A Deeply Fractured US
- Thread starter BeyondTheNow
- Start date
- Status
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,818
- Points
- 1,040
For any friendly country's intelligence agency to interfere in a US election by targeting associates of a presidential candidate in order to stir up dirt should be unthinkable. If any of this actually happened, the best course going forward is to air it completely and burn all the people associated with it to cinders, so that no-one contemplates ever doing it again. Whether or not "it's just not done" is immaterial. It surely would be convenient to conceal malfeasance behind some principle, but it's basically the same principle by which an irresponsible person betrays friendships by encouraging friends to participate in concealing his misdeeds (ie. "don't rat me out"). The "rats", in fact, are the people who do the wrong thing in the first place.No, it's actually quite inconvenient.
But that's the way it is if you want foreign countries to share intelligence in confidence.
- Reaction score
- 22,335
- Points
- 1,260
Several years ago when Harry Reid was being investigated to links and funding from hostile governments it got shut down ASAP.
I don’t see anything wrong with investigating potential threats, regardless of their position or political position or affiliation.
Some folks close to Trump still are a little too close to hostile powers, even if he himself hasn’t been directly linked.
The same goes for a number of Democratic elected officials as well.
- Reaction score
- 6,287
- Points
- 1,160
Boy, it'd sure suck if the countries that were pissed at his NATO comments were the same countries that interfered in his election.
I agree with Brad. Burn the whole thing down, from the top to the bottom. Short term pain for long term gain. Cockroaches hate the light.
I agree with Brad. Burn the whole thing down, from the top to the bottom. Short term pain for long term gain. Cockroaches hate the light.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,212
- Points
- 990
Indeed. Some posts on this page could do with a healthy dose of Occam.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,212
- Points
- 990
There's a certain irony to this statement given it stems from outrage what amounts to 3rd party scrutiny
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,818
- Points
- 1,040
That's the nut of the problem. It'd be one thing to co-operate with the US by offering to chase down foreigners, while privately retaining a conservatively prudent opinion that the people asking for assistance with US citizens might be pursuing their own private political agenda. Taking a side would be a stupidly unnecessary risk.
I'm skeptical because I can't imagine why Trump hasn't already dumped such information (if he has/had it, and knew it). Yet Shellenberg and Taibbi have earned a solid reputation for chasing down things some people would rather not have chased down. Their credibility will suffer if their sources are misinformed or are just playing them.
If it's untrue, no worry for outsiders. If it is true, and Trump wins the election, any country fingered might have a rough go. And if decisions to interfere were taken by members of "the establishment" rather than the head politicians, the head politicians are not going to be happy.
Aper
Member
- Reaction score
- 411
- Points
- 930
And one news anchor here called it ''A mass shooting at the Grey Cup parade'' ...
- Reaction score
- 6,287
- Points
- 1,160
If he does get back in, it should give him the excuse to cut the head off of all 3 letter agencies. A lot of ex government, now lobbyists and consultants, will lose their security clearance. The 50+ retirees that signed that letter should be first. Anyone involved in the intelligence coup should be charged with treason and sent to Gitmo for life.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,206
- Points
- 1,160
The allegation was any president can declassify anything he wants. That applies to his own agencies work product.
When a foreign country shares intelligence you can't declassify it unilaterally. And let's face it, we only share intelligence with "friendly" nations.
I guess if a president went to the Vatican and decided to have a crap on the floor of St Peters, he could, BUT there would be consequences. It's the same if the president of the US were to unilaterally make public foreign intelligence, whether declassified or not, without the consent of the originating friendly state.
There is some jumping to a whole lot of conclusions when you start with suppositions that there were attempts by a foreign intelligence agency to interfere in a US election. Assuming that there is actual proof, and not just the usual partisan speculation and inuendo, that a foreign agency is interfering then by all means, the matter must be addressed with the foreign leadership and an explanation and action demanded. Burn the foreign intelligence agency with its foreign bosses not in the press.
It's not an issue of "not just done, old chap." It's entirely a matter of the downstream effects are vis a vis the "friendly" country. Things aren't as simplistic as people like them to be.
If on the other hand you eventually come to the undeniable conclusion that in fact it's the foreign country itself that's interfering and there aren't other national interests that you want to protect, then by all means; let fly.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,818
- Points
- 1,040
I fully understand the legal and moral distinctions. I have already acknowledged, repeatedly, that the claims are allegations. Proceeding from the assumption the claims are false, there is nothing to be declassified and no issue to worry about. Proceeding from the assumption the claims are true, then friendly countries committed unfriendly acts and the US (the administration) may respond how it chooses and the friendly countries will just have to hope the consequences aren't severe. If any want to pitch a fit over their laundry being aired, that will just reinforce their own bad behaviour. They will be in the position of giving apologies, not demanding them.
Taking as a hypothetical that the allegation is in fact true, then your proposal presupposes that there are clean hands on the U.S. side, and that a public airing of classified grievances wouldn’t bring blowback.
Each country’s laws vary; the U.S. president likely has a very near total ability to (through proper process) order declassification and release of holdings in U.S. possession. If the U.S. president wanted to order release of U.S. holdings of, say, British or Canadian intelligence, probably he would have the legal authority to, even if he didn’t have any authority over the originator’s level of classification.
…but…
The third party rule, and resultant caveats on classified products shared among allies, are sacrosanct. Intelligence sharing is trust based. A security intelligence partner that suffers a leak due to a breach, criminality, etc has a lot of repair work to do to reassure allies. But a partner that chooses as a government policy to disregard foreign caveats? That would be an instant closing of the taps. Sharing would stop, five eyes becomes four eyes until trust is restored.
The relationships are not super complex, but they’re very significant, and their preservation - for all five eyes allies, as well as within other intelligence sharing arrangements - is essentially for national and international security. Abandoning the implicit trust of the third party rule / caveat system would not be something to be entertained lightly.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,316
- Points
- 1,010
If Trump does have this evidence, now is not the time to dump it. Likely closer to election. But again, conveniently he is under investigation for mishandling classified material so this could exasperate that problem and could be what’s holding him back.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,206
- Points
- 1,160
That's all true if it were just one political party and one foreign country involved. The issue started with "friendly" country and just an intelligence agency.
Let's go all in and assume that there is a political party currently in power in that otherwise friendly country with animus against a certain American candidate. You still need to think beyond the act itself. Sometimes the issue is a bundle of complex economic relationships between your two countries that could severely effect the lives of millions of your own citizens. At that point some balancing of factors have to be taken into consideration beyond a mere venting in a public hissy fit.
Governments have numerous options and escalation steps. Quite frankly, the going public step is the least effective action. If that party has truly been trying to interfere do you actually think that a "public shaming" will have any practical effect? It just reinforces what some people have thought all along, and will be vigorously disbelieved and decried by others - regardless of the "evidence." The former friendly nation won't "pitch a fit." Like China, it will simply deny and deny and spin its own yarn and then hold some of you people hostage and raise some tariffs or the like.
kkwd
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 149
- Points
- 730
Several letters were exchanged between the White House and DOJ concerning the Hur special counsel report.
You can read all the letters and make up your own mind, it's all straight from the horse's mouth so to speak without editorial interference.
WH Letter
DOJ Letter
WH Follow Up Letter
You can read all the letters and make up your own mind, it's all straight from the horse's mouth so to speak without editorial interference.
WH Letter
DOJ Letter
WH Follow Up Letter
This makes things a bit awkward for the impeachment inquiry.
www.foxnews.com
FBI informant charged with giving false information about Hunter Biden in 2020
An FBI informant is charged giving false information after he alleged that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden took bribes from Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.
www.foxnews.com
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,818
- Points
- 1,040
If anyone interfered in the US election by doing for the CIA what the CIA may not do for itself constitutionally, trust is already dead. The issue here isn't about willy-nilly widespread revelations; it's very specific.
Almost all other parties need the US more than the US needs them. Again, anyone who wants to double down by expressing anger that a misdeed is revealed, is contributing to the erosion of alliances. When someone is wronged in a relationship, it's up to the transgressing party to try to make it up to the offended party to rebuild trust.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,818
- Points
- 1,040
I don't know who you think I mean by "friendly", but I mean NATO, Australia, NZ, and probably a few others around the globe.
For Trump to get such information publicly disclosed would be very effective; it would zero out the last shreds of pretext for pretty much everything that was set in motion in 2016. Then the people responsible in the US could begin reckoning with offended American voters.
- Status
Similar threads
