Hmm. Seems the very definition of it. YMMV.
No, you’ll know when I “suggest” something. I never said he violated the law, only that the executive orders were, apparently, not followed.
and
From here.
I agree. That’s a very plausible scenario. And this new info makes it a bit more plausible than it was, say, 2 weeks ago. But there is nothing to hang your hat on here, so to speak. It’s equally plausible, as some have speculated, that Libby is trying to play hardball with Bush-- setting up Bush to be called as a witness in his trial, and/or trying to drag things out long enough so that Bush can pardon him. If he can avoid being convicted before the '08 election, then Bush could be in a position to pardon him-- something that would be politcal suicide for the Republicans right now.
Hamlet: I can agree with everything you posted. It does look like Libby leaked some info to Miller a week or so before it was officially declassified. And IF you believe Libby, then Cheney authorized it (and IF you believe what Libby says Cheney said, then Bush authorized it).
This comes at a bad time for Bush, and it certainly looks bad for him. I think it looks a lot worse than it actuallly is, but “thems the breaks” in politics. You win some, and you lose some. I fully expect the Dems to play this as much as they can, as well they should.
Hmm. I had thought I was quite clear, but evidently not. I’m not sure what “lots of presidents have declassified information legally” has to do with my point; perhaps we’re talking past one another? For purposes of clarity, I note that I much prefer the term “unethical” – “immoral”, to my mind, indicates religious foundations, while using the term “evil” is just plain stupid (an aside: I don’t recall ever seeing a Bush critic claim he was evil; that seems to be a rhetorical device used by defenders to discredit said critics).
I suppose one thing that I should’ve inserted into my previous post in addition to “honest” and “straightforward” is “forthright”. Declassification, in my mind, borders on making the information public knowledge; yet, it seems that not only was this information generally unknown (at least for a given time after it was leaked), the very idea of what constitutes a leak was only made clear once it was politically necessary to do so. At which point “leak” was assigned a technical, non-obvious definition that relied on the technical, non-obvious definition of “declassification”.
In a single sentence: given the strong stance put forward by Bush and friends about leaking information, these technicalities amount to lying by omission, which is unethical. The fact that this (i.e., perceived lying by omission) is not an isolated incident only magnifies the disgust many people feel for Bush. And I’ll reiterate – this is just an attempt at explanation, which can be easily and lightly dismissed for any number of reasons, if you’d like (e.g., perfectly legal, not harmful to national security, etc.). Furthermore, I feel that it is necessary to point out that if I were a lawyer or had a less idealistic view of how politicians should act (ignoring my perception of Bush et al’s hypocrisy), perhaps it would not be such a big deal; rather, it would be expected and commonplace. The “immorality” (using your word, I’d substitute “unethical action”) lies in the sneaky, self-serving deception – that is, dishonest, convoluted, and secretive behaviors – repeated by Bush et al, ad naseum.
That’s definitely fair. I’m getting confused. Which documents do you mean, the court documents? Or the NIE documents? Or the unnamed documents to which Fitzgerald et al. refer in the filing as containing evidence? Do we (the public) have access to all of them, save the court filing? I think we (at least I am) are going on what’s alleged as having been testified to in the filing, and by what Fitzgerald alludes to as evidence of a conspiracy both within and outside of the White House to ratfuck Wilson.
OH. Yes, sorry, I misunderstood. Yep, I think that’s what he claims. The whole point of the perjury charge is that he’s lying through his ass about that. Of course ‘innocent before provent guilty’ yadda yadda, but this ain’t a court and I’m going with my gut here. Motive, means, opportunity, result … all are on the side of “he did it.” Also, I know it’s difficult if not impossible to prove a negative, but the notion that a hands-on VP like Cheney didn’t orchestrate or even know what his chief of staff was doing is also something that would need to be proven to me. I’m a cynic like that.
In any event, anyone who discusses a CIA operative’s identity with reporters merely 'cause he assumed they already knew that is, at the very least, extraordinarily irresponsible. The mind boggles at how Libby would have broached the subject with a reporter. I mean, damn, how does that conversation go? “By the way, Judy, you know Wilson’s wife is CIA, right?” “Of course I do, Scooter.” Or maybe: “Yo Jude, you know about Val Wilson?” “You mean that she’s a CIA operative involved with WMD intelligence?” “Yeah, just checking.” (The latter doesn’t sound like any reporter I’ve ever heard of. Reporters don’t give info, they elicit it.)
Heh. Wouldn’t surprise me. My own feeling is that she’s covering for someone and was doing a little blackmailing of her own. Didn’t John Bolton, of all people, supposedly visit her in jail? WTF was that about?
Whatever the case, this is gonna continue be one hella interesting investigation.
Goodness! How then does one know? Suppose “Scooter” had revealed someting really heavy? Suppose, then, that he defended himself by suggesting that The Leader had authorized him to reveal said info with a raised eyebrow or secret handshake. Since, as you say, written notice is not needed or required… Bit of a sticky wicket, wot?
On to conjecture: I think, maybe, what is being sought here is not so much definition as “wiggle room”". You will recall, I’m sure, previous reports as to when the NIE was dispensed and to whom, centering around a flight with many of our most worthy citizens…Powell, Fleisher, etc. IIRC, the reason that was considered noteworthy was an addendum (or marginal note?) to said NIE that discussed Ms. Plame’s identity as a tangential matter. It was discussed, IIRC, as a way of determining who had recieved said info, and was therefore in a position to blab. Leak. Whatever.
Conjecture: Libby may be setting up a scenario of misunderstanding. “Well, I was authorized to give the information contained in that report on said flight, so naturally I assumed that said authorization also included revealing such tangential matters as Ms. Plame’s identity. Of course, neither The Leader or “Big Dick” Cheney ever intended to break the law relative to a covert agent, but I misunderstood their instructions. Heck, kind of thing could happen to anybody…”
Get Out of Jail Free…
Digital Stimulus, thanks for the clarification. I can understand the position, even if I don’t agree with it. Bush’s actions, by definition, can’t authorize an unauthorized leak of classified information. I don’t think this is a weightless, semantical distinction.
Unless I’m misunderstanding something, Bush said he’d fire anyone who leaked Plame’s status, then he changed his wording and said that, “if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA leak case, that person will ‘no longer work in my administration.’” The change in wording notwithstanding, nothing about what Libby admitted suggests that Bush set a different standard for himself. Why? Because Libby has not said that Bush (or Cheney) declassified Plame’s CIA status, period.
That’s why I’m perplexed when this last piece of news–Libby states Bush ultimately authorized the declassification of the NIE report–prompts people to suggest a double standard, or that Bush is walking a fine line, or whatever. Even if one accepts what Libby said at face value, if we hold it as gospel truth, it does not suggest that Bush was inconsistent. Libby has not stated what some people seem to think he did.
Sorry, the first part of this sentence seems to contradict the second part, unless I misunderstand your point.
Yes, the court documents that are the basis of this news story.
Yes. It’s also hard to understand why someone as smart as Libby is, and who is a lawyer, would do something as stupid as knowingly name a covert CIA agent to a reporter.
Well, it suposedly came up in the context of refuting Wilson’s claim that Cheney sent him to Africa. So, giving Libby the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of constructing your conversation: “Hey, Scooter, I still don’t understand what’s wrong with Joe Wilson’s analysis. I mean, didn’t Cheney send him to Africa in the first place?” “No, someone at CIA sent him on the recommendation of his wife. You know, Valerie Wilson works at the CIA”. “Yeah, I’ve heard that. So Cheney didn’t send him then.” “No, he didn’t.”
The President is no more bound not to modify previous Executive Orders than Congress is bound not to modify laws passed by previous Congresses.
As for the idea that the President can change an Executive Order without writing a new one… so far as I can discern, there is no legal requirement for memorializing an Executive Order in writing. Obviously, if he wishes to bind others to observe it, it must be written and published, but that’s not a legal requirement.
I never claimed he was so bound.
Wow. Okey-doke. You’ve certainly got a wide-ranging view of the powers of the executive branch.
You’re welcome. The fact that you disagree is exactly the position I simply can’t understand. To wit:
From here:
From here:
Again, what constitutes a leak was only made clear once it was politically necessary to do so. At which point “leak” was assigned a technical, non-obvious definition that relied on a technical, non-obvious definition of “declassification”. Given that the entire episode is founded on such technicalities, I find it incomprehensible how you (or anyone else) could possibly claim that Bush isn’t “walking a fine line”.
That answers the question about verbal executive orders, but it doesn’t answer this (emphasis added):
IOW, does the prez even have to announce verbally that the exuctive order is changed, or can he simply violate it and have the act itself substitute for a verbal order. If not, then that implies that executive orders do not apply to the president.
You misunderstand. As Bricker so repetetively pointed out in this thread, there is a difference between violating the law, and not adhereing to prior executive orders.
Bush may indeed by walking many fine lines, but I don’t see it here. There’s nothing “technical” about differentiating between leaking classified information and talking to the press about declassified inormation. Now, there may have been a 10 day period before the NIE was declassified in which Libby talked to Miller, but since Miller didn’t write about it and Libby (apparently) thought he was authroized to talk to her, it’s plausible that Bush didn’t know about Libby’s discussion with her. We might argue about whether it’s likely Bush knew or not, but it’s not obvious that he did.
Whether or not it was “made clear” to you, the legal definition of what makes something classified is not something Bush made up. The President simply can’t “leak” classified information. He just can’t, just like the presidents before him who also declassified information. Bush declassifying information does NOT mean something bad happened by virtue of the fact that it’s Scooter Libby telling us so. Bush declassified info before that, and since then too, I’m sure.
And if this is beyond dispute, any contention that Bush ignored his own standard of not leaking classified info is just a non-starter. Whether you or I like it or not, Bush gets to decide what is classified, not anyone else on his staff (unless he delegated the authority to Cheney). So, unless there was something unethical about this particular piece of information being declassified–for example, if he declassified information that put someone at undue risk–I just don’t see what the ethical problem is.
Actually, this is in line with how the presidency originally operated. Most Executive Orders weren’t recorded in the first 100-some-odd years of the republic. Not good housekeeping practices, so they started putting them to paper ~1900. Dutifully documenting Executive Orders is a good idea, but not required.
This ‘standard’ which you speak of then amounts to nothing more than ‘the president’s whim at a particular moment in time’. That’s not a standard. Even the Catholic church has standards for when the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error.
As far as I can tell, Bush did not go through any formal process of declassifying the material that he apparently OK’d Libby to leak. While there may very well be nothing illegal about this, it certainly calls into question the sincerity of the administration’s argument that the president simply came to the conclusion that it was time to share this information with the public to clarify his decisions about the Iraq War.
Verbally declassifying information so it can be slipped to a single reporter on an off-the-record basis is a far cry from formally changing the document’s status, informing the rest of the administration and then releasing it to reporters who had been asking for it. Illegal, no. Sneaky and unethical, yes.
Consider this exchange between reporters and Scott McClellan:
I just wanted to swing back by this thread to post this NY Times excerpt:
“In fact, that was not one of the “key judgments” of the document. Instead, it was the subject of several paragraphs on Page 24 of the document, which also acknowledged that Mr. Hussein had long possessed 500 tons of uranium that was under seal by international inspectors, and that no intelligence agencies confirmed he had successfully obtained any more of the material from Africa.”
Quoting actual key-points from the NIE would have been acceptable, in my view, but cherry picking the library of classified information and selectively releasing it for political purposes is unacceptable.