@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen i guess i can't disagree with "it's virtuous to screw people over because they should know better than to trust me because i don't trust myself to act well." it's a case you can make, but i think we need a capable government which means we actually have to act well.

@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.

@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen if you say so.

@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen if the enterprise is crooked, by all means get out of it. but if you've promised discretion, keep your promise.

@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen People in general who have worked in good faith with my government. I have no more specific knowledge.

@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.

@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen not true in law. if a "rogue operator" is presented in such a way by an organization that a reasonable counterparty would consider them to be acting in the name of the organization, the organization often finds itself on the hook. as a matter of ethics, stipulating your interpretation of nonauthorization, if someone accepted support from a real USG agent on promise of discretion that shouldn't have been made, your ethical view is "oops! sucks for you!"?

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen you, my friend, are free to have whatever opinion of me or anything else you like. and i enjoy the same privilege with respect to you! it's a free country. let's keep it that way.

@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.

@Phil @Harald_Korneliussen in order to access classified information, by law, people are supposed to be vetted and trained. the reason for that is such confidences are hard to maintain when adversarial intelligence services seek to penetrate them.

according to public reporting, DOGE associates without such vetting and training have done so. if that's the case (yes, Katie Miller did dispute it), they've *prima facie* put people at risk.

@realcaseyrollins I won't leave voicemails. I'll speak to staffers, or write letters.

I think it's part of the job description of a Senator to accept feedback and petitions from his constituents.

I don't know I have any way to enforce that, other than vote against and try to persuade others to vote against him, but yes, I think it is part of his democratic role to receive them, and for at least his office to read them and take constituent concerns into account.

@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.

what are the odds identities of confidential USAID funding recipients, named in classified files now accessed by 20-somethings with no vetting or counterintelligence training or legal authority, will evade professional intelligence activities of US adversaries? whose lives are in these kids’ hands?