Tag: national security

DEFCON 1 – Trump to Receive Intel Briefings on Campaign Trail!

Michael Matheron1 Comment

“[N]o one inside the intelligence community is thrilled about briefing a person who is under indictment for mishandling classified information.”
Ken Dilanian, MSNBC, Chris Jansing Reports, March 8, 2024

And That’s an Understatement for the Ages, Mr. Dilanian

Since 1952, presidential candidates have received intel briefings and Trump’s are about to begin. Among the charges against the presumptive GOP-MAGA candidate in the so-called documents case is violating, not only the Presidential Records Act, but the Espionage Act. These intel briefings have never been provided to a candidate of either party who has been so clearly unworthy, and despite the tradition, Trump ought not be anywhere close to classified information.* At the least, if at all, he should be barred from intel briefings until he is the official GOP-MAGA candidate following the nomination convention when he will be the official party candidate, and that privilege I would only grudgingly allow.

* In fact, President Biden, in February 2021, barred Trump from receiving the intelligence briefings traditionally permitted for former presidents.

Trump will not be barred because of the established tradition, not for any statutory command to deliver these briefings. Tradition, though, has its limitations. In the case of the galactically irresponsible Trump. this tradition is unrelated to the danger involved in regard Trump who has his own tradition, that of oten revealing, at his pleasure, significant national security secrets. He has no compunctions whatever and appears to enjoy spilling the classified intelligence beans to anyone he hopes to impress. One of his obvious mega-flaws is a need to be both liked and to be viewed as a person in the know, a dangerous person in any position of importance.

Here are some of the known instances where he offered up secret intel during his presidency and after like M&Ms on Halloween night:

  1. Early in his term, he divulged to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, intel about an Islamic State plot. “A Middle Eastern ally that closely guards its own secrets provided the information, which was considered so sensitive that American officials did not share it widely within the United States government or pass it on to other allies.”
  2. During Christmas season 2018, Trump visited Iraq’s Al Asad Airbase where he posted video on Twitter of several members of Seal Team Five in their camouflage and night-vision goggles, which, however, revealed their location and un-blurred faces.
  3. In August 2019, he learned in a classified briefing about an explosion at a space launch facility in Iran. He insisted on posting it on Twitter, but was strongly urged to not do so for national security reasons. He did so anyway, telling reporters “We had a photo and I released it, which I have the absolute right to do.” This incident also led to one of Trump’s more infamous and uninformed quotes, to intel staff, “I have declassification authority. I can do anything I want.”
  4. In 2023, then as citizen Trump, revealed to an Australian billionaire, Anthony Pratt, classified intel about American submarines, including nuclear warhead inventory and how closely they could maneuver to Russian submarines.

And these, serious enough, are just the national security failures that are known. It’s not hard to imagine what else he revealed in office, or out. Proving criminal responsibility is now Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s job, yet the consistent Trump-caused delays in the documents case, often enabled by presiding Judge Aileen Cannon, may prevent a trial prior to the election. In fact, it’s becoming almost inevitable that voters will be denied knowing whether Trump has violated, with apparent impunity, many provisions of the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act.

So, Here’s an Idea! Let’s Freeze Him Out of National Security Briefings

Fortunately, presidential candidate briefings are not as complete and informative as briefings that President Biden receives. An ABC News article point out, candidate Trump would “receive an initial briefing from the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and . . . can ask for a follow-up briefing on any topic. . . In the past, candidates have received no more than three briefings. This election season, [Trump] is expected to have two or three. The briefings become much more frequent and detailed once a candidate becomes the president-elect.” Nevertheless, Trump’s record does not qualify him to receive a single briefing.

As noted, he’s consistently revealed sensitive and top secret information. It’s a certainty that citizen Trump could not now obtain a security clearance. He’s a known national security threat. His financial needs for legal fees make him a candidate for any foreign power to manipulate in order to access, on the sly, national security information. Furthermore, he has not indicated that he even understands the need for secrecy in these matters or that he intends to act differently in the future. Psychologically, he has no compunctions about asserting himself, and does not think that the office of the presidency places any limits on his personal powers. He has a mind for espionage and would be an easy mark. A security clearance would be out of the question even though the candidate briefing tradition does not require one, a practice that needs to be modified.

Moreover, he held this classified information in secret at his Mar A Lago and Westminster New Jersey homes in violation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Shockingly, he’s spoken of the PRA as having allowed him to take anything he wants. In plain words, the PRA forbids what Trump believes it permits. Attorney Joyce Vance recently wrote, “Trump insists he designated the documents as personal records under the PRA so his possession of them was authorised and he can’t be prosecuted for it. But he’s never been able to explain how the PRA trumps laws about handling classified and national defence [information]. It doesn’t.” In other words, the PRA does allow certain personal records to be retained by an outgoing president, like note for a memoir. As the National Archives explains:

“In 1978, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which states that any records created or received by the President as part of his constitutional, statutory, or ceremonial duties are the property of the United States government and will be managed by NARA at the end of the administration. The Presidential Records Act (PRA) changed the legal status of Presidential and Vice Presidential materials. Under the PRA, the official records of the President and his staff are owned by the United States, not by the President.” Emphasis in original.

Trump’s admitted openly to taking highly secret documents from the White House. He also has a track record of sharing national security information with others. The tradition allowing national security briefings for candidates must bow before a person so manifestly unreliable, dishonest, and irresponsible as Donald Trump. He must be denied intelligence briefings until, God forbid, he’s President-Elect. Perhaps President Biden will make it so as he did in the matter of briefings for former presidents.

Newt Gingrich – More Gingo Lingo About Patriot Act at GOP Debate

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

November 24, 2011

Gingo lingo machine, Level 10.
Image copyright, M.V. Matheron

From last night’s GOP presidential primary debate, sponsored by CNN, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute (both, all righwing, all the time): 

ED MEESE, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: “At least 42 terrorist attacks aimed at the United States have been thwarted since 9/11. Tools like the Patriot Act have been instrumental in finding and stopping terrorists. Shouldn’t we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in that act so that our law enforcement officers can have the tools that they need?”

BLITZER: “So, Speaker, just to clarify, you wouldn’t change the Patriot Act?”

GINGRICH: “No, I would not change it. I’m not aware of any specific change it needs. And I’d look at strengthening it because I think the dangers are literally that great. And again, I’ve spent years studying this stuff. You start thinking about one nuclear weapon in one American city and the scale of loss of life and you ask yourself, what should the president be capable of doing to stop that?”

So, he’s against changing the Patriot Act. O.K., that’s fine, after all, to me, its provisions are intrusive enough already. He then asserts, “I’m not aware of any specific change it needs.” O.K., agreed, let’s not make it worse, and with this particular Congress, making it less intrusive is a non-starter. Yet, Gingo’s apparently open to any change it might need, as long as he becomes aware of it. That leaves a lot of wiggle room, and Newt loves to wiggle. [Note that there are many proposals to amend the Patriot Act, particularly in the area of cyber-security – collecting citizen data, increased “information sharing” etc.]

Next, though, is Newt’s promise that he’d “look at strengthening it,” although in the previous sentence, less than two seconds behind him, he maintained the Patriot Act didn’t need changing. Confusing? Or a MENSA mind too deep for us to follow? No, I pick “mendacious” – a person given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth. That’s how Gingo’s mind works. You can’t teach this kind of seemingly crafty deceitfulness. It’s inherent. In less than three seconds, he took positions that were contrary to each other. One cannot “strengthen” the Patriot Act, without changing it. These abrupt turns in his thought seek two results – to have deniability (“No. I never said that!”) and to widen his wiggle room (No. I never ruled that out!). He doesn’t have to conjure up these contradictory positions on the fly, they emanate from him like chitin from a Venus fly trap.

The Libyan No Fly Zone – Is Abstinence the Best Policy? Russia and China Say “Yes”

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

March 20, 2011

Silence. Not Golden.  On March 17th, the Libyan No Fly Zone resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 passed the UN Security Council 10-0 with five abstentions. Abstaining were all four of the so-called BRIC countries: Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, and China, with Germany as the fifth abstainer, in all, they represent 3.3 billion people, 48% of the world’s population. And they all chose to remain officially abstinent when it came to a vote, neither approving, nor disapproving UNSC Resolution 1973. However, when the UN ambassadors of countries representing nearly 50% of the masses goes silent, and when two of them, Russia and China are permanent members, something needs explaining. And explain they did.

Membership In 2011

The UN Security Council Is Composed Of Five Permanent Members — China, France, Russian Federation, The United Kingdom And The United States — And Ten Non-Permament Members (With Year Of Term’s End):

Bosnia And Herzegovina (2011)
Brazil (2011)
Colombia (2012)
Gabon (2011)
Germany (2012)
India (2012)
Lebanon (2011)
Nigeria (2011)
Portugal (2012)
South Africa (2012)

China’s Shout Across the Bow.  Following the vote, China’s UN Ambassador Li Baodong, explained his abstention to the People’s Daily.

“The continuing worsening of the situation in Libya has the great concern of China. We support the Security Council’s adoption of appropriate and necessary action to stabilize as soon as possible the situation in Libya and to halt acts of violence against civilians. In the Security Council’s consultations on Resolution 1973, we and some other council members asked some specific questions. However, regrettably, many of those questions failed to be clarified or answered. China has serious difficulty with part of the resolution. Meanwhile, China attaches great importance to the relevant decision by the 22-member Arab league on the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya. We also attach great importance to the position of African countries and the African Union.

“In view of this and considering the special circumstance surrounding the situation in Libya, China abstained during the vote on the resolution, Resolution 1973. We support the secretary-general’s special envoy for Libya and the African Union and the Arab League in their continuing efforts to address by peaceful means the current crisis in Libya.”

Russia’s Shout Across the Bow.  To Pravda.org, the UN envoy of the Russian Federation, Vitaly Churkin, explained Russia’s position on the No Fly Zone resolution:

“We strongly support the consistent and unconditional protection of civilians. According to this principle and essential humanitarian values Russia shares with co-authors of the project and other members of the Security Council, Russia has not stopped its adoption.”  Citing the failure of the Security Council to answer Russia’s questions about the resolution, Churkin mentioned that the “absolutely logical and specific questions regarding maintenance of the exclusion zone area had no response.”

Pravda’s reporter, Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, wrote:

“[Churkin] stated that work on the resolution was not in tune with the practice of the Security Council, with many questions remaining unanswered, including how it would be enforced and by whom, and what are the terms of engagement. His country did not prevent the adoption of the resolution, but he was convinced that an immediate ceasefire would be the best way to prevent loss of life. Russia, in fact, had pressed for an earlier resolution calling for a cease-fire that could have saved many more lives. Cautioning against unforeseen consequences, he stressed that there was a need to avoid destabilizing the region.

“Russia thus did not veto the draft resolution because she wanted to act according to the basic principles of the UN including the protection of civilians, said Vitaly Churkin. However, he also said that another resolution, proposed by the Russian Federation on March 16, on the need to appeal for a ceasefire in Libya has not, unfortunately, “received support from other partners more interested in measures of force. The final document has nothing to do with the original that was proposed, which contained references to a large-scale military intervention, which the Russian Federation and its partners (Germany, Brazil, China PR, India) avoided.”

UN Report.  The United Nations Security Council released an unofficial record summary of the session that approved the resolution.  The report included a one paragraph item featuring China and Russia. It tracks well with the comments to the People’s Daily and Pravda cited above:

“The representatives of China and the Russian Federation, explaining their abstentions, prioritized peaceful means of resolving the conflict and said that many questions had not been answered in regard to provisions of the resolution, including, as the Russian representative put it, how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be. He said the resolution included a sorely needed ceasefire, which he had called for earlier. China had not blocked the action with a negative vote in consideration of the wishes of the Arab League and the African Union, its representative said.”

The Oh My Zone.  We’ll see where this so-called No Fly Zone leads – will the coalition implementation, in the view of China and Russia, become so aggressive and destructive that both countries will raise their objections to a higher level?  And what of the Arab League, Brazil, Germany, and India? As mentioned above, these five countries (and now, with the Arab League included) represent well more than 50% of the world’s population and possess vast diplomatic and economic resources. Would, for example, extreme violence against Libya under the resolution, with its unavoidable civilian casualties, reopen the Middle East to more energetic Russian influence? Would China play its economic card to rein in the United States and others now heavily indebted to them? Or, quite to the contrary, is it possible that China would quietly applaud our being lost in another Middle Eastern desert and thus unable to compete effectively in the global commercial and economic contest? And should oil exports from the Middle East be reduced, to manipulate European policies, would cash-strapped Russia use its vast oil resources: proved reserves – 8th worldwide? European importers include Italy, France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Germany imports, by far, the most Russian crude, 25% of its daily needs.

The future is well hidden until it gets here. True. Yet, one thing we all know about military “adventures” is that once in, it’s nearly impossible to get out. Also, initial victories come quickly when the mismatch of forces is as startling as that between the coalition and Libya. Military victory, though, in the Middle East means little; it has led to far more complicated and uncontrollable tasks and responsibilities involving political damage, human loss, infrastructure demolition, long memories, and an unpredictable period of instability “on the street” and in a transitional government.

The forces that may be brought to bear on a post-Gaddafi Libya potentially include the big players, including the Russian Federation, China, and an Arab League that may feel it has again been betrayed by the European and American powers. This is no Bay of Pigs, it’s no Vietnam, it’s certainly no Grenada or Panama. Let’s hope Operation Odyssey Dawn doesn’t slip into another Afghanistan, or worse, doesn’t encourage more violent reactions throughout the region, not merely within indigenous countries in the region, but in Europe, the U.S., and perceived as enemies by many in the Middle East. In effect, today, we’ve already crossed the threshold to this God knows what . . .