[Arnhelm Alt] Opinion: Kaz Must Go as DEIA

[McEntire]

Opinion: Kazaman Must Go as DEIA
By McEntire
​

---

---

Late last week, the Court ruled that the DEIA violated the Information Act and the Charter of Rights when he ordered administrators to edit my post. It is not a minor thing that the Court ruled that the government violated a citizen's constitutional rights, in fact I cannot recall any other such incident in Europeian history. This, combined with the MadJack incident in which "Europeia apologise[d] to TRR for mishandling TRR's sensitive information," lead me to one conclusion: Kazaman must go as DEIA.

The Europeian Intelligence Agency as an institution is given a long leash to operate. The Director has power over classification and declassification, and has an unusually long term length of 180 days to minimize turnover in the office. Given that the Director is given so much latitude over classified information, we place a lot of trust in them. It's not enough to blame a constitutional rights violation on a simple "misread of the law" and move on. We trust the DEIA not to misread the law, and actions have consequences.

Similarly, we trust the DEIA to advise the President on the proper handling of sensitive information. While we owned up to the fact that we mishandled information from our ally TRR, there have not been meaningful consequences for this major snafu. And while Kazaman did sign on to our apology statement to TRR, there has not been acknowledgment or apology directly from the DEIA on either of these major mistakes.

Instead, the government troublingly argued in the judicial review that the portion of the Information Act tasking the DEIA with "the maintenance of the security of the Republic" provided an unlimited pass to take any action towards that goal. Thankfully the Court rejected this claim, recognizing that years of different Senates have debated how much power to give the DEIA and it is certainly not unlimited. But now, President JayDee has attempted to unilaterally give the government the power to suppress citizens' posts without due process of law. We'll see how that fares in the courts.

It was prudent and proper of the courts to reject this baseless assertion of unlimited executive power, but I was surprised that it was asserted in the first place. We have yet to see any contrition or accountability from the DEIA, instead we have only seen doubling down in legal filings and attempting to retcon the situation through executive order.

It is fair to say that the DEIA is a difficult office to fill, with only two occupants in recent memory: Kazaman and former Director NES. NES famously served for over a decade, and operated with a wide berth from Presidents and Senates who valued his wisdom and connections. In fact, there was a time when the EIA was NES and NES was the EIA.

Those days are over, and Kazaman's two-year stint as DEIA is long enough. In a post-NES EIA, we ought to be able to replace the DEIA semi-regularly as we would with any other government institution. This kind of changeover is something we need to be comfortable with as a region, and the remaining two months in the term should be enough for Kazaman to train another member of EIA staff as a successor.

Finally, I want to be clear: this opinion does not come from either personal animus or a sense of revenge. I am not denigrating Kazaman's contributions to our region or foreign affairs prowess. He has been an invaluable resource to many Presidents, and worked hard to bring the TRR situation to a mutually agreeable close last term. I think he should remain as an important voice in foreign affairs, and I respect his contributions.

But as DEIA, we have now seen two high-profile mistakes in the last few months, both acknowledged by the government. The court recognized one mistake, and a joint statement put out by our own government recognized another. While I believe that immediate removal of the DEIA would cause a leadership vacuum that could jeopardize regional security, these mistakes should still have consequences.

Kazaman should serve out the rest of this term and then hand off the reins. If we take our constitutional rights and respect for our alliances seriously, we cannot consider these mistakes by the DEIA as business as usual.

 

[Lloenflys]

Downvote.

 

[McEntire]

Downvote.

Due respect, this is not surprising from the co-author of EO 101 and the person who argued (unsuccessfully) in court that the DEIA's power was basically without limit. Love you so much Lloen, but I think you have a too-expansive view of executive power in furtherance of regional security.

 

[Lloenflys]

Downvote.

Due respect, this is not surprising from the co-author of EO 101 and the person who argued (unsuccessfully) in court that the DEIA's power was basically without limit. Love you so much Lloen, but I think you have a too-expansive view of executive power in furtherance of regional security.

I'm not a co-author of EO 101, I discussed it prior to its release with the President. It has no relationship to any legislation I'm looking to pass and is at most a stopgap to try to limit the damage done by the entire situation. And I made very clear that there were significant limits to the DEIA's power, and tremendous political consequences for a DEIA that overreached. My argument was never that they had carte blanche. You should read it again.

 

[Kuramia]

This is disappointing

 

[McEntire]

Downvote.

Due respect, this is not surprising from the co-author of EO 101 and the person who argued (unsuccessfully) in court that the DEIA's power was basically without limit. Love you so much Lloen, but I think you have a too-expansive view of executive power in furtherance of regional security.

I'm not a co-author of EO 101, I discussed it prior to its release with the President. It has no relationship to any legislation I'm looking to pass and is at most a stopgap to try to limit the damage done by the entire situation. And I made very clear that there were significant limits to the DEIA's power, and tremendous political consequences for a DEIA that overreached. My argument was never that they had carte blanche. You should read it again.

Did you advise the president that a post-action judicial review was enough to fulfill due process requirements?

As for the limitations on the DEIA's power in this respect, when asked about limitations by the Chief Justice you said:

The appropriate course of action for the Court to take in a case like this is to allow the DEIA to execute their responsibility using their judgment - to whom this task is assigned in law - and as is the case with this case, to then review the appropriateness of that action after the fact.

Neither political consequences or judicial review after the fact are limitations on the DEIA's power. You have advocated for these powers to be effectively unlimited, then after the fact the courts and the public can push back. Again, I would argue that neither of these actually allow for a citizen to have their due process rights respected. I think you are too permissive to the DEIA in that view.

 

[JayDee]

Did you advise the president that a post-action judicial review was enough to fulfill due process requirements?

I did not consult Lloen as a legal advisor and he did not provide any legal advise. If there is a mistake of the law, that is on myself and the Attorney General for not catching it. I do not believe there is a violation, but if the court finds as such then I hope the Senate will use that decision as guidance for the discussion of their amendment.

 

[Darkslayer]

To be honest, I was hoping at the end of the case we would be able to move on and leave this issue behind us. I understand the frustration that has arisen due to the whole affair, but I strongly disagree with the view he has to go. After the case, by his own admission, he had no involvement in the contents of the EO. Kaz has expressed willingness to engage with the Senate's proposed ideas for future cases and even agreed with my own proposal which would ascertain the best of both security and due process.

I struggle to find a justifiable reason on that basis, to seek his removal. The legal arguments made in the case, in my interpretation, were a thin stretch interpretation of the law. But that does not necessitate his removal from the position. His work and tenure is demonstrably essential to this region - his work ethic is second to none in both a foreign affairs capacity where I have worked with him, and in other institutions. I have struggled not to label this as a continuation to attempt to degrade any possibility of the re-nomination of Kaz to the position as DEIA, but I think this is the cherry on the top now.

 

[Lloenflys]

Downvote.

Due respect, this is not surprising from the co-author of EO 101 and the person who argued (unsuccessfully) in court that the DEIA's power was basically without limit. Love you so much Lloen, but I think you have a too-expansive view of executive power in furtherance of regional security.

I'm not a co-author of EO 101, I discussed it prior to its release with the President. It has no relationship to any legislation I'm looking to pass and is at most a stopgap to try to limit the damage done by the entire situation. And I made very clear that there were significant limits to the DEIA's power, and tremendous political consequences for a DEIA that overreached. My argument was never that they had carte blanche. You should read it again.

Did you advise the president that a post-action judicial review was enough to fulfill due process requirements?

As for the limitations on the DEIA's power in this respect, when asked about limitations by the Chief Justice you said:

The appropriate course of action for the Court to take in a case like this is to allow the DEIA to execute their responsibility using their judgment - to whom this task is assigned in law - and as is the case with this case, to then review the appropriateness of that action after the fact.

Neither political consequences or judicial review after the fact are limitations on the DEIA's power. You have advocated for these powers to be effectively unlimited, then after the fact the courts and the public can push back. Again, I would argue that neither of these actually allow for a citizen to have their due process rights respected. I think you are too permissive to the DEIA in that view.

What I advised the president of is really none of your business, but I'll respond here because you seem to think this is some kind of "gotcha". No, I didn't discuss particulars other than to say I thought it would serve as a stopgap while the Senate worked on a bill that addressed what the court said was necessary, which I have repeatedly stated in every comment I've made on the issue. I didn't have any hand in drafting the EO, other than pointing out a typo.

And yeah, McEntire, given the law we had, I argued that the DEIA should be able to pull down classified/protected information. Counsel on the other side was arguing that there was no recourse whatsoever, no way to pull down anything at all, aside from court action. Since the court agreed, that leaves us with the incredibly untenable situation we have now where someone could literally post anything, our plans for how to respond to BoM for instance, and there would be no way to remove it aside from court action. You can't possibly think that's the right approach - no one does, that's why the Senate is going to address it. But yes, in the universe we lived in with the court case, there was no alternative but to argue that our system of government was giving that power to the DEIA because the alternative was - and still is - unthinkable. Since the court ruled alternatively, we have to fix it (I almost certainly would have tried to do that even if I lost).

Your suggestion that what I argued in a case defending a client and given the status of the law at the time of the case is somehow the solution that I actually want us to live under long term, or in any way represents my preferred solution, is simply wrong and misunderstands the role I was in.

 

[McEntire]

To be honest, I was hoping at the end of the case we would be able to move on and leave this issue behind us.

I agree, I do hope this will be the last word on it. But ultimately, the courts have ruled that the DEIA broke the law, and I don't think that should be without consequences. If one wanted, one could argue that this incident also has criminal implications, but I am not pressing that claim further despite legal advice I received some time ago.

I have sat back and tried not to comment on the case, but now that it's done I feel that I deserve to say my piece.

Your suggestion that what I argued in a case defending a client and given the status of the law at the time of the case is somehow the solution that I actually want us to live under long term, or in any way represents my preferred solution, is simply wrong and misunderstands the role I was in.

Again, I tried not to comment on the case while it was ongoing, but I was disturbed by the arguments. That's really beside the point though. I'm not trying to personally attack you whatsoever, I'm just saying that your perspective is not surprising given your history with this issue.

 

[Kuramia]

Can you...just stop saying you're not doing things you're obviously doing in this thread right at this moment? Can we get some honesty from you?

 

[Lloenflys]

Again, I tried not to comment on the case while it was ongoing, but I was disturbed by the arguments. That's really beside the point though. I'm not trying to personally attack you whatsoever, I'm just saying that your perspective is not surprising given your history with this issue.

So, apparently you disagree. Which means, I guess, that it is your belief that if someone were to post details of a private conversation about how to deal with BoM in Republic Square and say "Look everyone, Look what the President is planning!" your response would be "oh well, guess we are just going to have to wait for a court case to decide if this should be pulled down!". Really? That's ... that's something you want? I mean I get it, you feel like you weren't treated right with your particular disclosure issues. I even agree with you on a lot of that, although your actions around that represent a casual disregard for whether you were in the right or not. But surely you understand this issue goes far beyond your case, right? That we need a law to be able to cover these issues? I mean, if you take issue with the idea that we should be able to pull down protected information then yeah, I guess we disagree pretty significantly.

 

[McEntire]

Again, I tried not to comment on the case while it was ongoing, but I was disturbed by the arguments. That's really beside the point though. I'm not trying to personally attack you whatsoever, I'm just saying that your perspective is not surprising given your history with this issue.

So, apparently you disagree. Which means, I guess, that it is your belief that if someone were to post details of a private conversation about how to deal with BoM in Republic Square and say "Look everyone, Look what the President is planning!" your response would be "oh well, guess we are just going to have to wait for a court case to decide if this should be pulled down!". Really? That's ... that's something you want? I mean I get it, you feel like you weren't treated right with your particular disclosure issues. I even agree with you on a lot of that, although your actions around that represent a casual disregard for whether you were in the right or not. But surely you understand this issue goes far beyond your case, right? That we need a law to be able to cover these issues? I mean, if you take issue with the idea that we should be able to pull down protected information then yeah, I guess we disagree pretty significantly.

I’m in favor of the Senate reform effort and I’ve said that. But that wasn’t the law when Kazaman took the actions he took. The courts have ruled that he broke the law, and that’s why I said what I said.

 

[Forilian]

Did you advise the president that a post-action judicial review was enough to fulfill due process requirements?

I did not consult Lloen as a legal advisor and he did not provide any legal advise. If there is a mistake of the law, that is on myself and the Attorney General for not catching it. I do not believe there is a violation, but if the court finds as such then I hope the Senate will use that decision as guidance for the discussion of their amendment.

To clarify, this is my view as well -- the President asked me to look over this EO before he posted it, and it was my read that it did not conflict with existing legislation. If the Courts decide in its Certified Question hearing that this is not the case and EO 101 does in fact contravene our Constitutional Documents then I will accept that, but until then it is and remains my opinion that the EO is lawful.

 

[Seva]

No. Just no

 

[sanjurika]

this is definitely a take

 

[Prim]

this is definitely a take

It's one that anyone with eyes could see for months. Now it's just out in the open instead of seething beneath the surface.

I am genuinely concerned for our region that, during one of the most tenuous political moments in recent history, we're forcibly removing the power of our government to protect information and proposing to remove our DEIA for attempting to protect classified information from being leaked by one of our own Senators.

 

[HEM]

You cite two events that you believe Kazaman should be removed from office over:

Firstly, you say he should bear full responsibility for the dispute with The Rejected Realms. You are putting that whole brouhaha — the entire kitchen sink, kitchen, and two-car garage on Kazaman's back. This is grossly unfair, and absurd. There were countless more policymakers involved in that instances then Kazaman. Even if Kazaman was the individual who passed the discovered intelligence onto President Rand (and I am not 100% he was) you would hold him fully responsible for every twist and turn that happened afterwards? In one hand, you credit him for bringing the matter to a satisfactory end — a matter that was demonstrably not solely of his own creation — but in the other hand you say that calls for removal from office.

Secondly, you say he should be removed from office for misinterpreting the law and having a post edited/radio show taken down. Yes, the courts have made clear that that was an error. But you decline to reflect on your contribution to this matter. You hosted a radio show and were careless enough when talking through classified information that, while the Attorney General declined to charge you (I believe out of a desire for regional reconciliation), he conceded a plausible cause could've been brought that you released classified information. Retrospectively, maybe it would've been better to handle all this in court given no reconciliation can apparently be had without a pound of flesh.

You say that this doesn't come from personal animus. You say this isn't personal. I contest that claim. Every step of the way, you've made this as painful as possible. For Kazaman. For the former President. For your fellow citizens — many of whom would consider themselves long admirers of you. Indeed, every step of that way you've been offered off-ramps, words of support, understanding of your actions. But I'm tired. The McEntire I once worked with had a fire in the belly, yes. Was willing to say the unpopular thing, yes. Went out on a limb and was bold, absolutely. But that McEntire did not pursue vendettas and was judicious about pushing controversy for controversy's sake.

You say that actions have consequences. Yes, it's true. And since you've taken an increasingly aggressive, go-it-alone approach to Europeian politics you have been subject to a recall petition, avoided recall by a hair, defeated in your re-election efforts, and absolutely shellacked in a Presidential bid. Actions have consequences, indeed.

It doesn't have to be like this! Kazaman clearly isn't some gestapo figure, going around censoring people and suppressing our rights. Perhaps he made a mistake — it's worth note that plenty of citizens do not agree with with the Circuit Court opinion and are seeking reasonable middle grounds — but its one that is unlikely to ever be repeated. Can we all take a breather, and let the past be in the past?

Our rights are secure, our allies are by our side, our region is, as much as it ever was, strong. Is there room to take a step back, acknowledge that everyone probably could've done things better (some more than others) and grant an amnesty for everything else? Or do we have to wait for your last minute, negative hacket-job campaign to pop up when Kazaman runs for President again in March 2036?

 

[upc]

This is incredibly naive.

I was largely on your side with regards to the issue with TRR. I disapproved of the government's handling of the situation, and vocally disagreed with the DEIA and his supporters across multiple threads and grand hall conversations regarding the subject. While Kazaman fairly deserves some blame for that situation, you do not give him enough credit for the work that he then put in to resolve the situation in a way that was (while again not completely to my liking) mutually agreeable.

You have highlighted two high profile mistakes in the last two months. Can you think of any other mistakes that Kazaman has made as DEIA in the last two months? In the last two years? Probably not. You (and I, for that matter) have an extremely limited view of what the DEIA does. We will never know most of what Kaz does simply due to the nature of the EIA. And while that is certainly inconvenient at times, it is the price we pay for regional security. Speaking candidly, I think that the only groups that are remotely qualified to have a valuable opinion on the DEIA are former presidents and NES. You and I just don't have enough information to have an informed opinion. And you will note that the rhetoric from the current and former presidents in this thread and other conversations on this matter has been overwhelmingly supportive of Kazaman's efforts.

In the same vein, I do not think that you are qualified to assert that "the remaining two months in the term should be enough for Kazaman to train another member of EIA staff as a successor." Do you even know if there are any EIA staff at the moment? Turnover in the office of the DEIA is bad. Moreso than any other position in Europeia, the position is centered around longevity. Kazaman has spent years developing his persona and building networks of contacts across gameplay, that is not something that can be replicated in the course of two months.

I can only think of three good justifications for removing the DEIA:

• They have purposefully acted in a way that hurts Europeia
• Incompetence or inactivity
• An objectively better candidate presents themself

None of these cases apply here. Kazaman is an incredibly talented and devoted servant of the Republic, and there is no one in Europeia who is more qualified to serve as DEIA than him.

I have a lot of respect for you as a person and a player, and I know that you are engaging in this debate because you think that it is the right path for Europeia. And while I think that you are absolutely incorrect here, I am not super impressed by the hostility that has been directed towards you and other players recently who have dared to toe the party line. I do still want to stress that I think that you are very very wrong here, and I hope that you will consider (the constructive) pushback that you have received in this thread heavily.

 

[Vor]

Preventing the exposure of classified information is an important duty that I'm glad Kazaman and others acted quickly to address. The fact that it wasn't legal to me shows more the flaws of our legal system than the flaws of anyone's handling. I'm glad that that is currently being addressed and that we are better protecting the rights of our citizens, but I'm also glad that we didn't neglect protecting our region because we lacked a necessary law.