America's spies anonymously took down Michael Flynn. That is deeply worrying(theweek.com)
theweek.com
America's spies anonymously took down Michael Flynn. That is deeply worrying
http://theweek.com/articles/680068/americas-spies-anonymously-took-down-michael-flynn-that-deeply-worrying?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=afternoon&utm_medium=02_15_17-article_1-680068
1 comments
Yeah. The real issue here is not simply that Flynn spoke with the ambassador. There's a reasonable debate to be had about the Logan Act and such issues. It's that he flat-out lied about his conversation to counter-intelligence agents investigating a very serious Russian intelligence operation. If Flynn felt like he would incriminate himself in telling the truth, he should have pursued other channels rather than flat-out lying to counter-intelligence.
Not only that, but Trump was _informed_ by the FBI about Flynn's lie weeks ago. Yet Trump actively participated in the cover-up, with bald lies of his own! WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
Any complaints about the intelligence community breaching protocol over this are seriously misguided. The whole saga is treachery that borders on traitorous!
Trump is free to pursue a new Russian policy. He's the president. If the intelligence community refused to carry out his orders, then that's a different kind of conversation. But if his administration is going to lie not only publicly, but to Congress, about things in this manner, merely to avoid the political costs of his preferred policy, then that's on him. You can't have a government that operates that way. Maintaining secrecy does not require lying of this sort, not in any way, shape, or form.
This is why modern societies like ours have the 5th Amendment. A system that forces people to lie is not tolerable or sustainable, so we gave people under criminal investigation an alternative to lying--refusing to talk--and expect them to take advantage of that alternative. Perjury and obstruction of justice are, for the most part, punished severely in this country exactly because the alternative exists.
In politics there are similar alternatives to lying. Lying is poisonous. When there's lying the system cannot work. Checks & balances cannot work. The last resort are the honorable men and women in the bureaucracy willing to breach protocol.
I'm also a supporter of Snowden. When General Clapper lied under oath to Congress, that's all I needed to know to conclude that Snowden was justified. Were Snowden's leaks too large in scope? I don't care. Short of leaking our nuclear codes, I'm not going to question his methods in the face of top-level officials breaching not only the public trust, not only hiding information from other branches of the government, but of violating a basic tenet of any functional political system however structured--no lying!
Not only that, but Trump was _informed_ by the FBI about Flynn's lie weeks ago. Yet Trump actively participated in the cover-up, with bald lies of his own! WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
Any complaints about the intelligence community breaching protocol over this are seriously misguided. The whole saga is treachery that borders on traitorous!
Trump is free to pursue a new Russian policy. He's the president. If the intelligence community refused to carry out his orders, then that's a different kind of conversation. But if his administration is going to lie not only publicly, but to Congress, about things in this manner, merely to avoid the political costs of his preferred policy, then that's on him. You can't have a government that operates that way. Maintaining secrecy does not require lying of this sort, not in any way, shape, or form.
This is why modern societies like ours have the 5th Amendment. A system that forces people to lie is not tolerable or sustainable, so we gave people under criminal investigation an alternative to lying--refusing to talk--and expect them to take advantage of that alternative. Perjury and obstruction of justice are, for the most part, punished severely in this country exactly because the alternative exists.
In politics there are similar alternatives to lying. Lying is poisonous. When there's lying the system cannot work. Checks & balances cannot work. The last resort are the honorable men and women in the bureaucracy willing to breach protocol.
I'm also a supporter of Snowden. When General Clapper lied under oath to Congress, that's all I needed to know to conclude that Snowden was justified. Were Snowden's leaks too large in scope? I don't care. Short of leaking our nuclear codes, I'm not going to question his methods in the face of top-level officials breaching not only the public trust, not only hiding information from other branches of the government, but of violating a basic tenet of any functional political system however structured--no lying!
I think you may be thinking of the military or elected officials, Non-elected non-military personnel do not have to make an oath by anything for most cases much less the constitution.
Found this online:
The CIA oath reads: “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Schooled CIA employees know that the Constitution also defines the role of federal employees: "To establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty."
The CIA oath reads: “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” Schooled CIA employees know that the Constitution also defines the role of federal employees: "To establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty."
Do we know precisely where the leaks came from? Don't CIA officers, for example, take an oath?
In any event, oath or not, I think it's understood that we expect people to breach protocol under the right circumstances. The United States, at least, rejected the Nuremberg Defense. This isn't quite the same thing, but at the very least it's well established that even the lowest-level officials have an obligation to their nation's organic[1] law, as well as to universal moral law, that supersedes their duty to obey supervisory authority.
[1] organic meaning constitutional--little 'c', not big 'C'--that can include both written and unwritten law.
In any event, oath or not, I think it's understood that we expect people to breach protocol under the right circumstances. The United States, at least, rejected the Nuremberg Defense. This isn't quite the same thing, but at the very least it's well established that even the lowest-level officials have an obligation to their nation's organic[1] law, as well as to universal moral law, that supersedes their duty to obey supervisory authority.
[1] organic meaning constitutional--little 'c', not big 'C'--that can include both written and unwritten law.
No they don't. They work for the American public.
They swear to uphold the US Constitution above all else, including the Presidency.
Presidents have been undermined for the right reasons by the intelligence service before, in the greater national interest (Deepthroat during Watergate for example, Iran-Contra, Gitmo - there were always people on the inside prepared to go against their own agencies). These cases certainly meet those tests.