If you have ever worked
for the federal government (I have), you are more than familiar with document
stamps, cover envelopes, security procedures, clearance background checks, bag
checks and steely-eyed guards (often cops and soldiers). Folks elected to Congress
have a different standard to secure their clearance, but it takes little more
than a “stamp” to turn an ordinary communication into spy-fodder. Federal
employees tend to err in favor of classifying a document when there is the
slightest hint of possible national security relevance. And anyone related to
any national security agency is raised with the mantra that virtually
everything, other than take- out lunch orders, is classified.
Looking at the U.S.
federal process of classifying information, the BBC.com (May 16th), explains
the process with the help of a couple of other cited periodicals: “There are
three different levels of classification…
“Top secret is the highest level, and is information the government
believes could ‘reasonably... be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage
to the national security.’ According to The Economist, about 1.4 million people
have access to these documents.
“Secret is for information which could reasonably... ‘be expected to
cause serious damage.’
“Confidential applies to information which could simply ‘cause
damage to the national security.’ Most military personnel have this level of
clearance.
“However, there is also a
way to add a second level of clearance to top secret. It is administered by the
CIA, and allows only those with the codeword access to the information. The
material discussed by Mr Trump with the Russians was under a codeword, sources
told the Washington Post.” That is a reflection of the former “eyes-only”
add-on.
So with the above in mind,
we have a situation where the President of the United States self-admittedly
shared information in a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and the
Russian Ambassador to the United States. After what seemed to be a spate of
initial denials from his staff, Trump tweeted that as President, he had “an
absolute right” to disseminate anything he wanted and that he communicated with
the Russians towards a common goal of defeating terrorism. The “leak” was
purportedly specific information about an ISIS plan to use laptop bombs on
commercial fights, which we believe was generated by a foreign intelligence
partner under a pledge of confidentiality.
At a May 15th press
briefing, General H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, said “The
president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our
two countries including threats to civil aviation… At no time, at no time were intelligence
sources or methods discussed and the president did not disclose any military
operations that were not already publicly known.”
At second White House
briefing on May 16th, after Trump admitted his communication, McMaster iterated
that the president’s statements to the above Russian officials were “totally
appropriate.” He denied that any underlying sources were “compromised.” But
with a little “reversing engineering,” experts claim, sophisticated
intelligence agencies could easily figure out where such information, of
necessity, came from, perhaps down to the individual who originally sourced the
information (possibly putting the lives of such informants at risk). How do you
think the country that provided that intel feels about the situation? How much
will foreign allied intelligence agencies trust the U.S. with additional future
sensitive information? Do our allies really have any choice but to share such
information with us given our military resources and power?
“The disclosure also
risks harming his credibility with U.S. partners around the world ahead of his
first overseas trip. The White House was already reeling from its botched
handling of Trump’s decision last week to fire James Comey, the FBI director
who was overseeing the Russia investigation.
“The Royal Court in
Jordan said that King Abdullah II was to speak by telephone with Trump later
Tuesday [5/16].
“The revelation also
prompted cries of hypocrisy. Trump spent the campaign arguing that his
opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, should be locked up for
careless handling of classified information.
“Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson disputed the report. He said Trump discussed a range of subjects with
the Russians, including ‘common efforts and threats regarding counter-terrorism.’
The nature of specific threats was discussed, he said, but not sources, methods
or military operations.” TheRepublic.com, May 16th. But can the President be
prosecuted (impeached under the notion of a “high crime” or “misdemeanor”) for
this communication to representatives of a country long-held as one of our
leading foes with powerful connection to the Assad regime in Syria? Simply put,
if the President wishes to declassify any information, he can.
Normally, here’s how
“declassification” works within the federal government: “Declassification
before the agreed time - or even just downgrading its classification level - is
a decision for the person who originally gave the information that level of
security, their successor or supervisor. The Director of National Intelligence
can downgrade or declassify an item, after consultation with the relevant heads
of department.” BBC.com. But the President himself defines the entire
classification system under his constitutional powers.
“Steven Aftergood, a
government secrecy specialist with the Federation of American Scientists,
explained…: "[The right to classify information] is an expression of
presidential authority, and that means that the president and his designees
decide what is classified, and they have the essentially unlimited authority to
declassify at will… ‘The president defines the terms of the security clearance
system and the parameters that determine who may be given access to classified
information.’…
“If Mr Trump has shared
highly sensitive information, he has broken a ‘golden rule,’ the BBC's security
correspondent Frank Gardner has said… ‘There is a golden rule in the world of
espionage that when one government supplies intelligence to another it must not
be passed on to a third party without permission of the original supplier,’ he
said.” BBC.com
Okay, so the president
did not violate the law by disseminating classified information to those
Russian officials. Sure it was probably ill-advised. According to undisclosed
sources, Trump’s statements were motivated by a notion of bravado to reflect
how much he knew than a genuine concern for the safety of commercial air
traffic. Coming during a period of severe instability based on White House
actions, particularly during the heightened concerns about possible ties
between the Trump administration and Russia, was it simply a reflection of bad
timing and constantly contradictory statements from the White House… or
something worse?
“The news reverberated
around the world as countries started second-guessing their own
intelligence-sharing agreements with the U.S… A senior European intelligence
official told the AP his country might stop sharing information with the United
States if it confirms that Trump shared classified details with Russian officials.
Such sharing ‘could be a risk for our sources,’ the official said.
“The official spoke only
on condition that neither he nor his country be identified, because he was not
authorized to discuss the matter publicly… On Capitol Hill, Democrats and Republicans
alike expressed concern about the president’s disclosures. Sen. John McCain,
R-Ariz., called the reports ‘deeply disturbing’ and said they could affect the
willingness of U.S. allies and partners to share intelligence with the U.S.
“Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell called the intelligence uproar a distraction from GOP
priorities such as tax reform and replacing the health care law… ‘I think we
could do with a little less drama from the White House on a lot of things so
that we can focus on our agenda,’ he told Bloomberg Business… Doug Andres, a
spokesman for House Speaker Paul Ryan, said the speaker was looking for ‘a full
explanation of the facts from the administration.’”TheRepublic.com.
At least this time the
information Trump shared with Russia appears to have come from an unshakable
American ally: Israel, “according to three government officials with knowledge
of the matter… Israeli Ambassador [to the U.S.] Ron Dermer did not confirm
where the intelligence came from but said in a statement that his country ‘has
full confidence in our intelligence sharing relationship with the United States
and looks forward to deepening that relationship in the years ahead under
President Trump.’” AOL.com, May 16th.
We’ve only begun with
this new presidency. How long will the political system, particularly the
Republican-controlled Congress, continue without some rather powerful efforts
to stem this dysfunctional tide? So let me share this little tidbit from the
May 16th New York Times: “President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B.
Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national
security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February,
according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.” Yup, we’ve only
just begun.
I’m Peter Dekom, and my biggest concern with
this new Trump/GOP Congressional cabal is how much of this litany damage to our
political, economic, social and environmental systems is irreversible
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment