Scandal de Jur

[Jim]

An interesting article from the Washington Post.

 

 

At least it states the obvious fact that a president has the "unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters." On the other hand, the headline seems to accept the fact of the "leak" as true, notwithstanding its hearsay nature and Libby's obvious incentive to color as much of his actions as possible with presidential authority.

 

These same unnamed experts conclude that the "leak was highly ununusual and amounted to using sensitive intelligence data for political gain." Again, (i) we do not know that a leak was authorized at all, (ii) we do not yet know the nature of this "sensitive intelligence data" and (iii) it seems slanted to characterize a president leading the country in a time of war as "seeking political gain."

 

Yet, google already reports 753 news stories on the latest scandal of the day. Here we go again...

[Pangloss]

A lot of that's just because, as you say, the press likes the "scandal of the day". They feast on that sort of thing, and the president is at the top of the pack so he gets the biggest scrutiny.

 

But yeah it's a little premature and obvious that Libby has an ulterior motive. I think we just have to wait and see what sort of incriminating evidence actually comes out of this, if any.

[Jim]

A lot of that's just because' date=' as you say, the press likes the "scandal of the day". They feast on that sort of thing, and the president is at the top of the pack so he gets the biggest scrutiny.

 

But yeah it's a little premature and obvious that Libby has an ulterior motive. I think we just have to wait and see what sort of incriminating evidence actually comes out of this, if any.[/quote']

 

Even if it's true, there is no way Bush can be "incriminated." As commander-in-chief, he's entitled to say what is and is not classified. If he feels the public needs to know a particular bit of intelligence to support the war, that is his right. Unless the "leak" compromised intelligence sources, there is no issue here. A president is supposed to lead the country in a time of war and that includes telling them some portions of what intelligence reveals.

[Jim]

A lot of that's just because' date=' as you say, the press likes the "scandal of the day". They feast on that sort of thing, and the president is at the top of the pack so he gets the biggest scrutiny.

[/quote']

 

The NYTs is already describing the press reaction as a "furor."

[Pangloss]

Unless the "leak" compromised intelligence sources, there is no issue here.

 

I'm confused, isn't that the very issue?

 

I'm afraid I'm not as well read-up on this story as I'd like to be, due to a heavy workload at the moment.

[Pangloss]

In pondering it some more.... I'm not sure I agree with your basic premise that (to put it another way, and if this is not what you meant please correct me) the phrase "the president authorized the leak" is a non-sequitur.

 

If the president authorizes the release of classified information, then everyone understands that that information has been declassified. That's one thing.

 

If the president left the information classified, and told it to a reporter, knowing that the document was still classified and was going to remain that way, then that would be a very different thing.

 

I can understand the angst over phrases like that in the popular media (whom I'm often the first on the bandwagon to pick on), but I'm not convinced that angst is well-placed in this case.

[Jim]

I'm confused' date=' isn't that the very issue?

 

I'm afraid I'm not as well read-up on this story as I'd like to be, due to a heavy workload at the moment.[/quote']

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/washington/07cnd-leak.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1144468800&en=a43af062d1a708ac&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

The spokesman, Scott McClellan, said a decision was made to declassify and release some information to rebut "irresponsible and unfounded accusations" that the administration had manipulated or misused prewar intelligence to buttress its case for war.

 

There is no allegation being made that whatever it was that the administration decided to declassify compromised intelligence sources.

[Pangloss]

By the way, this pretty much tosses six feet of sand on top of the already-nailed-shut coffin of Judith Miller's career, doesn't it?

[Pangloss]

There is no allegation being made that whatever it was that the administration decided to declassify compromised intelligence sources.

 

Ok. But I guess the question then becomes, did they decide to release classified information to one reporter exclusively and without going through the normal declassification process?

 

And just as a side note, can anyone think of any other time that a president has given currently-classified intelligence information directly to a specific reporter?

[Jim]

In pondering it some more.... I'm not sure I agree with your basic premise that (to put it another way' date=' and if this is not what you meant please correct me) the phrase "the president authorized the leak" is a non-sequitur.

 

If the president authorizes the release of classified information, then everyone understands that that information has been declassified. That's one thing.

 

If the president left the information classified, and told it to a reporter, knowing that the document was still classified and was going to remain that way, then that would be a very different thing.

 

I can understand the angst over phrases like that in the popular media (whom I'm often the first on the bandwagon to pick on), but I'm not convinced that angst is well-placed in this case.[/quote']

 

First, McCellan is only saying that there was a decision to declassify.

 

Second, no less than the Washington Post said that their legal experts say, "President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters." This seems pretty obvious although you can search in vain for more than a few references to the basic concept that the President as commander-in-chief during a time in war can decide what is, and is not, to be kept secret.

 

Here's another reference:

Experts in national security law say a decision by President Bush to authorize the leak of classified information to a reporter probably would not be illegal.

 

Third, again, it's the tone. Look at this all too typical headline: NEWSVIEW: Leak-hating president, as leaker

 

By TOM RAUM

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

 

WASHINGTON -- President Bush insists a president "better mean what he says." Those words could return to haunt him.

 

I do not think the DNC could craft a more worse headline for the administration.

 

Here's the basic fact: Yes, a different standard applies to a president than to any other person in the country with respect to the release of national security information. Yet, the basic spin of the day is that the president is applying a double standard.

 

A few notes of clarity exist:

 

Leaky News Judgment

April 8, 2006; Page A8

In the Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass world that passes for media coverage of the Valerie Plame-leak case, the President of the United States is said to have "leaked" classified information through the conduit of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's former Chief of Staff. Mr. Libby now has been indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to a grand jury.

 

"Leak" has always been a slovenly word, but this is absurd. No one disputes that the President has the authority to declassify documents or to authorize the disclosure of secret information. But never mind the facts. Even prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald isn't shy about using the leak-word. (See footnote 8 on page 25 of his court filing this week.) In Congress, Democrats were quick to jump on the exploitation wagon. Perpetually affronted Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called the revelation "shocking," and Jane Harman, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, branded President Bush "leaker-in-chief." Hawaii Congressman Neil Abercrombie offered the legal opinion that "this leak led to the commission of a felony."

 

So what "leak" did Mr. Bush authorize? Not the disclosure of Ms. Plame's name and the fact that she was employed by the CIA -- revelations that under certain circumstances could be considered a crime. No one is accusing him of that. Nor, for that matter, is that what Mr. Libby is charged with. Ms. Plame's name doesn't even appear in the sections of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that were later declassified. (Mr. Fitzgerald refuses to disclose whether Ms. Plame was a covert agent.)

 

Rather, the President is believed to have authorized the disclosure of portions of the NIE to counter illegal leaks that had distorted its contents. He did so both to correct the record and to fight back against critics such as Ms. Plame's husband Joseph Wilson, who were accusing him of lying about Iraq. As we found out later in a report from the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Wilson and the leakers were the ones who spread disinformation.

 

Surely the President has a right -- even a duty -- to set the record straight. In authorizing Mr. Libby to disclose previously classified information, Mr. Bush was divulging the truth. That alone distinguishes it from the common "leak."

 

 

I'm sure the NOR will have something sensible to say by tomorrow.

[Pangloss]

I wasn't discussing legalities. Nothing you just said refutes my point, Jim, at least so far as I can see. It's interesting and it may end up being relevent in a number of ways, but we're almost on a completely different subject.

[john5746]

I think reporters just smell something fishy and will pounce on anything that points higher up. If the information declassified has nothing to do with Plame then I don't see any problems. If it does, then it looks like a cover up. That is what many, including myself are wondering. Why did Libby perjure himself? His he just and idiot? Maybe...

[entwined]

In a nutshell, Joe Wilson goes to Niger to "investigate" the allegation that Saddam had attempted to purchase yellowcake from Niger.

 

He found out that in fact, Niger had been approached by Iraqi officials to do so, but the deal never went through.

 

He came back and gave an oral report to the CIA to that effect, then started writing articles, saying that there was nothing to this claim and that the now-famous "16 words" were wrong--perhaps even lies.

 

Bush decided to declassify and release information through Libby that supported the "16 words." This was reported at the time in the press.

 

In my opinion, the Democrats are only hyping the issue because they know that JQ Public is not up to speed enough to separate it from the Plame affair.

 

Here is an article from the Washington Post writtin in '04.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

[Jim]

In my opinion, the Democrats are only hyping the issue because they know that JQ Public is not up to speed enough to separate it from the Plame affair.

 

Exactly. It doesn't hurt to have a complicitious press who doesn't draw this distinction in paragraph one of the every news story.

 

Speaking of "not up to speed:"

 

Reminiscent of Al Franken on the Late Show last October, on Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, actor Ben Affleck charged that President Bush “probably also leaked” Valerie Plame's name and so “if he did, you can be hung for that! That's treason!” In full rant, an apoplectic Affleck asserted: “You could be killed. That's not a joking around Tom DeLay 'I'll do a year, I bribed the state officials with corporate money.' That's like they shoot you in the battlefield for doing that.”

 

People believe what they want to believe.

 

It is interesting that I can only easily find this bit of information in a right wing rag:

 

CNN initially reported on Thursday that newly released court documents covering Scooter Libby's testimony showed that President Bush personally authorized the leak of CIA employee Valerie Plame's name to the press.

 

Here's how CNN broke their bogus bombshell:

 

CNN's JIM CLANCY: "A major story breaking now out of Washington right now. According to court papers that were filed by prosecutors, I. Lewis Libby, Scooter Libby, who was a key man in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, has alleged that U.S. President George W. Bush was the man who authorized the leaking of the name of a CIA operative and the wife of a former ambassador.

 

"Now - that former CIA operator, Valerie Plame, was unmasked to journalists." [END EXCERPT]

 

In fact, the so-called leak authorized by Bush had nothing to do with Plame - but instead covered Iraq war intelligence that was mostly already in the public domain.

CNN eventually realized its error and issued an on-air correction, forcing liberals coast-to-coast to cancel their planned impeachment parties.

[Jim]

Ok. But I guess the question then becomes' date=' did they decide to release classified information to one reporter exclusively and without going through the normal declassification process?

 

And just as a side note, can anyone think of any other time that a president has given currently-classified intelligence information directly to a specific reporter?[/quote']

 

It is ambiguous at this point whether they went through the declassification process. I agree that this is an interesting, although not pivotal, distinction.

 

If the information is released and it appears not to be relevant or, worse, to compromise intelligence sources, then he may be judged in the court of public opinion. However, if the information is relevant to the national discussion and does not compromise intelligence sources, and the President of the United States believes that it is in the national interest to release information while performing his Constitutional function of leading the country in a time of war it is his duty to release the information.

 

Keeping up the morale of the troops and of the public when we have engaged the enemy is a central role of the President as commander in chief. Success often hinges on this kind of effort by a President.

 

Legally and morally he is not bound by the decisions of underlings to classify information he believes, in his best judgment, the public needs to know.

[entwined]

What does the "normal declassification process" entail?

[Pangloss]

Some interesting points being made here. I think I need to ponder this some more before I can come to a conclusion myself.

 

The Affleck quote was amusing. You know, they never did prosecute Bill Clinton for sabotaging Ron Brown's 737 either. Those darn presidents, always getting away with murder!

[Jim]

What does the "normal declassification process" entail?

 

The procedure is established by Executive Order 13292.

 

Here's the NOR article. I can't really say it's that great because the points made are so obvious. What I don't get is how these basic concepts don't make their way into the MSM.