6 ms·

As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a ‘Deep State’ in America

35 points by aburan28 10y ago

wallace_f 10y ago
Whether you are a Trump supporter or not, I appreciate the NYTimes having the journalistic integrity to print this. The current media urge to uncritically bash Trump at every opportunity--whether substantiated by evidence or not--is very real. I am not a Trump supporter. Greenwald: >1) Trump presidency is dangerous. >2) CIA/DeepState abuse of spy powers to subvert elected Govt is dangerous. > One can cogently believe both. Source: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/831850140940005377 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/831850140940005377
- Eridrus 10y ago
  I think it's good that the times is printing this, but I also think that it is good that the bureaucracy is resisting Trump. Flynn was a bit of a nut job, so this seems like a good place to resist. While there's a lot of anger, it seems that in general people are resisting things that seem atrociously stupid.
  - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
    I can accept that there may be some good in the bureaucracy resisting Trump. But for the long term, I worry that encouraging the bureaucracy now will come back to haunt us after Trump is gone.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      >But for the long term, I worry that encouraging the bureaucracy now will come back to haunt us after Trump is gone. I also worry about that. Once you put personal convenience above the rule of law and order, you pave the way for everyone to throw justice aside, paving the way to the path to tyranny.
    - Eridrus 10y ago
      I think this assumes that this is a new development, which I don't think it is, people were writing books on the topic when Obama was in power. In some sense Snowden was the same thing, and a big chunk of the public was happy about what he did. The scale of resistance is new, but the fact that the president is so wilfully incompetent is also new. Maybe they will feel emboldened, but it seems more than likely that heads will roll as a result. Congress is already starting a review into the leaks. It might be quite healthy for some heads to roll to show that you can't use leaks to amass power.
- aedron 10y ago
  The article reads more apologetic than anything. "True, the deep state is sabotaging Trump, in principle a bad thing, but here are a lot of good reasons why they would do that." In fact it is the typical hypocrisy: We like our democratic system, greatest in the world. Except when things don't go the way we want - then it's okay to circumvent it.
  - mercer 10y ago
    I wouldn't call that hypocrisy per se. Democracy is not an end in itself, and it's quite possible that a conviction/ideal/value is considered more important to someone. Now whether it's a good idea to (potentially) damage the democratic system because of those ideals is a more complicated issue. I think sometimes yes. Of course, in context of the NYTimes it might well be considered hypocrisy.
    - eeks 10y ago
      > I think sometimes yes. Damaging democracy to impose your ideal on the majority is called tyranny. Simply put, you are a totalitarian. Now note that I am not judging. I'm just trying to be accurate and to the point.
      - mercer 10y ago
        I'm absolutely not in favor of totalitarianism, and I don't really see why you'd jump to that extreme right away. But perhaps I was just too vague. What I meant to say was that there are many scenarios where a person's own moral beliefs conflict with a democratically elected government's stance, and the moral beliefs win out. I belief that in some cases that is justified, and I also belief that believing so is not even close to being in favor of totalitarianism. I'm speaking of individual convictions, not making some claim about how to rule a society. Some examples where I feel moral beliefs rightly trump the democratic consensus: - a couple I know taking in asylum seekers about a decade ago because of a whole complicated kerfuffle, risking quite a bit because it's against the law. - releasing classified documents such as these - downloading tons of JSTOR publications because they should be publicly accessible - the many people engaging in unsanctioned but otherwise peaceful protest, often leading to arrest. Edit: In hindsight I could've simplified this comment by saying that it is an unfair and somewhat incendiary leap to equate promoting totalitarianism with a personal moral belief applied to specific circumstances.
syphilis2 10y ago
It's probably too optimistic to believe they'll decide that the way to prevent leaks is to be transparent.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  Optimistic indeed, but it would certainly solve the problem, in a sense; when everything's public record, what's left to leak?
  - em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
    I think it is a great idea. Ideally you could have everything the government done be public, except for maybe nuclear launch codes and specific military maneuvers.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      The government serving the public being idealistic and too optimistic is 2017.
jgalt212 10y ago
Deep State implies coordination. While all these leakers have taken action to ostensibly subvert Trump or his policies, the leakers do seem to have their own individual agendas. ergo, no deep state. I'd posit the leaking comes from the license plate maxim, "Don't tread on me."
pjc50 10y ago
Oh, there's definitely a deep state and has been for decades. It's the same deep state that tried to get MLK to commit suicide. It's almost impossible to get rid of without burning down the intelligence agencies. It's got a long history of fair-to-disastrous interventions in other countries. It's not going to go away no matter who you elect, but it might be reined in a bit. The deep cynic in me is enjoying watching the CIA flail helplessly as someone inflicts on them what they've inflicted on other countries: a disruptive right-wing leader supported by the intelligence services of a hostile power. They've talked up "cyberwar" for so long without realising that it wouldn't be big fat obvious targets like power plants that got hit, but the machinery of civil society, parties and media. Or that internet astroturf could be so effective.
ImTalking 10y ago
Classic m.o. of a fledging dictator. Begin to instil mistrust into the people of the very core of the political system, then once this mistrust permeates society enough, come in with an alternative system which, surprisingly, consolidates power at the top. Bring in the family as well, because everyone else is untrustworthy; a classic ploy used in North Korea, Iraq (Hussein), and virtually every other dictator.

35 points by aburan28 10y ago

Whether you are a Trump supporter or not, I appreciate the NYTimes having the journalistic integrity to print this. The current media urge to uncritically bash Trump at every opportunity--whether substantiated by evidence or not--is very real. I am not a Trump supporter. Greenwald: >1) Trump presidency is dangerous. >2) CIA/DeepState abuse of spy powers to subvert elected Govt is dangerous. > One can cogently believe both. Source: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/831850140940005377 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/831850140940005377

Eridrus 10y ago
I think it's good that the times is printing this, but I also think that it is good that the bureaucracy is resisting Trump. Flynn was a bit of a nut job, so this seems like a good place to resist. While there's a lot of anger, it seems that in general people are resisting things that seem atrociously stupid.
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  I can accept that there may be some good in the bureaucracy resisting Trump. But for the long term, I worry that encouraging the bureaucracy now will come back to haunt us after Trump is gone.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    >But for the long term, I worry that encouraging the bureaucracy now will come back to haunt us after Trump is gone. I also worry about that. Once you put personal convenience above the rule of law and order, you pave the way for everyone to throw justice aside, paving the way to the path to tyranny.
  - Eridrus 10y ago
    I think this assumes that this is a new development, which I don't think it is, people were writing books on the topic when Obama was in power. In some sense Snowden was the same thing, and a big chunk of the public was happy about what he did. The scale of resistance is new, but the fact that the president is so wilfully incompetent is also new. Maybe they will feel emboldened, but it seems more than likely that heads will roll as a result. Congress is already starting a review into the leaks. It might be quite healthy for some heads to roll to show that you can't use leaks to amass power.
aedron 10y ago
The article reads more apologetic than anything. "True, the deep state is sabotaging Trump, in principle a bad thing, but here are a lot of good reasons why they would do that." In fact it is the typical hypocrisy: We like our democratic system, greatest in the world. Except when things don't go the way we want - then it's okay to circumvent it.
- mercer 10y ago
  I wouldn't call that hypocrisy per se. Democracy is not an end in itself, and it's quite possible that a conviction/ideal/value is considered more important to someone. Now whether it's a good idea to (potentially) damage the democratic system because of those ideals is a more complicated issue. I think sometimes yes. Of course, in context of the NYTimes it might well be considered hypocrisy.
  - eeks 10y ago
    > I think sometimes yes. Damaging democracy to impose your ideal on the majority is called tyranny. Simply put, you are a totalitarian. Now note that I am not judging. I'm just trying to be accurate and to the point.
    - mercer 10y ago
      I'm absolutely not in favor of totalitarianism, and I don't really see why you'd jump to that extreme right away. But perhaps I was just too vague. What I meant to say was that there are many scenarios where a person's own moral beliefs conflict with a democratically elected government's stance, and the moral beliefs win out. I belief that in some cases that is justified, and I also belief that believing so is not even close to being in favor of totalitarianism. I'm speaking of individual convictions, not making some claim about how to rule a society. Some examples where I feel moral beliefs rightly trump the democratic consensus: - a couple I know taking in asylum seekers about a decade ago because of a whole complicated kerfuffle, risking quite a bit because it's against the law. - releasing classified documents such as these - downloading tons of JSTOR publications because they should be publicly accessible - the many people engaging in unsanctioned but otherwise peaceful protest, often leading to arrest. Edit: In hindsight I could've simplified this comment by saying that it is an unfair and somewhat incendiary leap to equate promoting totalitarianism with a personal moral belief applied to specific circumstances.

syphilis2 10y ago

It's probably too optimistic to believe they'll decide that the way to prevent leaks is to be transparent.

yellowapple 10y ago
Optimistic indeed, but it would certainly solve the problem, in a sense; when everything's public record, what's left to leak?
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
  I think it is a great idea. Ideally you could have everything the government done be public, except for maybe nuclear launch codes and specific military maneuvers.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    The government serving the public being idealistic and too optimistic is 2017.

jgalt212 10y ago

Deep State implies coordination. While all these leakers have taken action to ostensibly subvert Trump or his policies, the leakers do seem to have their own individual agendas. ergo, no deep state. I'd posit the leaking comes from the license plate maxim, "Don't tread on me."

pjc50 10y ago

Oh, there's definitely a deep state and has been for decades. It's the same deep state that tried to get MLK to commit suicide. It's almost impossible to get rid of without burning down the intelligence agencies. It's got a long history of fair-to-disastrous interventions in other countries. It's not going to go away no matter who you elect, but it might be reined in a bit. The deep cynic in me is enjoying watching the CIA flail helplessly as someone inflicts on them what they've inflicted on other countries: a disruptive right-wing leader supported by the intelligence services of a hostile power. They've talked up "cyberwar" for so long without realising that it wouldn't be big fat obvious targets like power plants that got hit, but the machinery of civil society, parties and media. Or that internet astroturf could be so effective.

ImTalking 10y ago

Classic m.o. of a fledging dictator. Begin to instil mistrust into the people of the very core of the political system, then once this mistrust permeates society enough, come in with an alternative system which, surprisingly, consolidates power at the top. Bring in the family as well, because everyone else is untrustworthy; a classic ploy used in North Korea, Iraq (Hussein), and virtually every other dictator.