As things stand right now, the President has absolute authority, because the law gives the executive branch that authority. Congress could certainly pass a law classifying information and providing that only a future act of Congress could declassify it, for example, but Congress has not yet done so. Congress’ current acts give the President the power, and of course the power to delegate his power.
No. That procedure arises from administrative process, which comes from the President. The President is perfectly within his power to write “Except in this case…” somewhere and ignore his own procedure.
Stop making unsupported claims. The law, 50 USC § 435 et seq, is crystal clear.
Did you read that law? Does it not define minimum procedures but with the caveat “…except as may be permitted by the President…” in para (a)(1)? Does it not say “…as determined by the President…” in (a)(4) and (a)(5)?
Why do you believe that the President cannot just “leak whenever he feels like it” in light of those laws, which I’m sure you undertook to inform yourself of before making sweeping statements of fact on a board devoted to fighting ignorance?
Please, share your rationale. I’m dying to hear it.
Libby has said that Bush okayed the release of the conclusion of a NIE, not how it was gathered (Plame).
If you’re arguing that the declassification of these things is overly selective and should be applied more broadly, then fine, you’ve got a point.
At this point we have no evidence to believe that Bush okayed releasing Plame’s name (which would indeed be a very shitty and pit-worthy offense) no matter how much people try to confuse the issue.
I don’t get the double hearsay thing. Basically, Libby says, “I performed such and such an action…” —a confession— “…at Cheney’s direction.” How is that hearsay?
Now, to add, “…which he said was authorized by Bush,” that I can see as hearsay. But how does “I performed an action as ordered by Cheney” qualify?
Unless you’re saying that Fitzgerald’s representation of Libby’s words is the first level of hearsay, which is kind of a reach, considering he’s basically an officer of the court reporting Libby’s testimony.
All of which, by funneling the discussion into the topic of what the legal meaning of “classified” is, utterly misses the point of what this White House has done. Yet another reminder is obviously required as to which court we, and most of the American people for that matter, are in, and which “laws” apply.
But ask yourself WHY we’re hearing the testimony. What is it the testimony is supposed to prove?
Evidence 101: evidence is relevant if it assists the trier of fact to determine the truth of a matter at issue.
So walk through it yourself. You’re saying that Bush authorized the disclosure.
What’s the evidence for that? Libby’s statement.
So Libby’s statement is offfered to prove that Bush authorized the disclosure. Does it do that?
Sure it does. If we believe it’s true, then Bush authorized the disclosure.
What’s hearsay? An out of court statement, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
Is Libby’s testimony hearsay? Well, it’s clearly relating an out-of-court statement. And it’s offered to prove the truth of the matter in the statement: Cheney said to me, do it, because Bush authorized it.
Now, if Libby offers this statement to prove something else, maybe it’s not hearsay. If Libby offers the statement to prove why he named Plame, then it’s not hearsay.
But YOU are offering it to prove Bush’s involvement. For that purpose, it’s hearsay.
I assume you get the double hearsay part now (Cheney’s statement that Bush authorized it).
The President may establish whatever procedures he feels like.
He can therefore establish procedures that let him disclose whatever information he feels like.
He can therefore leak whatever he feels like.
I realize one phrasing is a bit more perjorative than the other… but specifically, what do you contend is the real, substantive legal difference here, that warranted your “not equal to” sign?
Ignoring for the sake of argument the caveats **Briker **pointed out, I’m still waiting for you to present the evidence that the procedure wasn’t followed. Are you just assuming it wasn’t?
Being able to make the law can indeed excuse you from following the law. If you make the law say, “This law doesn’t apply to me today,” then you are excused from following the law. Right?
Try to follow this. Concentrate.
Answer the following questions:
[ul]
Can the President make a procedure today, and make a new one tomorrow?
Does he have to get permission from anyone to change his procedures?
Can the President make a procedure at 9:00 AM today, and a new procedure at 11:00 AM today, without getting anyone’s permission?
Does the President have to follow any special ritual for creating new procedures? Must he write them in special ink, or on special paper?
Can the President decide, on a moment’s notice, to create a new procedure and implement it immediately?
[/ul]
If you answered ‘no’ to any of those questions… cite?
If you answered ‘yes’ to all of them, then what the hell are you talking about?
Rick, can you please explain why it’s acceptable that compromising the security of a CIA operative is being explained away as a technicality? Yes, the president of course is authorized to use his discretion as to what classified information to disclose. But not if it risks the lives of American agents in the field.
If you’ll read this thread, you’ll find that I have repeatedly characterized as despicable and reprehensible the act of disclosing previously-classified information for partisan advantage. So I DON’T think it’s acceptable, and I therefore cannot explain why it might be acceptable.
But in order for something to be a crime, it has to be prohibited by a law, passed in advance of the act. In this case, no law prohibits what the President is alleged to have done.
I am arguing against Biggirl confident claim that the President flouted the law.
I suspect that the answer is “we don’t know what information that Bush declassified” some claim that it was ‘merely’ the generalized conclusions of a report, there seems to be no doubt, however that during LIbby’s discussions w/folks who do have clearance, the link between Wilson and PLame being CIA was made. Since I suspect that we’ll never have a video or audio tape of what actually was said (damn you Nixon) , both sides can claim whatever they will.
Cheny/ Bush will be able to deny that they sought to have Plame outed, Libby can claim that he’d been given permission.
My take on it? Libby by that time certain knew she was CIA. THat leaking that tidbit was a huge risk. I tend to believe that people in positions like his do not take huge risks unless they believe that there’s a big ass safety net out there.
Yes, I probably should’ve used the word “alleged” in there somewhere. Thanks, Bricker, for answering my question seriously anyway.
Thank you, this answers what I was trying to ask. Namely, is it illegal for the President to release information compromising the security of undercover American agents in the field? I can’t believe that it isn’t; all I can think is that no one ever believed a sitting President would do such a thing.
If the proposed bad guy were not Bush, there would be no shortage of posters here piling on Badgirl for her misstatements and her refusal to acknowledge her mistake.
But since it’s Bush in the dock, the rules are very different.
