This is a bit off-topic but I have to say that I really do not buy this. There is no evidence, either historical or contemporary, that the United States has different branches of the military to be a check on one another.
The United States started out with a separate army and navy for two reasons:
Practicality and necessity, and
Because that’s how the British did it and so that’s just how it was done.
The USAF, bear in mind, was quite an advanced and massive organization well before it was formally separated from the Army in 1947.
Oh yeah … this got me going … exceptionally well stated and I’m glad LHOD is surviving with only one kidney, no pancreas and seeing-eye dogs …
How could any apple pie eating, Chevy driving, flag waving American NOT expect transparency in government? … we elect people to act on our behalf, damn straight we’re entitled to know what they’re doing … even the military has to periodically review every scrap of their classified material, and once the information is no longer sensitive, it is released to the public … that’s how we know the details of Sherman’s March to the Sea in the 1860’s … that campaign was conducted on behalf of the public, the public is entitled to know about it … the government is NEVER allowed to keep secrets on a permanent basis …
Did we lose in Viet-Nam because The Washington Post disclosed that the Johnson administration was incompetent in prosecuting the war? … or was it because the Johnson administration was incompetent in prosecuting the war? …
Did the Russian usurp the will of the American Electorate by publishing those internal DNC documents … or did those internal DNC documents show that the Democrat leadership was trying to usurp the will of the American Electorate? … The DNC should never have even considered discussing what they discussed … shame on them …
Now, don’t get me wrong … this Deep State is a major problem … but for the exact opposite reasons in the OP … it’s not that the Deep State unduly influences elected officials … rather it is the elected officials who unduly influence the Deep State … the Sally Yates matter is a great example … in her professional and fully qualified legal opinion … the travel ban Executive Order was completely indefensible so she decided to not defend it … that’s her fucking job … and she got fired … no way is her replacement going to do their job … they’ll be acting at The Donald’s pleasure, totally disregarding written law …
Leak away … the public really is smart enough to make their own choices …
The question that I have is why these apparent career bureaucrats, whose career has been built on secrecy and intelligence, would leak at unprecedented levels now - they didn’t leak like the Titanic during the Obama administration - it isn’t a change in parties - they didn’t leak like this during the GWB administration (and intelligence agencies aren’t known for staffing themselves with hippy liberals anyway).
The options:
They are out for a coup because Trump is a weak President.
They see the dangers of Trump continuing as President to be so great it is worth breaking the law for. Once Trump is out, they will return to business as usual.
The first is scary. But I think the second is true. People in these jobs do them not because they will get a lot of money (most of them are smart enough to make far more in the private sector.) They aren’t in it for the glory - their names are usually pretty unknown outside the community (and often within it). They are in it because they think they are performing a necessary service for the defense of our country, and I think that if they choose to violate the rule of law to defend our country, that should tell someone about the information the intelligence community has.
The second holds a danger that this isn’t an extraordinary exception, but becomes a matter of politics. These guys - who analyze this stuff - have got to be as much aware of that danger as me with my little ol’ History minor and Poli Sci class - so if they are taking the risk, I’m thinking “oh, fuck.”
It’s hard to speculate about the motivations of unknown people. If I had to guess, I would speculate that it’s a combination of 1) genuine suspicion of Trump’s motivations and/or ignorance, and 2) being emboldened by the unprecedented level of vociferous opposition to Trump in many circles.
That said, people’s opinions of politicians vary, and political polarization has been steadily increasing in recent decades. You and I might think that Trump is uniquely unqualified to be president, but many people thought the same of Obama, and of Bush, and of Clinton. If “uniquely unqualified to be president” is the standard, then I would assume there are people would find that in the case of every future president.
You find that hard? I find it easy. Its really just a different sort of FEMA. And heck, its what we ask a lot of these intelligence analysts do for a living. I’ve discovered that asking “why” something happens - whether its why my cat is avoiding the litterbox or why my toddler is having a tantrum - and being able to speculate on the answers - getting to a good hypothetical - is a really necessary life skill.
The complaints which I have read, pertaining to the CIA, seem to be fairly static across the decades. George HW Bush served as director, before becoming the POTUS. One has to assume that if he felt that it was an organization in need of slimming down and cleaning up, that operated independently of the Executive (or any other) branch of government, he would have done so either in his position as Director or President.
David Petraeus also served as director for some time and I think most people would trust that he wouldn’t let the organization run as a secret government, independent of the US government, even if they wouldn’t trust him with their wives.
Even if we take the view that the organization is unmanageable, and independent of the Director, you would still expect that the Director would realize if he was constantly getting the runaround from his subordinates or that his orders were being filtered through some secondary, mystery management hierarchy. And so we would expect those men to come out of their jobs trying to sell Congress and the President on massive reform of the organization. That’s not what we have seen.
RickJay: yes, the US formed an Army and a Navy for purely practical purposes. But other considerations (as I posted) obtain, too. One unified military apparatus has never been considered desirable in the USA, partly because of the human-psychology involved: having more than one branch of the military guards against the danger of military seizures of power. They compete. They watch each other.
That this was not the initial reason for the formation of a separate Army and Navy doesn’t really matter; we still get the beneficial outcome of having a separate Army and Navy.
Its hard to do it with absolute accuracy. It isn’t that difficult to figure out likely motivations and which ones play out from a risk/reward aspect. If you are good with a 60% confidence, its pretty simple.
And in this case, you are seeing behavior from multiple members (apparently) of a community where there has always been a fairly high degree of professionalism and rules following in the past. Something is causing them to behave differently.
(And, they really aren’t that unknown to me…I have friends of friends who operate in those circles)
There is no danger that either unelected officials, OR other elected officials, “undermining” OTHER elected officials will become “the accepted way of doing things.”
And no, it really isn’t a valid argument to pretend that being elected or not, makes a damn bit of difference in this. That’s another trick by the people who want to suppress revelations and opposition in general, by pretending that suppressing the truth is really defending democracy.
The thing that those of us who either are older, or who paid attention in History class, is that this kind of thing has happened MANY MANY TIMES in the United States and other countries, and in all but a very few instances, the leaks have NOT meant a breakdown in the entire culture’s institutions, it has actually signaled the exact opposite.
The people who commit the leaks are always SIMULTANEOUSLY praised by some, ruefully admired while criticized by some, condemned officially but respectfully by some, and virulently reviled and attacked by some. Those who are caught, are punished for their acts, even as they are praised.
Standards of secrecy and dedication are always restored, and often “adjusted” after each instance. But the institutions overall, suffer no permanent damage. In fact, in most cases, the institutions are enhanced by the leaks, because what is leaked, often tends to cause the institutions to rededicate themselves to serving American interests over local political loyalties, just as they should always do.
Eh, call me when the leaks we’re talking about are tabloid in nature and don’t hint at very serious crimes against our national interests.
The people who have access to leak-worthy information are likely career officials who would not be in their positions without having long track records of trustworthiness and professionalism. That should count for a lot when weighing wrongs. People in these positions generally don’t act like sieves unless conditions legitimately provoke them to act this way. This isn’t blabbing what has been eavesdropped from the high school teacher’s lounge; someone senior and knowledgeable is putting some serious thought behind this.
Once again, you’re talking about potentialities without looking at the larger context. Sure, if we ignore the fact that these leaks suggest impeachable offenses and scandals more appalling than Watergate, while also pretending that the intelligence community doesn’t have more than just leaks to back up concerns about relationships between 45 and Russia, we can act like there is a true slippery slope here. But because it’s insane to ignore all of this, our attention is better placed on what Trump is doing, not those who are leaking about what he is doing.
The OP works under the assumption that leaks are a bad thing. They aren’t, usually. Yes, if you leak classified military information of strategic importance, that is bad. But the vast majority of leaks are about people doing things that you don’t think they should be doing.
If the people are okay with what they are doing, then there’s no problem. It’s only a problem when you have an administration that is doing bad things. And then we want those things to be leaked, since that allows us to stop them.
That’s democracy. Not blind loyalty to the guy who has been elected.
In short, if leaking bad things becomes the status quo, we as a nation will only be better, not worse.
If “bad things” means things which are clearly and unambiguously illegal, then you might be onto something. But if “bad things” means things that the leaker vehemently disagrees with, then no. There’s always people vehemently disagreeing with things.
Mark Felt was Deputy Director of the FBI when he leaked information about Watergate to Bob Woodward at the Washington Post (he was Deep Throat). (He was prosecuted but for something different and not related to Watergate…Reagan pardoned him.)
First, these aren’t mutually exclusive things. And second, legality isn’t the only thing that should be of interest to the American people.
If it was leaked that Trump used a women’s restroom in North Carolina, then we might speculate a partisan vendetta is afoot. This, even though such restroom “impropriety” is against the law in that state. Him using a restroom of the opposite sex is of little consequence to our national security, so a person who would leak this is marking himself/herself as someone who in not really acting like a true public servant.
If it was leaked that Trump lied about what was said to another head of state currently under sanctions, this would be in the realm of valid whistleblowing, IMO. This, even though lying is not illegal.
