Full Version: Libby points the finger at Cheney and Bush
There is breaking news in the Plame case this morning. You can check out the SF Chronicle for some details.
You can view Fitzgerald's full filing here (pdf).
For more on the depth of this you can check out this piece by Murray Waas.
We've had several discussions about this in the past, looks like my assessment here was dead on.
Questions for debate:
1. Will this investigation prove that the Bush administration, specifically Bush and Cheney, put their subordinates in play to discredit anyone who spoke out against the Iraq war using any means necessary?
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impreachment for Bush and Cheney?
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered with Republican scandal after scandal?
QUOTE
Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.
Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
You can view Fitzgerald's full filing here (pdf).
For more on the depth of this you can check out this piece by Murray Waas.
QUOTE
Although not reflected in the court papers, two senior government officials said in interviews with National Journal in recent days that Libby has also asserted that Cheney authorized him to leak classified information to a number of journalists during the run-up to war with Iraq. In some instances, the information leaked was directly discussed with the Vice President, while in other instances Libby believed he had broad authority to release information that would make the case to go to war. In yet another instance, Libby had claimed that President Bush authorized Libby to speak to and provide classified information to Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward for "Plan of Attack," a book written by Woodward about the run-up to the Iraqi war.
We've had several discussions about this in the past, looks like my assessment here was dead on.
Questions for debate:
1. Will this investigation prove that the Bush administration, specifically Bush and Cheney, put their subordinates in play to discredit anyone who spoke out against the Iraq war using any means necessary?
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impreachment for Bush and Cheney?
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered with Republican scandal after scandal?
1. Will this investigation prove that the Bush administration, specifically Bush and Cheney, put their subordinates in play to discredit anyone who spoke out against the Iraq war using any means necessary?
Actually, the court document do not say anything about discrediting anyone. They claim that Bush and Cheney authorized Libby to disclose certain portions of the NEI to bolster the case for war.
Notice what the Libby defense is:
Note that the Fitzgerald document you cite is a one-sided argument: they want to limit Libby's access to government documents that he says will aid in his defense. I don't know either way what those documents are or why he needs them, but the document you cite is the government's response to a motion. It is not unbiased as our judicial system is (as you know) adversarial.
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impeachment for Bush and Cheney?
Doubtful. In fact, this pretty much clears Cheney of any possibility of prosecution. The President is clearly allowed to disclose classified information. He is also authorized to give that authority to others. If the order came from the President, no wrong-doing is possible, by definition. Assuming that Libby isn't lying or mistaken and Bush backs his claim. Bush would not be politically free-and-clear, but legally he is in no danger. It all depends on if Bush backs this assertion by Libby (which he has not up to this point).
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered Republican scandal after scandal?
Ah yes, scandal after scandal. Culture of corruption. Republicans starving schoolchildren. Oh wait, that last one is no longer on the talking points memo.
I could be problematic, but then again Bush's personal endorsement isn't worth what it used to be. Clearly if this gains traction (not necessarily a certainty), few Congressmen will seek (or accept!) a Bush endorsement. But then again, that is already where the political game is these days.
So it will have some effect, but not a great one since no Congress people are involved in any way.
Actually, the court document do not say anything about discrediting anyone. They claim that Bush and Cheney authorized Libby to disclose certain portions of the NEI to bolster the case for war.
QUOTE(SF Chronicle)
There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.
QUOTE(SF Chronicle)
Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information."
Notice what the Libby defense is:
QUOTE
Libby says he needs extensive classified files from the government to demonstrate that Plame's CIA connection was a peripheral matter that he never focused on, and that the role of Wilson's wife was a small piece in a building public controversy over the failure to find WMD in Iraq.
Note that the Fitzgerald document you cite is a one-sided argument: they want to limit Libby's access to government documents that he says will aid in his defense. I don't know either way what those documents are or why he needs them, but the document you cite is the government's response to a motion. It is not unbiased as our judicial system is (as you know) adversarial.
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impeachment for Bush and Cheney?
Doubtful. In fact, this pretty much clears Cheney of any possibility of prosecution. The President is clearly allowed to disclose classified information. He is also authorized to give that authority to others. If the order came from the President, no wrong-doing is possible, by definition. Assuming that Libby isn't lying or mistaken and Bush backs his claim. Bush would not be politically free-and-clear, but legally he is in no danger. It all depends on if Bush backs this assertion by Libby (which he has not up to this point).
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered Republican scandal after scandal?
Ah yes, scandal after scandal. Culture of corruption. Republicans starving schoolchildren. Oh wait, that last one is no longer on the talking points memo.
I could be problematic, but then again Bush's personal endorsement isn't worth what it used to be. Clearly if this gains traction (not necessarily a certainty), few Congressmen will seek (or accept!) a Bush endorsement. But then again, that is already where the political game is these days.
So it will have some effect, but not a great one since no Congress people are involved in any way.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 6 2006, 10:50 AM)
Actually, the court document do not say anything about discrediting anyone. They claim that Bush and Cheney authorized Libby to disclose certain portions of the NEI to bolster the case for war.
Actually they do Amlord, if you re-read the article you'll see that. In his grand jury testimony he makes that claim. Now what I haven't seen yet is proof. But that is what discovery is for.
QUOTE
Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Last time I checked grand jury testimony was considered a court document.
Perhaps my reading skills aren't what they used to be... (I think my intelligence peaked at age 11 
).
I re-read the whole article and it never says Bush and/or Cheney authorized disclosing Plame's ID or using intelligence to discredit anyone. It says "pass on information" it is never more specific than that.
(I think my intelligence peaked at age 11 ).I re-read the whole article and it never says Bush and/or Cheney authorized disclosing Plame's ID or using intelligence to discredit anyone. It says "pass on information" it is never more specific than that.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 6 2006, 11:00 AM)
Perhaps my reading skills aren't what they used to be... (I think my intelligence peaked at age 11 ).
I re-read the whole article and it never says Bush and/or Cheney authorized disclosing Plame's ID or using intelligence to discredit anyone. It says "pass on information" it is never more specific than that.
(I think my intelligence peaked at age 11 ).I re-read the whole article and it never says Bush and/or Cheney authorized disclosing Plame's ID or using intelligence to discredit anyone. It says "pass on information" it is never more specific than that.
Once again... the title of this topic is.... "Libby points the finger at Cheny and Bush" I should think that is pretty clear.
The article then goes on to say:
QUOTE
Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Now we see that yes, Libby testified under oath that Cheney told him to pass on the information and that Bush was the one behind it. But of course that is Libby's version of things, even though it is under oath. That by the way is the only reason why there is even a debate here Amlord.
I then cited another article by Murray Waas which describes a much more broad disclosure of information for the purpose of destroying political rivals and those speaking out about the war.
The following questions were then asked:
1. Will this investigation prove that the Bush administration, specifically Bush and Cheney, put their subordinates in play to discredit anyone who spoke out against the Iraq war using any means necessary?
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impreachment for Bush and Cheney?
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered Republican scandal after scandal?
Notice in the first question we are asked to debate whether the investigation will prove Libby's story. You could approach that with speculation, you could cite evidence that Libby is lying or you could back it up. The second question depends on the answer to the first.
The third question is independent, the mere fact that this is in the news is damaging.
I am really at a loss as to where the miscommunication is here Amlord and why I'm having to make a debating 101 post. Do you think I said that this is definitive proof of someone's guilt? I didn't say that anywhere in the topic nor did I imply it.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Apr 6 2006, 09:52 AM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 6 2006, 10:50 AM)
Actually, the court document do not say anything about discrediting anyone. They claim that Bush and Cheney authorized Libby to disclose certain portions of the NEI to bolster the case for war.
Actually they do Amlord, if you re-read the article you'll see that. In his grand jury testimony he makes that claim. Now what I haven't seen yet is proof. But that is what discovery is for.
QUOTE
Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Last time I checked grand jury testimony was considered a court document.
As regards Plame, I have to agree with Amlord... Libby has never said that Bush/Cheney authorized him to leak Plame's identity to the media. He has said that Bush/Cheney authorized him to leak the NIE and possibly other information.
If it can be proven that Bush/Cheney authorized the disclosure of Plame's identity to the media, then I think there should be something done about that. I don't feel that the President should be able to leak a covert agent's name to the media thereby putting their life in danger – certainly not without informing them.
1. Will this investigation prove that the Bush administration, specifically Bush and Cheney, put their subordinates in play to discredit anyone who spoke out against the Iraq war using any means necessary?
Unfortunately, because Bush and Cheney used an underling to do their dirty work for them (i.e., physically meeting with, and giving the information to, the reporter) , chances are they will never have to pay a price for their actions.
Maybe Bush does have the authorization to declassify a document, but you’d think he’d let those agencies responsible for that declassification know about it (unless, of course, you’re only telling Scooter that it’s declassified for your own reasons).
(emphases mine)
Anyone who believes Scooter Libby was anything but a unwitting tool used by Bush-Cheney to discredit Wilson (and thus their stated reasons for going to war) and then tossed out like raw meat to the lions when investigations got a little too close for their comfort needs to read the whole document. The poor schlub is petitioning to have more documents available to his defense, and whaddya know, some of 'em are classified! It'd be funny if it weren't so damned sad.
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impreachment for Bush and Cheney?
Being as cynical as I am about this administration, I highly doubt it, unless the tide really begins to turn against the Bush-Cheney cabal, then I think the whole sordid bunch will come tumbling down at once. I believe we’re a ways away from that happening yet.
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered with Republican scandal after scandal?
Let’s hope voters’ memories about this last until November. I think there is a big push on by the Republicans to divest themselves of all the scandal-plagued figures among them now, so that people will forget by the time they go to the voting booth in the future.
Unfortunately, because Bush and Cheney used an underling to do their dirty work for them (i.e., physically meeting with, and giving the information to, the reporter) , chances are they will never have to pay a price for their actions.
QUOTE
Indeed, there exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant, 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. TSG
Maybe Bush does have the authorization to declassify a document, but you’d think he’d let those agencies responsible for that declassification know about it (unless, of course, you’re only telling Scooter that it’s declassified for your own reasons).
QUOTE
There is no reason to root around in the files of the NSC or CIA or State Department given that no one at any of those three agencies was aware of any declassification of the NIE prior to July 18, 2003. Since Mr. Hadley was involved in efforts to declassify what Mr. Libby testified had already been declassified, Mr. Hadley’s files will create confusion rather than providing context.
<snip>
As to the meeting on July 8, defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was “pretty definitive” against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was “very important” for the key judgments of the NIE to come out. Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. (ibid.
<snip>
As to the meeting on July 8, defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was “pretty definitive” against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the Vice President thought that it was “very important” for the key judgments of the NIE to come out. Defendant further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE. Defendant testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE. (ibid.
(emphases mine)
Anyone who believes Scooter Libby was anything but a unwitting tool used by Bush-Cheney to discredit Wilson (and thus their stated reasons for going to war) and then tossed out like raw meat to the lions when investigations got a little too close for their comfort needs to read the whole document. The poor schlub is petitioning to have more documents available to his defense, and whaddya know, some of 'em are classified! It'd be funny if it weren't so damned sad.
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impreachment for Bush and Cheney?
Being as cynical as I am about this administration, I highly doubt it, unless the tide really begins to turn against the Bush-Cheney cabal, then I think the whole sordid bunch will come tumbling down at once. I believe we’re a ways away from that happening yet.
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered with Republican scandal after scandal?
Let’s hope voters’ memories about this last until November. I think there is a big push on by the Republicans to divest themselves of all the scandal-plagued figures among them now, so that people will forget by the time they go to the voting booth in the future.
1. Will this investigation prove that the Bush administration, specifically Bush and Cheney, put their subordinates in play to discredit anyone who spoke out against the Iraq war using any means necessary?
It would certainly seem that way. We won't really know, though, until the investigation is concluded.
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impreachment for Bush and Cheney?
Unlikely - though that all depends on the 2006 election. In the event that the Republicans lose control of both houses of Congress, we might see the return of the rule of law in this country - but I doubt it.
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered with Republican scandal after scandal?
It could add another derailed boxcar to the train wreck that this administration has become, but it probably won't have enough impact on Congressional elections to matter.
POINT OF INFORMATION:
Huh? By whose definition? First, so far as I know, this whole "license to declassify" was created in Executive Order 13293, issued by President Bush on March 25, 2003. I think at least some might have a problem with a president issuing an order that says "I can do whatever I damned well please", then proceeding to do whatever they damned well please. This tends to be known as "autocracy". I realize, of course, that that is the way this administration has been operating since Day One, but does a president have the legal right to make the law up as s/he goes along??
Second (and I pointed this out in relation to Dick Cheney a couple of months ago without a single argument from the supporters of this adminstration), even if we accept Executive Order 13293 as the epitome of righteous lawmaking from the Oval Office, it would not give the president leave to declassify the NIE or anything else that he did not personally classify in the first place.
The three-year-old Executive Order specifies that declassification can only be effected by "the original classification authority". In other words, only the National Intelligence Board or the Director of Central Intelligence, as "the original classification authority", can declassify a National Intelligence Estimate. Period.
If the president or the vice president or anyone else wanted to declassify the NIE, a specific request for declassification would have had to have been made. If a specific request had been made for this document, under the Mandatory Declassification Review provisions of the Executive Order, review of declassification of the NIE is required to be made by the originating agency. There is no claim that this was done and no record of it having been done. Otherwise, classified information can only be declassified when the conditions set at the time of the classification are met. For National Intelligence Estimates, that would be twenty-five years after they are issued.
If there's some obscure bit of legislation somewhere - apart from this "law" written by the president himself (and which doesn't apply in any event) - that enables a Chief Executive to declassify the work of others, I have not been able to find it. As you are able to state as fact, Amlord, that "the President is clearly allowed to disclose classified information" (implying that this would include the documents in question), I am assuming that you are aware of such a statute. What is it?
If what Libby says is true, President Bush broke the law (even his own) and endangered national security and he should be censured, impeached, tried, found guilty, and imprisoned. Admittedly, this is relatively trivial compared to some of the other crimes of President Bush and his handlers, but the American people should rejoice at any opportunity to put this man where he belongs: out of office and behind bars.
It would certainly seem that way. We won't really know, though, until the investigation is concluded.
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impreachment for Bush and Cheney?
Unlikely - though that all depends on the 2006 election. In the event that the Republicans lose control of both houses of Congress, we might see the return of the rule of law in this country - but I doubt it.
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered with Republican scandal after scandal?
It could add another derailed boxcar to the train wreck that this administration has become, but it probably won't have enough impact on Congressional elections to matter.
POINT OF INFORMATION:
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 6 2006, 12:50 PM)
In fact, this pretty much clears Cheney of any possibility of prosecution. The President is clearly allowed to disclose classified information. He is also authorized to give that authority to others. If the order came from the President, no wrong-doing is possible, by definition.
Huh? By whose definition? First, so far as I know, this whole "license to declassify" was created in Executive Order 13293, issued by President Bush on March 25, 2003. I think at least some might have a problem with a president issuing an order that says "I can do whatever I damned well please", then proceeding to do whatever they damned well please. This tends to be known as "autocracy". I realize, of course, that that is the way this administration has been operating since Day One, but does a president have the legal right to make the law up as s/he goes along??
Second (and I pointed this out in relation to Dick Cheney a couple of months ago without a single argument from the supporters of this adminstration), even if we accept Executive Order 13293 as the epitome of righteous lawmaking from the Oval Office, it would not give the president leave to declassify the NIE or anything else that he did not personally classify in the first place.
The three-year-old Executive Order specifies that declassification can only be effected by "the original classification authority". In other words, only the National Intelligence Board or the Director of Central Intelligence, as "the original classification authority", can declassify a National Intelligence Estimate. Period.
If the president or the vice president or anyone else wanted to declassify the NIE, a specific request for declassification would have had to have been made. If a specific request had been made for this document, under the Mandatory Declassification Review provisions of the Executive Order, review of declassification of the NIE is required to be made by the originating agency. There is no claim that this was done and no record of it having been done. Otherwise, classified information can only be declassified when the conditions set at the time of the classification are met. For National Intelligence Estimates, that would be twenty-five years after they are issued.
If there's some obscure bit of legislation somewhere - apart from this "law" written by the president himself (and which doesn't apply in any event) - that enables a Chief Executive to declassify the work of others, I have not been able to find it. As you are able to state as fact, Amlord, that "the President is clearly allowed to disclose classified information" (implying that this would include the documents in question), I am assuming that you are aware of such a statute. What is it?
If what Libby says is true, President Bush broke the law (even his own) and endangered national security and he should be censured, impeached, tried, found guilty, and imprisoned. Admittedly, this is relatively trivial compared to some of the other crimes of President Bush and his handlers, but the American people should rejoice at any opportunity to put this man where he belongs: out of office and behind bars.
Two days after Wilson's op-ed, Libby met with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and not only disclosed portions of the NIE, but also Plame's CIA employment and potential role in her husband's trip.
Regarding that meeting, Libby "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance... to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller" because Vice President Cheney believed it to be "very important" to do so, the court papers filed Wednesday said. The New York Sun reported the court filing on its Web site early Thursday.
Libby "further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE," the court papers said. Libby "testified that the Vice President had advised [Libby] that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose relevant portions of the NIE."
This clearly implicates Cheney, but does not explicitly implicate Bush, as it sounds as though Bush did not directly order the exclosure of Plames identity. It instead says that Bush gave a broad order, which was assumed to make the leak the legal.
Regarding that meeting, Libby "testified that he was specifically authorized in advance... to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller" because Vice President Cheney believed it to be "very important" to do so, the court papers filed Wednesday said. The New York Sun reported the court filing on its Web site early Thursday.
Libby "further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE," the court papers said. Libby "testified that the Vice President had advised [Libby] that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose relevant portions of the NIE."
This clearly implicates Cheney, but does not explicitly implicate Bush, as it sounds as though Bush did not directly order the exclosure of Plames identity. It instead says that Bush gave a broad order, which was assumed to make the leak the legal.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Apr 6 2006, 04:31 PM)
QUOTE
Libby "further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE," the court papers said. Libby "testified that the Vice President had advised [Libby] that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose relevant portions of the NIE."[/i]
As Wertz so eloquently pointed out above, even the President cannot just "authorize" the release of classified information that 1) he didn't classify and 2) without review.
It seems like a lot of the misunderstandings lately are about Presidential power and people attributing things to that office which are simply not there, and for good reason.
Edited to add: Actually there is a good article on Truth out right now.
QUOTE
Attorneys and current and former White House officials close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson said Thursday that President Bush gave Vice President Dick Cheney the authorization in mid-June 2003 to disclose a portion of the highly sensitive National Intelligence Estimate to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
These current and former White House officials are among the 36 witnesses who have testified before a grand jury and have been cooperating with the special counsel's probe since its inception.
~snip~
The officials, some of whom are attorneys close to the case, added that more than two dozen emails that the vice president's office said it recently discovered and handed over to leak investigators in February show that President Bush was kept up to date about the circumstances surrounding the effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
The sources indicated that the leak probe is now winding down, and that soon, new information will emerge from the special counsel's office that will prove President Bush had prior knowledge of the White House campaign to discredit Plame Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of "twisting" intelligence on the Iraqi threat in order to win public support for the war.
The new information that surfaced late Wednesday places President Bush at the center of the probe for the first time since the investigation into the leak began more than two years ago and raises new questions as to whether Bush knew in advance the lengths to which senior White House officials went to discredit Wilson.
These current and former White House officials are among the 36 witnesses who have testified before a grand jury and have been cooperating with the special counsel's probe since its inception.
~snip~
The officials, some of whom are attorneys close to the case, added that more than two dozen emails that the vice president's office said it recently discovered and handed over to leak investigators in February show that President Bush was kept up to date about the circumstances surrounding the effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
The sources indicated that the leak probe is now winding down, and that soon, new information will emerge from the special counsel's office that will prove President Bush had prior knowledge of the White House campaign to discredit Plame Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of "twisting" intelligence on the Iraqi threat in order to win public support for the war.
The new information that surfaced late Wednesday places President Bush at the center of the probe for the first time since the investigation into the leak began more than two years ago and raises new questions as to whether Bush knew in advance the lengths to which senior White House officials went to discredit Wilson.
If I'm reading that right that means that Fitzgerald has proof, aside from Libby's testimony, that Bush and Cheney were behind this. Specifically 36 other witnesses and an email trail.
I really can't add much here except for Greg Sargent's article further elaborating on Waas' article.
AMlord, the article provides three main points which I want you to consider;
It's already known that some administration officials had pre-invasion doubts about the tubes, and that Bush more or less was told about those doubts. But Waas’s discovery, presuming he's right, is a big step forward. It constitutes concrete proof of those doubts -- and concrete proof of the extent to which Bush had been informed of these doubts before the invasion.
That leads to the second, equally important point. Waas also reports that Rove thought as early as the summer of 2003 that the document was radioactive enough to potentially destroy Bush's re-election chances. Waas adds that Bush advisers thought that if doubts about the tubes came out, it would be much harder to shield Bush from criticism for them than it was for the uranium tale -- because there apparently existed hard evidence that the president had been told of those doubts.
Now fast forward to early 2004. That’s when Libby testified before the Plame grand jury. Patrick Fitzgerald’s indictment alleges that Libby lied about how and when he learned Plame’s identity and disclosed information about her to reporters. Rove, too, misled the grand jury by failing to mention a conversation with a reporter about Plame. (Rove subsequently disclosed it, but only after a discovered e-mail jogged his memory. Libby has pled innocent, and Rove wasn’t indicted, though he reportedly remains under investigation).
To me the Plame affair represents an incovenient momentl of truth at a sensitive time. Information was suppressed for election purposes, purposes which I feel were dubious at best.
AMlord, the article provides three main points which I want you to consider;
QUOTE
It's already known that some administration officials had pre-invasion doubts about the tubes, and that Bush more or less was told about those doubts. But Waas’s discovery, presuming he's right, is a big step forward. It constitutes concrete proof of those doubts -- and concrete proof of the extent to which Bush had been informed of these doubts before the invasion.
That leads to the second, equally important point. Waas also reports that Rove thought as early as the summer of 2003 that the document was radioactive enough to potentially destroy Bush's re-election chances. Waas adds that Bush advisers thought that if doubts about the tubes came out, it would be much harder to shield Bush from criticism for them than it was for the uranium tale -- because there apparently existed hard evidence that the president had been told of those doubts.
Now fast forward to early 2004. That’s when Libby testified before the Plame grand jury. Patrick Fitzgerald’s indictment alleges that Libby lied about how and when he learned Plame’s identity and disclosed information about her to reporters. Rove, too, misled the grand jury by failing to mention a conversation with a reporter about Plame. (Rove subsequently disclosed it, but only after a discovered e-mail jogged his memory. Libby has pled innocent, and Rove wasn’t indicted, though he reportedly remains under investigation).
To me the Plame affair represents an incovenient momentl of truth at a sensitive time. Information was suppressed for election purposes, purposes which I feel were dubious at best.
Sargent's article is an interesting read. However, his interpretation of events are certainly not the only interpretation of events. I think he puts too much weight on certain facts:
First off, I don't think Bush would have feared the revelation of the fact that two "intelligence" agencies disagreed with the aluminum-tubes-as-a-nuclear-weapon-program-element theory.
Hadley was the Deputy National Security Advisor (Rice's right hand man). When it says he was concerned the public might learn of dissent, I don't think his concern was political (although what in Washington isn't political?). It is likely he thought that the dissent would be over-emphasized, reducing the credibility of the other agencies (CIA, DIA, etc.) that did view the aluminum tubes as a nuclear weapon component.
Most likely, Bush would lean on the "most agencies judge" angle to dislodge any traction the "two agencies believe the tubes are for conventional weapons" angle. Add the fact that the dissenting agencies did believe they were for weapons (in this case, long range missiles) and Bush could have dodged that fairly easily. For instance, surely Colin Powell saw the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence report and yet he went before the UN. I don't think many people view the Department of Energy as an intelligence branch (even though they do have a good deal of responsibility in non-proliferation matters, at least according to their website.
An August 2004 pollshowed that 2/3 of Americans felt the war against Iraq was based on false assumptions. Yet Bush was re-elected less than 3 months later. According to that article, pollees say that the Senate investigations and the 9/11 commission report were contributing factors to that. So when Sargent dismisses the impact of Pat Roberts investigation, I am left wondering how much of this is wishful thinking.
Further proof of my alternate theory is the general lack of outrage when it was revealed that Saddam had no nuclear program and the aluminum tubes were for conventional weapons.
What I always come back to is George Tenet's "slam dunk" assertion. Tenet was supposed to be the most-informed man on this issue and he claimed it was a slam dunk that Saddam had WMDs. As it turns out, he was wrong not only about that but about a great many things. It's unfortunate, but we can't go back and change the past.
The tie-in with the Plame thing is tenuous at best. Joe Wilson could have been (and was) easily discredited without bringing his wife into it. It could have been done on the merits. In fact, even according to Libby there was no emphasis on Plame's identity: it was an aside that was blown out of proportions. Since even Libby did not consider Plame's identity important to discrediting Wilson (if that was a goal, Libby has never said it was) or explaining the "let's go to war" drive then why should we assume that it was?
First off, I don't think Bush would have feared the revelation of the fact that two "intelligence" agencies disagreed with the aluminum-tubes-as-a-nuclear-weapon-program-element theory.
QUOTE
Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although “most agencies judge” that the aluminum tubes were “related to a uranium enrichment effort,” the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch “believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons.”
Hadley was the Deputy National Security Advisor (Rice's right hand man). When it says he was concerned the public might learn of dissent, I don't think his concern was political (although what in Washington isn't political?). It is likely he thought that the dissent would be over-emphasized, reducing the credibility of the other agencies (CIA, DIA, etc.) that did view the aluminum tubes as a nuclear weapon component.
Most likely, Bush would lean on the "most agencies judge" angle to dislodge any traction the "two agencies believe the tubes are for conventional weapons" angle. Add the fact that the dissenting agencies did believe they were for weapons (in this case, long range missiles) and Bush could have dodged that fairly easily. For instance, surely Colin Powell saw the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence report and yet he went before the UN. I don't think many people view the Department of Energy as an intelligence branch (even though they do have a good deal of responsibility in non-proliferation matters, at least according to their website.
An August 2004 pollshowed that 2/3 of Americans felt the war against Iraq was based on false assumptions. Yet Bush was re-elected less than 3 months later. According to that article, pollees say that the Senate investigations and the 9/11 commission report were contributing factors to that. So when Sargent dismisses the impact of Pat Roberts investigation, I am left wondering how much of this is wishful thinking.
Further proof of my alternate theory is the general lack of outrage when it was revealed that Saddam had no nuclear program and the aluminum tubes were for conventional weapons.
What I always come back to is George Tenet's "slam dunk" assertion. Tenet was supposed to be the most-informed man on this issue and he claimed it was a slam dunk that Saddam had WMDs. As it turns out, he was wrong not only about that but about a great many things. It's unfortunate, but we can't go back and change the past.
The tie-in with the Plame thing is tenuous at best. Joe Wilson could have been (and was) easily discredited without bringing his wife into it. It could have been done on the merits. In fact, even according to Libby there was no emphasis on Plame's identity: it was an aside that was blown out of proportions. Since even Libby did not consider Plame's identity important to discrediting Wilson (if that was a goal, Libby has never said it was) or explaining the "let's go to war" drive then why should we assume that it was?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 7 2006, 06:32 AM)
The tie-in with the Plame thing is tenuous at best. Joe Wilson could have been (and was) easily discredited without bringing his wife into it. It could have been done on the merits. In fact, even according to Libby there was no emphasis on Plame's identity: it was an aside that was blown out of proportions. Since even Libby did not consider Plame's identity important to discrediting Wilson (if that was a goal, Libby has never said it was) or explaining the "let's go to war" drive then why should we assume that it was?
Sure he might have been discredited simply based on using facts but that would require fair play for the administration Amlord. Now what in the last 6 years has lead you to believe that they do anything other than go for the jugular and hit below the belt in a political fight? They don't know how to play fair.
All you have to do is look at the dissenters and then look at the actions the administration took to destroy and punish them afterwards. That's what we call a pattern.
But all that aside, the evidence is pointing toward Bush and Cheney being responsible for the leak. You disagree, where is your evidence?
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 6 2006, 05:01 PM)
POINT OF INFORMATION:
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 6 2006, 12:50 PM)
In fact, this pretty much clears Cheney of any possibility of prosecution. The President is clearly allowed to disclose classified information. He is also authorized to give that authority to others. If the order came from the President, no wrong-doing is possible, by definition.
Huh? By whose definition? First, so far as I know, this whole "license to declassify" was created in Executive Order 13293, issued by President Bush on March 25, 2003. I think at least some might have a problem with a president issuing an order that says "I can do whatever I damned well please", then proceeding to do whatever they damned well please. This tends to be known as "autocracy". I realize, of course, that that is the way this administration has been operating since Day One, but does a president have the legal right to make the law up as s/he goes along??
Second (and I pointed this out in relation to Dick Cheney a couple of months ago without a single argument from the supporters of this adminstration), even if we accept Executive Order 13293 as the epitome of righteous lawmaking from the Oval Office, it would not give the president leave to declassify the NIE or anything else that he did not personally classify in the first place.
The three-year-old Executive Order specifies that declassification can only be effected by "the original classification authority". In other words, only the National Intelligence Board or the Director of Central Intelligence, as "the original classification authority", can declassify a National Intelligence Estimate. Period.
If the president or the vice president or anyone else wanted to declassify the NIE, a specific request for declassification would have had to have been made. If a specific request had been made for this document, under the Mandatory Declassification Review provisions of the Executive Order, review of declassification of the NIE is required to be made by the originating agency. There is no claim that this was done and no record of it having been done. Otherwise, classified information can only be declassified when the conditions set at the time of the classification are met. For National Intelligence Estimates, that would be twenty-five years after they are issued.
If there's some obscure bit of legislation somewhere - apart from this "law" written by the president himself (and which doesn't apply in any event) - that enables a Chief Executive to declassify the work of others, I have not been able to find it. As you are able to state as fact, Amlord, that "the President is clearly allowed to disclose classified information" (implying that this would include the documents in question), I am assuming that you are aware of such a statute. What is it?
If what Libby says is true, President Bush broke the law (even his own) and endangered national security and he should be censured, impeached, tried, found guilty, and imprisoned. Admittedly, this is relatively trivial compared to some of the other crimes of President Bush and his handlers, but the American people should rejoice at any opportunity to put this man where he belongs: out of office and behind bars.
Let me address this point. All power in the Executive branch is derived directly from the power of the Presidency. The executive branch is, for all practical purposes, simply a delegation of the President's powers to others. There is no mention in the Constitution of the "Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs" (the person that Executive Order 13292 designates as the person to which appeals are directed regarding classifications). That is a power of the President and he is delegating someone else the authority to handle it. The President can, at any time for any reason, assert his inherent authority which he has designated to others. To put it plainly, if the Chief Executive (or indeed, any of his subordinates) has delegated power to another, he himself can also exercise that power.
Thus, if the "original classifying authority" can declassify a document, so can the President because the power to declassify comes from the President.
In this context, if the President decides to declassify something, then it is declassified.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Sure he might have been discredited simply based on using facts but that would require fair play for the administration Amlord. Now what in the last 6 years has lead you to believe that they do anything other than go for the jugular and hit below the belt in a political fight? They don't know how to play fair.
All you have to do is look at the dissenters and then look at the actions the administration took to destroy and punish them afterwards. That's what we call a pattern.
All you have to do is look at the dissenters and then look at the actions the administration took to destroy and punish them afterwards. That's what we call a pattern.
If this were true, then we'd have a bloody floor of Congress. Congress opposed Bush on Social Security reform, immigration reform, and countless other issues. I don't see any political blood being spilled over that.
What we really have is an overemphasis of certain occurences which may or may not indicate a pattern. Has there been a smearing of John Murtha by Bush? What about Cindy Sheehan? Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
But all that aside, the evidence is pointing toward Bush and Cheney being responsible for the leak. You disagree, where is your evidence?
I never disagreed with that. Apparently you don't understand my position at all.
Libby is asserting that Bush authorized the leak of the NIE. I said it is hard to prove unless Bush (or perhaps Cheney) backs Libby's account. If Bush stays silent, Libby might be toast. I don't know what Bush will do. Libby is unlikely to hit trial before the elections, especially if the court grants his motion for extended discovery. Bush may stay silent as long as possible and then "ride to the rescue" at the end. Who knows?
Hi all and apologies for jumping right in after a lengthy debating sabbatical... but as a die-hard Bush apologist, I couldn't resist! 
1. Will this investigation prove that the Bush administration, specifically Bush and Cheney, put their subordinates in play to discredit anyone who spoke out against the Iraq war using any means necessary?
Let me try and mimic the phrasing above to bring some perspective.
Will this investigation prove that Joe Wilson and other mid-level operatives at CIA and State, put classified information and their own spin in play with a cooperative press to discredit anyone in the Executive Branch who dared MAKE AND DIRECT POLICY that disagreed with their worldview, undermining the US effort in Iraq by any means necessary?
Well, yes.
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impreachment for Bush and Cheney?
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered with Republican scandal after scandal?
I see Foggy Bottom and people like Joe Wilson spinning their version of events, and I wonder why that isn't a scandal. Certainly it serves the country well to have such an arrogant, anti-administration, gratutiously gay-bashing** jerk like Wilson discredited, but that is not a scandal, it's just good politics. This whole thing goes back to the fact that State and CIA resent someone coming in a setting policy. The President was elected twice and they still can't get over it. He gets to set the policy, yet they leak and obstruct and write books and go on CNN and it's insufferable. I actually heard a State guy say yesterday something like "Can you imagine the elected President deciding what and when to de-classify?" Well, yeah, and he hires and fires your boss' boss' boss too!
** Joe Wilson on Daily Kos - "You know when they first started trying to come up with a way to discredit me, which we now know started in March of 2003, they went through the old standbys. "He's had 3 wives, he's a womanizer, he's done drugs." But then they realized they couldn't use those because I've never actually denied them. I mean I'm the first to admit that, unlike Ken Mehlman and David Dreier, I really like women"
Bush is the CEO of the Executive Branch. Just who do you think appoints the DCI? If Bush says "release it" then it is no longer classified. Classified from whom?
There was no leak. Except for Wilson leaking his trip to Niger and mischaracterizing his findings and the NIE, for which the Senate Sub-committee admonished him and he had to correct himself. Remember Joe "I saw that the (yellow cake) documents were forgeries" and the subcommittee had to remind him that, no Joe, you never saw those documents because we didn't have them yet...
As Wertz so eloquently pointed out above, even the President cannot just "authorize" the release of classified information that 1) he didn't classify and 2) without review.
It seems like a lot of the misunderstandings lately are about Presidential power and people attributing things to that office which are simply not there, and for good reason.
Executive Branch
-------------------------------
The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government.
Which "leak" are you referring to here? Plame's identity or the release of the NIE?
The NIE "Consensus Intelligence Estimate" from November 2002 was declassified and posted in the Congressional Record by July of 2003. It's
right here. If you read it, you'll remember that all of our intelligence agencies thought that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons and was intent on developing nuclear weapons, yada yada yada.
1. Will this investigation prove that the Bush administration, specifically Bush and Cheney, put their subordinates in play to discredit anyone who spoke out against the Iraq war using any means necessary?
Let me try and mimic the phrasing above to bring some perspective.
Will this investigation prove that Joe Wilson and other mid-level operatives at CIA and State, put classified information and their own spin in play with a cooperative press to discredit anyone in the Executive Branch who dared MAKE AND DIRECT POLICY that disagreed with their worldview, undermining the US effort in Iraq by any means necessary?
Well, yes.
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impreachment for Bush and Cheney?
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered with Republican scandal after scandal?
I see Foggy Bottom and people like Joe Wilson spinning their version of events, and I wonder why that isn't a scandal. Certainly it serves the country well to have such an arrogant, anti-administration, gratutiously gay-bashing** jerk like Wilson discredited, but that is not a scandal, it's just good politics. This whole thing goes back to the fact that State and CIA resent someone coming in a setting policy. The President was elected twice and they still can't get over it. He gets to set the policy, yet they leak and obstruct and write books and go on CNN and it's insufferable. I actually heard a State guy say yesterday something like "Can you imagine the elected President deciding what and when to de-classify?" Well, yeah, and he hires and fires your boss' boss' boss too!
** Joe Wilson on Daily Kos - "You know when they first started trying to come up with a way to discredit me, which we now know started in March of 2003, they went through the old standbys. "He's had 3 wives, he's a womanizer, he's done drugs." But then they realized they couldn't use those because I've never actually denied them. I mean I'm the first to admit that, unlike Ken Mehlman and David Dreier, I really like women"
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 6 2006, 03:01 PM)
POINT OF INFORMATION:
Huh? By whose definition? First, so far as I know, this whole "license to declassify" was created in Executive Order 13293, issued by President Bush on March 25, 2003. I think at least some might have a problem with a president issuing an order that says "I can do whatever I damned well please", then proceeding to do whatever they damned well please. This tends to be known as "autocracy". I realize, of course, that that is the way this administration has been operating since Day One, but does a president have the legal right to make the law up as s/he goes along??
Second (and I pointed this out in relation to Dick Cheney a couple of months ago without a single argument from the supporters of this adminstration), even if we accept Executive Order 13293 as the epitome of righteous lawmaking from the Oval Office, it would not give the president leave to declassify the NIE or anything else that he did not personally classify in the first place.
The three-year-old Executive Order specifies that declassification can only be effected by "the original classification authority". In other words, only the National Intelligence Board or the Director of Central Intelligence, as "the original classification authority", can declassify a National Intelligence Estimate. Period.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 6 2006, 12:50 PM)
In fact, this pretty much clears Cheney of any possibility of prosecution. The President is clearly allowed to disclose classified information. He is also authorized to give that authority to others. If the order came from the President, no wrong-doing is possible, by definition.
Huh? By whose definition? First, so far as I know, this whole "license to declassify" was created in Executive Order 13293, issued by President Bush on March 25, 2003. I think at least some might have a problem with a president issuing an order that says "I can do whatever I damned well please", then proceeding to do whatever they damned well please. This tends to be known as "autocracy". I realize, of course, that that is the way this administration has been operating since Day One, but does a president have the legal right to make the law up as s/he goes along??
Second (and I pointed this out in relation to Dick Cheney a couple of months ago without a single argument from the supporters of this adminstration), even if we accept Executive Order 13293 as the epitome of righteous lawmaking from the Oval Office, it would not give the president leave to declassify the NIE or anything else that he did not personally classify in the first place.
The three-year-old Executive Order specifies that declassification can only be effected by "the original classification authority". In other words, only the National Intelligence Board or the Director of Central Intelligence, as "the original classification authority", can declassify a National Intelligence Estimate. Period.
Bush is the CEO of the Executive Branch. Just who do you think appoints the DCI? If Bush says "release it" then it is no longer classified. Classified from whom?
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Apr 6 2006, 05:31 PM)
<snip>
This clearly implicates Cheney, but does not explicitly implicate Bush, as it sounds as though Bush did not directly order the exclosure of Plames identity. It instead says that Bush gave a broad order, which was assumed to make the leak the legal.
This clearly implicates Cheney, but does not explicitly implicate Bush, as it sounds as though Bush did not directly order the exclosure of Plames identity. It instead says that Bush gave a broad order, which was assumed to make the leak the legal.
There was no leak. Except for Wilson leaking his trip to Niger and mischaracterizing his findings and the NIE, for which the Senate Sub-committee admonished him and he had to correct himself. Remember Joe "I saw that the (yellow cake) documents were forgeries" and the subcommittee had to remind him that, no Joe, you never saw those documents because we didn't have them yet...
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Apr 6 2006, 05:44 PM)
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Apr 6 2006, 04:31 PM)
QUOTE
Libby "further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE," the court papers said. Libby "testified that the Vice President had advised [Libby] that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose relevant portions of the NIE."[/i]
As Wertz so eloquently pointed out above, even the President cannot just "authorize" the release of classified information that 1) he didn't classify and 2) without review.
It seems like a lot of the misunderstandings lately are about Presidential power and people attributing things to that office which are simply not there, and for good reason.
Executive Branch
-------------------------------
The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Apr 7 2006, 10:46 AM)
But all that aside, the evidence is pointing toward Bush and Cheney being responsible for the leak. You disagree, where is your evidence?
Which "leak" are you referring to here? Plame's identity or the release of the NIE?
The NIE "Consensus Intelligence Estimate" from November 2002 was declassified and posted in the Congressional Record by July of 2003. It's
right here. If you read it, you'll remember that all of our intelligence agencies thought that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons and was intent on developing nuclear weapons, yada yada yada.
Ahhh....the party of principle....
It looks like this entire issue just died from a legal standpoint. It seems clear that President Hillary Clinton can and will declassify national security documents for political purposes - just like Bush.
Cannot one republican with an ounce of sense see the damage this is doing to our country? Now Gonzalez has stated President Russ Fiengold can tap domestic phone calls without a warrant.
To all you Bush apologists - thanks for nothing. Really.
It looks like this entire issue just died from a legal standpoint. It seems clear that President Hillary Clinton can and will declassify national security documents for political purposes - just like Bush.
Cannot one republican with an ounce of sense see the damage this is doing to our country? Now Gonzalez has stated President Russ Fiengold can tap domestic phone calls without a warrant.
To all you Bush apologists - thanks for nothing. Really.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Apr 7 2006, 03:12 PM)
Ahhh....the party of principle....
It looks like this entire issue just died from a legal standpoint. It seems clear that President Hillary Clinton can and will declassify national security documents for political purposes - just like Bush.
Cannot one republican with an ounce of sense see the damage this is doing to our country? Now Gonzalez has stated President Russ Fiengold can tap domestic phone calls without a warrant.
To all you Bush apologists - thanks for nothing. Really.
It looks like this entire issue just died from a legal standpoint. It seems clear that President Hillary Clinton can and will declassify national security documents for political purposes - just like Bush.
Cannot one republican with an ounce of sense see the damage this is doing to our country? Now Gonzalez has stated President Russ Fiengold can tap domestic phone calls without a warrant.
To all you Bush apologists - thanks for nothing. Really.
Thanks for answering the Questions for debate.
Wiretapping is a separate issue. You might want to address that concern in the appropriate thread.
And if you look at the criteria for declassification of documents the standard is whether or not the good stemming from public knowledge of the contents of the document outweighs the national security implications. The particular language is:
QUOTE(EO 13292)
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.
In this particular case, Bush felt that the public had a right to know the basis from which they were operating (i.e. the National Intelligence Estimate) before we went to war. I guess you disagree. I always felt that more information was better than less information.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 7 2006, 03:03 PM)
Thanks for answering the Questions for debate.
Uh....I guess "It looks like this entire issue just died from a legal standpoint." had nothing to do with the question(s). No wonder it's so easy for you to beleive Bush just did the public a favor by doing the following:
1. Declassified the NIE "for the good of the country".
2. Only told Judy Miller
3. Allowed Miller to go to jail to protect the identity of the person dispensing "legal" unclassified information.
4. Allowed the CIA - completely unaware - to ask for an investigation for outing a NOC
5. Tell the public 8 times - it's a leak and the person responsible will be "dealt with".
6. Allow Libby to get indicted for lying about what seems to be a legal action and is forced to resign in disgrace.
It's no wonder Bush gets away with what he does. D.U.H.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Apr 7 2006, 12:04 PM)
Which "leak" are you referring to here? Plame's identity or the release of the NIE?
Well both Carlito, this thread is specifically related to the Plame matter but also the more broad matter of the executive branch leaking classified information in order to achieve their political goals.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
The NIE "Consensus Intelligence Estimate" from November 2002 was declassified and posted in the Congressional Record by July of 2003. It's
right here. If you read it, you'll remember that all of our intelligence agencies thought that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons and was intent on developing nuclear weapons, yada yada yada.
right here. If you read it, you'll remember that all of our intelligence agencies thought that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons and was intent on developing nuclear weapons, yada yada yada.
Yep, but allow me to refer you to a blogger who has already shown that key parts of this got out in public via Judy Miller a month before Congress even say it and it was declassified - link
Go read the whole thing but here is one example:
QUOTE
National Intelligence Estimate- Key Judgments. Created in October 2002, declassified on July 18th, 2003.
* Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.
* Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.
QUOTE
From Judith Miller and Michael Gordon's article U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts . Published September 8, 2002.
The Central Intelligence Agency still says it would take Iraq five to seven years to make a nuclear weapon if it must produce its own supply of highly enriched uranium for a bomb, an administration official said.
The Central Intelligence Agency still says it would take Iraq five to seven years to make a nuclear weapon if it must produce its own supply of highly enriched uranium for a bomb, an administration official said.
Gee you notice the very specific details from this report coming out in the open here a month before? You also notice that they support the administration's case for war and that they are using one of our favorite reporters involved in this - Judy Miller?
If anyone can seriously deny the accusations outright, as you have done Carlito, then they are truely living in a fantasy world. The only real question here is how high this scandal goes. Was it senior level staff trying to back the administration or was it the administration themselves. There are mountains of evidence showing there was a leak, to deny it at this point is just crazy.
The President is clearly allowed to disclose classified information.
Lawyers argue over that, and I wouldn't be so hasty as to declare it a certainty, and I know for a fact, that the exact crime of leaking the identity of an undercover agent is illegal. Cheney ordered just that, and Libby carried out just that. The President does not have the legal power to make it so that people can break the law without being prosecuted.
He is also authorized to give that authority to others.
Once more, this is arguable. A great many would say Bush broke the law.
If the order came from the President, no wrong-doing is possible, by definition.
The President is not god, and he does not dictate morality. Even with all of these legality questions aside, murder is wrong, and the president cannot change that. Since her death was known to be a foregone conclusion when the information was released, this can't be described as anything other then murder.
Lawyers argue over that, and I wouldn't be so hasty as to declare it a certainty, and I know for a fact, that the exact crime of leaking the identity of an undercover agent is illegal. Cheney ordered just that, and Libby carried out just that. The President does not have the legal power to make it so that people can break the law without being prosecuted.
He is also authorized to give that authority to others.
Once more, this is arguable. A great many would say Bush broke the law.
If the order came from the President, no wrong-doing is possible, by definition.
The President is not god, and he does not dictate morality. Even with all of these legality questions aside, murder is wrong, and the president cannot change that. Since her death was known to be a foregone conclusion when the information was released, this can't be described as anything other then murder.
On CNN today I saw White House press secretary Scott McClellan trying to back away from the terms "leak" and "declassify" regarding the actions of the Bush administration. It reminded me of a former president who, during testimony, stated, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." The press and notably Republicans had a field day with Clinton and that statement. And it only had to do with Clinton lying about his shenanigans with Monica Lewinsky, not NATIONAL SECURITY.
Why would L. "Scooter" Libby leak intelligence information if he wasn't directed to by his superior(s)? I tend to believe him. He's in trouble, but he should not be the only one in trouble over this.
Aren't we lucky to have Super President W? Who else could or would declassify secrets to release them without checking with intelligence agencies, authorize domestic wiretaps without bothering to have the warrants approved by the FISA court, cherry-pick the intelligence that the American people are entitled to know before invading a non-belligerent country and before a national election, and then say he would fire anyone in his administration who leaked classified information? Who needs a lawmaking branch of government when we have such an obviously capable man at the helm to decide for us what laws to follow and which ones to ignore?
As the man himself once said:
Why would L. "Scooter" Libby leak intelligence information if he wasn't directed to by his superior(s)? I tend to believe him. He's in trouble, but he should not be the only one in trouble over this.
Aren't we lucky to have Super President W? Who else could or would declassify secrets to release them without checking with intelligence agencies, authorize domestic wiretaps without bothering to have the warrants approved by the FISA court, cherry-pick the intelligence that the American people are entitled to know before invading a non-belligerent country and before a national election, and then say he would fire anyone in his administration who leaked classified information? Who needs a lawmaking branch of government when we have such an obviously capable man at the helm to decide for us what laws to follow and which ones to ignore?
As the man himself once said:
QUOTE
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
--President-Elect George W. Bush, CNN, transcript of December 18, 2000
--President-Elect George W. Bush, CNN, transcript of December 18, 2000
Let's try to keep a little perspective, shall we?
Executive orders are simply a formal way of expressing how things are going to get done. In other words, they specify how the President's authority is delegated to others. The President retains all the powers granted by the Constitution even if he delegates them to others.
Then where does the President get the authority to issue Executive Orders in the first place?
I agree with you. The President is not God, not even close. He also does not dictate morality. The President does not have the power to change laws and certainly does not have the authority to murder anyone.
I wasn't aware the Valerie Plame had been killed. Got a link?
If Plame's death was a foregone conclusion I guess it's just one more thing the Bush administration was wrong about.
As for whether or not how Bush, Cheney and Libby handled the disclosure of the NIE, maybe it could have been handled better. The information was a key to the decision making process and the justification for war and thus the public good of its release outweighed the national security implications. It still remains unclear whether or not Bush (or Cheney) authorized the release of Plame's name. Indeed, it is still unclear whether her name was classified. That matter is still to be resolved. It may never be, however, since the charges do not stem from that relevant fact.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Apr 7 2006, 04:44 PM)
The President is clearly allowed to disclose classified information.
Lawyers argue over that, and I wouldn't be so hasty as to declare it a certainty, and I know for a fact, that the exact crime of leaking the identity of an undercover agent is illegal. Cheney ordered just that, and Libby carried out just that. The President does not have the legal power to make it so that people can break the law without being prosecuted.
Lawyers argue over that, and I wouldn't be so hasty as to declare it a certainty, and I know for a fact, that the exact crime of leaking the identity of an undercover agent is illegal. Cheney ordered just that, and Libby carried out just that. The President does not have the legal power to make it so that people can break the law without being prosecuted.
Executive orders are simply a formal way of expressing how things are going to get done. In other words, they specify how the President's authority is delegated to others. The President retains all the powers granted by the Constitution even if he delegates them to others.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Apr 7 2006, 04:44 PM)
He is also authorized to give that authority to others.
Once more, this is arguable. A great many would say Bush broke the law.
Once more, this is arguable. A great many would say Bush broke the law.
Then where does the President get the authority to issue Executive Orders in the first place?
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Apr 7 2006, 04:44 PM)
If the order came from the President, no wrong-doing is possible, by definition.
The President is not god, and he does not dictate morality. Even with all of these legality questions aside, murder is wrong, and the president cannot change that. Since her death was known to be a foregone conclusion when the information was released, this can't be described as anything other then murder.
The President is not god, and he does not dictate morality. Even with all of these legality questions aside, murder is wrong, and the president cannot change that. Since her death was known to be a foregone conclusion when the information was released, this can't be described as anything other then murder.
I agree with you. The President is not God, not even close. He also does not dictate morality. The President does not have the power to change laws and certainly does not have the authority to murder anyone.
I wasn't aware the Valerie Plame had been killed. Got a link?
If Plame's death was a foregone conclusion I guess it's just one more thing the Bush administration was wrong about.As for whether or not how Bush, Cheney and Libby handled the disclosure of the NIE, maybe it could have been handled better. The information was a key to the decision making process and the justification for war and thus the public good of its release outweighed the national security implications. It still remains unclear whether or not Bush (or Cheney) authorized the release of Plame's name. Indeed, it is still unclear whether her name was classified. That matter is still to be resolved. It may never be, however, since the charges do not stem from that relevant fact.
1. Will this investigation prove that the Bush administration, specifically Bush and Cheney, put their subordinates in play to discredit anyone who spoke out against the Iraq war using any means necessary?
Discrediting an opponent seems to be a longstanding tactic of this administration. The evidence includes McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary, Max Cleland in the Georgia U. S. Senate race, Plame and Wilson and John Kerry through the swift boat people.
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impeachment for Bush and Cheney?
I don’t think Bush will be impeached, but I think he’s done more than enough to warrant that action. It boils down to an accumulation, that just seems to keep building—lying about reasons for going to war in Iraq, illegal wiretaps and now this. I like the way Bob Ray Sanders put it in yesterday’s Fort Worth Star Telegram.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists...rs/14287566.htm
If we can’t get to the truth, then perhaps we could have some young/attractive/female intern seduce Bush. That would give us a “real” reason to impeach him.
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered with Republican scandal after scandal?
I said long ago that I thought the “Republican Revolution” ushered in I 1994 had peaked. I don’t know how much this episode will impact the 2006 elections, but stay tuned, I predict there will be more to come. At least the “Republican Revolution” is OVER.
Discrediting an opponent seems to be a longstanding tactic of this administration. The evidence includes McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary, Max Cleland in the Georgia U. S. Senate race, Plame and Wilson and John Kerry through the swift boat people.
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impeachment for Bush and Cheney?
I don’t think Bush will be impeached, but I think he’s done more than enough to warrant that action. It boils down to an accumulation, that just seems to keep building—lying about reasons for going to war in Iraq, illegal wiretaps and now this. I like the way Bob Ray Sanders put it in yesterday’s Fort Worth Star Telegram.
QUOTE(Bob Ray Sanders)
First, let me back up and explain that for five months I have been trying to convince people that to even mention the word impeachment was inappropriate, although I thought President Bush had broken the law by authorizing warrantless surveillance of American citizens.
As far as I was concerned, he indeed had broken the law -- and no one, including the president, should be above the law.
<snip>
With the latest developments suggesting that Bush himself had authorized the leaking of classified information, I dare say now that a major distraction is the least of my worries.
If the president did give his approval for secretly releasing classified material to the media and/or if he approved or knew about the revelation of a CIA operative's identity, then he has not only violated the law but he has violated the public trust to the degree that he does not deserve to complete his second term in office.
<snip>
This administration is good at declaring itself almighty, all-knowing and untouchable as long as the president is acting to protect the American people.
<snip>
We must get to the truth -- the whole truth -- and if it is determined that the president broke the law and then lied about it, there should be no question that he should be removed from office.
As far as I was concerned, he indeed had broken the law -- and no one, including the president, should be above the law.
<snip>
With the latest developments suggesting that Bush himself had authorized the leaking of classified information, I dare say now that a major distraction is the least of my worries.
If the president did give his approval for secretly releasing classified material to the media and/or if he approved or knew about the revelation of a CIA operative's identity, then he has not only violated the law but he has violated the public trust to the degree that he does not deserve to complete his second term in office.
<snip>
This administration is good at declaring itself almighty, all-knowing and untouchable as long as the president is acting to protect the American people.
<snip>
We must get to the truth -- the whole truth -- and if it is determined that the president broke the law and then lied about it, there should be no question that he should be removed from office.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists...rs/14287566.htm
If we can’t get to the truth, then perhaps we could have some young/attractive/female intern seduce Bush. That would give us a “real” reason to impeach him.
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered with Republican scandal after scandal?
I said long ago that I thought the “Republican Revolution” ushered in I 1994 had peaked. I don’t know how much this episode will impact the 2006 elections, but stay tuned, I predict there will be more to come. At least the “Republican Revolution” is OVER.
1. Will this investigation prove that the Bush administration, specifically Bush and Cheney, put their subordinates in play to discredit anyone who spoke out against the Iraq war using any means necessary?
No. The public has already awoken to this fact through the experiences of the Bush Administration, a name that will go down in history as a period of national insanity.
Or not. Depends on who writes the history.
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impreachment for Bush and Cheney?
Yeah, right. No. There's a coldness in this land that will be expressed in the voting booths this November.
Or not. We will see.
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered with Republican scandal after scandal?
Bingo. Congress goes Demo in 2006 as an expression of total contempt for an incompetent and power-mad administration.
Or not. Who knows what will be pulled next? Anyway, the justification for the Iraq episode is pretty well understood as a bungled corporate-think piece of, um, *work* that was so transparent as to be undetectable by a whole lot of folks.
But you can't fool them all the time.
No. The public has already awoken to this fact through the experiences of the Bush Administration, a name that will go down in history as a period of national insanity.
Or not. Depends on who writes the history.
2. Will this investigation result in criminal charges and/or censure/impreachment for Bush and Cheney?
Yeah, right. No. There's a coldness in this land that will be expressed in the voting booths this November.
Or not. We will see.
3. What impact will this have on the 2006 elections when considered with Republican scandal after scandal?
Bingo. Congress goes Demo in 2006 as an expression of total contempt for an incompetent and power-mad administration.
Or not. Who knows what will be pulled next? Anyway, the justification for the Iraq episode is pretty well understood as a bungled corporate-think piece of, um, *work* that was so transparent as to be undetectable by a whole lot of folks.
But you can't fool them all the time.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
George W Bush, November, 2005
George W Bush, November, 2005
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 7 2006, 12:30 PM)
All power in the Executive branch is derived directly from the power of the Presidency. The executive branch is, for all practical purposes, simply a delegation of the President's powers to others. There is no mention in the Constitution of the "Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs" (the person that Executive Order 13292 designates as the person to which appeals are directed regarding classifications). That is a power of the President and he is delegating someone else the authority to handle it. The President can, at any time for any reason, assert his inherent authority which he has designated to others. To put it plainly, if the Chief Executive (or indeed, any of his subordinates) has delegated power to another, he himself can also exercise that power.
Ah, power. Power, power, power. We've been hearing a lot about that for the past five years. What, one wonders, ever became of the attendant Duties and Responsibilities of our servant, the Executive?
I was also wondering when the great neocon invention, "the unitary executive", was going to rear its ugly head in this debate. The notion that "all power in the Executive branch is derived directly from the power of the Presidency" is just wrong. I won't even bother arguing that all power in the Executive is derived directly from the people - we seem to have moved well past the point when we remembered that the President works for us - and we "delegate" power to him. But the executive branch is not "simply a delegation of the President's powers to others". It is the delegation of the Government's power - to others within that Government.
The unitary executive theory is just that: a theory, not a law. Sorta like intelligent design. Except, in this case, the opposing point of view - that of checks and balances among the branches of government and of a limited, indeed weak, Executive - is the law. While the usurpation of power embodied by the unitary theory is in danger of becoming the prevailing paradigm, especially under this administration, there is yet hope that the intent of the Founders will again be in the ascendant - perhaps because of this administration. Well, I can dream, can't I?
But let's forget about neocon fantasies (and my libertarian dreams) for a moment and concentrate on something real. The Constitution of the United States of America was established to define the branches of government and secure the rights of the states and their citizens. In doing so, its authors sought to limit the powers of federal government - especially those of the Executive. When certain powers are secured in that document, it is those powers and those powers alone that are conceded. There is no clause that implies that "any other powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the President". Indeed, it's quite the opposite. Those powers are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
Within the federal government, powers (or what should be the lack thereof) that are not delegated have their limitations defined in the United States Code - of which, more in a moment. But, from the outset, presidential power was never intended to be unilateral or unchecked. The Constitution states - rather plainly - that it is the duty and the responsibility - the Power, in fact - of the Legislature:
QUOTE(United States Constitution)
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
There are no qualifications there. There's no "all Laws except those made by the President". More pertinently, there's no "all other Powers... or in any Department or Officer thereof except those claimed by the President". The power to regulate "power" in the federal government is vested in Congress.
Further, the unitary executive theory holds that all three branches of government have the power to interpret the Constitution. This is nonsense. Only the courts can do that - and only through the legal process:
QUOTE(United States Constitution)
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.
Again, no qualifications. But this is why there's been so much talk of "judicial activism" of late - not because the judiciary threatens the Legislature (contrary to what PR would have us believe, Congress can easily enact new laws to overrule the Supreme Court should they feel the Justices have overstepped their bounds), but because they challenge the authority of the "unitary executive".
It is worth noting that every time the unrestrained power of the executive has been at issue in a court decision - every time - the courts have ruled against the executive. The unitary executive theory not only lacks Constitutional foundation, it lacks any legal precedent to support it.
The bottom line here is the question of why this country was born in the first place. Was the Constitution written in reaction to some weak little commune that needed a strong authority figure or in reaction to an unfair and capricious tyrant with too much individual power? What, exactly, were the Founders seeking to change? The means by which an autocrat could rule by decree? I don't think so.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 7 2006, 12:30 PM)
Thus, if the "original classifying authority" can declassify a document, so can the President because the power to declassify comes from the President.
In this context, if the President decides to declassify something, then it is declassified.
In this context, if the President decides to declassify something, then it is declassified.
Except, according to the US Code, that is simply not true. President Bush can issue all the Executive Orders he wants but they cannot violate the law. He could issue Executive Order 13398 stating that the President has the right to seize anyone wearing a yellow necktie and run them through with a scimitar. Guess what? Abduction and murder would still be illegal - even for President Bush. The same can be argued for Executive Order 13292 (and a host of others). Presidential decrees - especially those that extend well beyond the bounds of "expressing how things are going to get done" - are not de facto legal, constitutional, or just. Something isn't a law because the President says it's a law. The point is that legislation already exists relating to classified information - and the President cannot simply revise it at will.
The CIA is a peculiar organization, to say the least. It was constituted by Congress, reports to Congress, and is overseen by Congress, yet is directed by the National Security Council, falls vaguely within the Department of State, advises the President, and is semi-autonomous.
With such a murky agency (especially one with such an apparently infinite brief), one would think that the Legislature would be very cautious in defining its oversight - particularly in relation to handling classified materials. One would be right. They were.The law relating to National Security can be found in the United States Code Title 50 Chapter 15. The CIA, as defined in the Code, is an investigative agency authorized and overseen by Congress. The purpose of National Security legislation, as stated in the Code, is "the establishment [by Congress] of integrated policies and procedures for the departments, agencies, and functions of the Government relating to the national security". Note the word "integrated". The law doesn't mean "integrated within the executive branch" any more than "the Government" means "the President". It is Congress - specifically the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives - through whom the Director of Central Intelligence must, for example, certify the handling of all classified material. Further,
QUOTE(United States Code)
the Director of Central Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and entities of the United States Government involved in a covert action shall keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all covert actions which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government.
That's pretty clear. Presumably, as the DCI is merely a presidential "delegate", the President himself has the same obligation to Congress. (In fact, this is the case - see below and footnote.) Regardless, the argument that the President is the DCI is specious. The President has the responsibility, granted by Congress, to appoint the DCI with their advice and consent. This does not make the DCI a surrogate President - it makes him or her a civil servant answerable to the Legislature.
But let's look at the Code in relation to classified materials. The first section of Subchapter III - Accountability for Intelligence Activities is entitled "General Congressional oversight provisions" and it specifies that it is up to "the House of Representatives and the Senate" to "establish, by rule or resolution of such House, procedures to protect from unauthorized disclosure all classified information, and all information relating to intelligence sources and methods" about which they are to be kept "kept fully and currently informed". I don't see the word "President" in there anywhere.* Nowhere in the United States Code is the authority to "establish... procedures to protect from unauthorized disclosure all classified information" abrogated to the President. Executive Order 13292, of itself, is unlawful. But even were we to accept such an order as valid, it still doesn't give President Bush license to declassify material over which another branch of the federal government has oversight. The power of the Legislature has not been "delegated" to the Executive - except, it would seem, by order of the current executive. It's good to be the king, eh?
Specifically in relation to the Plame case, Subchapter IV - Protection of Certain National Security Information has a few interesting things to say, especially in § 421: "Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources":
QUOTE(United States Code)
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.
"Whoever", lest there be any confusion, refers to anyone. It's not "whoever apart from the President". Nowhere in this subchapter (or anywhere else in the US Code) is the President or anyone else exempted from the law. But maybe this statute is the reason for "Scooter" Libby to suddenly become so talkative...
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Apr 7 2006, 02:04 PM)
I see Foggy Bottom and people like Joe Wilson spinning their version of events, and I wonder why that isn't a scandal. Certainly it serves the country well to have such an arrogant, anti-administration, gratutiously gay-bashing jerk like Wilson discredited, but that is not a scandal, it's just good politics.
While attacking the character of the victim is a tried and true tactic for covering up guilt, this seems like a bit of a stretch - even for Bush supporters. Wilson is undeniably a bit of a prat, but describing his snide attack on Mehlman and Dreier as "gay-bashing" is ludicrous. What is being bashed here is hypocrisy on the part of self-hating closet cases. If you want to bait the left by questioning Wilson's liberal credentials (which I didn't realize were being touted in the first place), you'd do better attacking his sexism with statements like "Ann Coulter and others came up with the crap that Joe couldn't get a job on his own, he needed his wife to find one for him because 'he's a wussy man'. Well, when I thought about it, I wasn't really all that surprised hearing it from Ann. After all, she is a rather manly woman." There you go, carlito: blatant political incorrectness! Feel free to use it - if, that is, you really feel that attacking Wilson is the only way of defending Cheney and Bush.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Apr 7 2006, 02:04 PM)
Bush is the CEO of the Executive Branch. Just who do you think appoints the DCI?
The president - with the advice and consent of Congress. You (more or less aptly) describe the president as the CEO of the Executive Branch. A CEO, as I'm sure you're aware, is an administrator, a bureaucrat - not a tyrant. As Bureaucrat-in-Chief, presidential appointments are responsiblities, not delegations of his own personal power as Amlord would have it. The president appoints the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Does that mean that he is merely delegating his supreme supreme judicial authority to some underling? National Security falls under the Legislative branch, not the Executive. The notion that Bush is the Uber-Director of the CIA is a nonsensical as the notion that he Uber-Justice of the Supreme Court or Uber-Head of the Federal Reserve or Uber-Fuhrer of anything apart from his own damned office (which he does a rather pitiful job of managing). The president is a paper-pusher - and a paper-pusher operating on the advice and with the consent of Congress.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Apr 7 2006, 02:04 PM)
If Bush says "release it" then it is no longer classified. Classified from whom?
Um, the bad guys? This is probably the main reason that the President is not entitled by law to simply say "release it" in relation to any classified material. The potential for an error of judgement (or exertion of authority) on the part of a single individual was one of the main reasons the Constitution was written. Such awesome power was never intended, never authorized, and never legal.
QUOTE(whitehouse.gov - unattributed by carlitoswhey)
Executive Branch
-------------------------------
The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government.
-------------------------------
The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government.
Perhaps you should have quoted the Constitution instead of the Bush White House
:QUOTE(United States Constitution)
Executive Branch
-------------------------------
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
-------------------------------
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
I don't see anything in there about "overseeing the various agencies and departments of the federal government". Why is that, one wonders? Maybe because it wasn't supposed to be in there. Maybe because it is not an absolute power conceded by the US Constitution to the short-term bureaucrat in the Oval Office. Maybe because the US Code clearly defines exactly how the various agencies and departments of the federal government operate and who has the specific oversight responsibilities for each. When it come to national security, the oversight responsibilities belong - explicitly - to Congress. And no Executive Order in the world should be able to override the United States Code and the United States Constitution. That is tyranny. That is why we fought a revolution.
_________________________
*Full disclosure: Actually, the President is mentioned in the statute. He is also obliged - by law - to keep Congress "fully and currently informed" of all intelligence activities. This is yet another example of the Executive being subordinate to Congress - specifically in relation to national security and intelligence.
Wertz, you know I love ya, but this post is full of rhetoric, spin, logical fallacies, oh and a bit of something we can hang our hat on. Although already having won recognition here and here I think we should examine your points a bit more thoroughly.
Ah, the unitarian strawman. I never claimed that the Executive can over rule the Legislative branch. What I did claim was that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The branches of government are co-equal with seperate responsibilities: one makes law, one carries it out.
Strawman #2. The unitary theory, which no one brought up, is just like intelligent design. The unitary theory throws checks and balances out the window. This is off-topic, but let's suffice to say that nobody here has asserted that the President can break the law. In fact, someone asserted the opposite (after a bad assumption was made about the opposing view) Ah yes that was me:
A limited government proponent!! Good on ya!! Unfortunately there isn't much chance that the entire framework built up over the last 219 years is likely to be torn down with a claim of limited government at this point (to my utter dismay). In fact, the precious Congress has made a mockery of any notion of limited government. It is the Executive's job to carry out laws made by Congress and thus the power of the Executive has grown as a result.
And of course (again ) no one has made the claim that the President can make law. However, to deny that the Executive sets up policies and procedures is utter denial of reality. The Legislature often makes laws which are ambiguous, confusing, and generally hard to follow (especially in the context of other existing or future laws). It is up to the Executive to set concrete policies on how laws are to be executed.
Ah, repetition of the strawman... Repetition is a good way of reinforcing your argument. Of course it would help if someone had asserted what you are arguing against.
I thought you were a better historian Wertz. The weak executive and federal government model was tried under the Articles of Confederation. It failed. Miserably. The power of the Executive has grown over the intervening decades. As Congress makes more and more laws, the Executive must create more and more bureaucracy to implement those laws, making it more powerful. And since "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." [US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1] the power of the President himself grows with that of the Executive branch. Indeed they are one and the same.
Indeed he can revise it at will. As the Georgetown Law Library puts it "For the most part, individual federal agencies decide whether to classify or declassify information they create. They do so on the basis of Executive Order 12958, 60 Fed. Reg. 19,825 (as amended by Exec. Order 13292, 3 C.F.R. 197 (2004)) and guidance issued by the Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives and Records Administration (ISOO). Appeals of classification decisions are decided by the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel."
Indeed, your claim that the President has no authority to make rules governing classification and declassification of documents does not do you service at all. In fact, it demonstrates almost willful ignorance. 50 CRF Section 435 is the applicable law here.
So not only does the law allow the President to create these procedures by Executive Order, it requires it. In fact, it allows for exceptions "as determined by the President".
Wishful thinking in the extreme. Of course you knew (or should have known) that under 50 CFR Section 437: "Except as otherwise specifically provided, the provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to the President and Vice President, Members of the Congress, Justices of the Supreme Court, and Federal judges appointed by the President. "
By law, the President cannot be prosecuted for leaking classified documents. Neither can the Vice President, members of Congress, or most federal judges.
Nice of you to leave out Article 2, Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The power is vested in the President. The President may delegate that power, but the power remains vested in one man, however scary that is to you (or me, for that matter).
I find this whole reply to be a matter of semantic gymnastics, with willful disregard for the governing laws involved and a liberal sprinkling of straw men to give yourself credibility. It shouldn't be lost that the strawmen were first and the conclusions based upon incomplete references to law followed. A good effort though.
Edit to fix quotes .
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 9 2006, 09:53 PM)
Ah, power. Power, power, power. We've been hearing a lot about that for the past five years. What, one wonders, ever became of the attendant Duties and Responsibilities of our servant, the Executive?
I was also wondering when the great neocon invention, "the unitary executive", was going to rear its ugly head in this debate. The notion that "all power in the Executive branch is derived directly from the power of the Presidency" is just wrong. I won't even bother arguing that all power in the Executive is derived directly from the people - we seem to have moved well past the point when we remembered that the President works for us - and we "delegate" power to him. But the executive branch is not "simply a delegation of the President's powers to others". It is the delegation of the Government's power - to others within that Government.
I was also wondering when the great neocon invention, "the unitary executive", was going to rear its ugly head in this debate. The notion that "all power in the Executive branch is derived directly from the power of the Presidency" is just wrong. I won't even bother arguing that all power in the Executive is derived directly from the people - we seem to have moved well past the point when we remembered that the President works for us - and we "delegate" power to him. But the executive branch is not "simply a delegation of the President's powers to others". It is the delegation of the Government's power - to others within that Government.
Ah, the unitarian strawman. I never claimed that the Executive can over rule the Legislative branch. What I did claim was that "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The branches of government are co-equal with seperate responsibilities: one makes law, one carries it out.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 9 2006, 09:53 PM)
The unitary executive theory is just that: a theory, not a law. Sorta like intelligent design. Except, in this case, the opposing point of view - that of checks and balances among the branches of government and of a limited, indeed weak, Executive - is the law. While the usurpation of power embodied by the unitary theory is in danger of becoming the prevailing paradigm, especially under this administration, there is yet hope that the intent of the Founders will again be in the ascendant - perhaps because of this administration. Well, I can dream, can't I?
Strawman #2. The unitary theory, which no one brought up, is just like intelligent design.
The unitary theory throws checks and balances out the window. This is off-topic, but let's suffice to say that nobody here has asserted that the President can break the law. In fact, someone asserted the opposite (after a bad assumption was made about the opposing view) Ah yes that was me:QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 9 2006, 09:53 PM)
The Constitution of the United States of America was established to define the branches of government and secure the rights of the states and their citizens. In doing so, its authors sought to limit the powers of federal government - especially those of the Executive. When certain powers are secured in that document, it is those powers and those powers alone that are conceded. There is no clause that implies that "any other powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the President". Indeed, it's quite the opposite. Those powers are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
A limited government proponent!! Good on ya!! Unfortunately there isn't much chance that the entire framework built up over the last 219 years is likely to be torn down with a claim of limited government at this point (to my utter dismay). In fact, the precious Congress has made a mockery of any notion of limited government. It is the Executive's job to carry out laws made by Congress and thus the power of the Executive has grown as a result.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 9 2006, 09:53 PM)
Within the federal government, powers (or what should be the lack thereof) that are not delegated have their limitations defined in the United States Code - of which, more in a moment. But, from the outset, presidential power was never intended to be unilateral or unchecked. The Constitution states - rather plainly - that it is the duty and the responsibility - the Power, in fact - of the Legislature:
United States Constitution: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
There are no qualifications there. There's no "all Laws except those made by the President". More pertinently, there's no "all other Powers... or in any Department or Officer thereof except those claimed by the President". The power to regulate "power" in the federal government is vested in Congress.
United States Constitution: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
There are no qualifications there. There's no "all Laws except those made by the President". More pertinently, there's no "all other Powers... or in any Department or Officer thereof except those claimed by the President". The power to regulate "power" in the federal government is vested in Congress.
And of course (again
) no one has made the claim that the President can make law. However, to deny that the Executive sets up policies and procedures is utter denial of reality. The Legislature often makes laws which are ambiguous, confusing, and generally hard to follow (especially in the context of other existing or future laws). It is up to the Executive to set concrete policies on how laws are to be executed.QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 9 2006, 09:53 PM)
Further, the unitary executive theory holds that all three branches of government have the power to interpret the Constitution. This is nonsense. Only the courts can do that - and only through the legal process:
United States Constitution: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."
Again, no qualifications. But this is why there's been so much talk of "judicial activism" of late - not because the judiciary threatens the Legislature (contrary to what PR would have us believe, Congress can easily enact new laws to overrule the Supreme Court should they feel the Justices have overstepped their bounds), but because they challenge the authority of the "unitary executive".
United States Constitution: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."
Again, no qualifications. But this is why there's been so much talk of "judicial activism" of late - not because the judiciary threatens the Legislature (contrary to what PR would have us believe, Congress can easily enact new laws to overrule the Supreme Court should they feel the Justices have overstepped their bounds), but because they challenge the authority of the "unitary executive".
Ah, repetition of the strawman... Repetition is a good way of reinforcing your argument. Of course it would help if someone had asserted what you are arguing against.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 9 2006, 09:53 PM)
The bottom line here is the question of why this country was born in the first place. Was the Constitution written in reaction to some weak little commune that needed a strong authority figure or in reaction to an unfair and capricious tyrant with too much individual power? What, exactly, were the Founders seeking to change? The means by which an autocrat could rule by decree? I don't think so.
I thought you were a better historian Wertz. The weak executive and federal government model was tried under the Articles of Confederation. It failed. Miserably. The power of the Executive has grown over the intervening decades. As Congress makes more and more laws, the Executive must create more and more bureaucracy to implement those laws, making it more powerful. And since "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." [US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1] the power of the President himself grows with that of the Executive branch. Indeed they are one and the same.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 9 2006, 09:53 PM)
Except, according to the US Code, that is simply not true. President Bush can issue all the Executive Orders he wants but they cannot violate the law. He could issue Executive Order 13398 stating that the President has the right to seize anyone wearing a yellow necktie and run them through with a scimitar. Guess what? Abduction and murder would still be illegal - even for President Bush. The same can be argued for Executive Order 13292 (and a host of others). Presidential decrees - especially those that extend well beyond the bounds of "expressing how things are going to get done" - are not de facto legal, constitutional, or just. Something isn't a law because the President says it's a law. The point is that legislation already exists relating to classified information - and the President cannot simply revise it at will.
Indeed he can revise it at will. As the Georgetown Law Library puts it "For the most part, individual federal agencies decide whether to classify or declassify information they create. They do so on the basis of Executive Order 12958, 60 Fed. Reg. 19,825 (as amended by Exec. Order 13292, 3 C.F.R. 197 (2004)) and guidance issued by the Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives and Records Administration (ISOO). Appeals of classification decisions are decided by the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel."
Indeed, your claim that the President has no authority to make rules governing classification and declassification of documents does not do you service at all. In fact, it demonstrates almost willful ignorance. 50 CRF Section 435 is the applicable law here.
QUOTE(50 U.S.C. §§ 435)
Not later than 180 days after October 14, 1994, the President shall, by Executive order or regulation, establish procedures to govern access to classified information which shall be binding upon all departments, agencies, and offices of the executive branch of Government. Such procedures shall, at a minimum—
(1) provide that, except as may be permitted by the President, no employee in the executive branch of Government may be given access to classified information by any department, agency, or office of the executive branch of Government unless, based upon an appropriate background investigation, such access is determined to be clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States;
(1) provide that, except as may be permitted by the President, no employee in the executive branch of Government may be given access to classified information by any department, agency, or office of the executive branch of Government unless, based upon an appropriate background investigation, such access is determined to be clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States;
So not only does the law allow the President to create these procedures by Executive Order, it requires it. In fact, it allows for exceptions "as determined by the President".
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 9 2006, 09:53 PM)
"Whoever", lest there be any confusion, refers to anyone. It's not "whoever apart from the President". Nowhere in this subchapter (or anywhere else in the US Code) is the President or anyone else exempted from the law. But maybe this statute is the reason for "Scooter" Libby to suddenly become so talkative...
Wishful thinking in the extreme. Of course you knew (or should have known) that under 50 CFR Section 437: "Except as otherwise specifically provided, the provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to the President and Vice President, Members of the Congress, Justices of the Supreme Court, and Federal judges appointed by the President. "
By law, the President cannot be prosecuted for leaking classified documents. Neither can the Vice President, members of Congress, or most federal judges.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 9 2006, 09:53 PM)
This is probably the main reason that the President is not entitled by law to simply say "release it" in relation to any classified material. The potential for an error of judgement (or exertion of authority) on the part of a single individual was one of the main reasons the Constitution was written. Such awesome power was never intended, never authorized, and never legal.
Executive Branch
-------------------------------
The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government.
Perhaps you should have quoted the Constitution instead of the Bush White House :
I don't see anything in there about "overseeing the various agencies and departments of the federal government". Why is that, one wonders? Maybe because it wasn't supposed to be in there. Maybe because it is not an absolute power conceded by the US Constitution to the short-term bureaucrat in the Oval Office. Maybe because the US Code clearly defines exactly how the various agencies and departments of the federal government operate and who has the specific oversight responsibilities for each. When it come to national security, the oversight responsibilities belong - explicitly - to Congress. And no Executive Order in the world should be able to override the United States Code and the United States Constitution. That is tyranny. That is why we fought a revolution.
Executive Branch
-------------------------------
The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government.
Perhaps you should have quoted the Constitution instead of the Bush White House
: I don't see anything in there about "overseeing the various agencies and departments of the federal government". Why is that, one wonders? Maybe because it wasn't supposed to be in there. Maybe because it is not an absolute power conceded by the US Constitution to the short-term bureaucrat in the Oval Office. Maybe because the US Code clearly defines exactly how the various agencies and departments of the federal government operate and who has the specific oversight responsibilities for each. When it come to national security, the oversight responsibilities belong - explicitly - to Congress. And no Executive Order in the world should be able to override the United States Code and the United States Constitution. That is tyranny. That is why we fought a revolution.
Nice of you to leave out Article 2, Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The power is vested in the President. The President may delegate that power, but the power remains vested in one man, however scary that is to you (or me, for that matter).
I find this whole reply to be a matter of semantic gymnastics, with willful disregard for the governing laws involved and a liberal sprinkling of straw men to give yourself credibility. It shouldn't be lost that the strawmen were first and the conclusions based upon incomplete references to law followed. A good effort though.
Edit to fix quotes
.
QUOTE(cube jockey)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Apr 7 2006 @ 12:04 PM)
Which "leak" are you referring to here? Plame's identity or the release of the NIE?
Well both Carlito, this thread is specifically related to the Plame matter but also the more broad matter of the executive branch leaking classified information in order to achieve their political goals.
As I mentioned in my post, that is exactly what State and CIA have been doing for 5 years. Much of which has been printed by the same papers decrying the President's "leaks" of the NIE etc. Seems to me you should be either for leaks or against leaks, but to only criticize the administration seems hypocritical.
I think that Amlord addressed the specific de-classification legalities better than I ever could. Also, over the weekend in noted conservative rag, The Washington Post... I I do agree with them about the 'clumsy' part, but the gist of it is that "Bush was right and Wilson was wrong."
QUOTE(WaPo @ "A Good Leak")
PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling.
<snip>
The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.
Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.
<snip>
The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.
Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 9 2006, 08:53 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Apr 7 2006, 02:04 PM)
If Bush says "release it" then it is no longer classified. Classified from whom?
Um, the bad guys? This is probably the main reason that the President is not entitled by law to simply say "release it" in relation to any classified material. The potential for an error of judgement (or exertion of authority) on the part of a single individual was one of the main reasons the Constitution was written. Such awesome power was never intended, never authorized, and never legal.
QUOTE(whitehouse.gov - unattributed by carlitoswhey)
Executive Branch
-------------------------------
The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government.
-------------------------------
The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government.
Ah, so only the "Bush White House" could have provided such an insidious, unitary vision of the Chief Executive. Okay, then...
Bill Clinton, white house info for kids
University of Oregon
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (must be a texan conspiracy)
University of Hawaii
If you're going to google such a common statement, please don't imply that I could only have sourced it from the Bush White House, as if they arrived and changed the definition of the Executive Branch all on their own. As Amlord noted, we don't live in a Libertarian paradise just yet, and the Executive has evolved accordingly.
QUOTE(Wertz)
*Full disclosure: Actually, the President is mentioned in the statute. He is also obliged - by law - to keep Congress "fully and currently informed" of all intelligence activities. This is yet another example of the Executive being subordinate to Congress - specifically in relation to national security and intelligence.
Given this responsibility, perhaps your efforts would be better served against those Democrats in oversight who are briefed on these things (Feinstein / Reid come to mind).
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 10 2006, 06:32 AM)
QUOTE(50 U.S.C. §§ 435)
Not later than 180 days after October 14, 1994, the President shall, by Executive order or regulation, establish procedures to govern access to classified information which shall be binding upon all departments, agencies, and offices of the executive branch of Government. Such procedures shall, at a minimum—
(1) provide that, except as may be permitted by the President, no employee in the executive branch of Government may be given access to classified information by any department, agency, or office of the executive branch of Government unless, based upon an appropriate background investigation, such access is determined to be clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States;
(1) provide that, except as may be permitted by the President, no employee in the executive branch of Government may be given access to classified information by any department, agency, or office of the executive branch of Government unless, based upon an appropriate background investigation, such access is determined to be clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States;
So not only does the law allow the President to create these procedures by Executive Order, it requires it. In fact, it allows for exceptions "as determined by the President".
I'm sure it didn't escape your attention that nowhere in that law does it say that these "exceptions" can be members of the American public or the press, in fact it is fairly explicit to say employees of the executive. These people are also supposed to guard and protect this information, not leak it to the press in order to destroy the President's political enemies. The law is fairly explicit there requiring background checks and a need to know the information based on the national security intere