15 ms·

If it were up to me, I'd pass a law saying anybody hired by such agencies must take an oath to America, to report their bosses within the agency who violate mor

If it were up to me, I'd pass a law saying anybody hired by such agencies must take an oath to America, to report their bosses within the agency who violate morality, democracy, or legality, to an oversight court. Consider just for one moment how likely you would be to ask somebody to do something illegal if they have taken an oath to report you to an oversight body.

colejohnson66 6y ago
Don’t they already do?
rmrfstar 6y ago
While the title is about CIA, its actually a story about DOJ and FBI. [1] The rot runs pretty deep. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/09/how-a-cia-coverup-targeted-a-whistle-blower https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/09/how-a-cia-cove...
cies 6y ago
They take oaths and break them. Oaths dont help. We need: less dark budgets, less people/positions "above the law", whistle blower protection programs for these heroes, and put people in jail who thought to be above the law (this never happened yet). You can go to jail for some weed, but executing evil-yet-state-sponsored atrocities is a serious career. Topsy turvy all the way.
- munk-a 6y ago
  I agree specifically with less people/positions "above the law" but it'll be rough. The law in this case is politics - it's whatever the people say it is - and the political system is terribly broken right now. I think it is still proper to move these agencies to have more civilian oversight but in the short term we're going to see a whole lot of abuse of the system until our representation can be fixed.
  - walshemj 6y ago
    Should have split the FBI into a federal police force (with much stricter limits) and a smaller mi5 equivalent.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      I'm pretty certain we did - and that mi5 equivalent is the CIA.
      - walshemj 6y ago
        CIA cant work internally "supposedly"
    - rgblambda 6y ago
      Doesn't stop MI5 from doing shady shit.
- cwkoss 6y ago
  Fully agree. Pardoning Snowden would be the most effective single act a president could take towards reducing corruption in the intelligence community.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dietr1ch 6y ago
I'm ok with them only taking an oath to the US if that means they won't mess around with the rest of America
meekrohprocess 6y ago
I wish that modern oaths also had curse clauses. It seems oddly common for autocrats and kleptocrats to have no problem screwing over millions of people, while still being terrified of religious or superstitious wrath. "So help me god" is not enough. How about, "And should I ever violate this sacred oath, in thought or in deed, may I be forever cursed and damned." Anyways, the US military already takes those sorts of oaths to refuse and report illegal orders, but they still commit plenty of war crimes.
- Lammy 6y ago
  “Again, your ancestors were taught, ‘Never swear an oath that you don’t intend to keep, but keep your vows to the Lord God.’ However, I say to you, don’t bind yourself by taking an oath at all. Don’t swear by heaven, for heaven is where God’s throne is placed. Don’t swear an oath by the earth, because it is the rug under God’s feet, and not by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the Great King. And why would you swear by your own head, because it’s not in your power to turn a single hair white or black? But just let your words ring true. A simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ will suffice. Anything beyond this springs from a deceiver.” - Matthew 5: 33–37 (TPT)
  - AaronFriel 6y ago
    There are evangelical Christian sites that interpret this as oaths of office being non-binding or non-Christian, and while I don't think many people consciously use that as a reason for violating their oaths, it's something to keep in mind.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      These are extremely twisted interpretations - a better way to read that is "Don't be a dick whether or not you took an oath - be truthful in all things." Those interpretations don't surprise me though since, like with any other group of people, there are a bunch of evangelical christians that bend the tenants of the group beyond a breaking point to suit their own interest.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
While the sentiment is good, this doesn't sound much different from loyalty oaths and policing your neighbors.
pjc50 6y ago
I believe there's a similar clause in the German constitution. Something about all those people claiming at Nuremburg to just be following orders.
DubiousPusher 6y ago
What? Get rid of the oaths entirely. It's just pageantry. It's the most human thing in the world to twist words to your desire and then justify it morally through rationist gymnastics.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
That's never going to work. Power mostly attracts the worst individuals. The only solution is not having these agencies

colejohnson66 6y ago

Don’t they already do?

rmrfstar 6y ago

While the title is about CIA, its actually a story about DOJ and FBI. [1] The rot runs pretty deep. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/09/how-a-cia-coverup-targeted-a-whistle-blower https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/09/how-a-cia-cove...

cies 6y ago

They take oaths and break them. Oaths dont help. We need: less dark budgets, less people/positions "above the law", whistle blower protection programs for these heroes, and put people in jail who thought to be above the law (this never happened yet). You can go to jail for some weed, but executing evil-yet-state-sponsored atrocities is a serious career. Topsy turvy all the way.

munk-a 6y ago
I agree specifically with less people/positions "above the law" but it'll be rough. The law in this case is politics - it's whatever the people say it is - and the political system is terribly broken right now. I think it is still proper to move these agencies to have more civilian oversight but in the short term we're going to see a whole lot of abuse of the system until our representation can be fixed.
- walshemj 6y ago
  Should have split the FBI into a federal police force (with much stricter limits) and a smaller mi5 equivalent.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    I'm pretty certain we did - and that mi5 equivalent is the CIA.
    - walshemj 6y ago
      CIA cant work internally "supposedly"
  - rgblambda 6y ago
    Doesn't stop MI5 from doing shady shit.
cwkoss 6y ago
Fully agree. Pardoning Snowden would be the most effective single act a president could take towards reducing corruption in the intelligence community.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dietr1ch 6y ago

I'm ok with them only taking an oath to the US if that means they won't mess around with the rest of America

meekrohprocess 6y ago

I wish that modern oaths also had curse clauses. It seems oddly common for autocrats and kleptocrats to have no problem screwing over millions of people, while still being terrified of religious or superstitious wrath. "So help me god" is not enough. How about, "And should I ever violate this sacred oath, in thought or in deed, may I be forever cursed and damned." Anyways, the US military already takes those sorts of oaths to refuse and report illegal orders, but they still commit plenty of war crimes.

Lammy 6y ago
“Again, your ancestors were taught, ‘Never swear an oath that you don’t intend to keep, but keep your vows to the Lord God.’ However, I say to you, don’t bind yourself by taking an oath at all. Don’t swear by heaven, for heaven is where God’s throne is placed. Don’t swear an oath by the earth, because it is the rug under God’s feet, and not by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the Great King. And why would you swear by your own head, because it’s not in your power to turn a single hair white or black? But just let your words ring true. A simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ will suffice. Anything beyond this springs from a deceiver.” - Matthew 5: 33–37 (TPT)
- AaronFriel 6y ago
  There are evangelical Christian sites that interpret this as oaths of office being non-binding or non-Christian, and while I don't think many people consciously use that as a reason for violating their oaths, it's something to keep in mind.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    These are extremely twisted interpretations - a better way to read that is "Don't be a dick whether or not you took an oath - be truthful in all things." Those interpretations don't surprise me though since, like with any other group of people, there are a bunch of evangelical christians that bend the tenants of the group beyond a breaking point to suit their own interest.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

While the sentiment is good, this doesn't sound much different from loyalty oaths and policing your neighbors.

pjc50 6y ago

I believe there's a similar clause in the German constitution. Something about all those people claiming at Nuremburg to just be following orders.

DubiousPusher 6y ago

What? Get rid of the oaths entirely. It's just pageantry. It's the most human thing in the world to twist words to your desire and then justify it morally through rationist gymnastics.

jokethrowaway 6y ago

That's never going to work. Power mostly attracts the worst individuals. The only solution is not having these agencies