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
@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.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Phil@freeatlantis.com
Running covert foreign financial influence ops through USAID sounds like sloppy rogue operators to me, something you'd find in a bloated corrupted security state which deems itself above reproach.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen Congress could absolutely forbid covert aid. (I'd support that.) If @Phil interpretation is right, someone could sue to get the practice enjoined without further work by Congress. But what is done is already done.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
We're not talking about "covert aid" we're talking "covert aid run through USAID" here. The amount of weak backpeddling is laughable.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen if you say so.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
Your entire discourse here has been a pleading for an obligation to secrecy, nothing more, with a transference to abstract foreign entities bamboozled by bad apples. It's laughable even if I couldn't picture the beads of sweat on your forehead.
The big picture is that agencies and their unelected officials feel they can supercede the EOs and directives of POTUS and can hide behind clearance and secrecy and weak sauce "ethical standards" when they see fit, but at the end of the day you just have to follow the money and the cards collapse.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen i agree secrecy is overused and abused by the bureaucracy.
that doesn't mean secrecy never has a role, or that it's legit and not evil to undo it basically randomly.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
I accept your surrender but note your retarded "basically randomly" whimper.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen if you say so. you are really a delightful person to share a discussion with.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
We're not discussing, you're an abhorrent apologist who's been dismantled.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen truly a pleasure! i think so well of you too, my dear interlocutor who is fine with people who worked with USAID in good faith getting tortured so Elon can play USAID files, thinks that would serve a larger, noble purpose.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
Fuck off with your contrived examples. Use some of that blackops budget to save who needs to be saved, according to your high principles and stop pretending at this partisan "muh Musk le bad".
Unaccountability is a helluva drug.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from freemayonnaise@gigaohm.bio
@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen okay then.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
@interfluidity @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen no need to sue. Trump is stopping it with a completely legitimate exercise of his executive power and in keeping with his oath of office
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Phil@freeatlantis.com
@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen he absolutely can stop any further covert aid (unless Congress has mandated it, which i doubt). he just shouldn't fuck over people who relied in good faith on a promise of discretion from prior administrations. and it'd be a more permanent change if Congress did it.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us
@interfluidity @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen so far he hasn't but I wonder how much really is good faith
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Phil@freeatlantis.com
@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen my view i'm not so optimistic... i agree we'd be better off with a new regime that made administrations budget their secrecy more carefully, made it scarce. but that again would be work for Congress, if it is to outlast an administration.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from interfluidity@zirk.us This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini