Fitz!

Impeach the Decider!

Too bad they hadn’t read FDL (esp Mary & LHP) before they went on the air. It would have made a much clearer point to say that the government cannot classify things to cover illegality and ask for Bush to come clean about the black sites.

Anyone out there know the details of whistleblower litigation?

I’m trying to get my head around this:

If you leak classified, secret info, you are a criminal and should go to jail. OK.

But if you leak secret information about an illegal operation (rendition, tortute, etc.) it’s obviously secret but since the leak is about an illegal activity, are you criminally liable for leaking?

Aren’t you a criminal if you know this is going on and you DO NOTHING?

Of course when government does illegal shit they are going to make it a crime to leak about it, otherwise, they go to jail. Any criminal conspiracy has secrecy at its core.

Anyone able to answer this one? Are you a criminal if you leak secrets about an illegal operation?

Not one story in today’s paper about the Drumheller story, but there was one about the McCarthy story which, surprisingly enough, made reference to the hypocrisy angle.

Hi, Taylor, and thanks for all the great posts you’ve been doing here. I think you meant to say “that’s not okay” at the end of your first sentence.

More like AMERICA! We must take our country back from this Clan-in-Charge. Knowing that no election under this regime is guranteed credible, how does a voting person put faith in the “system”. In the past Diebold has guranteed the results the Republicans will want. I just would like to know that basic question: Will my vote count?

And, unless I’m mising something, the rendition flights were against both Domestic and Intl. law.

She had the guts to tell on the Gov’t breaking the law.

It’s not like she told secrets to benefit the enemy. She was a whistleblower, and deserves to be protected as such. Otherwise, the practise of classifying illegal activities to prevent discussion and exposure will intensify.

That’s the opposite of what AMerica needs now, and I think most would agree.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

^^^ Write a short letter (save it) and send a copy to your both your Senators and House Rep. This is excellent software. Plug in your zip code, hit everybody with a fax, email, or hard copy letter.

http://tinyurl.com/a6erq

Taylor, thanks for a great post and the graphic. It’s my new desktop background.
Is this one from Propaganda Remix?

The Reeps I talk to are now huddling and saying, “But Clinton did it tooo” and they remind me of 3-year-olds. “But, but, Elian Gonzales!” That’s their cry now, to make it seem as if this new authoritarianism isn’t new at all. BS.

Let’s also not forget the double standard hypocrisy demonstrated by Clusterfuck when he said he’d, “jawbone OPEC to lower the price” of oil back in campaign 2000.

Now all he wants to do is rub his jawbone on parts of Lee Raymond and Halliburton where the sun don’t shine.

tom chicago, Mary, creditors rights attorney, had some strong opinions about this over the weekend. IIRC she cited contracts law and loosehead prop agreed with her. A contract about anything illegal is not a contract. According to her, Mary McCarthy did nothing wrong in exposing illegal practices.

John Casper, I saved some of Mary’s comments on legal points to my email so I can ’splain some things to these GOP people I know.
(Thank you Mary!)

TR, New York Times had something a few days earlier about it, see link below. CNN is also picking it up.

Prewar Intelligence Ignored, Former C.I.A. Official Says
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: April 22, 2006
I share your concern. I hope the corporate media really jumps on it, as it seems so relevant to all aspects of the CIA leak investigation.
Taylor, thanks for writing about this.

Taylor, great post.
To echo 12 John Casper, IIRC the conceptfrom law school, a contract that requires illegal action is known as an ultra vires contract, which is unenforceable, as enforcement would be against public policy.

UMass Journalism Prof quoted in from a link at Froomkin today:

…”"Since the beginning of his presidency, Mr. Bush has made it clear that he does not buy the industry’s widely held conceit that it serves as a proxy for the American people. That, he has suggested over the course of his two terms, is his job.

“The national press seems to be saying otherwise.”

—–

btw - I agree about the graphic up top. Excellent. Amazingly, I’m seeing more and more direct statements around the Web that previously would have been dismissed as violations of ‘Godwin’s Law’. Makes me think that one is becoming ‘quaint’.

It was probably a mistake to give someone a personal stake in demonstrating that the government’s conduct was illegal–especially someone from the Inspectorate General, which is basically where the bodies are buried…

Firing Ms. McCarthy was a public execution designed to intimidate. Now everyone who has a security clearance knows that even if they saw something illegal, they’ll lose their clearance and job. After many years of legal travails, they might get back pay, but how many are willing to go through that?

It’s not only aimed at CIA, but anyone with a clearance. Ought to keep the eggheads at Los Alamos quiet while the Iran lies keep coming…

It’s worth pointing out that we don’t know what happened. Maybe she went through channels, maybe she didn’t. Maybe she had a legal opinion that her conduct was legal, maybe she didn’t. The appropriateness of her conduct depends a lot on the details.

But she sounds like a pretty typical bureaucrat. Such people rarely take such chances while they have options, or for minor peccadillos.

tooling around the dial this a.m., i caught a couple of minutes of limbaugh blaming a coordinated campaign by clinton — who travelled the country durin gthe 2004 campaign (apparently holding secret meetings plotting).

JC#14: Thanks. San Antonio is currently in the throes of that ten day party known as “Fiesta” and the Spurs are in the playoffs so it’s as though the rest of the world has ceased to exist.

Margot - I don’t know who’s the originator of the graphic. I will check Propaganda Remix to see and if it is credit them. They’re amazing.

Leslie in CA - You’re right, it’s fixed and thanks.

Thanks to everyone for the amazing 11 days I’ve had. I can’t tell you how much fun it’s been for me and how much I learned. I hope you stop by my blog digs and say hello from time to time. It would be an honor to see some FDL readers over there from time to time, as well as those of you who enjoy podcasts.

Where did you get that graphic?!

[I just posted this on the previous thread, but it’s relevant here. It was posted in response to comments by Jane H. and angie.]

Mary made a good point about all this yesterday that I find very frustrating - the information McCarthy leaked was classified illegally in the first place. Section 1.7 of Executive Order 13292, which defines how classification is supposed to be done, states that it is illegal to classify information to cover up illegal activity. By that standard, what McCarthy did was reveal information that should not have been classified in the first place.

It also seems possible, thanks to the Nuremberg trials, that it was her legal obligation to report this if the normal channels for dealing with such malfeasance weren’t going to work. According to the Larry Johnson article, McCarthy most likely learned about this situation while working at the CIA’s Inspector General’s office. The IG is the place you go in a government agency when your bosses are breaking the law, but the IG reports to the head of the agency. If the head of the agency is the one doing the illegal activity, then it’s pretty clear that’s not going to work. I emphasize that, in all likelihood, McCarthy learned of this while working at the IG’s office. What this implies is that McCarthy knew the investigation into the black prison network was going nowhere.

There are certainly suppositions in that last paragraph, but I think they’re reasonable ones. If they are correct, then McCarthy should be praised for doing the right thing, and the government officials who are now calling her a traitor are the ones who should be in trouble.

Ok, and good afternoon, now…a question. How are/were these secret prisons illegal? That’s the only possible fly in the ointment here. Gitmo is “legal”…but known. Gitmo is a prison holding “foreign combatants”…and so do the secret prisons? One’s secret, one’s not….other than a secrecy issue….what’s the difference?
Torture: people got tortured at Gitmo, and the WH issued that CRAZY position paper saying it’s ok….so, it hasn’t yet been ruled illegal? And, if torture went on at a “secret prison”, isn’t it covered by that same crazy position paper?
In summary….what made/makes these secret prisons “illegal”? Now, I think they are boneheaded…but how are they illegal?
Ghostman

John Kerry has been proven right about so many things since the 2004 election, that if the election were held today he’d win in a walk.

I can’t help thinking ol’ mush-mouth would find a way to screw it up again.

Oops…Margot beat me to it.

I think this is getting to the point where it’a almost a full-time job to keep up with the criminal activity of this administration. I’d like to think that’s the reason the people who should be prepared with facts are still behind the curve on this thing. I mentioned yesterday that I had not heard one of the talking heads, or one of the Democrats, speak to the issue of whether or not the government can classify activity that is illegal. Another Sunday morning, yelling at the TV.

Go back and read Dana Priest’s article on the black sites - she does a pretty good job of raising that issue, and yet, after her article was published, the entire focus was on bringing the traitorous leakers to justice and issuing subpoenas to journalists who passed on the leaks to the public.

We’ve gone beyond hypocritical - way beyond. Glenn Greenwald raised a number of instances of Republicans (Shelby and Hatch) disclosing classified information, and not only was there no call for their heads to roll, there wasn’t even an eyebrow raised by the GOP.

The people make my head hurt.

Taylor, thanks for the wealth of information and opinion you’ve given us. You’ve done an amazing job. You will definitely see us at your place.

Has the Bush Administration made another major blunder by having McAarthy fired? Like all former employees of the US Government, she would now be free to write a book, do an interview, etc., etc. We probably will see her on 60 minutes before the year is over.

EPU’d too:

Cujo359– yep, that’s what McGovern says too:

>>>>>>
But couldn’t McCarthy appeal to “independent†Inspector General Helgersen? As statutory IG, Helgersen does enjoy some unique prerogatives and autonomy, should he choose to exercise them. Those familiar with his longstanding penchant for sniffing the breezes from the White House and director’s office and trimming his sails accordingly would be shocked to see him actually exercise those prerogatives. Rather, he has obediently acquiesced in denying Congress the particulars of his investigations—the one on the performance of CIA officers before 9/11, for example, which reportedly heaped criticism on Medal of Freedom awardee Tenet and other senior agency officials. And according to today’s New York Times, “independent watchdog†Helgersen recently let himself be talked into submitting to a polygraph exam by those he is supposed to be “watch-dogging.†Remarkable.

It seems likely that Mary McCarthy quickly saw the lay of the land and decided the Helgersen-Goss route held no promise for success in addressing the abuses of torture and rendition. Had she any doubts on that score, they were presumably dispelled as she watched Director Goss trot off with Cheney to the office of Sen. John McCain to plead for an exception for the CIA from his draft amendment banning torture. This particular mission was not accomplished, but the president appended a “signing statement†saying, in effect, that he feels free to disregard the McCain amendment banning torture.

OT: For reasons too lengthy to go into here, the spouse and I had wondered how retired Gen. Shalikashvili(known as “Gen. Shali”) felt about the other generals speaking out.

After reading this story: http://www.thenewstribune.com/.....6290c.html , now I know.

I’m also pleased to see that Gen. Shali is recovering from his stroke.

Prof Foland, thanks for reminding us about all we don’t know. Wasn’t it just last week that we were reading about how some at the CIA were hiring lawyers because they believed that some of what they were doing wasn’t legal? Sorry, I don’t remember where I read that….

ghostman, 23:”Ok, and good afternoon, now…a question. How are/were these secret prisons illegal?”

The secret prisons may not be illegal per se, but I think the illegality comes from the fact that the people in them have no access to habeas corpus, which is (so far but maybe not much longer) guaranteed by the Constitution (4th Amendment?).

No lawyer here, so confirmation by a legal eagle appreciated.

Professor Foland @ 11:07 am (#17) - This is why it’s imperative that the people who made these decisions are made to stand trial for this. They should spend the rest of their lives in jail. What Bush, Cheney, Goss, and the others who have enabled this have done is broken the implicit contract for classifying data in the first place, and then made someone suffer for making that fact known.

The implicit contract about classification is this: any who holds a clearance and is entrusted with classified information is legally (and ethically) bound to protect it. Violating that trust will get you fired and possibly imprisoned. That is the obligation for those entrusted with that information. It is incumbent on those who classify the information to do it properly - to follow all the guidance concerning how to mark the information, what to classify, and when and how to declassify it. In short, they are not allowed to classify improperly. That is their obligation. As far as I’m concerned, willful violation of either part of that “contract” should yield the same consequences.

If you can’t whistleblow about something illegal, then what is the point of whistleblower protection in the first place? I know the CIA does all kinds of crazy shit, but do they actually sign on the dotted line to trash the constitution? With all these people breaking their respective codes of silence, you’d think there might be some suspicion from the Congress…..but I guess they have their own code, don’t they?

Taylor,
You have done a wondeful job here on FDL. Thanks for your excellent postings of information, analysis, and opinion. I’ll catch you at your blog from now on.

Is there a democratic/progressive group of lawyers similiar to the group that harassed Clinton during his presidency?

Seems an awful lot of legal wrangling should be going on right now, with lots of avenues for potential claims, yet it seems only the aclu is involved.

Am I unaware of others?

TR @ 11:20 am (#30) - Some of my former coworkers and I knew Gen. Shali from his days as the 9ID commander on Ft. Lewis. Good man, and a smart one. He figured out how the high-tech Army was going to work and rode that knowledge to the JCS.

Sorry to hear he had a stroke.

Attack on whistleblowers and making them the focus of the 24/7 spin is the same old Faux trick of “Look at the shiny object in my hand” while I rob you blind trick.

It isn’t the leaking that should be the focus, it is the idea that AMERICA has secret prisons and rendition and torture and GOD Knows what else.

Every government employee knows their fate anyway but this just reinforces it. My father worked for the US Forest Service for 24 years, retiring 1985. I remember stories he told of things that went on and he tended to be outspoken about issues at work. He was given an offer to retire or be transfered to some outpost in the boondocks. He has great admiration for Anita Hill’s testemoney just because he knew what courage it took to speak out.

That is why we and our Democratic officals NEED to protect whistleblowers from every government agency. They are our ONLY oversight right now and shine the bright lights on where those cockroaches are hiding.

OT– but I know there are FDL’ers who respect Prof. Cole– John Fund attacks him today wrt to his offer from Yale. I already wrote to the opinion page, not banking on getting it published, though ;). You guessed it the Fund supporters outweigh the Cole supporters! Suprise!!! Check it out and Juan links to the piece of trash (imo) by Fund. He replies and it was published in the WSJ.

http://www.juancole.com/

Thanks, zendoman, I look forward to it.

The facts are indeed hard to miss. And miss them is what most of America does. I am thrilled that these leak stories continue to be revealed, seems like once a week (though last week we got the bonus Condi leak)–every story increases awareness. Because there is so much lying and hyperbole in politics, it takes America a good long while to grasp an obvious set of wrongs. They discount much of what they hear and read. But if enough leak stories come out, over enough time, the corruption of secrets and the CIA at the White House will become an assumed fact by most Americans.
Effective marketing is done by promoting the brand day after day, week after week, and the GOP is doing our work for us. Nice of them, huh?

Georgia10 over at DK has a nice roundup of the New Hampshire phone-jamming corruption scandal, and how the scandal may –via legal process– end up in the White House. Same thing: drip, drip, drip, each story of GOP corruption eventually brands them as the party of corruption in the minds of the majority of Americans. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/24/104559/889

Also interesting over at Kos is that Illinois and California have introduced bills in the state legislature that call for impeachment. Of course while the law demands the House take up these state-passed resolutions, the Republican leadership can bury them in committee or some such. BUT the drip-drip-drip real-time marketing program goes on–a little coverage here, a little coverage there, and America, ever so slowly, gets it.

Gosh it’s going to be an interesting year.

TR # 30

“I’m also pleased to see that Gen. Shali is recovering from his stroke.”

me too - thanks for the link !

Re Libby:
“Secret declassification” has got to be one of the greatest oxymorons ever devised: “This report can be talked about - but don’t tell anyone that it’s not secret anymore!”

IANAL, but I’ve done my stint as a juror, and even twelve ordinary folks from a variety of political, educational, racial, and socio-economic backgrounds could see the stupidity at work here.

32, orangejumpsuit…..see, the problem is that, for the longest while, the Gitmo prisoners had no habeas corpus rights either. I “think” some court said they must be given periodic hearings before a military panel?
I’m still stumped on how these secret prisons are “illegal”…but I agree, it would be nice to hear from a legal beagle on this!
Ghostman

orangejumpsuit @ 11:24 am (#??) - I think the upshot is that these folks were kidnapped from wherever they were and dragged off to another country without any due process, then tortured. It’s the due process and (lack of) humane treatment that, IMHO, separates “kidnapping” from “taking into custody”. Of course, I’m not a lawyer, either.

Impeach Bush
Vote Democrat!

The decision is yours…not his.

Thanks Taylor, I will certainly be visiting your home spot.

The Guantanamo Bay prison camp, and any secret prisons outside US territory, are illegal under international law. The Geneva Convention is a treaty which the United States has signed; under the Constitution, treaties have the same force as laws passed by Congress.

Fund actually shortened his name from Fundament.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fundament

-GSD

OT:

Feingold’s seemingly deliberate use of ‘fox-hole Dems’ could mean : “FOX-hole Dems” if you look at it the right way.

major props to Taylor!

This comment is with regards to the previous thread of April 23 “Late Nite FDL†and the unwarranted attack on ‘chicago tom’ for his suggestion that the WTC towers were felled by controlled demolition charges on 9/11.

I got to say, I was surprised and disappointed by the intolerant and vitriolic reaction of some of the commentators to this suggestion.
To all those who attacked him and this idea, I am sure you have seen the news footage of the collapse of Building 7, here (select the high resolution link in slow motion) and are comfortable with the notion that fire and only fire, according to FEMA brought down this building. And of course you saw the explosive squibs coming out the right side of Building 7 and do not question for a moment that these explosions were explosive charges consistent with classical controlled demolitions.

And you have seen pictures of the 757 crash into the Pentagon including the notorious Pentagon Strike video and have rightly discounted it because of it’s inherent propaganda value (there is so much of it around today after all, that al Qaeda is tricky…I mean look at what they can do from a cave in Afghanistan)…and despite the lack of passenger seats, passengers, wing and other airline debris, not to mention the clean holes punched clear through outer and inner walls of 3 of the Pentagon’s rings, you rightly sided with the government’s explanation because, God knows they would not lie. That would be a conspiracy after all.

The comment attacks were numerous and sadly, not consistent with open discussion and intellectual debate.
I’m sure I will be attacked for pointing out some of the most egregious comments but here goes:

ck says:
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:47 pm seriously unproductive tinfoil territory. and Now — did something weird happen with WTC 7? Maybe; maybe not. : Maybe not? ck, gotta say-d i s a p p o i n t e d…I thought you were more open-minded. Go ahead, look at that video. Do you really believe fire brought down Building 7?
At this point I should point out that WTC 7 came down at around 3:00 in the afternoon, so if you are thinking the Fire Department or some other authority wired the building with charges in a controlled response to neutralising the fire or an imminent collapse, no. They did not have enough time. So if WTC7 was a controlled demolition why not WTC1 and WTC2?
Also, there have only been 3 buildings in history that have collapsed because of fire and they were those 3 buildings on 9/11, although numerous skyscrapers have had fires burn for days with no structural collapse. Even if you buy the story of ‘debris cascade’ of floors pan-caking as per the government’s theory of structural failure, the central support columns should have remained.

Not surprisingly Ego Parallel Universe weighed in with the comment (#130 same thread): Chicago Tom is a thread hijacking troll. Now that’s a productive debate position… Personally, I prefer “Burn the Witchâ€.
The irony is the people who are the most resistant to these possibilities cite ‘Conspiracy Theories’ but comfort themselves in the explanations of the profoundly compromised 9/11 Commission and their dissection of Bin Laden and the al Qaeda conspiracy.

Conspiracies do exist but do not immediately start as some type of ‘star-chamber’ structured plot (PNAC notwithstanding). Conspiracies are not plotted so much as they are a natural community of ‘like-mindedness’ and sadly that thread demonstrated a conspiracy of intolerance fuelled and comforted by self-absorbed egotistical delusional groupthink. It was as if the idea of “What if?†was replaced by What id!

Noen (#147-same thread) said:
Cheney is a full-blown sociopath. I truly believe that.
I have to agree with that assessment. An assessment that takes on significant importance and concern when you realise that this is the same Cheney who took operative control of FEMA in June of 2001 and on the morning of 9/11 was the maestro overseeing and conducting an anti-terrorist hijacking drill.
Don’t believe me? Good. Do your own research. (You will find though, that these facts are true.)

If you want to research this topic, I recommend starting with Mike Ruppert’s excellent book ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ or Scholars for 911 Truth. Look at their credentials, their questions and the facts. You question and you decide.

But I’m sure all the 9/11 naysayers of the thread in question have already looked at these questions…Haven’t they…or do they just have the answers?
~

GSD– I think you’ve got it! heh. Wonder about his lineage? Is he one of the entitled?

The Leaker in Chief can declassify at will, for political purposes, using national security for his own presidential aims,

You left out “retroactively, after having been caught leaking.” If he really had declassified the NIE sections and Plame’s status, then when Scottie asked Rove and Libby whether they had talked to reporters about this, they would have said “Sure. It’s no longer classified.” It’s not declassified if the only people with access to the material are people with security clearances.

jayackaroyd 53

nail meet hammer. yes. absolutely.

MAJOR props to Taylor. That was a really difficult job to step into and she did it beautifully. Many, many thanks.

John Caspar #12
and anyone wanting the link to Mary’s and Looseheadprop’s terrific explanations regarding legal classification and employment contracts, go to this link, then “control F” and look for their names.
http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....s-whacked/ Also see, Glenn Greenwald’s posts over the weekend, and this one, which he links to at the end of one of them: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.....itics.html

jayackroyd @ 11:52 am (#53) - It’s not declassified if the only people with access to the material are people with security clearances.

Have to disagree here. There are plenty of documents that are not classified and yet have only a limited distribution. Bush abused the system by not making it freely available, with or without the necessary redactions, but leaking it to reporters. While it’s not as serious as the offense of leaking classified material, or illegally classifying information to cover up a crime or prevent embarassment, it is an abuse of power nontheless.

Hampshire phone-jamming corruption scandal, and how the scandal may –via legal process– end up in the White House.

one of the benefits of highlighting this case with its successful prosecutions and links to the white house will be that it’s no longer the province of conspiracy buffs that the 2000 election was stolen. it will be well documented that the national leadership of the republican party had a strategy to disrupt and prevent voters from voting. although what really happened in 2000 will never be satisfactorily resolved for those who don’t already understand, it will stick in the back of people’s minds and with the endless stream of stories of gop corruption, should end republican domination for a couple of decades. (if we live thru this one)

Thanks for the many posts and also your frequent interaction, Taylor. It was always thought provoking!

Re: Mary McCarthy

It looks to me like the CIA is claiming two separate reasons for Mary’s termination

1) Leaking classified information
2) Unauthorized contact with the media

“Agency spokesman Paul Gimigliano confirmed that an officer had been fired for having unauthorized contacts with the media AND disclosing classified information to reporters, including details of intelligence operations.”

http://www.heraldsun.news.com......63,00.html

John Kerry came out in favor of the war when it mattered. He had his 15 minutes.

Taylor, I have really enjoyed reading your posts, and the constructive and informative way you interact in the comments. You’re on my Bookmarks toolbar now. The graphics have been stellar, as well.

The Kerry quote breaks my heart. He is so right about what is wrong here. If only he could have learned to speak in such a clear, devastating way before 2004, instead of the long, erudite but unfinished sentences. He sounded like the lawyer and Senator that he is, instead of the tough warrior and warm human being that I think he also is, underneath all that verbal insulation.

#23 - Ghostman,

These detention facilities are illegal under the Geneva Conventions because the detainees have been treated inhumanely there. There are several statutes in the Conventions covering this particular situation (”extroadinary rendition”) but, Article 12 begins to address it:

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

There is some question as to whether or not these are actually “Prisoners of War” (which has been argued IRT Gitmo, Bagram, and Abu Ghraib also) but I tend to believe that that is just semantics. Bottom line is that, under the Geneva Conventions, you are responsible for ensuring the treatment of your prisoners (even if you hand them over to someone else). I believe there is also a section somewhere in the Conventions (although I am unable to find it at the moment) which speaks to the issue of access by humanitarian organizations (Intl. Red Cross, Red Crescent, etc) also.

Regardless, after reading Larry Johnson’s take on the situation, Mrs. McCarthy sounds like she wasn’t exactly lots of fun to work with but she should be lauded for taking this brave stand to get the truth to the American people. She is, clearly, a whistleblower and should be guaranteed all the protection that goes along with that position.

As usaul most of you do not get this what the President did was declassified the information and then let it be pubilshed. Once the information is declassifed then everyone has access to the information.

What Mary did is break the law sicne the information was still classified you have to make sure the person or persons recieving the information has the clearence and the need to know. Mary just like all who work with classified information sign a non disclosure statement. That staement say in a nut shell that if you knowenly give information to a unaothoorized person you a subject to a 10,000 dollar fine or 20 years in preson or both. Clearly what Mary did was wrong and she lucky she did not go to jail. ONe just has to look at the Walker case which he sold US codes to the USSR and undermended or national security, this group went to jail so maybe Mary should what do you say about that

Speaking of leaks- anybody hear any news about the GJ meeting on Friday? Was there ever any confirmation of the Note’s report? I didn’t hear a word about it- but I’m thinking that a Karl Rove indictment might throw a little monkey wrench into Bolton’s five point plan to save his boss’ ass from impeachment when the Dems take over Congress in November.

Steve-
I say you should proof-read.

Peterr and jayackaroyd, thanks for bringing that back to light– how can we keep that distinction in people’s faces? (Like if Bush had really declassified the NIE, why didn’t he jolly well send all those sections off to the RELEVANT CONGR. COMMITTEES pronto, who might have a wee bit of a prerogative to see it? more, perhaps, than the climbingest climber of the NYTimes?)

Sorry, I’ll calm down, anyway — it is hard to prioritize which issues to write my reps about (don’t endanger our troops by condoning torture, don’t endanger the whole effing planet by bombing Iran, don’t throw out the Constitution, don’t saddle us with even more debt…), but I want to keep your point (#53) bouncing around, crucial meme that it is…

#66 LMAO

Glad Jane Harman has finally got around to condemning the republican death and torture machine. Too bad it took her so long…I guess those contributions from Lockheed and other death weapons makers, AIPAC and other extremist lobbying groups, fogged her vision in the past.

Now the question is: Will she do anything about it?

It’s easy to cry murder once the monster is eating your baby…where was this outrage before, when the killers were smiling and shaking hands with our reps. Are all Democrats progressive?

Okay I see what so funny but do you get the point or not. I was in the Navy for 22 years I could tell my family everthing that went on but CNN and Fox news could see that double standard. Beside I am no english major are you.

Steve @ 66
“Clearly what Mary did was wrong and she lucky she did not go to jail.”

Greenwald today:

“The ever dwindling group of Bush followers has become a highly emotional group, having far more to do with psychological and emotional needs than political beliefs. Anger, hatred, rage and a desire for punishment are what fuels them, and they recognize no limits on what ought to be done to satisfy those cravings.”

Ok, many of you cite international stuff….that’s probably the weakest argument. EXCEPT…the geneva convention DOES provide for red cross visits…and those have happened at Gitmo. But, that would make the process of the detention in violation of the geneva convention…what makes the detention itself illegal?
Ghostman

It is said that Republicans fear the Democrats’ taking over of one or both houses of Congress in this fall’s elections, not only because they will lose political power, but also because the Democrats could then use subpoena power to investigate the wrongdoings of this administration. I hope that occurs, of course, and if it does, classification and declassification of information, whistleblowing, and the rights (and duties) of government employees who have knowledge of official wrongdoing is one of the areas that a Democratic Congress should review.

And then there were eight:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/.....h-general/

-GSD

OCSteve, what happened to the OC?
Losing it hasn’t helped your grasp of the facts. One of the larger errors in your comment imo, Libby didn’t leak the information in the “declassified,” NIE. If he had, we would have known then what we know now, Joe Wilson was right.
Steve, since you mentioned “what people don’t get,” have you checked the price of gasoline lately?

Ghostman, Have you read the 4th ammendment lately? How bout for a start That no criminal charges were filed? Acess to representation? Etc.

OK going to do my best to paraphrase Mary’s truly excellent comment from the other day.

1) People with jobs like Mary O.’s enter into agreements a sometimes called Executive Agreements) as a condition of employment In these agreements (agreement=contract) they agree:
a) not to divulge secrets;
b) to waive statutory whistleblower protections.

2) The statutes cited by Mary (our Mary) relating to the classification of information (sorry no links, no time, no competence with a computer) say that the president/government cannot legally classify information to:
a) cover up criminal activity
b) avoid their own embarrassment
c) other reasons not pertinent here

3) If the information could not be legally classified, it’s classification is “void ab initio” that means void from the beginning.

4) If Mary O. were charged criminally, she could plead the illegal classification as a defense. I think it would be a great defense upon the facts as we know them.

5) Upon a judge ruling that the classification was “void ab initio” all actions subsequent to the illegal void classification are seen in the light as if the classification never occurred.

6) At that point Mary O. would have to be adjudged not guilty of revealing classified information if the information was not properly classified in the first place.

PLEASE NOTE: until such time as a judge rules that the information was not properly classified, Mary O. remains at risk for prosecution. It is unlikely that such a ruling will happen absent such prosecution because judges do not issue advisory opinions. Alternatively, perhaps a news organization (maybe Ms. Priest) could bring a suit and obtain such a ruling.

Our Mary also had another section of her argument about the effect of Mary O.’s story being an outright lie. Let’s skip that since I think the lie is unlikely.

LMAO, Accidentally double posted, Slow down cowboy. Funny.

Phyllis at #28

Former employees still have to get their book drafts, their TV appearance comments even their testimony before Congress “approved” in advance. These people are being gagged.

Steve, if you were in the Navy for 22 years, what defense does our Navy have against supersonic ship killers, such as Russia’s “Sunburn?”
Rumsfeld is telling us he “modernized” the military. No body armor for our troops and no protection for aircraft carriers, do you of any evidence of Rummy’s “modernization”?

GSD # 74 -
Wow, thanks for the link - of course it’s great to see the Fox news graphic to go with it

Taylor Marsh, before you go allow me to include my thanks for your posts and comments here - already have you bookmarked, and who knows, maybe I’ll wind up with one of those Podcast thingies

Susan in Iowa @ 11:59 am (#56) - Thanks for finding that thread. It’s the one I was referring to in (#22). Mary and LHP seem to have covered all the relevant points.

So what does the price of gas have to do with anything.

#64 - Steve,

First of all, it is still a matter of contention whether or not the President declassified the NIE before ordering the information leaked to reporters. He has been less than forthright on that issue. This is not to mention the fact that he did not follow the time-honored protocol for the declassification of classified or sensitive material which would have entailed him informing the Director of the CIA (in the case at hand) that he was going to declassify the information. More importantly, if the President thought that the information was SO important that it deemed declassification, why did they leak it to a few select reporters (all of whom had carried water for them in the past) rather than presenting the documents to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees?

As to your other argument regarding the Walker case…your supposition is preposterous! There is NO possible correlation that can be drawn between leaking sensitive information to a foreign government for personal financial gain and leaking information to the press to expose something you feel is illegal and/or immoral. This distinction is precisely why we have a whistleblower statute! Whether or not you agree with how she went about doing what she did (& I’m quite certain that there’s a lot to the story we haven’t heard yet), she is almost a text-book definition of a whistleblower and she should be protected as such.

Steve #70

You made it through 22 years in the Navy? As what Dumbass First Class?

Good god, you’re embarrasing the name…

Proofread, PLEASE!!!

76…I think the 4th amendment deals with search and seizure of property?
77: ok, thanks. I see her (Mary) point, and it’s well constructed. But the initial premise is that something is, in fact, illegal. (2a in your comment). It’s this threshhold question which puzzles me.
Ghostman

Hail, Mary(s).

ghostman, I have to run, so I’ll catch you on another thread, but Bush’s policies are creating more “terrorists,” than we are “killing.”
There’s no “Declaration of War.”
If we’re “in the right,” where is the transparency? If “we’re in the right,” what do we have to fear from transparency?”
What right or recourse do we have if someone does this to a U.S. citizen?
It’s a complete violation of every principle that this nation stands for.
Our best defense against terrorism is a free and open society where people trust us to act ethically. Bush/Cheney are exporting terrorism and it will come back on us.

John the defencse for are Aircraft Carriers is an Aegis Cuirser that can kill a missle going fast. As for the body armor I can agree with you on that it is a shame to send men and women off to war with not the right equipment of course that has never happen before right.

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’

Please note the very last sentence.

88: oh, I agree with everything you say. This European detention policy is/was boneheaded. On policy grounds, I think you’re right on target!
Ghostman

I believe the quandary for Mrs. McCarthy at this point is simply that she did not use or follow the ‘whistleblower’ protocol. There is a set way to do what she did within the agency. Now, she may have perfectly good reasons for thinking that particular procedure would not work in this case, for all the reasons Taylor and others have quoted. But it doesn’t change the fact that the whistleblower procedure is the ONE and Only One legally safe way to raise an objection or to initiate an investigation into alleged lawbreaking. The reasons for this are justified given McCarthy’s place of employment. So as far as that aspect of the case is concerned, she made a mistake.

It gets much trickier when the whistleblowing activity is about an illegal activity occuring on foreign land. All of this debate of course assumes rendition for purposes of torture is illegal. Given the fact that most of these cases involved picking up people in foreign countries before spiriting them away, to another different foreign country, the question becomes broader: Even if it is legal in America under some secret executive order; since all activity occurred in and on foriegn jurisdiction, was it illegal THERE?

The answer to this question, at least for the Western European captives, is definately yes. Not just the kidnapping, torture, cruel and inhumane treatment, lack of habeus corpus protections, etc… but also as a matter of treaty obligations. Another question, if the U.S. activity in this regard violates treaties held with the country we picked the person up in, does this treaty violation trump the secret executive order authorizing it, so that the executive order itself is null and void? It is well beyond my legal knowledge to give an opinion, but these questions need answered.

Foriegners and non- u.s. citizens generally have no protections whatsoever under the U.S. Constitution. So the renditioned person’s beef isn’t with the violation of their 4th amendment (or whatever amendment)constitutional rights. Its the violation of their rights as citizens of their own country. Think of the Italien example where arrests warrants were sent out for like 16 CIA personnel who kidnapped some poor guy off the street. They (the agents) are being sought for violating Italien/EU law. There is no legal defense to this activity in Italy by saying, “The U.S. Government okay’d it.” This activity isn’t occuring on U.S. soil, so it really doesn’t matter whether U.S. law did or didn’t authorize the activity in question. Assuming all host countries ban torture and kidnapping; the answer to the question is yes, its patently illegal.

Unfortunately, McCarthy’s leak to the press was also illegal. Which brings up whether she will be charged, since a trial could expose loads of juicy illegal activity authorized by the highest levels of our government. Maybe McCarthy knew they would at most fire her, since a trial would be too risky. Who knows. One thing is certain, she has the moral highground here.

green917,

“This distinction is precisely why we have a whistleblower statute!”

??? I’m not aware of any “whistleblower statute” that applies to federal employees.

90: ok, but the us constitution does not apply to foreigners on foreign lands. Sorry.
Ghostman

Ghostman, check out this article via FindLaw:
>>>>>>>

In conclusion, the CIA Gulag of detention camps spread around the globe violates numerous provisions of both domestic and international law. And the legal liability for these camps falls not just on CIA operatives, but on those Administration officials who have authorized or sanctioned these practices.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/c.....ergen.html

Ghostman at 86
The 4th Ammendment also includes Due Process protections.

As to why the secret prisons are illegal, this is an either/or issue.

Either these prisoners are prisoners of war and are entitled to a lot more than just Red Cross visits. They are entitled to have their whereabouts communicated to their home country, they are entitled to recieves mail and packages from family, they are entitled to have their internal military units preserved and to exert their own internal military discipline. They have lots of rights. Under law. US law.

If they are not prisoners of war. They are simply victims of kidnapping. Plain old, Lindburg baby, mafia hit coming soon type kidnapping. Everbody knows that’s a crime. Under US law.

No matter how you look at it, it’s a crime.

I will be interested to hear the chain of events that led to McCarthy speaking to the press. Did she raise her concerns internally? Did she go to the IG? If she got nowhere within her organization, would she next have had to go to the appropriate Congressional committee? Are we sure that there were not members of the House and/or Senate who were aware of these prisons or these practices? Is there any reason to think that the anger over the leaks wasn’t so much about the leaking, but about revealing who already knew about this stuff, and when they knew?

94 Ghostman

The crimes are not being committed by foreign nationals in foreign lands. They are being committed by members of the US government, some sitting on their keisters in DC, some playing deadly commando games all over the globe.

92: now THERE is a good explanation! Ok, I’m leaning more towards the idea that this stuff was, in fact, illegal. It probably violated the laws of SOME country.
Ghostman

Steve @ 12:08 pm (# ) - Clearly what Mary did was wrong and she lucky she did not go to jail.

Saying someth