Suppose you think USAID is more about official cover for intelligence work than aid. I think that’s exaggerated, untrue, but OK.
Then it is more outrageous its classified docs shld be compromised. Agents in the field don’t determine US intelligence policy but it is they whom these leaks may kill.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
@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?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Phil@freeatlantis.com
@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.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
@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.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Harald_Korneliussen@mastodon.partipirate.org
@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/
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
@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/
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
@interfluidity @Harald_Korneliussen USAID is based on the Foreign assistance act of 1961. Nowhere in this act are such activities authorized.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Phil@freeatlantis.com
@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.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
So you're saying that secret aid is important and under the purview of USAID and not something like CIA? Or are you just making stupid excuses for bloat, grift and corruption?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
@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.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
@interfluidity @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen Depends on who WE is.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Phil@freeatlantis.com
@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.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
What a shitty apologist for unelected career derpcabal govt officials and a garbage analogy unless you're talking about murder of whistleblowers.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
@freemayonnaise the issue is that, since (rightly or wrongly, it's actually not a practice i favor) the US sometimes does provide aid to people or organizations without their country's government's knowledge or approval, what we are talking about risking is, yes, murder, the murder of people USAID has covertly assisted, if that information is disclosed to the wrong people or made public.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
I guess the pickle "you're" (the equivalent of "we") is in a-roof-of-the-Saigon-embassy situation then isn't it. And who got "us" there? Yeah, no. I pick transparency and accountability instead of your bullshit highly abstracted justification of no accountability and oversight of USAID.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
@freemayonnaise you can have plenty of accountability and oversight. we have a whole army of people with security clearances, and you can clear more if you don't like their politics. Congress can ban USAID from the practice of covert aid. i'd favor that. but you—yes, you too if you're an american—can't ethically welch on obligations with life and death stakes that predecessors took on, no matter how shitty you think the predecessors.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
Yeah sorry, that's not accountability, that's the million person clearance derpcabal with its corporate tentacles asking to police itself. We've seen where that's lead for a decade and a half since Obama crushed any notions of whistleblowing.
You act as though leaving Saigon or Biden's billion dollar dump and run in Afghanistan aren't recent examples of the USG doing exactly what you're saying isn't to be done.
Your luke warm defense of unaccounted budgets for derp isn't convincing.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
@freemayonnaise the US owes all the people with whom we collaborated in Afghanistan refuge, and all of the politicians who deny or prevent that, who gum up the works, have their future blood on their hands and besmirch our nation's honor. you make too light, walk away too easily, from things that are not light, easy, or frankly yours to walk away from, whatever you personally agreed or disagreed with.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
You're talking bullshit, we all know the problem in USAID is internal not external. This mole hill is not a mountain. 56 officials getting shut out isn't over protecting foreign nationals. I just wanted to see how long you'd peddle this bullshit but it's indefinite and with the weakest of moral argument.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
@freemayonnaise dude, they are accessing the files, reportedly including classified files. no, i don't know the details, i hope they are less bad than they might be, but that's problematic as fuck.
again, you take this shit far too lightly. it is a different topic, but not remotely a "molehill" that Musk talks about "shutting down" an agency when our Costitutional system permits that only of Congress.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
It's like you don't know or don't care to understand how govt works. The administration's domain is exactly the workings of agencies. If Congress doesn't like it then insert checks and balances. You're griping like a derpcabal insider about chickens coming home to roost.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
@freemayonnaise the administration has a lot of flexibility about the working of agencies!
but it has zero flexibility over the existence of any agency, and at least in some form pursuing the objectives for which Congress constituted it.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini