# Bush can "legally" declassify. So what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2006, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863 "2006-04-08T15:38:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/61 "2006-04-09T02:48:57Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Without knowing what that info was, I would say any inference about it is weak at best, and more likely meaningless. > > This doesn’t make any sense since you say above that the best inference about what was withheld is that it was withheld for political reasons. And since you can’t name even one national security consequence of releasing the stuff that was released, your argument is not just weak, it’s nonexistent. > > I think you’re starting with the assumption that whatever Bush does is bad, and since Bush did this it must be bad. That’s exactly the kind of reasoning Bush used to get us into Iraq. He assumed Saddam was a threat and then fit the data to that assumption. To rephrase: - There is a strong and rational inference that the NIE information was released and released in that particular form; to bolster the administration’s case. This much is common ground, I think. - The relevance for this in terms of discussing national security is that the consideration was ‘to bolster the administration’s case’. Thereby the due and paramount consideration, ‘national security’ was excluded. Moreover, probity and impartiality were overlooked. In other words, as I stated earlier, the declassification occurred _indifferently to_ its consequences for national security. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/62 "2006-04-09T03:35:22Z")
Assuming that Bush followed the proper procedures in declassifying the information, why did he have them leaked instead of publishing them? If the press secretary or other person said that these declassified documents showed that Wilson was wrong, no one would object. But they chose to go the underhanded way. And the incompetent underhanded way, since they gave them to Judy Miller, who, as Maureen Dodd mentioned yesterday, was not allowed to write about WMDs any more for being too gullible in the run up to the war. BTW, the WH jihad on leakers is not limited to the Plame case. They had a fit about the leaks on the wiretaps also. The hypocrisy of the leak comes from their very audible anality about the leaking. It’s just more evidence of their untrustworthiness, which the press and the people have caught on to at last. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/63 "2006-04-09T04:30:41Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It’s just more evidence of their untrustworthiness, which the press and the people have caught on to at last. I fear that you’re too optimisitc. I hope not, but given that it took this long, I see little reason to believe that anything will stick. Ever. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/64 "2006-04-09T04:56:53Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Assuming that Bush followed the proper procedures in declassifying the information, why did he have them leaked instead of publishing them? If the press secretary or other person said that these declassified documents showed that Wilson was wrong, no one would object. But they chose to go the underhanded way. They were released to the media about 10 days after Libby claims to have discussed them with Miller. It looks like Miller might have been given a heads up, but I think the intention was to have them out there in the press to counter Wilson’s claims. I don’t know if that qulifies as having them “published”, but I think it amounts to the same thing. > [@Sevastapol](#): > > To rephrase: > > - There is a strong and rational inference that the NIE information was released and released in that particular form; to bolster the administration’s case. This much is common ground, I think. Yes. > [@](#): > > - The relevance for this in terms of discussing national security is that the consideration was ‘to bolster the administration’s case’. Thereby the due and paramount consideration, ‘national security’ was excluded. Moreover, probity and impartiality were overlooked. In other words, as I stated earlier, the declassification occurred indifferently to its consequences for national security. No. Even if we assume that the stuff was declassified for political reasons, that does not mean the administration was indifferent to national security issues. Lots of stuff remains classified for no other reason than that no one bothers to ask if it should be declassified. And since you can’t point out any risk to the national security posed by the release of those documents, your charge that national security issues were ignored is baseless. ---
**Author:** ![Soylent\_Gene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@Soylent\_Gene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soylent_Gene)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/65 "2006-04-09T06:13:57Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > With the fact you didn’t answer any of the questions I asked? No, I don’t really have a major problem with that. 😛 > > As John Mace said…problem with what exactly? What SHOULD I have a problem with? The fact that PotUS can declassify stuff? While I think there should be some kind of check on that I don’t have a major problem with it, no. The specifics of what Bush declassified? From what I read so far (and this has been more along the line of skimming and reading through the related Pit thread) no…I don’t have a major problem with what was released. Perhaps I missed something though. Again…what do YOU think I should have a problem with? Lets start there. > > -XT Well I did answer your questions point by point. You obviously dont agree with what I’m saying. So that’s the end of that. Let me rephrase my question: Do you have a problem with the manner and reason the material was declassified? If you dont think there’s any connection of the declassification to the effort to discredit Wilson, then I guess you dont. [cheney effort to discredit](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html) ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/66 "2006-04-09T08:22:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > … > No. Even if we assume that the stuff was declassified for political reasons, that does not mean the administration was indifferent to national security issues. Lots of stuff remains classified for no other reason than that no one bothers to ask if it should be declassified. And since you can’t point out any risk to the national security posed by the release of those documents, your charge that national security issues were ignored is baseless. It is your belief that national security \*issues \*are under discussion that misleads. Rather, the argument is that national security was not a consideration, in the continued classification or declassification. Another perspective may help: Although there is a clear public interest in the _entire_ NIE, the administration determined to release _only those parts_ which bolstered their case. The correct principle is that classification/declassification is a balance of competing interests: National security and; the public interest in open government. Instead the administration ignored the question of national security vs public interest. The only principle in the declassification decision was partisan interest. Neither national security nor the public interest were served. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/67 "2006-04-09T12:40:53Z")
I’m stuck on something here. From the sounds of it, the information that was “leaked” was declassified so it technically wasn’t leaked. If this is the case, why this investigation into a non-leak? Why didn’t Pres or veep come forth and say that the information was declassified? This whole thing is becoming a sort of Schrodingers Leak, isn’t it. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/68 "2006-04-09T12:53:01Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I’m stuck on something here. From the sounds of it, the information that was “leaked” was declassified so it technically wasn’t leaked. If this is the case, why this investigation into a non-leak? Why didn’t Pres or veep come forth and say that the information was declassified? > > This whole thing is becoming a sort of Schrodingers Leak, isn’t it. The investigation is into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent. The information that was declassified was part of the NIE. Now, I’m not aware whether the NIE had any information about Palme’s identity, but that would be the explanation of the difference. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/69 "2006-04-09T14:24:52Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > It is your belief that national security \*issues \*are under discussion that misleads. Rather, the argument is that national security was not a consideration, in the continued classification or declassification. > > Another perspective may help: Although there is a clear public interest in the _entire_ NIE, the administration determined to release _only those parts_ which bolstered their case. But unless you’ve seen the unclassified part, you don’t know that. Look, I’m not saying that your scenario is implausible. Hell, it might even be likely. But you are asserting that it is the “best” explanation, without any concrete evidence to back that up. **Harborwolf** : There really isn’t an investigation into the NIE. Libby is brigging this up in his defense, although it seems to be immaterial to what he charged with. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/70 "2006-04-09T19:11:19Z")
I’m happy to go with ‘most likely.’ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863.md?page=3)