特朗普的監聽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.

美國總統唐納德?特朗普(Donald Trump)指責其前任巴拉克?奧巴馬(Barack Obama)在大選期間監聽他的電話，此事令美國政府陷入危機。這份指控出現在特朗普凌晨發佈的推文中，但這絲毫無損於情況的嚴肅性。同樣無損於這一點的是：特朗普曾經在推文中胡說八道過。他曾錯誤地宣稱數百萬人在去年11月的大選中非法投票，但那並非針對一位在任總統的直接而具體的指控。現在必須確定針對奧巴馬的這一指控的來源和證據。如果不確定這兩點，那麼這番言論只能破壞人們對政府體制的信任，沒有這一體制，這個國家將無法運轉。

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.

特朗普發言人的迴應讓情況變得更加撲朔迷離，因此也更顯緊迫。他們辯稱，特朗普的說法基於被廣泛報道的新聞。問題是這些新聞並沒有支撐特朗普的說法。

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.

這些報道稱，美國執法和情報部門正就俄羅斯與特朗普競選團隊之間的關係進行調查。《紐約時報》(New York Times)的報道援引一位匿名官員提供的消息，稱白宮從這項調查中獲得了情報，情報來源渠道爲監聽。網站Heatstreet和Breitbart稱，聯邦調查局(FBI)、更寬泛地說是“奧巴馬政府”，此前已根據《外國情報監視法》(Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)申請並獲得了調查特朗普競選團隊成員的許可令。

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.

即便真的申請過這一許可令，也與特朗普所指控的事情相去甚遠——無論是從事實、政治還是道德角度來說。如果許可令是合法頒發的，那麼特朗普的言論就屬於草率的毀謗。如果特朗普確實有證據證明，奧巴馬乾預了司法部門的調查或非法下令監聽一名美國公民，那麼特朗普必須馬上直截了當地說出來。如果所涉信息屬於機密，那麼他有權解密。

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.

到目前爲止，特朗普還沒有說出這樣的話，這表明，他不會主動說出這樣的話。其他官員必須讓這種危險且撲朔迷離的情況明朗起來。有兩人已經率先這麼做了。美國聯邦調查局局長詹姆斯?科米(James Comey)已要求司法部否認特朗普的言論。在美國總統大選期間擔任美國國家情報總監的詹姆斯?克拉珀（James Clapper)公開表示，在他在任期間沒有對特朗普競選團隊的任何人進行監聽。現在司法部必須站出來。確實，這可能會擾亂一個合法的調查。但讓此事懸在半空將極具破壞性。即便代價高昂，許可令的問題也必須迅速了結。

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.

特朗普政府認爲，此事應由一個國會情報委員會解決。如果特朗普提供有關他指控的依據，那麼一個同時在調查特朗普競選活動與俄羅斯間諜之間關係的委員會，將適合主持理清這團亂麻。

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爲止最爲極端的例證，表明他與美國政府除軍事部門外的所有機構都或多或少地發生了公開對立——從情報部門，到國務院以及其他很多行政部門。目前還不清楚，這個被設計爲需要合作的體制，能否在目前的情況下運轉。如果這種對立緣於來自總統辦公室的毫無根據的指控，那麼這個體制內相互拉扯較勁的力量可能讓它無法承受。