I have no cite but I recently read that the heads of our (U.S.) national security agencies may be/are reluctant to reveal sensitive information to the current administration for fear of said info going right back to Russia. What are their obligations legally and morally? If they withhold highly sensitive intel the administration could order action without knowing all the facts. If they tell everything they know they risk compromising their sources and means. It seems like a no-win situation. So, the debate is: “Tell all, its your sworn duty.” (or is it?) vs “Tell only what is absolutely necessary, you have a higher duty to national security.” “Protecting from all enemies, from without and within” and all that.
The system wasn’t set up with the concept that the head of it all was himself the target of the investigations.
Presumably, the Legislature can go talk with the Intelligence Community, though, and get all the information they want, behind closed doors. There just needs to be political approval for it.
Legally, ya got me.
Morally - I’d prefer to say ethically - this is kind of a variation of the “murderer at the door” problem. Categorical imperative - Wikipedia
Instead of the murderer knocking at your door in search of their intended victim, Jane (who is in your house), it’s someone who is (probably? Or just possibly?) friendly with the murderer, and may be likely to spill the beans about Jane’s location. Okay to lie about Jane being inside?
No, let’s refine the analogy further: the person at the door is looking for Jane in their official capacity. Think of Officer Donald looking for Jane, a witness to a crime - a crime you suspect was committed at the behest of Gang Boss Vlad. But you are uncertain whether Donald is in league with Vlad or not. Alternatively, you suspect that Donald may be so incompetent that he might give her location away to Vlad by accident.
So what to do? The downsides to keeping silent/lying are pretty clear: Officer Donald can’t do his job without Jane’s intel. Furthermore, setting a “no snitching” precedent when questioned by the police is going to have negative long-term consequences. Other people who have info the police need will feel emboldened to ignore their civic duty.
OTOH, if you seriously lack confidence in Donald’s competence or integrity, honesty has serious potential downsides too.
In this situation, frankly, I’d keep silent for the time being and try to get a better handle on the situation. But I’m a consequentialist when it comes to ethics/morals.
(Also, can’t we just fire Officer Donald, or put him on desk duty?)
To TLDR myself: the more certain I was that fully briefing the President (et al) might lead to leaks to the Russians, the more I’d feel ethically bound to withhold information that, if leaked, would be dangerous. Even if withholding that intel meant breaking the law.
Not a bright-line answer, since I don’t know what the briefers know or suspect. But I can see such withholding being justified in some situations (and unjustified in others).
The duties of the intel community are the duties of the intel community. There is no “under Trump” about it, as much as some folks would like there to be. Trump is the president. End of story.
One might (and I emphasize might) envision a time when President X is under investigation for “improper” release of secret material (if that’s even possible) and impeachment proceedings are underway, but I can’t imagine how that would even work unless the president voluntary stood aside and let the VP run things during the investigation.
If the spooks in the NSA or CIA or FBI suspect the president is in bed with Russia, their responsibility is to go to Congress with their concerns, and it’s up to Congress to investigate, impeach, whatever.
What the unelected bureaucrats can not do is act as an unaccountable shadow government, choosing which info should or shouldn’t be given to the president, leaking damaging info to the press, etc.
If this were being done to Obama’s administration by conservative spooks. I suspect everyone here would be outraged.
Theoretically the VP & majority of Cabinet could invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. Yes, it was written with medical incapacity in mind, but in all likelihood SCOTUS would defer to Congress on with it’s a valid invocation or not.
I’d hate to see something like that happen. That would be a coup, plain and simple. If the cabinet and VP are aligned against the president, surely impeachment would be swift and decisive. Then it would be up to the Senate to kick the bum out.
I think this leaves the original question unanswered. What kinds of duties - legal, moral, ethical, or other? Defined by whom?
I get the sense, John Mace, that you’re taking this question as a partisan attack on Trump, and dismissing it as such. But why not take it seriously? Explain why, until impeachment is underway, the intel community - or any of its individual members - must give the president all info it has.
(To be clear, I think this is a Great Debate worth having - Sam Stone’s counter-example where this happens under Obama is just as interesting*.)
- And kiiiind of soooort of happened last year - except the prez and congressional leaders did get briefed fully, and the groups that only got selected intel were the press, and through them the citizenry.
As with John Stone’s comment above - I think you’re not showing your work. Why is that the spooks’ responsibility? Why can’t unelected bureaucrats make these choices?
The “if it were Obama’s admin” thing is a good zinger, but proves nothing.
Here is a cite, as I posted it in another thread. There is quite a bit more at the source, but some of it pertains to Flynn.
As we all know, if you want to reveal sensitive law enforcement information to influence elections, you’re suppose to write a letter to Jason Chaffetz, not leak it to the NY Times.
As eschereal points out, we have a President who is opting out of intelligence briefings. He is willfully ignoring the IC. Large numbers of executive level positions in his agencies have yet to be filled. It’s rumored that he’s signing EOs without reading them or really understanding what he’s doing. Communication with his staff seems to be poor, with differing reports about Flynn’s ouster coming from Conway and Spicer. There’s rumors that his chief of staff is already on the outs. He allegedly ignored reports about Flynn’s Russian connection from his AG for weeks.
So on the one hand, yes, leaks like this are a terrible thing and if they were happening under the Obama administration there would have been outrage. But on the other hand, there’d be more outrage about the dysfunctional leadership that allowed such irresponsible actions to occur.
Looks like my predictions might be starting to come true.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19917001&postcount=22
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19937007&postcount=19