Subpoenas are for little people.
-
The State Department is not backing down from its commitment to protect the “dissent channel” established for its career diplomats, telling lawmakers that complying with their subpoena would violate the trust the agency has established with its workforce.
The union that represents career Foreign Service officers applauded State’s decision on Thursday, warning that betraying that trust would make employees think twice before conveying their honest professional opinions. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier this week issued the subpoena for the dissent channel cable written by State employees in July 2021 allegedly warning of potential governmental collapse in Afghanistan.
McCaul, whose committee is investigating the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the ensuing chaos in the country, said he made “multiple good faith efforts” to work with State prior to issuing the subpoena, but Secretary Athony Blinken’s refusal to turn it over forced him to issue his first mandate as chairman.
“The American people deserve answers as to how this tragedy unfolded, and why 13 U.S. servicemembers lost their lives,” McCaul said, referring to the deadly explosion that took place in Kabul in the final days before American troops wrapped up their evacuation efforts. “We expect the State Department to follow the law and comply with this subpoena in good faith.”
In a briefing on Thursday, Vedant Patel, a State spokesperson, said the dissent channel depended on a certain degree of secrecy.
It is a “forum that was established in order to ensure that employees can share their candid and critical advice with department leadership,” Patel said. “We made clear and followed up with the committee to reiterate our willingness to provide a briefing about the concerns raised and the challenges identified by Embassy Kabul, including in the dissent channel. The committee instead chose to issue a subpoena.”
At a hearing earlier this month, Blinken pledged to work with lawmakers to get them what they needed without violating a “cherished” tradition that “goes back decades.”
"By our regulations, these cables may only be shared with senior officials in the department," Blinken said. "Again, that's to protect the integrity of the process to make sure we don't have a chilling effect on those who might want to come forward, knowing that they will have their identities protected and that they can do so without fear or favor."
"OUR regulations don't let YOU see what you're supposedly exercising 'oversight' on."
-
The State Department is not backing down from its commitment to protect the “dissent channel” established for its career diplomats, telling lawmakers that complying with their subpoena would violate the trust the agency has established with its workforce.
The union that represents career Foreign Service officers applauded State’s decision on Thursday, warning that betraying that trust would make employees think twice before conveying their honest professional opinions. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier this week issued the subpoena for the dissent channel cable written by State employees in July 2021 allegedly warning of potential governmental collapse in Afghanistan.
McCaul, whose committee is investigating the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the ensuing chaos in the country, said he made “multiple good faith efforts” to work with State prior to issuing the subpoena, but Secretary Athony Blinken’s refusal to turn it over forced him to issue his first mandate as chairman.
“The American people deserve answers as to how this tragedy unfolded, and why 13 U.S. servicemembers lost their lives,” McCaul said, referring to the deadly explosion that took place in Kabul in the final days before American troops wrapped up their evacuation efforts. “We expect the State Department to follow the law and comply with this subpoena in good faith.”
In a briefing on Thursday, Vedant Patel, a State spokesperson, said the dissent channel depended on a certain degree of secrecy.
It is a “forum that was established in order to ensure that employees can share their candid and critical advice with department leadership,” Patel said. “We made clear and followed up with the committee to reiterate our willingness to provide a briefing about the concerns raised and the challenges identified by Embassy Kabul, including in the dissent channel. The committee instead chose to issue a subpoena.”
At a hearing earlier this month, Blinken pledged to work with lawmakers to get them what they needed without violating a “cherished” tradition that “goes back decades.”
"By our regulations, these cables may only be shared with senior officials in the department," Blinken said. "Again, that's to protect the integrity of the process to make sure we don't have a chilling effect on those who might want to come forward, knowing that they will have their identities protected and that they can do so without fear or favor."
"OUR regulations don't let YOU see what you're supposedly exercising 'oversight' on."
Forgetting about this particular case for a moment and zooming out, I’m always of two minds about this. Transparency seems great, but it does stifle deliberation. Or really, it pushes real deliberation and discussion behind the scenes and the publicly accessible “deliberation” becomes entirely performative, like agency meetings (I’ve seen it at FDA and SEC) or even town board meetings.
Maybe a good compromise is what they do at the Fed, let transcripts become public but only after some time has elapsed. That doesn’t seem to have squelched deliberation.
-
Forgetting about this particular case for a moment and zooming out, I’m always of two minds about this. Transparency seems great, but it does stifle deliberation. Or really, it pushes real deliberation and discussion behind the scenes and the publicly accessible “deliberation” becomes entirely performative, like agency meetings (I’ve seen it at FDA and SEC) or even town board meetings.
Maybe a good compromise is what they do at the Fed, let transcripts become public but only after some time has elapsed. That doesn’t seem to have squelched deliberation.
@jon-nyc good points. The defiance of a subpoena is always a bad look, and promotes the "What are you hiding mentality," whether it be Bannon, Holder or Lerner.
Whoops. My bad...only one of them was held accountable.
But yeah, there's a place for - I hesitate to use the word - "secrecy" in government. Still when "oversight" doesn't get "oversight" is stinks. Behind closed (non-leaking - heh) doors, perhaps would be another solution.
The other problem is that these meetings usually end up being nothing more than political grandstanding, and little real knowledge is delivered, or even sought.
