Regarding declassification leading to Plame exposure:
Where’s the straw here? Are you suggesting that “No one could have imagined that that sloppy declassification procedures could lead to the outing of an undercover agent”? That excuse didn’t work for Condoleezza after 9/11, and it doesn’t work for you now. People did imagine terrorists flying planes into buildings, and they do worry about agents being exposed through the casual use of intelligence. We’ve witnessed the president getting sloppy with his intelligence standards, and shortly thereafter the outing of an agent. Perhaps those events are just coincidentally related, but in the interest of national security, we need facts that prove or disprove that.
I’m not sure I can be more specific. I think you’ll grant that I’ve given a decent, if wordy, clarification earlier. What part of dishonest, convoluted, and secretive (as I characterized them above) don’t you understand?
For a fifth time (I’ll keep a running tally), not illegal does not equate to ethical. The difference between them is exactly the “fine line”. And again, for a fifth time, if you want to use legality as the standard of ethical, that’s OK. I can’t understand it – if that’s the standard, there is no such thing as ethical behavior prior to codification of law. So then, from whence does law derive? But I also accept (and have from the start) the futility of trying to convince you otherwise.
I think Squink raised an interesting question on page 5. If Bush declassifies something without stamping it, writing down what he’s declassifying, or putting anything in writing, how can he be amazed that Libby wasn’t clear on the limits of what was declassified? How can we not hold Bush responsible for being so casual as to handwave a declassification?
I don’t know why you’re saying it’s unresolved. There have been several lawyers in this thread, not just Bricker, and none has said the prez can’t declassify something orally.
BTW, I’ve never had a problem with the “et al” part. It suresly seems like there’s been some unethical “et als” out there on this subject. But I don’t see any clear evidence that Bush acted illigally or unethically on this subject.
What limits did he violate? If you’re talking about Valerie Plame 1) Libby is not charged with outing her, and we don’t know that he did -and- 2) Even if he did, her status is not part of the NIE so what would lead to the confusion on that issue?
Yeah, that’s why I italicized think. But I just read something – and naturally, I can’t locate it now – that called it into question. It’s not that I think what Bricker and others have said is wrong, it’s that I just this morning read something that says different.
But that evades the questions I posed: Would you agree that if there is such a thing – specifically, a written, dated document or note indicating declassification – Bush et al acted unethically? Possibly illegally?
Hmm. The last sentence indicates that my use of et al is not clear. Personally, I’m not trying to assign blame to Bush as an individual (although he is necessarily involved and thus is sometimes difficult to extricate from the discussion), as it’s not crucial to my point. Rather, I use it as shorthand to ward off the quibbling about who in particular is at fault (e.g., maybe Cheney rather than Bush, maybe Libby rather than either). I suppose I could have (should have?) clarified that, but it was clear to me.
Turns out that it was on the previous page view. What the hell was I thinking? :smack:
For reference sake, linked by woodstein, it’s on FindLaw. And yes, in case anyone feels the need to tell me, I understand that Dean’s legal analysis does not contradict Bricker’s. That fact is not central to my opinion on the matter.
At least facially, this appears to directly contradict Bricker’s assertion that the President may (to use my own words) amend or suspend an executive order ad hoc and sub silentio.
Such a law, if it exists, would be meaningless if the ‘amendment’ of the existing executive order occurred upon the President’s contravening actions.
Neither. I mean some non-verbal indication that a document has been declassified. In other words, not a specific document that has been declassified (e.g., an NIE), nor a “rules and regs” outline of the process. Rather, a formal document, filed and available for public access indicating some other document has been declassified.
Yeah, I apologize again. As I say, I thought it was clear and didn’t need to be clarified.
I have to defer to you lawyer types to hash this out. From what I am given to understand, there are no requirements imposed on amending or suspending executive orders. In my opinion, that’s positively ludicrous and yes, makes the law meaningless. Much of my exchange with Stratocaster has been based on common sense (or facial? I don’t think I’ve heard that variant of prima facie before) definitions, opposed to the technical, codified law. If Dean is indeed correct that “There is also the problem that no one has standing in court to challenge a president’s refusal to follow his own rules”, it seems an affirmation of the law’s meaninglessness.
Would it really require a Constitutional amendment? My mind reels at this situation, particularly that anyone would claim that Bush et al are not “walking a fine line”.
I thought underlining the relevant portions would make that clear. Sorry. See Gadarene’s post #309 for further clarification.
Apparently you are a lawyer. I am not, and I am not trying to play legalese “gotcha” with you. I emailed John Dean to ask him about this procedural law he mentions, but meanwhile I thought I’d try to find the answer myself. If you are not familiar with this law, then no problem. Thanks for answering.
Maybe Dean is wrong. It’s curious that he seems to be the only one who mentions it in all the online legal analysis I’ve read so far.
My first guess (and it is just a guess) would be that even if there existed such a law, it could (and most definately would by this administration) be argued that any such law is an unconstitutional infringement upon the powers of the President. Off the top of my head, I can see how Congress may have the power to limit Executive orders that are done by the President when he is acting under the legislature’s power, i/e administrative type law. But where the EO involves national security, a power generally reserved for the Executive branch, I think there’s an issue of whether or not the law can even apply. Of course I haven’t even looked at the issue, so take it worth a grain of salt.
He’s not directly charged, I guess, but isn’t that what the perjury and obstruction of justice charges are really about?
I realize her status is not part of the NIE. What I’m getting at is that, in an atmosphere where documents are declassified for political ends with no formal process, wouldn’t you almost expect people to get confused about what’s classified and not? I would not be surprised if Libby testifies that he believed he was authorized to release that information.
Whether or not he authorized leaking Plame’s name, I assign him some culpability for declassifying some stuff to some people without telling people what his rules are.
I agree that they would most likely argue that, but I’d still like to hear that argument and some responses to it.
Again, I’m not a lawyer, but I can’t imagine how it could be justified as an “infringement” for the POTUS to be bound by his own laws, or EOs, or EO amendments.
The latest WH statements say Bush simply authorized Cheney to “get it out” without specifying how, or to whom. How does Libby being told to release selective portions, under deep cover, to only Judy Miller, follow the EO amendment guidelines for declassification? Can you really argue that it was the equivalent of “declassifying to serve the public interest” as per the amendment? Why the secrecy if it was legal and proper? Why not simply hold a press conference? Why wasn’t Hadley or the CIA informed?
For all I know, the legal aspects being discussed now are just deliberate obfuscations meant to cow or overwhelm the laymen. If the political ramifications are enough to bring this to a head, so be it. But IMO, to leave this legal question murky invites future abuse of Executive powers.
**A report purporting to be a memorandum of sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq had aroused the interest of Vice President Dick Cheney. His office, I was told, had tasked the CIA to determine if there was any truth to the report. I was being asked now to share with the analysts my knowledge of the uranium business and of the Nigerien personalities in power at the time the alleged contract had been executed, supposedly in 1999 or 2000. The Nigeriens were the same people I had dealt with during and after my time at the National Security Council, people I knew well.
The report, as it was described to me, was not very detailed. For example, it was not clear whether the reporting officer–not present for this meeting–had actually laid eyes on the document or was simply relaying formation provided by a third party. The amount of the uranium product–a lightly processed form of uranium ore called yellowcake–involved was estimated to have been up to five hundred tons but could also have been fifty, suggesting that the account had been written from memory (and an imperfect one at that), rather than with the document at hand. It would have been of keen interest to me to know who might have signed the contract on behalf of the Niger government, but no information was provided on this either. **
Another classified document that Libby is allege to have leaked to Miller at that St. Regis meeting is the CIA Report on Wilson’s Niger trip. Libby is alleged to have claimed that Wilson was the author of that report and used discrepancies between that report and Wilson’s op/ed to discredit Wilson. (The problem is that Wilson was NOT the author of the report. He was debriefed by a case officers, and the report was written by a reports officer not present at the debriefing). Here’s a rundown of the provenance of the report.
**A report purporting to be a memorandum of sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq had aroused the interest of Vice President Dick Cheney. His office, I was told, had tasked the CIA to determine if there was any truth to the report. I was being asked now to share with the analysts my knowledge of the uranium business and of the Nigerien personalities in power at the time the alleged contract had been executed, supposedly in 1999 or 2000. The Nigeriens were the same people I had dealt with during and after my time at the National Security Council, people I knew well.
The report, as it was described to me, was not very detailed. For example, it was not clear whether the reporting officer–not present for this meeting–had actually laid eyes on the document or was simply relaying formation provided by a third party. The amount of the uranium product–a lightly processed form of uranium ore called yellowcake–involved was estimated to have been up to five hundred tons but could also have been fifty, suggesting that the account had been written from memory (and an imperfect one at that), rather than with the document at hand. It would have been of keen interest to me to know who might have signed the contract on behalf of the Niger government, but no information was provided on this either. **
Another classified document that Libby is allege to have leaked to Miller at that St. Regis meeting is the CIA Report on Wilson’s Niger trip. Libby is alleged to have claimed that Wilson was the author of that report and used discrepancies between that report and Wilson’s op/ed to discredit Wilson. (The problem is that Wilson was NOT the author of the report. He was debriefed by a case officers, and the report was written by a reports officer not present at the debriefing). Here’s a rundown of the provenance of the report.
What are you talking about? Do you have any evidence that sloppy declassification procedures led to the outing of a CIA agent? Or do you just accept that as a given, no evidence required?
You can keep whatever tally you’d like, you still haven’t answered the question, which is not specifically focused on the legality of the situation. Here’s what I asked:
We both accept it as a given that this is legal, and that’s not what I’m asking. I asking what bad if legal thing occurred as a result of the declassification. Wanna try again without knocking down straw men?