FT社評(píng)：特朗普的監(jiān)聽(tīng)指控威脅美政府體制

President Donald Trump has thrown the US government into crisis by accusing his predecessor, Barack Obama, of wiretapping his phones during the election campaign. That the accusation was made in an early-morning tweet does not make the situation any less serious. Nor does the fact that Mr Trump has tweeted nonsense in the past. His false claim that millions of people voted illegally in November’s election was not a direct and specific allegation against a sitting president. The sources of and evidence for this accusation against Mr Obama must now be established. If they are not, the claims can only have a corrosive effect on trust in the institutions of government, without which the country cannot function.

美國(guó)總統(tǒng)唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)指責(zé)其前任巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)在大選期間監(jiān)聽(tīng)他的電話，此事令美國(guó)政府陷入危機(jī)。這份指控出現(xiàn)在特朗普凌晨發(fā)布的推文中，但這絲毫無(wú)損于情況的嚴(yán)肅性。同樣無(wú)損于這一點(diǎn)的是：特朗普曾經(jīng)在推文中胡說(shuō)八道過(guò)。他曾錯(cuò)誤地宣稱數(shù)百萬(wàn)人在去年11月的大選中非法投票，但那并非針對(duì)一位在任總統(tǒng)的直接而具體的指控?，F(xiàn)在必須確定針對(duì)奧巴馬的這一指控的來(lái)源和證據(jù)。如果不確定這兩點(diǎn)，那么這番言論只能破壞人們對(duì)政府體制的信任，沒(méi)有這一體制，這個(gè)國(guó)家將無(wú)法運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)。

The response of the president’s spokespeople has made the situation more opaque and therefore more urgent. They argue that the president’s statements are based on stories that have been widely reported. The problem is that the stories in question do not support Mr Trump’s assertions.

特朗普發(fā)言人的回應(yīng)讓情況變得更加撲朔迷離，因此也更顯緊迫。他們辯稱，特朗普的說(shuō)法基于被廣泛報(bào)道的新聞。問(wèn)題是這些新聞并沒(méi)有支撐特朗普的說(shuō)法。

The articles say that US law enforcement and intelligence agencies were investigating connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. The New York Times reported, citing an anonymous official source, that the White House was provided with intelligence from that investigation, drawn from wiretaps. The websites Heatstreet and Breitbart said that the FBI or more broadly “the Obama administration” had requested and received warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to investigate members of the Trump campaign.

這些報(bào)道稱，美國(guó)執(zhí)法和情報(bào)部門正就俄羅斯與特朗普競(jìng)選團(tuán)隊(duì)之間的關(guān)系進(jìn)行調(diào)查?！都~約時(shí)報(bào)》(New York Times)的報(bào)道援引一位匿名官員提供的消息，稱白宮從這項(xiàng)調(diào)查中獲得了情報(bào)，情報(bào)來(lái)源渠道為監(jiān)聽(tīng)。網(wǎng)站Heatstreet和Breitbart稱，聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局(FBI)、更寬泛地說(shuō)是“奧巴馬政府”，此前已根據(jù)《外國(guó)情報(bào)監(jiān)視法》(Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)申請(qǐng)并獲得了調(diào)查特朗普競(jìng)選團(tuán)隊(duì)成員的許可令。

Even if such a warrant was requested, that fact would remain a universe away, practically, politically and morally, from what Mr Trump has alleged. If the warrant was issued properly, Mr Trump’s statements are a reckless slander. If Mr Trump does have evidence that Mr Obama interfered in a justice department investigation or has illegally ordered a wiretap on a US citizen, he must say so at once. If the alleged information is classified, he has the authority to declassify it.

即便真的申請(qǐng)過(guò)這一許可令，也與特朗普所指控的事情相去甚遠(yuǎn)——無(wú)論是從事實(shí)、政治還是道德角度來(lái)說(shuō)。如果許可令是合法頒發(fā)的，那么特朗普的言論就屬于草率的毀謗。如果特朗普確實(shí)有證據(jù)證明，奧巴馬干預(yù)了司法部門的調(diào)查或非法下令監(jiān)聽(tīng)一名美國(guó)公民，那么特朗普必須馬上直截了當(dāng)?shù)卣f(shuō)出來(lái)。如果所涉信息屬于機(jī)密，那么他有權(quán)解密。

The fact that he has said nothing of the sort as of yet suggests that such a statement will not be volunteered. It is up to other officials to clarify this dangerously opaque situation. Two have led the way. James Comey, the head of the FBI, has requested that the justice department deny the president’s statements. James Clapper, the head of national intelligence during the presidential campaign, has gone on record to deny that there was a wiretap of anyone in the Trump campaign on his watch. Now the justice department must come forward. True, this could upset a legitimate investigation. But letting the matter hang in the air would be immensely damaging. The question of the warrants must be closed quickly even if the costs are high.

到目前為止，特朗普還沒(méi)有說(shuō)出這樣的話，這表明，他不會(huì)主動(dòng)說(shuō)出這樣的話。其他官員必須讓這種危險(xiǎn)且撲朔迷離的情況明朗起來(lái)。有兩人已經(jīng)率先這么做了。美國(guó)聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局局長(zhǎng)詹姆斯•科米(James Comey)已要求司法部否認(rèn)特朗普的言論。在美國(guó)總統(tǒng)大選期間擔(dān)任美國(guó)國(guó)家情報(bào)總監(jiān)的詹姆斯•克拉珀(James Clapper)公開(kāi)表示，在他在任期間沒(méi)有對(duì)特朗普競(jìng)選團(tuán)隊(duì)的任何人進(jìn)行監(jiān)聽(tīng)?，F(xiàn)在司法部必須站出來(lái)。確實(shí)，這可能會(huì)擾亂一個(gè)合法的調(diào)查。但讓此事懸在半空將極具破壞性。即便代價(jià)高昂，許可令的問(wèn)題也必須迅速了結(jié)。

The Trump administration argues that this matter should be resolved by a congressional intelligence committee. If the president provides the grounds for his statements, then a committee that also investigates alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russian agents will be the right venue for sorting out this tangled affair.

特朗普政府認(rèn)為，此事應(yīng)由一個(gè)國(guó)會(huì)情報(bào)委員會(huì)解決。如果特朗普提供有關(guān)他指控的依據(jù)，那么一個(gè)同時(shí)在調(diào)查特朗普競(jìng)選活動(dòng)與俄羅斯間諜之間關(guān)系的委員會(huì)，將適合主持理清這團(tuán)亂麻。

Mr Trump’s statements are the most extreme evidence yet that he is in more or less open conflict with all of the institutions of the US government save the military — from the intelligence services, to the state department and much of the rest of the civil service. Whether a system designed to require co-operation can work under these conditions remains to be seen. If the currency of this conflict is groundless accusations from the Oval Office, the strains may be too much to bear.

特朗普的這些言論是迄今為止最為極端的例證，表明他與美國(guó)政府除軍事部門外的所有機(jī)構(gòu)都或多或少地發(fā)生了公開(kāi)對(duì)立——從情報(bào)部門，到國(guó)務(wù)院以及其他很多行政部門。目前還不清楚，這個(gè)被設(shè)計(jì)為需要合作的體制，能否在目前的情況下運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)。如果這種對(duì)立緣于來(lái)自總統(tǒng)辦公室的毫無(wú)根據(jù)的指控，那么這個(gè)體制內(nèi)相互拉扯較勁的力量可能讓它無(wú)法承受。