Scrutiny by whom is the question. The officials doing the screening derive their authority from the political system which itself is legitimated by its connection to democratic process. That is, the officials have no inherent authority of their own. It becomes very difficult to square the circle when you want unelected officials to scrutinize elected officials in order to safeguard information that the elected officials, ultimately, have control over.
For instance, from what I understand (as in all of these things, I could be off base as my knowledge is kind of outdated in some areas) in the US, technically the President is the highest authority in terms of classification and declassification of information.If the president wants to tell someone something, legally they can. I suppose the president could free someone from their NDAs or other agreements as well, as the ultimate authority. Now, most of the time this would never happen, as the hierarchy of agencies and stuff is there for a reason, and there are solid reasons for the president to heed the wishes of people like the head of the CIA or the head of NSA. But in the end, the president as the elected leader has legal access to everything, and control in theory over information flow. The fact that presidents generally delegate the right to classify and declassify to the experts does not alienate the responsibilities only the elected leader has, but is a practical compromise.
For representatives of the people, it’s more of a need to know thing AFAIK. That is, just because you are elected as the representative from a district in Iowa with more cows than people doesn’t mean you instantly get a guided tour of the most secret inner workings of the intelligence community. However, if there is a legal issue that comes up and say you’re on a committee that has to deal with something in the intelligence arena, it is very hard as I understand it for the intel folks to deny access to elected representatives who need that access in the course of doing democracy.
Timex
1770
Would that include things like concussions?
Concussions are indeed traumatic brain injuries.
Yet we still get troglodytes ballyhooing Trump based on the idea that he’s pro-military, unlike the Democrats.
Two drivers who wont be coming home. Their crime? To work as drivers for a government affiliated organisation. Two families with no income, children with no father, wives with no husband, mothers with no son, an entire swathe of lives in an ally nation devastated forever for no other reason than an election campaign to keep a fascist regime and a lunatic in power.
Lessons have been learnt. No soldier must suffer a headache again. They will be awarded Purple Hearts and given a parade. We will bomb an apartment block next to a IRGC facility and issue a short paragraph regretting collateral casualties and promising a review of mistaken target identification by our heroes.
ShivaX
1774
“Trump” and “miscalculate” are synonyms.
One of the problems of an overly deontological approach to foreign policy, where the actual goal you seek is less important than making a statement about something, if if in making that statement you work against the goal of the policy.
Oghier
1777
I’m not sure Trump is miscalculating, so much as pursuing a different set of goals. His goals are reversing anything Obama did, providing fodder for applause lines at rallies and making the people on Fox praise him. Nowhere in there does the long-term security of the US enter into things.
This is not sarcasm or snark.
In fact he rates the security and interest of the US of A lower than his appearances to his fans, making him a traitor and a per juror, as he has sworn to defend the nation and uphold its laws.
KevinC
1779
I’d love for that to become a thing. Kind of like how “borked” originated.
Boy, you really Trumped that one!
Somewhere, an ancient Greek bard is either rolling in his grave, or just rolling his eyes. Or, more likely, cursing fate that he was around long before the monetization opportunities of the 21st century–think of The Illiad as an HBO spectacular.
jpinard
1784
and then EVERYONE in the Middle East (except Israel), Sunni’s too will hate the US with such passion that terrorist attacks on this country will explode in number and intensity.
I mean, what does Pompeo want to negotiate for? Some kind of deal where Iran agrees not to progress any more toward making a bomb and agrees to allow inspections of compliance in return for the relaxing of sanctions or something?
Timex
1786
A smart play would be to show compassion to the Iranian people and offer assistance, breaking the Iranian leadership’s messaging
Once the Trump administration shows compassion and offers assistance to the American people, yeah, not a bad idea.
