventually, the truth will come out.
Linked is a detailed report (apparently from the CIA / government printing office) on how access to secret materials in reality seems to operate. Apparently, the system has evolved over the years. (After all, in George Washington’s time “top-secret” might have related to the source and quality of horse-feed or musket-shot). Certain to try the patience of any reader, I’m copying a few (long) pertinent passages from the linked document. If anyone else has knowledge of how our most sensitive national intelligence / intelligence secrets are handled, please share.
—
There are no written rules, agreed to by both branches, governing what intelligence will be shared with the Hill or how it will be handled. The current system is entirely the product of experience, shaped by the needs and concerns of both branches over the last 20 years. While some aspects of current practice appear to have achieved the status of mutually accepted "policy," few represent hard-and-fast rules. "Policy" will give way when it has to.
Classified intelligence reports(1) are routinely provided only to the committees that have responsibilities in the national security area.(2) Members of these committees receive preference from the Intelligence Community in satisfying their requests on an individual basis. Among the national security committees, the intelligence committees and their Members are accorded preferential treatment, as discussed below.
*** Finished intelligence that is not published for general circulation is not routinely shared with Congress. For example, the Hill does not receive copies of the President's Daily Brief (PDB), prepared daily by CIA. Nor does it receive copies of the daily intelligence summaries prepared for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Moreover, it does not receive "memo dissems" prepared by CIA for use by White House principals on various topics or tailored materials requested by top-level officials during their daily briefings. Occasionally, as part of an oversight investigation, intelligence committee staffers are shown portions of such tailored reporting--including the PDB--but regular access has not been accorded.
Intelligence officials distinguish this type of publication--tailored to the needs of the President and other high-level officials--from other finished intelligence that has a more general circulation. Tailored analysis is keyed to the needs and interests of the officials concerned: their contacts with foreign counterparts, the reactions of those counterparts to what the US officials have said, events on their schedules, and particular interests they have voiced. This analysis is so tied to the functioning of the executive branch, said one official, that distribution to Congress would be "inappropriate."
The Members and staff interviewed for this study generally acquiesced in this arrangement. Most believed that Congressional needs were satisfied by access to finished intelligence intended for general circulation, particularly the NID, and that access to intelligence reporting tailored for high-level officials in the executive branch would not substantially improve their knowledge base. While access to this analysis might satisfy their curiosity, they did not see it as worth the "pitched battle" that pressing for routine access would inevitably trigger.
Congress also does not routinely see "raw" intelligence--unevaluated intelligence reporting, usually from a single source. The intelligence committees, however, occasionally receive "nonstandard" distributions of single-source intelligence on matters in which they have expressed a particular interest, such as satellite imagery of suspected mass grave sites in Bosnia. They also are occasionally granted access to "raw" intelligence for purposes of carrying out an oversight investigation.
*** Herein may lie the crux of the issue. Apparently, deliberations at the White House (Executive) level involving national security are not available to / shared with Congress. So, should a cabinet member “leak” content of such deliberations and / or proposals to Congress, that person would be guilty of some type of national security transgression. That’s the best I can offer up in support of my earlier suggestion that officials would be prevented from reporting something to Congress due to national security concerns / rules.
—
The document is from the CIA. I’m not sure whether the same guidelines are applicable to NSA or FBI (domestic counter-intelligence operations).
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm
I couldn't agree with you more! It makes you wonder what that vetting process looks like doesn't it? My questions are, just because they may have access to the information isn't there an element of "need to know" buried in the protocol anywhere? Also do they lose these access rights once they are out of office?
1.) Do members of Congress have security clearances?
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2012/05/16/do-members-of-congress-have-security-clearances/
2.) Need to know? From Wikipedia
"In the United States, a security clearance is an official determination that an individual may access information classified by the United States Government. Security clearances are hierarchical; each level grants the holder access to information in that level and the levels below it. The clearance process requires a background investigation and the signing of a nondisclosure agreement. Access to any particular piece of information requires "need-to-know."[10] In some cases, this requirement is only nominal, as some classified information is widely published on secure networks. In other cases, there is a formal need-to-know determination. In addition to such a determination, Special Access Programs and Sensitive Compartmented Information may require additional investigation and adjudication of the prospective clearance holder.
Pending a full security clearance an applicant may be granted a temporary security clearance of indefinite duration, which gives the applicant access to classified information while the original application is being vetted.[11][12]
The US President can declassify previously classified information.[13]"
3.) Do they get to keep them after leaving office and why? From the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/16/why-former-government-officials-keep-their-security-clearances/?utm_term=.aa7d56c5f606
"The topic of security clearance for elected officials has long been a complex one. Members of congress – even those in sensitive committee positions – do not receive or obtain security clearances in the same way that a member of the public would go about obtaining a security clearance based on job or military requirement.
Through the process of election and selection to a seat in the House of Representatives or Senate comes with it a certain public seal of access to information of a sensitive nature. Both the House and Senate have security offices and staff – with the responsibility for overseeing access to classified information, among other things."
Additional excerpts from Wickipedia:
"A clearance by itself is normally not sufficient to gain access; the organization must also determine that the cleared individual needs to know specific information. No one is supposed to be granted automatic access to classified information solely because of rank, position, or a security clearance."
Also very interesting is the contemporaneous nature of the footnotes referred to in your post above:
Wickipedia:
[10] "Executive Order 12968" (PDF). gpo.gov. Retrieved 4 April 2018.
[11] The Hill, February 15, 2018, Government watchdog group files complaint to revoke Kushner security clearance
[12] Vox, February 13, 2018, Trump’s White House has a major security clearance problem
[13] Goldman, Adam; Fandos, Nicholas; Savage, Charlie (2018-02-02). "House Republicans Release Secret Memo Accusing Russia Investigators of Bias". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-02-02.
Here’s where I was coming from:
“In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for reduction to absurdity) is a form of argument that attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.” (Wikipedia)
So, while I agree overall with msf’s assertion, I think it’s a bit more complex than it appears on the surface. There appears to be a basic (perhaps unwritten) understanding between the legislature and our national security agencies as regards to whom, when and why certain information is made available. I wasn’t playing fair either, as military secrets (like how to detonate an A-Bomb, how to foil our own air defense systems, or how resilient the armor on our ships or tanks is) should, I think, be completely separate from the kind of “intelligence” being discussed here. @msf was being very kind in not nailing me for making that unfair and incorrect comparison.
I’m currently devouring Woodward’s new book, Fear, which I purchased as soon as it was released this morning. Early into the book Woodward mentions a top-secret program few knew about (until the book came out). Here’s a reference to the program:
The book opens with a dramatic scene. Former chief economic adviser Gary Cohn saw a draft letter he considered dangerous to national security on the Oval Office desk. The letter would have withdrawn the US from a critical trade agreement with South Korea. Trump’s aides feared the fallout could jeopardize a top-secret national security program: the ability to detect a North Korean missile launch within just seven seconds. Woodward reports Cohn was “appalled” that Trump might sign the letter. “I stole it off his desk,” Cohn told an associate. “I wouldn’t let him see it. He’s never going to see that document. Got to protect the country.”
https://miami.cbslocal.com/2018/09/04/trumps-aides-stole-his-papers-to-protect-the-country-according-to-bob-woodwards-new-book/
Without the program, Woodward asserts, 15-minutes would elapse before our air defense systems in Alaska would be able to detect the launch. During an on-air interview last night, a former intelligence official (Richard Clarke) seemed shocked to learn the project had been made public and declined to even confirm its existence or go any further into the discussion.
Imagine someone publishing such a story about Obama when he was in office. An anonymous source in National Enquirer saying he doesn't know what he is doing. Wait! Did they do that already? Regardless don't tell me "Times" and "Enquirer" are not the same thing. If you do you sound elitist. More fodder to chew for trump's base.
My point is, if you want to diss Trump do it in the open. You can't tell me you need your job in the white house to feed your children. You KNOW at least you will get a book out of it and make a few million.
No anonymous op-eds for me.