
UPDATE: Media Matters raises some questions about this as well.
The question of authority on declassification has come up again and again with regard to the Traitorgate case. And I wanted to hit a couple of points again on that issue, since it is a central question in some of the reading today with regard to the latest filing from Fitzgerald. Back on February 19, 2006, after the Cheney interview on Fox, I had this to say:
With this shooting, that raw nerve has once again been exposed -- by Cheney, himself, this time in his "damage control" interview with Brit Hume, wherein Cheney claimed to have inherent declassification authority. If true, this would be a sea change of Vice Presidential power -- this authority has rested solely with the President, period -- and if true, this change has occurred in the absence of any public discussion or notification, which also runs contrary to American sensibilities on sensitive national security issues. (For a great review of this, listen to this NPR interview.)Is this an accurate assessment of how things stand in the Bush Administration? Or is this another example of Dick Cheney grabbing the reins with both hands while thumbing his nose at "the boss?"
The link to the NPR interview is an amazing one. If you missed it the first time, take some time and listen to this interview. I also covered some further skepticism from the WSJ and others regarding Cheney's claims of declassification authority in this post around the same time.
Georgia10 at dKos reminded me today of the fantastic discussion that went on around the same time in one of her diaries, and I wanted to bring the diary and the whole comments thread to everyone's attention. The diary itself is a great piece of research -- it details all sorts of information, including some valuable links to documents and case law, but the comments thread is really a incredible and worth a full read.
As Georgia10 put it so well in her post:
That's because, as this whole conspiracy illustrates, the plan was to confine the smear to the Office of the Vice-President. That is why the order was amended to give Cheney the power to smear. That is why Libby was the main leaker. When Rove's deviousness tempted him to play along, he screwed up the plan by tainting the Office of the President with the leak.The Vice-President's decision to declassify this information may not be judged in the courts, but rather in the court of public opinion. Courts long have been hesitant to question the President's discretion in dealing with classified materials. Does such deference extend to the Vice-President? Even if the legal cover-up here withstands or avoid judicial review, what will the public make of the fact that Vice-President Cheney committed a crime, but President Bush chauffeured the getaway car?
Except today, we learn that George Bush may have been doing a whole helluva lot more than just chauffering.
And for all those agencies whose job it is to protect our nation's security secrets: how are they supposed to know what is or is not classifed information if George Bush only tells Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby when he's decided to declassify something? Doesn't that seem more than a little odd to anyone else -- let alone outside the boundaries of normal procedures?
Reader Mary raises some critical questions about all of this in the comments as well.
Re: declassification. Prof Foland has given the link to the current Exec Order. http://fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.htmlIt is not the best organized of orders, but as to who can declassify, a part of the info on this is hidden down at the end of the Order in the Definitions.
l) “Declassification authority” means:
(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position;
(2) the originators current successor in function;
(3) a supervisory official of either; or
(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official.This is one reason Tenet’s name keeps coming up. The NIE is, I believe, deemed a CIA generated doc (although it can have parts in it that are from other agencies as well)
Lots more in Mary's comment, and well worth a read.
Reader Cujo359 responds with this further point of clarification and questioning:
For the most part, I understand the declassification document the way you do. The one thing I differ on is that it appears to me that the President has the power to declassify anything for any reason. The only thing that could make this illegal is, as you suggest, that some act of Congress makes it illegal to declassify some kind of information without further consultation or whatever. So the Pres. certainly has the right to declassify an NIE, but if there’s some law about CIA NOCs, then that would complicate the declassification of Plame’s identity.Either way, it’s scandalous that Bush would play these games. Plame’s identity and some of the information in the NIEs are among the most important secrets we have as a nation, as they involve the identities of people who provide us intelligence and demonstrate how effective we are (or aren’t) at gathering that intelligence. I’d say that even if it was all legal it’s worth looking into as grounds for impeachment.
All in all, one thing is quite clear: how something can be declassified is a question with a whole lot of shades of gray. And it hasn't been answered in this case by a long shot. (Or by any birdshot, as the case may be.)
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
Feeotz!
Fitz, Feingold and Harry Taylor!
I’m not sure the NIE was declassified, in any sort of normal way. Parts of it that buttressed the argument for war were leaked; the rest was held back because of the document’s classified status. I would assume that if a document’s declassified it, in it’s entirety, would be made public. Not the case.
another Bush fuckup! why am I not surprised?
Arriana -
“Expert Addington told Libby not to worry, explaining that Bush’s “authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.” Call it Addington’s Theory of Presidential Magic: Take a classified document. Wave the president’s wand over it. Say the secret word (”WHIG-y, WHIG-y”). And, presto-chango, the super secret info is now a Judy Miller exclusive!”
Just checked in with Freeperville. The knuckledraggers are rallying around the theme that “If the President did it, then it must be legal.” These people really don’t understand representative government or rule of law. Has a whole generation not had exposure to the subject of civics in school? Astonishing.
Senator Durbin was just on C-Span 2 on the Senate floor saying that the President and Vice-President released secret, classified information for political purposes, in order to mislead the American people about why we were going to war. It was powerful. He looks like he hasn’t slept in days.
via TPM, Waxman’s letter to the WH about selective declassification http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/waxman-bush/
I give up on Tweety - one day he’s a Porn Queen, taking Delay’s face shots, next day talking about Bush “cherry picking” intel for political reasons - AAGGHHH!!
Maybe NOW the media will go back and look at the Executive Orders Bush signed in early 2003 and demand some answers to these questions. What new powers has this Prez given the VP without bothering to discuss it with the American people?
What else has he changed that we don’t yet know about?
Duktig #6,
The Freepers are backing ever closer to the basement door, where the shortwave awaits their overdue and extended return.
Duktig Pojke -
No, apparently not. Depressing.
There’s some sort of procedure for declassifying things, isn’t there, with paperwork in triplicate and memos and logs? We are talking about the government, after all. W can’t just blurt something out and call the act of blurting declassification, can he?
cbl (9) — yeah, although I will say Tweety seems really down at the mouth today. Seriously, like there’s fish hooks pulling at both corners of his mouth.
Ooohh…Kerry isn’t actually ON Hardball. Tweety had to go interview him IN the Senator’s office. And wow, Kerry has his game on, the red tie with blue shirt, all POTUS-power-dressing.
I re-post. Resist the “Presidential authority” red herring:
—
The moral core of American Constitutional government is one explicitly disavowing an Ends-Justify-the-Means ethos. Our Constitution in fact clearly embodies the opposite cardinal value, i.e., that good ends cannot, in the aggregate, accrue from bad means, hence the focus on assiduous due process and checks-and-balances processes for the restraint of the reckless exercise of power. Sadly (and dangerously), we are now governed by a group of men for whom They-Know-Better Ends-Justify-the-Means thinking drives their every action, men who would condescendingly pat us on our heads to keep reminding us that their Noble End of “Protecting the American People†warrants and justifies an unlimited range of authority, including authority for:
- secret warrantless spying on whomever they deem necessary (and, of course, the details simply must be kept classified for The Protection of the American People);
- torture, abuse, and indefinite detention of anyone they deem a terror suspect;
- selective leaking of the nation’s most closely held intelligence secrets when convenient, while at the same time, of course, railing angrily against (and hunting down) others who leak inconvenient secrets the Administration wants kept under wraps;
- selectively disavowing by executive fiat inconvenient provisions of signed legislation;
- selectively disavowing the necessity of adhering to inconvenient international laws, conventions, and treaties (all while lecturing other nations about their responsibility to observe the rule of law as expressed through democratic process and structure).
Nothing good can, nothing good will ever come of this self-defeating Messianic Executive Delusion. These people must be reined in and brought to account. Nothing less than the survival of our free nation is at stake. The ends do not justify these means. Neither in a moral nor in a utilitarian sense. These men have not and will not make us “safer.†What they are doing is nothing more than horribly soiling the American ideal before the eyes of the world.
Kerry is bringing out the Prez threatening to fire whoever leaked: the Prez himself was doing it !
It’s becoming more and more obvious that outing Valerie Plame was a conspiricy involving everyone in the white house.Probably Roves’ or Cheneys idea
but championed by Bush.
Treason is what it is.
“Apparently he was looking for himself the last two years”.
Boom. Word to yer muther.
BobbyG @ 2:17
With your blessing, I’m going to shamelessly lift that entire passage and forward to all my Conservitard friends, due props, of course.
:-)
Sounds like Poppy knew who he was talkin’ about when he said anyone who did this was a traitor.
Rayne @ 2:17 pm - Nice snark about the power dressing. This is one of those little annoyances that have grown over the years. Now every gathering of elected officials seems to be a collection of people who spent the morning deciding how they could be wearing both red and blue.
gotta love the AMBIEN ad on hardball . . . CHIMPY MCFLIGHTSUITS favorite ticket to WINKEYNODDUMS!!!
IIRC correctly, Bush has said many times that the leaking of classified information won’t be tolerated, and is one of the worst problems in DC—specifically he talks about leaking to reporters. I think there are more than 8 times he’s talked about this, not all of them referring to the Plame case.
Regardless of the legalities, isn’t the leak the method of declassifying? It’s still a leak though.
Dr. Bong -
Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V away, my friend.
I have a question for Scottie tomorrow: “Now that the President has found the leaker, will he join on the search for Nicole Simpson’s killer? What about the murderer of Laci Peterson?”
Duktig Pojke @ 2:12 pm (#6) - I think the answer is that these are the people who were sitting around complaining after civics class “Why do I have to learn this crap?”
strawhat 13
Didn’t ya read the Gonzalez memo… Even blurting is no longer necessary. All that is required now is for the prez to make a brain fart and applicable law(s) are unconstitutional.
… I might even get real fancy and linky, although that might necessitate beefing up the troll patrol :-)
From Atrios :
BobbyG @ 2:17 pm - To me, the problem with assuming it’s all legal is twofold:
First, at some point this all starts to look like negligence, and possibly criminal negligence, regardless of how “legal” it all is.
Second, the President is, in effect, writing his own law here. The document that Prof. Foland linked to isn’t a law written by Congress, it’s a product of the Executive branch. That means that Bush gets to write his own law here. While he could theoretically make any declassification process that isn’t specifically covered by congressional statute legal, there’s still the matter of why he changed the law. If he did it to cover up misdeeds, I suspect that in itself could lead to some sort of culpability (NOTE: IANAL). It certainly makes him culpable from a moral point of view.
nice Fitzy snark from the now-lengthy WaPoo story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....components
Fitzgerald adds, “The trial in this case necessarily will focus on whether or not defendant committed perjury. While defendant may prefer to put the conduct of others on trial, he is not entitled to do so.”
LOL, Larry!
See msg 15. Bush has repeatedly exceeded his Constitutional authority, brazenly so. We let him continue to get away with it at our national peril. By the actions I listed above (and more) he has simply declared his unfettered power to do as he wishes in the wake of 9/11. I would not entrust the wisest man with such authority, much less a venal, narcissistic punk like Bush.
As of today, the breadth of the ongoing Cover-Up couldn’t be laid more bare.
I hope we eventually learn what was said on 24 June 2004, when Bush was questioned for 70 minutes in the Oval Office by Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Bush was accompanied by James Sharp .
Kerry on censure: Yes after vetting thru the committee. There is no accountablity in this administration.
Evolving Peace @ 2:32 pm (#29) - Oh, I’d forgotten about that one - the “the embarrassing parts are still classified” argument. Guess we should revisit that one, eh?
“If the President did it, then it must be legal.†I think this needs to be countered as often as possible with “If you want a king so much, why don’t you move to a country that has one.” (Perhaps best said with an circa 1969 “America, love it or leave it” snarl.)
Even if the president has such casual declassification powers as they claim (which I seriously doubt), declassifying national security information to smear political opponents is abuse of power. It is impeachable. Period.
Missing Candidate Baffles Police
Search Is on for Congressional Candidate Gary Dodds
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1814181
“Vanished without a trace after a single car accident last night.” Curious!
From the executive order:
In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure.
Personally (IANAL, as usual, just giving my reading of the plain English), I read this (together with the passage Mary quoted) as giving the President pretty broad power to declassify for whatever reason he wants (he’s a “supervisory official” of everyone), as long as the relevant agency head signs off “as an exercise of discretion”.
Question: is VP a “supervisory position” of everyone in the government? His going to POTUS for declassification of the NIE would seem to indicate the answer is no.
Just leaking it, without consulting the agency head per the declassification procedure, does seem to be barred. Does Mr. Tenet have anything to say about whether he was consulted.
I think personally it’s not crucial whether it’s illegal. Legal or otherwise, the president blew an American spy for domestic political gain, and then instructed his staff to lie about it through the next election. If this is something that has to be adjudicated in court, our political system has failed.
The precedent this sets is nothing less than stunning. It is a dangerous double-edged sword which will undoubtedly swing back to cut the Republicans deeply in the not too distant future.
Thus, I have to wonder just how many current Bush supporters will begin to have a ’sincere’ change of heart on this once Bush leaves office.
-x-
FYI - Kerry has a petition for an Iraq deadline if anyone’s interested.
http://www.johnkerry.com/action/deadline/
thanks as always for all the smart dispensed over here…
however this plays out legally, a sequential reading of the 8 denials of dubya regarding the leak over at rawstory is absolutely devastating for the president…
Bush has thrown down, has he not? His words and actions clearly indicate that he feels that he has UNLIMITED authority to do whatever HE feels necessary. If neither the Congress nor the Courts rein him in, he will have prevailed. King George.
“Take a classified document. Wave the president’s wand over it. Say the secret word (â€WHIG-y, WHIG-yâ€). And, presto-chango, the super secret info is now a Judy Miller exclusive!†“
I did not think it was magic, I would figure that his highness George I could simply make a pronouncement during war council and some scribe in a dark corner would scribble it down in a huge tome.
Hardball played one of those Bush statements on video: I’m agin leaks and want to find out who did it!
So how does this affect our thoughts on Rover’s role in all this?I am still under the opinion that he is eyeball deep in this.
Oyeh, oyeh, oyeh
Would the Liar in Chief Please come to the stand. Paging the Liar in Chief
Sep. 30, 2003″If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of”
Oct 6, 2003 If anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Dept so we can find the leaker”
Professor Foland- per #39
What “public interest” can they possibly cite in allowing Libby to leak classified information to the press? What pressing national interest was served?
Asked and answered.
Zip. Zilch. Zero.
john in sacramento-
We gotta rub their noses in that EVERY day!
Marky,
Saw your question earlier about accessing Brad Delong’s site. Did you get an answer?
The link on the FDL home page doesn’t seem to work but this one does for me.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/
rbg 50, thanks, that link works for me too.
Begging your indulgence, may I repeat what I posted in a thread below? Chris Matthews’ program did not disappoint; I fully expected them to spin for the WH. It’s kind of disappointing that David Gregory was the mouthpiece:
David Gregory has just accepted as FACT the theory that “the moment the president leaked it it was declassifiedâ€.
There’s more.
The reason the administration apparently is now giving for doing so was that the NIE information about Iraq’s “seeking uranium in Niger†was “so important†for “the American people†to hear, that it trumped the mere outing of a spy.
I want to add one more thing. Much is being made about why Libby went off the reservation and “outed” Bush. Given the new admin-spin, that it’s okay, the president did it and he can do such things… is it any stretch to think that they’re all coordinating their moves like synchronized swimmers?
Uncle Toby #36: Absolutely, with one quibble: “king” still has echoes of nobility for some. “Dictator,” I think, is both more accurate (echoing Dubya’s own repeated allusions to wanting to be one) and avoids any positive connotations.
BobbyG #15: Amen, amen, amen. Second me on the cutting and pasting. And “venal, narcissistic punk” just sums it up so nicely.
cujo359 (21) — heh…wasn’t actually being snarky, but it was obvious. And it was a smart move from a guy who let too many other people f*ck with his campaign; I figure he actually dressed himself or his wife encouraged him (which is okay with me, being a corporate wife who’s often asked which tie for a specific event).
And it was smart not to go on Hardball’s set where Tweety has his posse and his turf to make him feel omnipotent. After the way Tweety treated Howard Dean this past week, I so want to rip the lips off that smug, arrogant and fluffy bastard for being so disrespectful…Kerry must have gotten wise after that bit.
FDL,
Make no mistake the strategy of the Libby disclosure is to get everything out on the table now to clear space for National level Swift Boating actions in August. Team Bush/Cheney has decided they can’t get out of the popularity crapper, so they are going to try to push everything as fast as they can to the bottom, using the abu ghraib model.
The MSM pretends like nothing’s going on while the blogs turn purple with outrage. The Dems “keeps their powder dry”. Scandal Fatigue sets in by July only interrupted about “salacious details” of democratic election contenders. The MSM dutifully follows these issues and dems strategists go into their facorite mode “defense”, permitting the republicans to frame their way out of trouble past November elections.
in the mean time innterent regulations are quitely passed to silence the blogsphere as viable media. Team Norquist is already focused laser like on the legislation. HERE IS THE BAD NEWS
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_.....;subj=news
The counter strategy. Loudly and proudly proclaim that Libby has shown the president to be directly involved in the Plame smear, Consciously putting his own person above the security of the Nation, and that his attack machine the republicans are working to silence the only media attempting to hold him accountable. Don’t back Down. Don’t get stuck on the minutia. Be aware every non-blog pundit will be out after your ass trying to minimize or distract you.
If anyone doubts Bush’s capacity for vindictive retribution, which permeates this entire Plame affair, take a look at today’s video of Bush’s initial reaction to Harry Taylor’s statements at the pep rally. Oooh…better watch that body language W.
OT - New Hampshire Democrat & congressional candidate Gary Dodds disappeared last night en route to a meeting according to Huff Post & AP. Disappeared!
Professor Foland #39
“If this is something that has to be adjudicated in court, our political system has failed.”
So far, it has shown every indication that it has.
Ya know, it’s becoming apparent that we’ve had the wrong picture in mind with this “Commander in Chief” stuff.
It’s not Chimpy McHitlerburton sitting behind his desk wielding supreme executive authority with wiretaps; it’s more like the from The Sorcerer’s Apprentice in Fantasia. The Preznit’s minions take turns wearing the magic hat, and all hell breaks loose.
As Goethe might say, “What kind of Mickey Mouse outfit you runnin’ here?”
Leslie in CA -
Thanks. This new leak authorization spin is gonna likely be “definition-of-IS”-ness on steroids. I fear that people will lose sight of the Prize — limitation of power within a Constitutional system, wherein lies our ultimate collective safety. We simply CANNOT allow the Bushies to frame the debate.
Bush abuses his Constitutional authority at every turn. He must be stopped.
Cheney ‘declassifies’ something, tells who he wants, then ‘classifies’ it? I DON’T THINK SO!
On the one hand, of course this is awful. On the other hand, there is nothing that should surprise here. If the President can repeatedly and directly violate the plain meaning of a statute expressly designed to prevent a President from doing precisely what the President is doing, the arcane rules about who can declassify what and when and how are really beside the point. IF THE PRESIDENT DID IT, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. It is axiomatic. Utterly un-American, but axiomatic.
Lou Dobbs on the Preznit leaking: “This smells to high heaven!”
Read this new article where it says this (bolding mine):
I did a write-up at Kos on this back in October, because something struck me as odd…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/195753/53
In a nutshell, the administration has always insisted that if Wilson gave a report, it never left the “bowels of the CIA”, yet here’s Libby being authorized to leak information from a CIA report written by Wilson. Somethin’ doesn’t jive…
Schneider: Extraordinarily devious (bush).
Jeff in Texas -
That’s what he’s saying. Bush claims the authority to do as he pleases. Period. HE decides what is “lawful.” Both at home and internationally.
Let him get away with shit much longer, we will come to regret it, severely so.
This is just bearing out my earlier observation that Bush is stupid, but only in the areas relevant to his job.
IMO, whether declassification is legal or not is a side issue, the main interest being in what was the declassification in support of? Ie, why?
From what I remember of the chronology, the admin. knew the Niger docs. were forgeries before they briefed congress on them prior to the auth. of force vote. That’s a felony; all that has followed seems to be conspiracy in support of that felony. Even if Mr. Chimp had the legal authority to declassify what he did the way he did, he’s still breaking the law.
Harmon statement (from Atrios) :
“If the disclosure is true, it’s breathtaking. The President is revealed as the Leaker-in-Chief.
“Leaking classified information to the press when you want to get your side out or silence your critics is not appropriate.
“The reason we classify things is to protect our sources - those who risk their lives to give us secrets. Who knows how many sources were burned by giving Libby this ‘license to leak’?
“If I had leaked the information, I’d be in jail. Why should the President be above the law?
“The President has the legal authority to declassify information, but there are normal channels for doing so. Telling an aide to leak classified information to the New York Times is not a normal channel. A normal declassification procedure would involve going back to the originating agency, such as the CIA, and then putting out a public, declassified version of the document.
“I am stunned that the President won’t tell the full the Intelligence Committee about the NSA program because he’s allegedly concerned about leaks, when it turns out that he is the Leaker-in-Chief.”
Of course, Libby was apparently careful to avoid claiming that Bush specifically authorized the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, right? Such is the material from which BushCo spin is spun.
I mean, there’s no way that this should be anything but the final nail in the coffin for Bush, and yet…
The media spotlight is on… for the usual fifteen minutes. Don’t waste time debating the Presidential Powers to Declassify thing… it’s a red herring.
Ask Bush WHY he declassified the NIE, and/or authorized Libby to discuss it with the press. While the spotlight is on him, make him explain how THIS USE of his extraorinary wartime powers was part of “protecting the American peopleâ€.
The WHY is the question he doesn’t want to be asked…
Eddy
apropos the immigrant compromise bill in the Senate - can they get it past the crazies in the House? both bodies have to pass it identically…
Prof Foland - Those are some the reasons why Tenet’s name keeps coming up. ;-) Fitzgerald says he is not planning on calling him as a witness and that since Gov is not charging Libby for the leak, if Fitzgerald does have anything about what Tenet may have said or done, he’s not turning it over. *G* Now if the VP did not have the President behind him, if he can show that Tenet authorized, then they might still be ok. The thing is – it should be in writing if he did. *G*G* Libby’s lawyers have indicated that THEY may call Tenet themselves.
Cujo – I was EPU’d in a response to you below. IMO, if the Pres is acting contrary to a statute, contrary to his own Exec Order, or under a provision of his order that requires certain findings (like the section of “public interest best served†etc.) then his ability to declassify may have limits, and at least in the context of a statute to the contrary, probably is limited, absent a showing of emergency.
As to changing the Order, there was a prior change by Clinton to the old Clinton Ex Order on declassifying that did add the VP, although not in the exact same way
BobbyG: #5 LOL bwaaaaaaaaaaa
EddyKilowatt-
Yep. I been sayin’ that all day. Moreover, if they are gonna argue with a straight face that Chimpy has all this unbounded authority, then WHY the fuck have they gone to such obstructive stonewall lengths to keep news of their involvement from the public? Indeed, why not just have come out upfront and released the NIE information overtly? Why even leak, and then commit acts of perjury about it?
Again, asked and answered.
Raw Story, (via atrios) has Jane Harmon talkin’ tough on the leaker-in-chief. No indication she intends to do anything besides talk about it, though.
jbalazs — good spot
Can someone with legal background comment on this?
Title 50, United States Code
Section 783. Offenses
(b) Communication of classified information by Government officer or employee
It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or of any corporation the stock of which is owned in whole or in major part by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to communicate in any manner or by any means, to any other person whom such officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative of any foreign government or an officer or member of any Communist organization as defined in paragraph (5) of section 782 of this title, any information of a kind which shall have been classified by the President (or by the head of any such department, agency, or corporation with the approval of the President) as affecting the security of the United States, knowing or having reason to know that such information has been so classified, unless such officer or employee shall have been specifically authorized by the President, or by the head of the department, agency, or corporation by which this officer or employee is employed, to make such disclosure of such information.
ccmask - should we just call you Delphi?
Couple more things about the July meeting. What about June?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....65_pf.html
The meeting in June when Plame’s name first may have come up – the mystery meeting that Miller only recollected AFTER she got sprung from jail and went and testified as to the July 8 meeting? The one that she recollected after the Prosecutor and she “had a chat†subsequent to her GJ testimony? Not really too much revealed on that, is there.
Also – Libby testified he was authorized to leak NIE info. But, he also testified:
In fact, on July 8, defendant spoke with Miller about Mr. Wilson after requesting that
attribution of his remarks be changed to “former Hill staffer.†Defendant discussed with Miller the contents of a then classified CIA report which defendant characterized to Miller as having been written by Wilson.
Was that authorized too? Part of the NIE? Just more sharing between friends?
Assuming the liars in chief are clear and free of any legal problems in revealing this classified info… anybody know how this would affect a possible civil case being filed by Plame and Wilson?
Thank you!
Video
“If there are leaks I want to know who it is…”
I’m just a dumb average Joe but it seems to me the whole thing about who/mever has authority to leak whatever, whenever, however, is just a big fat “Red Herring” — the law was broken and no amount of EO’s can abbrogate that fact
Does the new info shed any light on whehter or not the WH knew the niger docs were forgeries, and is so, who forged them?
Long post. Please excuse the catharsis.
I know that y’all are busy on the problem of a President exercising unlimited power (so what else is new?), but wanted again to thank Jane here for finding the bloody coat hanger pic for me this morning.
I put that picture up on the screen in my Constitutional Law class this morning, as we prepared to discuss Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and other cases involving the constitutional right of privacy. (We had previously discussed Griswold and contraception, as well as Lawrence and gay love.
The law students were grossed out by the bloody coat hanger. They also paid close attention during the discussion that followed and participated in searching for legal rationales to use in resolving issues of fundamental rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution.
But first I had a few more visual images to help frame the discussion:
I had Pres. Bush, surrounded by a crescent of Republicans, signing the first-ever federal restriction on abortions, in 2003.
I had the wonderful cartoon about calling the South Dakota state senator to check before making a choice in salad dressing (since he believes that women can’t make their own choices).
I had a headline of the Missouri legislature banning any funding of contraception for poor people 3 weeks ago. (People seemed pretty surprised by that.)
Then a series of photographs of gay couples, as well as of people demonstrating wth signs such as “Homosexuality is sin,” ending with a picture of two women in their 70s getting married in San Francisco.
This led into a timeline, starting with Roe and Casey, then the Stenberg case invalidating Nebraska’s abortion ban in 2000 (its supporters called it a “partial birth” abortion ban, but I don’t), and then this:
2005: Gonzalez v. Carhart: 2003 federal law restricting abortions ruled unconstitutional by Court of Appeals for 8th Circuit
2005: Justice O’Connor announces retirement, Samuel Alito nominated
Jan. 31, 2006: Several “choice†Democrats vote to over-ride filibuster so that Alito is confirmed
Feb. 22, 2006: Supreme Court decides to review Gonzalez v. Carhart, which could lead to upholding federal restrictions on abortions or even overturning Roe v. Wade
Mar. 2006: South Dakota bans abortions
April 2006: We study constitutional law
After that, we dug into the law and the reasoning of various Supreme Court Justices, and speculated on what the future holds for them.
My goal is to prepare them to litigate for their beliefs — not merely to recite what the law is today. (They will have to decide, as lawyers, what those beliefs are.) My goal is for them to be prepared, from the moment of graduation, to make their mark. I reminded them in particular that Sarah Weddington, who filed the case Roe v. Wade, could not get a job offer from a law firm in Texas because she was a woman, and at age 25 or 26, upon graduation from law school, filed the case pro bono, and won it.
Unfortunately, a teacher never really learns from his or her students very much about whether any impact has been made. And in my case, the impact is to ask them to think more deeply about legal arguments and to craft the ones they need. We have to have some faith that at least some of them will use their skills to advance human liberty, not to retard it. But that’s up to them.
Again, thanks to Jane for the bloody coat hanger picture.
OT Rant Alert!
Condoleezza Rice in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee:
I don’t think that anybody believes that we really want to be there longer than we have to,†the chief U.S. diplomat added.
However, Rice did not say when all U.S. forces would return home and did not directly answer Rep. Steven Rothman, D-N.J., when he asked, “Will the bases be permanent or not?â€
“I would think that people would tell you, we’re not seeking permanent bases really pretty much anywhere in the world these days. We are, in fact, in the process of removing base structure from a lot of places,†Rice replied.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/s.....667309.php
Good thing to know that all those bases we have all over the world aren’t permanent although some have been around for 50-60 years. No, not permanent, nope, just around for the foreseeable future or until the rapture or something.
There was an NPR story on this today using language which I have used in previous comments which was a little eerie. Anyway, the short story is a few large permanent air force bases in Iraq to project American power, reduce casualties incurred by ground forces, and leave a smaller and hopefully more acceptable footprint for the Iraqis. As I have pointed out in the past. 1) This is a continuation of the neocon agenda and 2) It is a pipe dream. The first thing that whichever group wins the Iraqi civil war is going to do is to kick us out of the country. If you control the country, why would you want to share power with us? These people never, never learn.
[The]Freeperville … knuckledraggers are rallying around the theme that “If the President did it, then it must be legal.â€
In the exploding head provocation department, ask the wing nuts if this means that since he did it, Clinton’s lies about a blow job were also legal — which means the GOP impeachment was illegal.
most people might assume that the Preznit can declassify whenever he needs to BUT it seems the Preznit was acting crafty and hollering about evil leaks. Folk dont like sneakiness…
jbalazs,
Not that I think anything this administration says is true… but it seems that it would be possible for Wilson’s report to have not made it to the WH before the SOTU, but after Kristoff’s story in May, they finally saw it and then decided to start leaking from it.
I don’t believe that, but I suppose it could be possible.
There was some evidence that the Bush administration was talking about Wilson in March or so. That must come from Fitz or Waas, but I don’t recall exactly.
OT: today’s mail brings the new uc santa cruz review mag and news of two grad students who created a web site to archive C-SPAN in an interactive wikipedia kind of way. Nonpartisan. Open-source. www.metavid.org
I`ve not seen this mentioned yet
(Pardon if it has since I`ve skipped some of the comments today - can`t keep up… : >)
Kevin Drum posts :
“…Note the statement on page 7 that “Some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson.”…”
smells like team conspiracy to moi
Comments ?
“Eventually, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall.” - Robert C. Byrd
Harmon: “Leaking classified information to the press when you want to get your side out or silence your critics is not appropriate.”
Not appropriate? Not appropriate? Jeebus help me, what is with this milquetoast language?
Though I have to admit that “Leaker-in-Chief” almost makes up for it.
This debate about the power to classify or not is a distraction.
Libby lied. Fitzmas is spreading like a cancer in the Presidency.
*ilson46201
Re immigration
Short answer: no. Election year politics, I think make a reconciliation bill between House and Senate unlikely. It wouldn’t matter much anyway. There is a decades long history of these bills and the problem has not changed. Reminds me of King Canute ordering the tide back but he only did it once whereas we do it again and again. Demographics can not be trumped by an occasional halfhearted “solution”.
da Cascadian - you beat me to it.
The “plot†thickens. So, now we havethe President in the chain regarding the release of the NIE and the Spec. Prosecutor is not at this time pursuing any charges relating to Libby’s release of NIE info (which, if authorized by the President, might show the President is a very weasely weasel, but still be legal).
In addition, the concepts of conspiracy and a “plot†arise in connection with Libby’s requests for any info that might exist and which might help to “disprove†the existence of a plot or conspiracy. Fitzgerald says that a) we aren’t charging for this, so not allowed, b) how do we find things that prove something we aren’t charging didn’t happen, and c) gets into the “alignment†issue which had puzzled me at the time of Walton’s order and will be getting more attention now it seems. However, he also says – btw – uh, yeah, we do have stuff that makes it look like you guys were the WH version of High School’s Mean Girls.
Some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as reflecting a plan to
discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson. The government declined to produce documents relating solely to other subjects of the investigation, even if such documents could be so characterized as reflecting a possible attempt or plan to discredit or punish Mr. Wilson or Ms. Wilson
Later
As indicated above, while some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson, the government declined to produce documents relating solely to other subjects of the investigation.
AND
Defendant is not charged with knowingly disclosing classified information, nor is he charged with any conspiracy offense. Moreover, as a practical matter, there are no documents showing an absence of a plot, and it is unclear how any document custodian would set out to find documents showing an “absence of a plot.†Indeed, there exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant,9 and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and
after July 14, 2003.
Multiple people at the WH. Hi Ambassador Wilson – nice to know you are in the thoughts of so many. Or should that have been a –?–? *G*
So is Bush going to fire himself or is there some sort of legal loophole that allows him to declassify information without going through the usual mechanisms?
OT
jayt, I just read your post over at the breakfast. So glad you are back. you had already established your bona fides with us by the thoughtful comments you contribute. I don’t think we would have ripped you for your attitude. Big tent and all. But mostly because we already valued your opinions. {{hug}}
ck# 86 exxxcellent . . .
kinda o/t - NSA
looking around for the Conyers hearing this morning, caught a re-run of a 3/28 House Appropriations Sub-Committee w/ FBI Dir. Mueller
Chairperson Frank Wolf [R] VA - wrapping up his time with some general questions -
‘…And FISA has been flexible in this regard ?
Mueller: The FISA Court has been 100% accomodating and flexible to our needs
Wolf: 100% ?, the FISA Court ?
Mueller: Yes sir
Wolf: What about time frames, say it’s 4th of July week end and you need something on that Saturday . . .problems ??
Mueller: Absolutely none Sir, the FISA Court has been extremely flexible and accomodating to our needs
sing it Robert !
OT, here’s an excellent example of a Democrat smacking down a craven swiftboat attempt by his Republican opponent. All dem candidates please take note: this is how ya do it
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Douchebag) attacked his Fightin’ Dem opponent Joseph Sestak for having his 5 y.o. daughter’s cancer treated in D.C. instead of Pennsylvania. Part of Sestak’s response: (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7065.html)
Wait–traditional media is relying on Addington’s–Cheney’s fucking lawyer’s–legal opinion on Executive declassification? WTF?!
OT: Very interesting interview with Nina Easton over at TPM Muckraker. There’s a lot of background on the College Republicans, Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist.
#6
ComDuktig Pojke says:
April 6th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Re students not taking civics. I think that history, specifically recent history is particularly lacking. I found when I was in school they pretty much avoided talking about anything after WWII.
Lots of good lessons in the years they didn’t cover at all.
#99 This is the quote I was trying to put in block quotes.
“Though we recognize the important work done by the many hospitals in and around Philadelphia, it was our personal choice to have Alex treated in Washington at the Children’s Hospital because of its outstanding work on pediatric brain tumors. This decision was based on many things – none of which were political.
This was our choice as Alex’s parents and as I have said publicly, I believe these medical choices should be left in the hands of parents and family members throughout the country and not in the hands of bureaucrats, special interests and especially not in the hands of politicians like Curt Weldon.”
From CNN:
‘…in a House Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday, New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler quizzed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about whether Bush could declassify documents “for political reasons.”
“The president is going to make the determination as to what’s in the best interest of the country,” Gonzales replied.’
***
Well, we can all just go home now. BUSH gets to decide, without any oversight or restraint, what’s in the nation’s interest.
The fucking ARROGANCE. I’m gonna need ACE inhibitor meds.
Here’s the part that makes me proud again of DOJ.
Thus, as defendant approached his first FBI interview he knew that the White House had
publicly staked its credibility on there being no White House involvement in the leaking of information about Ms. Wilson and that, at defendant’s specific request through the Vice President, the White House had publicly proclaimed that defendant was “not involved in this.â€
Free ride time is over. The WH did stake its credibility. We were all asked to believe. The media was TOLD to believe. We were lied to - whether through the President, the VP, Libby or others, we were lied to and the extent to which we were lied might just have stayed, even with this investigation, buried. It didn’t.
Read the Weldon stuff this morning - Seen attacking a family dealing with a malignant brain tumor in a five year old ? Oh and a Veteran’s child ? Buh-bye
he might as well have taken a hammer to a kitten on live tv - unfriggin’ believable
BobbyG - You still here? Something has been bothering me about this whole mess. I mean about the WAY the thugs have been running the information after 9-11. Could they be using the excuse that the whole point is to create misinformation in order to confuse the enemy? IE, it’s okay to lie b/c it is war time and we don’t want to aid the enemy. This is a CLEAR campaign of misinformation. Do they feel justified b/c they are scared shitless?
Prof. Foland @ 2:43 pm (#39) - I think I’m getting hung up on this portion of the EO having to do with automatic declassification (section 3.3):
The definition of “file series” is so non-specific that it could mean just about anything, including a single NIE:
Of course, this is supposed to be for procedural sorts of things, changing how long particular kinds of documents stay classified, etc., but it’s probably applicable to any documents if the review is “requested”.
The other thing I note is that in the section you’re quoting, a great deal is left to the discretion of the agency head involved. He is just required to balance the public’s need to know versus the need for secrecy. Who’s to say how he does that balancing?
Mary -
Yeah. Cool. But, I suppose now they’ll argue — using the most artful of obfuscatory language — that the President has the authority to lie in order to protect the Murkin Peeple.
CRC,
It’s perfectly clear to me that the administration uses disinformation techniques—-saying conflicing things at different times, e.g., to keep the opposition off balance.
106 cbl,
What’s also funny is that the guy who really has a don’t-send-my-kids-to-school-in-Pennsylvania problem is fell republican Man on Dog Santorum.
Mary - Yes! The President of the United States of America is a liar. The Vice President of the United States of America is a liar. Full stop.
fellow (not fell)
Mary,
was calling out for you a few threads back, hoping you rec’d this encouraging news early
Fitz is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all,
Calif_Reality_Check,
Actually, the President is an incompetent liar.
california_reality_check -
NOTHING would surprise me any more. It’s gonna be ever more interesting to see them dance around these issues. Bush is now caught exposed in a complete hypocrisy, in light of his statements about hating leaks and going after leakers (unless he comes out and denies Libbys claims). But, his M.O. has always been one of just doing as he pleases, and then making the lamest excuses and getting by with it, and going on with more.
Go back to my post #15.
We cannot let him continue.
Someone should have told them when they staked their credibility, “not through the heart!”
Buffy - meet Pat.
timewarp - Yes, that could even be worse. Criminally negligent.
Mary @ 3:18 pm (#73) - I don’t think the definition of “emergency” has much to do with the President’s power to declassify information. The emergency provisions of the EO only cover distribution of the information, not declassification.
The term used in the declassification section is “exceptional”, which I suppose these circumstances are, at least in a way.
Now, you’re right if you’re saying that this doesn’t cover them for leaking classified information to Judy Miller and Co. without their being authorized somehow to see it. They almost certainly ought to be required to show what the emergency would have been - a justification that could be quite amusing from a certain point of view.
Prof #84,
Thank You for the great job you are doing with your students. I meant to put up a link for you last night on the Gerri Santoro abortion story that has a very graphic pic, (googling will turn up much more about her story)
http://www.sapphireblue.com/25years
op99 - TPMMuckraker has Weldon’s excuse: Joe Sestak tricked him into acting like an ass.
I guess weldon will be demanding an apology from Sestak , then
Shez #120
was asking here for that photo/story about a month ago. Frankly I never need to see that image again, as it is seared in to my conciousness - have you read her daughter’s essay memorializing her ? - very tough but beautifully poignant thank you for helping me remember her name
op99 #113:
Okay, but Santorum’s actually pretty fell too . . .
cbl - {{{{{{{{{G}}}}}}}}}
I acually got it in the middle of the night last night. I woke up wondering if it had been a dream. There is some interesting info on Powell too. Too much for one day.
What are JS and Olberman going to do” An embarassment of riches with Tweety/Delay - all this, Sensennbrenner-Gonzales, etc.
BobbyG - Your argument needs traction. My feeling is that people are STILL asleep at the switch. There are STILL people saying that all this is easily explained. How bad will it have to get? People in detainment camps? Brown shirts in the street. No net? We are in deep trouble and the American people are concerned about illegals and the welfare of people half way around the world in Iraq. We have had a bloodless coup here and people don’t know it.
Professor Foland @ 2:43 pm (#39) - Question: is VP a “supervisory position†of everyone in the government? His going to POTUS for declassification of the NIE would seem to indicate the answer is no.
Neglected to comment on this before. I think the org chart says no, also. The President is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and the person cabinet secretaries and agency heads report to. The VP isn’t.
BTW- Fitzgerald’s filing does go along with the WH not knowing about Plame’s identity being outed by Libby:
During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment, defendant implored White House officials to have a public statement issued exonerating him. When his initial efforts met with no success, defendant sought the assistance of the Vice President in having his name cleared. Though defendant knew that another White House official had spoken to Novak in advance of Novak’s column and that official had learned in advance that Novak would be publishing information about Wilson’s wife, defendant did not disclose that fact to other White House officials (including the Vice President)
The assertions from the administration about declassification processes betray a woeful lack of understanding of how classification works… (and this isn’t the first or the only place where the WH shows a complete lack of schooling on matters of national security).
Classification is a whole lot more complex than “confidential, secret, and top secret”, and especially when topics such as WMD are involved. Much information about WMD (e.g., nuclear weapons) is “born classified” and thus extremely difficult and dangerous to make public — and while executive orders clarify the declassification process, it is still a matter of law, e.g., the Atomic Energy Acts of 1946 and 1954, and thus not merely derived from mutable executive order.
The WH simply cannot declassify much information about WMD (and remember that discussions about Iraq, or for that matter, Joe Wilson’s trip to Africa, are at their heart all about WMD) because all too often, the classification criteria themselves are classified, so that entire nested classifications (involving revoking of compartmentalization criteria) would have to be reversed. Given the breadth of federal agencies involved in such classified content, and the composed complexity of the classifications (e.g., TS-RD), this sort of declassification process is as infeasbile as the WH’s assertions are indefensible.
What’s obvious here (at least, to anyone who has ever worked with compartmentalized classified data) is that the Bush Administration’s approach to this situation is EXACTLY the same is it is to every other aspect of governing, namely “incompetence, arrogance, and complete disrespect for the essential functions of the federal government”. They simply have no idea of what they’re doing, so they just blunder along and assert afterwards that there’s method to their madness.
But in fact, there is only madness at work here… and any American who cares for the proper functioning of the institutions of the United States government should be appalled by these idiots.
The silver lining here is that the administration has finally demonstrated that it has no real commitment to national security, only to pointless political posturing. Any remaining members of the GOP who continue to support the administration line here amply demonstrate that they care only for their king, not for their country.
So far, nothing I’ve read today seems to nail the issue as hard as Anonymous Liberal did here:
“I can’t break any laws, because I am the law”
right george?
Mary - A stake in the heart for every thug. Carry them with you. Plus the mallot. Drive it home and leave them where they drop. It is past time.
Kerry on Hardball right now
There is one victim of the leak, Brewster-Jennings, the cover for Valerie Plame.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/3/16838/88864
How many other NOC where and are in danger?
Did anyone loose their life?
What WMD and weapon proliferation operations were disrupted with the outing?
http://p216.ezboard.com/frigor.....=101.topic
Cujo – bc of the time lags and thread skips and other posts we are talking about 2 different things I think.
On the one hand, there is the NIE and things relating just to it. For that, there are exceptional circumstances provisions and other declassification provisions and I think the President can declassify. I’m not really talking about a definition of emergency, or even exceptional circumstances, there, but there I would be more interested in how you define declassification v. dissemination – bc they are different and I don’t see how it is a declassification to give Miller bits and pieces of cherry picked info. It isn’t a “make public†in the normal sense to have a that kind of a release.
On the other hand (and this is where emergency is the term I loosely used) there is the outing of a covert agent, which is not only the release of classified information, but is also something that, separate and apart from whether the Exec Order existed, would be a federal crime. IMO, there is no “declassification authority†that could authorize the President to break that law or authorize others to break that law. The only way he could break it would be in connection with the “necessary and proper†function of his office in connection with an emergency requiring such an action. OTOH, as per my post above, Fitzgerald is saying (or giving the benefit of the doubt? I don’t’ really know) that the WH did NOT know about (and so, presumably, could not have authorized) the CIA agent leak, so that discussion might be moot – but for the fact that someone else in an earlier thread posted something to the effect that a justification is being given that the war was of such national significance it “justified†the outing of the agent????? (In which event, I would have thought they would have spoken with and warned her first) That’s only something I read in a post though, so I don’t know the source.
Shez:
Thank You for the great job you are doing with your students. I meant to put up a link for you last night on the Gerri Santoro abortion story that has a very graphic pic, (googling will turn up much more about her story)
http://www.sapphireblue.com/25years
It was incredibly hard to look at that photograph. It was incredibly empowering to read the text next to it.
I don’t have the guts to show this to my class. But I appreciate your sharing it, and I have book-marked it.
Ugh. Should probably be sent to Joe Lieberman and Lincoln Chaffee.
Scooter’s chances of getting a pardon are sinking like a stone. Everyone, including Libby, knows that Duh-bya is a vindictive little shit. I doubt he’s going to have much interest in pardoning Libby after all of this. Similarly, I suspect that Libby may also find that he’s getting fewer and fewer donations to his legal defense fund. And Fitz just keeps turning the screws. Look where Libby is at right now: He’s under indictment for obstruction, perjury, and lying to the Feds. He’s guilty as hell. And NONE of the fireworks that were started today are going to help him out. We can talk about Presidential authority ’til the cows come home, but no one is arguing that it has anything to do with perjury. The longer he waits to cut a deal, the worse off he is. If he didn’t understand that before today, he sure as hell ought to get it now.
Dover Bitch @ 4:19 pm - Someone made a similar observation in an earlier thread, but that quote sums it up nicely.
To my way of thinking, it’s both intellectually dishonest and grossly negligent, even if one accepts that it’s not illegal. I mentioned earlier that I think it’s grounds for impeachment anyway, on the basis of how negligent it is.
new thread from Jane — Context
Cujo - this is the law I meant - the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
http://foi.missouri.edu/bushin.....ction.html
So there is the Exec Branch prohibition, which is via Exec order, and the Legislative Branch prohibition, which is different and via statute. It is very similar to the NSA issue, with not 4th Amendment complication.
Prof Foland posted the classification order in an earlier thread. I think it is important to note that every reference to the power of the vice president to classify, and by implication, declassify, is limited to the case where he is acting “in the performance of executive duties”. See, e.g., sect 1.3a(1).
I cannot see how this happens otherwise than in performance of some publicly delegated duty, or if the president is incapacitated.
Mary @ 4:27 pm (#135) - In that context I agree about the emergency nature of his authority, more or less. The administration could probably have justified it in some context similar to Kennedy’s revelation about our ability to take high-resolution photos over Cuba during the Missile Crisis. Unfortunately, they just forgot about all the procedures and did it their own way, so if that’s the case they don’t get a pass from me, even in the narrow legal sense.
Like an earlier commenter, I wonder how much damage this has caused us. We might conceivably never rebuild the capabilities we had with Brewster-Jennings (Plame’s cover organization). My guess is this is something we won’t know for another couple of decades, after most of the folks involved are gone and things are automatically declassified.
All right, I have read more comments about liberal realist, and now I agree with fellow commenters that this is just a troll. I liked the theory of it being an unhappy staffer. O well.
Mary #128 - very interesting indeed. First time I’ve seen anything apparently exonerating Bush from involvement in the Plame leak, even as it implicates him in the NIE leak.
Cujo359, Sounds like Jane Harmon made the same case, too.
I think that more reporting needs to follow up on Wass’ column about the aluminum tubes and the Democrats need to go on a full-court press against Pat Roberts to get the “Phase II” investigation underway.
Also, if there are any Democrats wondering how they can salvage the trainwreck that was their reaction to Feingold’s Censure motion, they now have a second chance to get on board because this is a golden opportunity to say that there is a significant reason to doubt this president’s word and motives and the trust-me justification for the NSA spying cannot be tolerated.
They should say, “Well, we weren’t sure if it was the right time when Russ introduced it, but now it’s clear that we need to take a stand.”
And if any Mehlman says that voting Democrat would invite investigations and possible impeachment, the answer should be “You mean the investigations that the GOP-controlled Congress has promised for years and failed to deliver? Yes, we will fulfill our Constitutional obligation of oversight and will complete them.”
Dover Bitch @ 4:51 pm (#145) - They should say, “Well, we weren’t sure if it was the right time when Russ introduced it, but now it’s clear that we need to take a stand.â€
My bet is that they’re still not capable of this kind of thinking. If they were trying to justify inaction before by saying there needed to be an investigation, when the justification for a wrist-slapping was apparent, then somehow I doubt they’ll be willing to take that step now.
I have an analysis of Bush’s act in light of EO 13292 on a dKos diary here. (Apologies if this is uncouth self-promotion — comment threads are a bit new to me.)
Thank you katymine
I had already seem some of that but any information is welcome
I, for one, want the complete scenario no matter what
“There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.” - Richard Avedon
#29, a squib from Atrios:
“It’s probably reasonable that the president can declassify whatever he wants, or at least I haven’t really seen an especially strong argument to the contrary, but that doesn’t mean that the president can declassify stuff, show it to Judy Miller, and then turn around claim the stuff is still classified. That’s where this argument falls apart.”
I posted earlier my speculation that what was told to Miller was a LEAK of classified material, but the question of actually declassifying the NIE only came up retroactively as an ass-covering maneuver… as in “See, we did not leak classified information.”
Atrios seems to have overlooked this angle, and got the sequence wrong, at least in my speculation. The OVP claim that merely by leaking it the WH has declassified it is bogus.
Lies have become so endemic with these people that they would lie if you asked them the time of day.
Shargash #37
“Even if the president has such casual declassification powers as they claim (which I seriously doubt), declassifying national security information to smear political opponents is abuse of power. It is impeachable. Period.”
THANKS, THAT REALLY IS THE BOTTOM LINE!! REPEAT IT EVERYWHERE!
Katymine–thanks for that post. My mind is a sieve for details but remembered that generally. Thanks for the accurate reference.
I heard on the radio that for the Leaker-in-chief to declassify something, it has to be IN WRITING, he can’t just casually SAY it’s declassfied. So Mr “President,” SHOW US THE ORDER!
Benj Hellie @ 5:04 pm - Problems I see with your article:
The act of declassification involves, at least in the procedure you mention, that the head of the agency that classified the report, in this case the CIA, would be involved in the decision to declassify it. If that’s true, how could they have used the procedure you cite and just keep it among the three of them?
Second, I think that it’s at least possible, assuming the President actually has the authority to unilaterally declassify parts of a document, that it can be done without alerting anyone. This would require that the White House have control of all copies of the document, so they could be altered without others knowing. Certainly not standard procedure, but if they possess the only copies, this would be possible, since it’s their classification database they’d be altering (unless something’s changed about that procedure that I’m not aware of, which I’ll admit it quite possible). If other copies of the document existed, either at some congressional site or at the CIA, then this isn’t possible. All the documents would have to be collected and revised, and the databases in question updated.
O.K. Question: Can an executive order really override statutes in the U.S.Code? Because last time I looked in the code, there was no mention of the vice president being able to declassify documents, only the president. There was nothing about dissemination to journalists, or Scooter’s girlfriend, either under those access (?) parts. I have a hard time believing that the executive branch can make a law that overrides the legislative branch. Of course if congress sits there and does nothing, I am sure Bush can do anything he likes, because it appears he already has.
Look…
If Bush was involved in leaking portions of the NIE to discredit Joe Wilson, then it is inescapable that he was involved in leaking Val Plame’s identity to discredit Joe Wilson. It’s phase two of the same vindictive project.
He didn’t suddenly go Alzheimer’s on the matter after phase one, and he certainly knows who the leaker is: he sees the guy every morning while shaving.
This makes Clinton’s lie about “having sex with that woman” seem completely trivial by comparison.
Maybe Bush will fire himself, now that’s he found out who dun it.
Prof. Foland. I am not a legal expert, but in my humble opinion, the exceptional clause refers to something catastrophic like a nuclear plant meltdown—stuff the public needs to learn about. I don’t read exceptional circumstances as the need for Cheney, Bush, Libby & girlfriend to protect their asses. I don’t see how public interest is served at all by disclosing Plame’s name. In this case the “declassifiers,†i.e. leakers in this case, are hell bent on making the laws serve their deities. I am in agreement with BobbyG.
The issue isn’t whether Bush had authority to declassify, but whether he in fact declassified. He plainly did not. Under the Exec. Order “classified information†is any information that “requires protection against unauthorized disclosure…â€. As Libby testified, Bush gave him authorization “to discuss information that would be classified but for that approval†- an authorization Libby testified was “unique in his recollection.†It is apparent, therefore, that Bush determined that the information continued to require protection against unauthorized disclosure, and therefore the information remained classified.
The current Exec. Order simply does not recognize the concept of selective or limited declassification. By the terms of the order itself any information that remains subject to protections against unauthorized disclosure is “classified information.†The president (and other officials authorized to declassify) do indeed possess the power to authorize limited or restricted disclosure, but the means for doing this is not declassification but rather the provision of clearance to specified individuals. Well, you might ask, didn’t Bush then simply authorize Libby to grant Judy Miller (or any other journalist to whom Libby leaked) a clearance with respect to the classified information? Apparently not, because such a clearance would have subjected the journalist to a non-disclosure obligation - a result contrary to LIbby’s testimony that the purpose of the authorization from Bush was to get information in the NIE into the media for public dissemination of information that might undermine Joe Wilson’s credibility.
Why didn’t Bush simply declassify the information? That would have been a transparent attempt on the part of the Administration to attack Wilson. It was essential that the information be leaked, i.e., disclosed to the journalist with the understanding that the information was not for attribution. In that way the Administration could not be accused of engaging in a political attack on Wilson, and the journalist, though aware that the Administration was indeed engaging in such an attack, would be bound to protect the identity of her source and therebyunable to report that such attack was taking place.
In sum, Bush did not declassify because that could be traced to the Administration and certainly would have been perceived as an attack on Wilson. And Bush couldn’t simply grant a clearance to the journalist because that similarly would have defeated the purpose of dessimination by subjecting the jouranlist to a non-disclosure obligation. Quite simply, Bush neither declassified nor granted clearance, and thereby achieved an objective that the law plainly does not permit - the selective disclosure of classified information to parties that are not themselves bound not to disclose.
This is illegal, my friends.
ThomasC, thank you. I am less troubled now by the Cheney interview.
I too was astounded to see David Gregory mouthing the WH talking points. Is NBC too lazy to do some research (or read some blogs) about other ideas than the WH echo chamber?
I linked this page in my comments here at Huffpo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....18732.html