Bad Reasons

So let's say that I have a legitimate authority of some sort; perhaps as a leader of a social group like the Rotary Club, it's my job to review arrangements we've made with other groups (perhaps to rent space for an event), to ensure that we are obeying the letter of the law. Now say that I find that one of our arrangements violates the law. It is within the scope of my legitimate authority to cancel that arrangement. Indeed, it is arguably my duty to do so.

What, though, if it happens to be that the arrangement in question is one that (a) I vocally disapproved of, and that (b) benefited someone I am known to despise? Does the fact that I didn't want to do it to begin with abrogate my duty -- or even my legitimate power -- to cancel the agreement? Does the fact that I might wish to harm someone I dislike outweigh the duty, or make illegitimate the otherwise legitimate authority to ensure adherence to the law?

Philosophically, the way to talk about this is the concept of 'overdetermination.' Overdetermination occurs when there are more causes in evidence than are necessary to drive the effect. For example, say a big rock doesn't float up off the bottom of the ocean both because it is too heavy to rise off the ground, and also because there is a sufficient weight of water atop it to hold it in place. If you removed the water, the rock still wouldn't rise off the ground. But if you (somehow) reduced the mass of the rock enough that it might get blown around by the wind, it still wouldn't move if the water remained in place. More than one sufficient cause is present to explain the effect.

This is sometimes thought to be a problem by philosophers (what isn't?). After all, an effect should have a sufficient cause; to say that something is overdetermined is to be unable to say what the cause 'really' is. Thus, to return to the Rotary Club example, in order to determine if I am or am not engaged in the legitimate use of authority, we need to determine if I am 'really' motivated by my duty, or by my animus.

That is the subject of David French's article today.
Only a blindly dedicated partisan would claim that lying to Congress doesn’t raise concerns about an official’s truthfulness and character. If that was the true reason for revoking Brennan’s security clearance, then he should absorb the blow, move on, and consider himself fortunate. He’s faced only minimal sanction for a serious offense.

But what if that’s not the real reason he lost his clearance? What if the real reason is the one articulated by President Trump himself in an interview with the Wall Street Journal? There, Trump decried the “rigged witch hunt,” declared that “these people led it,” and added that “it’s something that had to be done.”
This same habit of mind is behind the whole 'obstruction of justice' claim around the Comey firing, as well as the defeated lawsuits aiming to block Trump's temporary travel ban on certain named countries. Does a President have legitimate authority to fire the FBI director, especially given the abuses and failures chronicled by the Rosenstein memo? Of course! Was the firing thus legitimate? We've had more than a year of investigations aimed at determining the 'real' reason for the firing, and if that somehow eliminates the legitimacy of a clearly authorized action.

Same with the travel ban, as the Supreme Court agreed. The President clearly has legitimate statutory authority to do what he was doing; he also could be said, based on public statements, to have an animus at work. If we can show that his 'real' reason are rooted in the animus, does that make illegitimate the clearly legal and authorized action?

So too with border enforcement, etc.

As the rock example shows, though, my sense is that these overdetermination cases shouldn't be viewed this way. You could argue that it is 'really' the weight of the rock that is the cause of it being on the ocean's floor, as when it first fell into the ocean the the weight of the water wasn't on top of it yet. But that doesn't explain the 'real' cause of it staying on the floor now, only of it arriving there in the first place. Nor is it important to do so, since doing so requires disposing of a part of the truth of the matter. It is neither 'really' the case that the rock is held in place by its mass (plus gravitational attraction to the planet), nor by the weight of the water. You could remove either one of these things and the rock would remain in the same place. (Insofar as anything is ever in 'the same place,' given that planets spin around suns that spin around galaxy centers, etc; but to speak plainly, as we usually do.) What is 'really' at work is that both things have happened, and either of them suffices. It's not important to say which one is the 'real' cause.

What that means for actions from authority, I think, is that an action is legitimate if you can strip away the bad reason and still find a sufficient cause. You might caution a President against firing someone under these circumstances, but you shouldn't take him to court for doing it.

That is not to say that these aren't dangerous waters. The way to address them is to reconsider the scope of granted authorities, restricting it where it has been unwisely granted. Ultimately the security clearance is similar to the military commission in that both are rooted in special trust and confidence. The reason to permit former officials to retain a clearance is that you might want to ask them for advice or commentary on the problems you face, based on how those problems looked in their era. If you have lost all confidence in the person, such that you'd never consider asking them for advice, there is no reason for them to retain their clearance.

Yet that does point up the problem. A military commission explicitly states that it is founded on the special trust and confidence of the President. What if a President decides he cannot repose his (or her) special trust or confidence in political opponents? Such a President would have legitimate authority to revoke the commissions of all such opponents, thus purging military leadership for political reasons. Is that a wise power to invest in any President? It has worked so far, but it might be worth reconsidering.

15 comments:

  1. A military commission explicitly states that it is founded on the special trust and confidence of the President. What if a President decides...to revoke the commissions of all such opponents, thus purging military leadership for political reasons. Is that a wise power to invest in any President?

    All such things, ultimately, depend on trust of the man holding the office. Where do you draw the line on limiting such trust? Based on what limiting principle? How would you enforce that limit? Based on what limiting principle?

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete
  2. My usual principle is that any power too dangerous to trust to your enemies is not wisely trusted to the government. When a power too dangerous to trust to your enemies must be entrusted to the government (as for example in the possession of nuclear arms, to deter other nations from using nuclear arms against us), it should be subject to checks and balances. We didn't do that with nuclear arms, though, because people were afraid that a decision would not get made in time to reply to an attack -- and knowing we couldn't make a rapid decision would make an attack more likely.

    The security clearance process is also a Cold War artifact, as I understand it. My sense is that a lot of it is used practically to derail checks-and-balances, as for example by making things so classified that Congress either can't see it, or can't talk about it. That proves to limit oversight and empower the executive.

    We should always worry about that, because the executive isn't always going to look kindly upon us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I find the case to allow Brennan to keep his security clearance uncompelling. After all, when my term of service was up, my security clearance was allowed to lapse (and this in spite of the fact that the Army COULD theoretically call me back into service in time of need). Of course, it would have been to my personal benefit to keep my clearance, but that decision was never in my hands.

    This allowing of former officials to maintain their clearance past their term of service is a professional courtesy. Further, it does not exist to serve the national security, but instead serves the after-office ambitions of former officials.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But there is a check/balance on the security clearance and classification question. We require certain Congressmen to have the appropriate clearance and for classified material to be released to them. Those Congressmen are subject to firing by their constituents whenever an election rolls around. The final trust and limit relies on We the People. We have only to be Franklin's virtuous people.

    Following on MikeD's remark, my clearance was properly revoked when I left the Air Force. It was properly, and straightforwardly, renewed/reinstituted/begun from scratch when I went to work for a defense contractor some years later, revoked again when I left that contractor and worked outside of defense-related matters, and re... again when I went to work for another defense contractor.

    The clearances of all personnel should be revoked when they leave government service, regardless of the rank they held when they left. The argument that this or that government entity might want to consult with them "later" (not Mike's case, but others') is fatuous at best, as my example demonstrates. To the extent that such consultations might legitimately be anticipated in the departee's nearby future, it wouldn't be hard to streamline the revetting procedures to get such a one a clearance tailored to the temporary time frame and subject of the consult should such an anticipation actually be realized.

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, like you I've never kept a clearance at the end of a posting. It'd be to your advantage because some of those clearances are rare and take a long time to get, which means that you have a competitive advantage in going for jobs that require them. But as nice as that would be, you're not entitled to it. If the government decides that it's better to make clearances inactive the day you leave a 'need to know' position, that's a reasonable thing to do. And if they decide that you can't be trusted, well, that's what a security clearance is all about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was applying for jobs recently, and many jobs in my field and in my area required an existing security clearance. Which was a very nice way of saying "we either want to hire someone who is currently active duty but retiring/leaving soon, or we have a candidate in mind, and this is a nice way of meeting requirements to hold an 'open hire' without actually meaning it". Of course, that rendered me completely ineligible for those positions as the only way to get a security clearance (if you do not currently hold an active one) is to be sponsored for one. So you can imagine my sympathy for the "injustice" of removing Brennan's clearance is at an all time low right now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That requirement is increasingly common, as the backlog for new clearances increases. Their alternative is to hire & pay someone for a job they won’t be able to do for months or even years. It’s a scandal, but it’s been that way for most of a decade.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Their alternative is to hire & pay someone for a job they won’t be able to do for months or even years.

    It doesn't have to take months or years, depending, I suppose, on the particular job and employer. When I joined my last defense contractor after working for the phone company, I was granted an interim clearance on the company's recognizance while my new background check went through. That happened and I was given a "permanent" clearance in a few weeks.

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete
  9. As of 2011, the military at least stopped issuing interim T.S. clearances, nor SCI status on even a final T.S. until the full process was completed. There was a huge backlog at CENTCOM on those days of folks waiting as long as two years for the badges they would let them do the job they’d been hired to do. I hear it’s only gotten worse.

    Even the President’s hand picked team took 1.5 years in some cases. They had to be top priorities. I gather they had some sort of interim thing going, but that’s exceptional now as I understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think Brennan's clearance should have been stripped, but I thought it interesting that Adm. McRaven strenuously disagreed.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/revoke-my-security-clearance-too-mr-president/2018/08/16/8b149b02-a178-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html?utm_term=.474aa1897fc2

    ReplyDelete
  11. McRaven is a good guy. I’m guessing he’s thinking of the slope problem, more than the specific case.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If McRaven wanted to give up his clearance, he could do so on his own instead of this naked political posturing of his. No one needs an authority figure to surrender a clearance.

    From McRaven's letter: Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.

    Stipulated. Brennan's sterling character and service have nothing to do with this. Brennan has left government service; his clearance should have been revoked at that time. McRaven's clearance should have been revoked the day he walked out the door on his retirement. Brennan has no right to a clearance, the presence or absence of a clearance is irrelevant to speech or to his or McRaven's views of Trump's qualities as President. McRaven's naked posturing doesn't speak well of his goodness as a guy.

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete
  13. Granted, it seems like they should lose their clearances when they no longer hold the job, but it isn't common practice at that level, apparently. So, taking Brennan's would be an exception one needs to justify.

    Otherwise, just make it a blanket change of policy and take them all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, it is an exception which does NOT need justification, because what is now the exception should be the rule.

    IOW, there's a first time for everything, even common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  15. taking Brennan's would be an exception one needs to justify.

    Aside from what Dad said, I've already justified it. That it's not an across the board revocation from all who leave government service is the problem, the revocation of Brennan's clearance is no problem at all.

    The problem regarding Brennan as the particular is that his retention (and the clearance retention by McRaven, Hayden, and a few others) is the exception, not the revocation. The vast majority of folks who leave government service lose their clearances on departure; it's only the few pets who get to keep theirs.

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete