Back

@interfluidity So far the documents have not been comprimised. and what if the "intelligence" work is not authorized?

And if it's just about aid and development, why would it have any classified documents?

@Phil when USAID funds democracy activism in Cuba, do you think there might be a reason for the names of the activists to be classified?

maybe USAID shouldn’t fund activities to which host governments object. that’s a policy call. but so far Congress has supported that sort of work. until they don’t, some documents really do need to be classified and remain secure.

@interfluidity @Phil To secretly take US money to advance US interests in your country, is bad. Really bad. I think it's "you need to stop that immediately and saving your own skin isn't an excuse" bad.

@Harald_Korneliussen @Phil Maybe so! I broadly think financing covert (as to open, overt) “civil society” is a bad thing we shouldn’t do. I’m not going to arrogate any right to make or judge the tradeoffs faced by activists who consider accepting those funds. You can make a broad, general case for why they shouldn’t. You can imagine particular circumstances under which perhaps they shouldn’t. 1/

@Harald_Korneliussen @Phil What I will say, with great certainty, is so long as the US, via lawful processes, chooses to finance covert civil society support, it is the duty of the US government to maintain strict confidence about the details of that activity. It might be a bad call, by us as donor, by the recipient. 2/

@interfluidity @Harald_Korneliussen USAID is based on the Foreign assistance act of 1961. Nowhere in this act are such activities authorized.

@Phil @Harald_Korneliussen I'm glad to see a President pare back agency activity to what he perceives is within the lawful, Congressionally mandated scope, or for outside parties to sue if they believe the President has overly narrowed the scope. That doesn't affect the fact that USAID has provided aid on terms that are importantly confidential, and its entirely unethical and contrary to US interests to treat those confidences incautiously.

@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen i'm saying confidential aid has been part of what USAID has done, and whether you think it's a good idea or not (i'm mostly on the not side), it's ethically and practically critical that we maintain the confidences we've promised, however we might decide to narrow the practice going forward.

@interfluidity @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen Depends on who WE is.

@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen i'd say the "we" in this case is the government of the United States, a formal institution that promised discretion under high stakes to some of the people it financed. that "we", and its obligations, survive changes of administration, just like Boeing survives (for now) its many CEO changes.

@interfluidity @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen this is only true if any promises were properly authorized and made by people authorized to me them on behalf of the US. If they were just promises made by rogue operators, they are meaningless.

@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen not true in law. if a "rogue operator" is presented in such a way by an organization that a reasonable counterparty would consider them to be acting in the name of the organization, the organization often finds itself on the hook. as a matter of ethics, stipulating your interpretation of nonauthorization, if someone accepted support from a real USG agent on promise of discretion that shouldn't have been made, your ethical view is "oops! sucks for you!"?

@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen if the enterprise is crooked, by all means get out of it. but if you've promised discretion, keep your promise.

@interfluidity @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen I disagree. Such an approach just leaves the door open for other bad actors. Bring it all to light, so such promises are taken with a grain of salt in the future.

@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen i guess i can't disagree with "it's virtuous to screw people over because they should know better than to trust me because i don't trust myself to act well." it's a case you can make, but i think we need a capable government which means we actually have to act well.

@interfluidity @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen secrets promised in conjunction with the executive and government directives should be kept. Secrets promised in contravention of executive directives should not be kept. Its that simple and necessary or bad people will have illegitimate power over the US.

@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen if players are rogue, i think the accountability has to be imposed on those players, rather than the people they dupe.

@interfluidity @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen I see that point, but think its better for those duped to pay the price publicly so future such promises are treated with an abundance of skepticism. If this hampers the us from future meddling, that's just an added bonus

@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen we'll disagree that that's the best way to go. i still want a state that can, say, participate credibly in alliances. tbf, we've fucked it up pretty badly already.