Say Anything Blog

Oh Please Rob, he could have easily call a news conference.  He authorized the leaking of information.  He told the entire nation that he would prosecute any leakers in his office, period.  He is the biggest leaker of them all.  And if you read the article, there is also question whether the president even has the authority to unilaterally declassify information. The president looked the American people in the eye and told them leakers would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  Hmmm…. what will happen now?

Puzzle, I quoted the part of the article regarding the questions surrounding the President’s authority to unilaterally divulge classified information.  I think that is a red herring tossed out to lead people astray.

The President is the commander-in-chief of the military as per Article II of the Constitution.  That doesn’t mean he is commander-in-chief-who-can-only-make-decisions-when-authorized-by-congress.

The President had the authority to do this, whether you want to recognize it or not.  And whether he released the information through a news conference or through communications with the press is irrelevant.

He is the President, and he can release this information if he wants to.  As I said in the post:

 I do not think it is an unreasonable thing for the President to authorize the release of intelligence to respond to critics of his policies.

Maybe you wished the President had just sat still and took it from Wilson and his campaign of half-truths and outright lies. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Let’s be clear, he authorized a leak:  Here’s what he said in Sept. 2003:  "THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." (From the White House website.)

He didn’t do this through a press conference or through a speech to tell the citizens, he did it through a leak.  And no Rob, he doesn’t have to sit there and take it, he should stand up and release the information outright and not through leaks if he already had the authority to release the information as you say. 

Let’s be clear, he authorized a leak:

Puzzle, the President cannot "leak" something he can make public with his authority.  He is the President.  The information in the NIE is his to do with as he pleases.  If he wants to make information from it public, that is his decision.

The CIA is under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of our government.  The director of the CIA serves at the President’s discretion.  The President can authorize the release of intelligence if he wants to.

You don’t want to believe that, but that doesn’t make it any less true. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

If the President discloses the existence of a TOP SECRET/Codeword NSA program to the NYT for them to publish, that is within his legal discretion and authority to do so.  He is both the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, and he has sole authority to do this.  He is under no obligation to answer to anyone, including Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, or other Senators or members of Congress, nor to ask their permission.

On the other hand, if someone else discloses the same information, without presidential authorization, that is called "leaking" and both that individual and the media organization that publishes the "leaked information, have violated federal statutes and are subject to rather lengthy prison sentences for doing so.  If the leaker is a member of the military, and there is, as now, a war, that individual could be charged with treason and subject to execution by firing squad. 

Now let me get this straight; we’re going to pile onto the President based on the testimony of someone accused of perjury.  Did I get that right?

Does anyone see a wee little problem with this?  Just a little one?  Please?

It is a leak if those very documents are not available to you or I or the general public.  And in this case none of those documents are available to the general public, the press nor have they been declassified.  Therefore, it meets the definition of a leak and the president leaked classified information.  Just do a FOIA request on this information and see if you get it.

The President isn’t the sole source of authority when it comes to matters of a military or an intelligence nature.  The Congress (according to its Art. I, sec. 8 powers) clearly has a very significant role (indeed, the predominant one from my perspective based on the historical evidence) in these matters outside the tactical functions of the military, etc.  What has happened of course is that (as in so many other areas of public policy) the Congress has transferred authority (and the courts have allowed them to do so) to the Executive branch in a way that severely undermines the Montesquieu-inspired seperation of powers doctrine that our Constitution rests on.  Historical gloss takes precendence over originalism in other words.  

As to what Bush leaked, well it sounds like he selectively leaked information for political purposes (not that using intelligence this way is very unique in U.S. history).  I’m not the first person to point out how dangerous this is and has been to the republic.

Bat One,

Actually, he doesn’t have the sole authority to do so.  The President isn’t a dictator after all.  His powers as the Executive are limited and in many circumstances trumped by those of the Congress.  Which is why the Congress passes laws regulating the nature of intelligence gathering, etc.

If the President has the authority to declassify secret information why did he slonk around in a weasel suit to do so?

 
"Respect mah Authrty" Eric Cartman

Then again, I’m also one of these people who think that after a year most "national security" related material should be declassified, since classification in many, many instances is a source of mischief and a means by which politicos can hide their misdeeds.

WOOF,

The issue is whether the President makes the laws or enforces them.  Indeed, if he makes them willy-nilly that almost means that he is above the law; it also clearly means that he has entered into the sphere of competance and power of the Congress.

IMHO, there are some very serious seperation of powers issues here that some personages here seem willing to side-step in order to "support the President."

Epi, I assume you’re referring to this part of Article I, Section 8:

      To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 That’s all well and good, but what law has Congress put forth as to the President’s authority to de-classify information?  And is such a law constitutional in light of Article’s II’s "the President is commander-in-chief" clause?

From my perspective, the commander-in-chief should certainly have the authority to unilaterally de-classify intelligence should he wish it. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

If Bush authorised Libby to release classified information to a journalist and if that authorisation was in effect declassification of the information then why did Bush subsequently order his Administration to declassify the document? It took some time for the officials to do so as I recall but if the information was already declassified then what was that all about?

Rob,

That’s merely one of the Congress’ powers.

The Congress has passed a plethora of laws dealing with the gathering, disclosure, etc. intelligence, etc.  There are entire courses in colleges which deal with that one specific subject.

Is it Constitutional?  Yes, it is. 

From my perspective, the commander-in-chief should certainly have the authority to unilaterally de-classify intelligence should he wish it.

Based on what exactly?  The "sole organ" doctrine (as you seemed to hint at earlier)?  That applies merely to foreign policy powers. 

Rob, the point here is he hasn’t declassified any of this information at all.  You and I do not have access to it nor does the press or anyone.  It was not declassified, he leaked it for political purposes, not to further the security of this country or to protect Iraq.  That’s the difference.

We can argue later over the significance of Congress’ role in both military matters (535 parade horses do not an army make).  And clearly mentioning Congress and Intelligence in the same breath is an open invitation to weapons grade sarcasm (I’ll see your Harry Reid and raise you one Trent Lott.)

What interests me, however, is the fact that many of those who are now excoriating the President for what is being disingenuously called a leak, were positively fulsome in their defense of the very real and strategically hurtful leak of the NSA surveillance program.  The morality of the President’s critics on the left is suspiciously selective in its application, the very essence or partisan hypocrisy that so defines contemporary liberalism. 

That’s merely one of the Congress’ powers.

The Congress has passed a plethora of laws dealing with the gathering, disclosure, etc. intelligence, etc.  There are entire courses in colleges which deal with that one specific subject.

Epi, looking at the wording of Article I Section 8 I see where Congress is allowed to set rules for the military (and by extension we can assume that it means the intelligence agencies as well), but nowhere does it say that Congress can set rules for the way the President can act as commander-in-chief.  I am not sure why you would assume that one branch of government’s powers can trump another, especially when there is no specific provision for any such thing in this instance.

I don’t buy your contention that Congress is able to define and regulate the President’s rule as CIF.  If the President has intelligence and wants to make it public, that is his decision. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Bat One,

If hypocrisy is your main charge, well the world is heaping over with that.

Rob,

<i>Epi, looking at the wording of Article I Section 8 I see where Congress is allowed to set rules for the military (and by extension we can assume that it means the intelligence agencies as well), but nowhere does it say that Congress can set rules for the way the President can act as commander-in-chief.</i>

Ahh, hmm.  Think about this for a moment.  If the Congress has a duty to set the rules for how the military is to operate, and the President operates the military, that means that it regulates the Presidents actions.  Indeed, there wouldn’t be much of a point of having three co-equal branches which check each other’s power if they were not in fact able to regulate the power of each other.  More to the point, how is the Congress supposed to regulate the military if the President merely ignores such regulations?        

<i>I am not sure why you would assume that one branch of government’s powers can trump another,...</i>

Because if you were to read the Constitutional debates, the Federalist Papers, etc. you’d see that Montesqieu’s claims regarding just such a thing were the bread and butter of their thinking.  Indeed, Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws was the most oft quoted text during the debates, and the most famous text on government at the time even amongst the general population (partly because sections were so often reprinted in newspapers at the time as filler for portions of the newspapers that remained unfilled).

Rob, he didn’t make it public, making it public means you and I get to see it.  He leaked parts of it, it wasn’t declassified in the least and he certainly didn’t make it public, hence the leak through Libby.

More to the point, how is the Congress supposed to regulate the military if the President merely ignores such regulations?

We’re not talking about the military taking any action here, we’re talking about the President taking action.  The military must take commands from the commander-in-chief but also follow the rules of congress.  That much is clear.  What is not clear, to me, is why the President himself must follow the rules of Congress as they pertain to the military.

If Congress writes a law that says "the military cannot release classified information unless it goes through such-and-such committee" the military is bound to obey that.  The President, however, is not as the Constitution can lay out rules for the military but not the CIF.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob,

Also, it should be obvious (in light of the Steel Seizure case and its tripartite notion of division of power between the executive and the legislative branches) that a power granted to one branch necessarily limits the power of another branch. 

Take clause 5, of sec. 8 (of Art. I) for example:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

In no way does this statement say anything about the President, but does this mean that the President’s "executive Power" is not limited by this power granted to the Congress?  After all, the executive power could concievably include the power to coin money or fix weights and measures (the executive power has certainly had such power in other countries).  No.  Quite clearly this excludes the President from fixing weights and measures and coining money except at the behest of the Congress; that is by a grant of authority by the Congress for the executive to set up an organization to do these things.

Indeed, I dare say by your logic our entire system of government would be overturned, and we would live in a country where (unless there was specific limiting language like the type you require - I think the language is specific enough as it is) each branch simply ignored the other branch’s actions.  Mere anarchy would be loosed upon the world (ok, the last part was a dramatic florish, but you get my meaning). 

That’s not really a relevant example, Epi.  There is nothing in the Constitution allowing the President to coin money.  In the situation before us, we have what seem to be conflicting powers.  The President is commander of the military, Congress sets the rules for the military.  It is a different situation.

Now, as I pointed out in my previous comment, I believe that while Congress can set rules for the military they cannot set them for the commander-in-chief.  Which means that if the CIF wants to disclose certain portions of classified intelligence Congress has no business telling him he can’t.

And this point may well be moot if Congress hasn’t even tried to tell the President that he cannot unilaterally make public this sort of intelligence. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob,

Then you should stop using the term "commander in chief."  Or at the very least understand the historical meaning of that term.

<i>The military must take commands from the commander-in-chief but also follow the rules of congress.  That much is clear.  What is not clear, to me, is why the President himself must follow the rules of Congress as they pertain to the military.</i>

Because the Congress is regulating the military’s actions; the President is ordering the military to act in a way that the Congress has specifically regulated in a way contrary to the President’s command.  In that case, the President’s consitutional power must bend to the Congress’.  You see, there are times when the branches clash, and the Constitution has set up a specific pecking order in that case.  The Congress creates the rules for how the military operates, much as it passes laws by which judges operate the legal system. 

<i>The President, however, is not as the Constitution can lay out rules for the military but not the CIF.</i>

Even if that sort of convoluted constitutional analysis were true (and it isn’t, the Congress can indeed bind the President in many ways he doesn’t like - he isn’t an absolute monarch) he is still acting through someone, and its that someone that the Congress’ rules come to bear on.  We don’t like a world where Roman Praetors (or pick another Roman Senatorial office) walk around with Lictors wielding fasces. 

Because the Congress is regulating the military’s actions; the President is ordering the military to act in a way that the Congress has specifically regulated in a way contrary to the President’s command.

Baloney.  The military did not act at all.  The military provided the President with a NIE memo.  The President then, without ordering the military to do a thing, made certain portions of the memo(s) public through channels in the press.

Unless you’re saying that providing the President with NIE memos is unconstitutional, you’re dead wrong.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

PF,

Read the entire article.  Cheney’s legal counsel, David addington, an expert on National Security law, advised that presidentially authroized disclosure amounts to de-classification, which only make sense if you think about it.

If disclosing information, any information, to a NYT reporter, is not "making it public", please explain what is.  Should the Presient be required to go on antional TV and announce it for you to consider the information to have been made public?  How large an audience share is required?

As for whether you or I "get to see it" perhaps you should try just that.  File and FOI request for those portions of the NIE that were disclosed and see what happens.  Let us know what the results are.  Of course, it would probably be well to remember that the entire NIE was not disclosed or de-classified, but there should be no reason to further withhold information that has been released (upon presidential authority - this time) to the NYT. 

Rob,

That’s not really a relevant example, Epi.  There is nothing in the Constitution allowing the President to coin money. 

Its quite relevant, as it demonstrates the sort of analysis you are making.  Don’t run away from the consequences of your line of reasoning. 

In the situation before us, we have what seem to be conflicting powers.

Well, at least we’ve got you to admit to that. 

The President is commander of the military, Congress sets the rules for the military.  It is a different situation.

More correctly, they are different types of powers.  The Commander in Chief power is properly understood to be a tactical power and the power to repel attacks before the Congress can get into session to declare war, etc.; the Congress’ power is the power to set general and specific rules about the nature of the military’s service.  You are saying that the President can willy-nilly ignores these rules simply because the Congress’ powers aren’t hyper-specific on the matter - I am telling you that he cannot.   

Now, as I pointed out in my previous comment, I believe that while Congress can set rules for the military they cannot set them for the commander-in-chief. 

Since the President works through the military, etc. this makes really no sense at all. 

Its quite relevant, as it demonstrates the sort of analysis you are making.  Don’t run away from the consequences of your line of reasoning.

I’m not running away.  We’re talking about conflicting powers, but your example indicated a power that was specifically given to one branch and not the other.  No need to get imperious with me, we simply disagree.

You are saying that the President can willy-nilly ignores these rules simply because the Congress’ powers aren’t hyper-specific on the matter - I am telling you that he cannot.  

The President is not willy-nilly ignoring rules, he is using his Presidential powers in a manner that is not precluded to him by the Constitution.  The Constitution does not address the situation directly, and I do not see the wisdom in assuming it does.  It is the role of the Courts to decide this one way or the other (or for Congress to ammend the Constitution to make it clearer).  Until the Courts address I don’t see where you can conclude anything other than the fact that the President is right.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob,

Baloney.  The military did not act at all. 

Since you wish to bob back and forth between a high level discussion and discussion of the particular issue its not baloney.

Again, even if we do grant your hypothesis merit (that when the President acts without the aid of anyone else he’s fine to ignore the wishes of Congress) he did in fact act through another party in this case (unless he called the news outlet on his own time) and that means that the party’s actions were regulated (since the intelligence laws apply universally to all citizens). 

Basically what you are left with is defending a scenario where the President reveals without the aid of anyone else some national security secret, which is such an unlikely scenario as to make the claim a rather bizarre one to defend.

Since the President works through the military, etc. this makes really no sense at all.

How was he working through the military in this instance? 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Again, even if we do grant your hypothesis merit (that when the President acts without the aid of anyone else he’s fine to ignore the wishes of Congress) he did in fact act through another party in this case (unless he called the news outlet on his own time) and that means that the party’s actions were regulated (since the intelligence laws apply universally to all citizens).

You’re still wrong, and you’re not making any sense.  Clearly, other members of the Bush administration had knowledge of the NIE information.  The President has staff and advisers all of whom have access to the intelligence that comes before him.  Libby, being an aid to the Vice President, probably already knew the contents of the memo while performing his routine job functions.  Thus, the President cannot "leak" information to people on his staff.  Further, the President authorizing Libby to provide bits of information to the media is an extension of his power.

Using your reasoning, Donald Rumsfeld wouldn’t have a job as the President would have to issue all commands to the military directly.  That just doesn’t make sense.

We can argue in circles all you want, but you’re still wrong.  The Constitution does not address this situation, by your own admission, and until that document is amended (or is interpreted to cover this situation by the Courts) the President has done nothing wrong. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob,

Given your theory of how power is demarcated any power which is not specifically forbidden the President by some hyper-specific text can be exercised by the President. 

Let me quote you in full in case you’ve forgotten what you wrote:

I am not sure why you would assume that one branch of government’s powers can trump another, especially when there is no specific provision for any such thing in this instance.
 

In light of the fact the President is given a very broad mandate regarding the "executive Power" (see the language in Art. II) this is indeed a very dangerous argument on your part, since all manner of areas which the Congress exercises non hyper-specific (but clearly exclusive authority) authority had considered part of the executive power in one state or another prior to 1787.  Perhaps you have fallen into this trap out of ignorance (indeed, I suspect that is the case), but you should understand the implications of your argument nonetheless.

...he is using his Presidential powers in a manner that is not precluded to him by the Constitution.

Until you can come up with a reason why that is the case then there is no reason to take this claim seriously.  On the other hand, I’ve actually made a detailed argument about why I am right.   

Until the Courts address I don’t see where you can conclude anything other than the fact that the President is right.

Actually, given your line of reasoning about the Courts being the ultimate arbiter here there is no reason to think either claim is true; indeed, the best one could be given what you have claimed is agnostic. 

Given your theory of how power is demarcated any power which is not specifically forbidden the President by some hyper-specific text can be exercised by the President.

That is not what I am saying at all.  I am saying that a power specifically granted to the President cannot be diminished by the powers granted to Congress unless the Constitution specifically provides for that.

In this example, the President cannot order the military to violate the rules set by Congress.  But the President can certainly take the results of intelligence produced by the military and do with them as he sees fit.  He is not ordering the military to break the rules, he is simply not following rules that do not apply to him.

The Constitution allows for Congress to set rules for the military, not the President.  If the founders wanted Congress to be able to set rules for the CIF it would say so.

Until the Congress reads otherwise, or the courts interpret it otherwise, you’re wrong. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob,

There is a reason why I use the "etc." in my sentences.  I suppose though I could spell out the terms CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., but that would still leave the list rather short.   

Thus, the President cannot "leak" information to people on his staff. 

Those people are authorized by the regulations that the Congress has created (and which have been flushed out by the agencies themselves under the power given them by the Congress) to have access, gather, etc. that information.  If you read the National Security Act, and the various acts which follower you’ll see how this all works.   

Further, the President authorizing Libby to provide bits of information to the media is an extension of his power.

Thus, the issue is whether the President has the authority to do that in light of the laws passed by the Congress.  The President has to abide by the decisions of the Congress when he steps into their sphere where they have control (e.g., see the Steel Seizure case) and in this case that is apparently what has happened here. 

Using your reasoning, Donald Rumsfeld wouldn’t have a job as the President would have to issue all commands to the military directly. 

No, Donald Rumsfeld would have a job, he merely couldn’t be commanded to do things that would violate what the Congress has dictated re: the regulation of the military.  Again, the President’s role is tactical in nature, and in some ways strategic, for instance, the conduct of a particular battle plan.  The Congress sets up general and specific rules on how the military is to run - this includes the general and specific rules on how intelligence is to be gathered, who has access to it, etc.   

Epi, where did you get the idea that Congress controls classified military information?  They do not.  That is the direct function of the chief Executive.  Most recently President Bush issued Executive Order 13292 which was:

the latest in a long series of executive orders on the topic. Issued by President George W. Bush in 2003, Executive Order 13292 replaces earlier executive orders on the topic and lays out the system of classification, declassification and handling of national security information generated by the United States Government and its employees and contractors, as well as information received from other governments.

The President writes the rules when it comes to classified information, and if the guy who writes the rules chooses to unilaterally declassify some previously classified information it is well within his power to do so.

Again, you can talk in circles if you want, but you’re still wrong. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Epicurus said

Again, the President’s role is tactical in nature, and in some ways strategic, for instance, the conduct of a particular battle plan.  The Congress sets up general and specific rules on how the military is to run - this includes the general and specific rules on how intelligence is to be gathered, who has access to it, etc.

This points out something that still nags me about Rob’s position on the powers of the President. I still can’t wrap my head around how the Executive branch can ignore the Legislative branch when it comes to established statutory law if it’s Congress’s role to make the law and the President’s role to execute it. The open ended authorisation that Bush defenders claim Congress provided after 911 just doesn’t jibe with the principles and apparent intentions of the framers of the American Constitution as I understand them. I thought you rejected the monarchy, even in times of war.

Rob,

That is not what I am saying at all.  

Well that’s a relief. 

I am saying that a power specifically granted to the President cannot be diminished by the powers granted to Congress unless the Constitution specifically provides for that.

That’s still a very problematic claim, since you merely beg the question: what does it mean when you state that they have been "specifically" provided for?  I find the language of Sec. I, art. 8 to be rather specific regarding the power of the Congress to regulate the national security apparatus of the government (indeed, not only to regulate it, but to create it - since the CIA, NSA, etc. are all incarnations of the Congress - their power flows directly from a specific organic act of the Congress) and that the President must follow those regulations (as they are enacted or as the agencies are empowered to create them by the Congress). 

In this example, the President cannot order the military to violate the rules set by Congress.  But the President can certainly take the results of intelligence produced by the military and do with them as he sees fit.  He is not ordering the military to break the rules, he is simply not following rules that do not apply to him.

This of course means that the President is above the laws of the land and is the sort of reasoning rejected in U.S. v. Nixon.  Indeed, on the one hand you are arguing that he can do what he sees fit, yet on the other you are arguing that he cannot order anyone to do what the Congress forbids.  There is a significant tension in your line of reasoning that cannot be surmounted.

Until the Congress reads otherwise, or the courts interpret it otherwise, you’re wrong. 

Why am I wrong?  Given your line of reasoning regarding the courts how can anyone be anything but agnostic on the matter?  Or are you not agnostic because there happens to be a Republican in the White House?

The way I understand this, Congress has the authority to govern how the information is released (even possible to the particulars of how the President authorizes the release of formerly classified documents), and in addition has oversight powers to ensure that the Administration is properly excersing it’s Article II powers.

But it’s a rather bizarre statement to claim that Congress is responsible for the declassification of individual documents generated within the administration.  The Administration routinely and without prior consultation declassifies documents all the time.  Anybody who’s ever dealt with classifed data knows that.

(They are also the authority that classified them to start with.)  Clearly as the executive in charge of the Administration, the President has full discretion (within the bounds of applicable statuatory law) to authorize the declassification of data within the bounds of applicable statuatory law.

The challenge for the ever eager critics of the President is to establish which stuatuatory law Bush broke by declassifying this particular document.  From MikeAdamson, we’ve learned that Bush later declassified the entire document.  So either Bush broke the law in both cases, or in neither.  Obviously the correct answer is "neither".

Yet another hyped-up nonstory.

Epi, we seem to be talking past each other.

Here is Executive Order 13292 issued by President Bush.  This document outlines the classification and declassification process for national security information.

Are you telling me that this document is all for show?  And that it is really Congress that has the power to classify and declassify national security information?  Because I just don’t think that jives with reality.

Mike,

I still can’t wrap my head around how the Executive branch can ignore the Legislative branch when it comes to established statutory law if it’s Congress’s role to make the law and the President’s role to execute it.

That’s because you’re using an overly-simplified definition of the powers.  I define the powers of the various branches of state as they are actually provided for in the Constitution. 

The open ended authorisation that Bush defenders claim Congress provided after 911 just doesn’t jibe with the principles and apparent intentions of the framers of the American Constitution as I understand them. I thought you rejected the monarchy, even in times of war.

We do reject monarchy.  With the NSA situation (which I really don’t want to get into in this thread as one complicated issue at a time is more than enough) the President’s war powers were invoked and he utilized them in accordance with a 4th Circuit ruling defining the powers he used as inherent to his branch of government.  Of course, Congress can balance those powers by simply revoking the AUMF in question or de-funding the intelligence programs they don’t like.  There is no monarchy taking place here, simply good balanced government. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob,

I haven’t written anything about classification.  I am well aware of the various exectutive orders on these matters (as proof note that Reagan in an EO helped to create our current anti-assasination of foreign leaders policy).  However, unless you want to deny the existance of the National Security Act (1947) and its various additions, etc., then I suggest you stop barking up some tree which denies the existance of an extensive legal framework as passed by the Congress for the regulation of the various intelligence entities. 

Mike,

Heh.  Because Republicans really aren’t interested in limited government or in originalism?  Its also in part at least due to the sort of electoral success that the Republicans generally enjoyed in the post-WWII era.  They got federal power via electing Presidents, not via dominating the Congress.

Then again, we’ve always seen cyclical periods of power for the branches, with the Congress dominating some periods and the Executive Office others.  Indeed, even Presidents have worried about this waxing and waning, for example Eisenhower always worried about fascism arising in the U.S. through the executive branch.  Which was, given his logic, one of the reasons why he was willing to go to nuclear war over Berlin - he felt that only a fascist U.S. regime could survive a European continent conquered by the Soviets.

Carrick,

But then the question is, what happens when the President bypasses the general rules (or even specific ones) created by the Congress?

However, unless you want to deny the existance of the National Security Act (1947) and its various additions, etc., then I suggest you stop barking up some tree which denies the existance of an extensive legal framework as passed by the Congress for the regulation of the various intelligence entities.

So…you’re saying the President cannot unilaterally declassify national security information?

Then why, as both Carrick and Mike pointed out, does he do it all the time? 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob,

For someone stating that we can only go around in circles, you sure do like to dance.

Whatever the dubious merits of your other claims, you do realize that the whole "they can defund of course" is a rather hollow argument, right?  The Congress is never going to defund a national security apparatus because even if it is doing X wrong, they still need it for A, B, C, D, E, etc.  And since most of the personnel are working on phases of all this, its even difficult to compartmentalize. 

Mike,

Sorry, for the digression.  Its my way.

Rob,

Because its done via a specific procedure (FOIA for example) created by Congress (as example), or because the Courts have found that there specific right to the information (call it a common law like constitutional right), etc.  Despite what the article states these EOs don’t work in a vacuum; indeed, they work off of Congressional grants of power, etc.

The Congress is never going to defund a national security apparatus because even if it is doing X wrong, they still need it for A, B, C, D, E, etc.

Congress can, in their appropriations, say that money "is to be spent on this, and not on this," can they not?

For someone stating that we can only go around in circles, you sure do like to dance.

Hey, I didn’t start this blog and call it "Say Anything" because I like to sit around and here from people who disagree with me. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

First, let’s establish that the military has nothing whatsoever to do with the President’s authorization to release some from the NIE.  The whole injection of the military into this discussion came about when Rob referred to the President’s constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief, and E sought to diminish the President’s authority under that role.  But the point here is moot anyway, and Rob appears to have made it merely as an example.

And it was not a particularly sterling example, either.  Except as adjunct to the military, the Constitutional does not specifically address question of national intelligence gathering, analysis, or reporting.  Neither the Executive’s powers, nor those of Congress are specifically addressed in the Constitution.

A more pertinent argument in support of the President’s authority to release previously classified information, military or not, can be found in the 2002 decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in Sealed Case No. 02-001, where the court said:

"The Truong court [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information….

“…We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."

In other words, again, there are certain powers that are constitutionally inherent to the president, regardless of who holds the office, and Congress, any Congress, may not constitutionally alter those powers legislatively.  Such powers could be in the area of military affairs, foreign affairs, domestic policy, or administrative in nature, as would be the case here.  The point is, Congress can not intrude or alter the constitutionally-mandated powers of a president.

In essence, every person in each and every agency involved in the collection, analysis and reporting and dissemination of intelligence information, works for the president.  From John Negroponte to Donald Rumsfeld to Porter Goss to the lowliest analyst, clerk-typist, or linguist.  All ultimately report to the President of the United   States.  He is the head of the executive branch of the government, and each of the agencies under either the Secretary of Defense or the National Intelligence Director are part of that executive branch of government.   I submit that even if there were a congressional attempt to legislatively limit the classification or de-classification of intelligence information, it would be beyond the constitutional scope of Congress in any case.

As Carrick put it, a non-story.

Rob,

Indeed, because the funding power is so hollow (from this standpoint) this is one of the reasons why the Congress has created the "legislative veto" (a practiced which has been overturned, but which is still in use - as long as neither branch sues each other over the use of it the courts can’t touch it - indeed, the only reason why the Supreme Court was able to do deal with it in INS vs. Chadha was because Chadha was able to present a justiciable claim).

Epi, from my reading of the President’s most recent executive order concerning this issue it is clear that Executive sets the rules for classifying and declassifying.  As Carrick points out, the executive branch routinely - without input or authorization from any other branch of government - declassifies this sort of information.  The President, in fact, later declassified the memo containing the very information Libby "leaked."  He did so without authorization from Congress or anyone else.

It seems to me, as Carrick pointed out, that the President was either wrong in both instances or right in both instances.  Since the President does this sort of thing all the time, it seems to me that he is right and your argument that Congress has some sort of power over this proces is wrong. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Carrick…I really must protest your use of the funky gravatars…very distracting! I won’t pretend to know American law as it pertains to national security but doesn’t it strike you as odd that information is declassified for the purpose of informing selected journalists and that apparently only three Administration figures are aware of the declassification? Assuming that Libby’s testimony is accurate of course, doesn’t this seem like a crazy way to run a railroad?

Regarding FOI, this is from the Freedom of Information Act, (Title 5, Section 552)

"(b) This section (Title 5, Section 552) does not apply to matters that are—

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order; "

Apparently then  Congress has authorized the Executive branch to designate what is, and what is not, classified material relating to national defense or foreign policy.

I would take the intellect of a prune to assume that the Executive can classify information, but not declassify it. 

but doesn’t it strike you as odd that information is declassified for the purpose of informing selected journalists and that apparently only three Administration figures are aware of the declassification? Assuming that Libby’s testimony is accurate of course, doesn’t this seem like a crazy way to run a railroad?

Not really when you consider why the information was declassified.  Joe Wilson made certain very nasty allegations after he returned from the now-infamous trip to Africa.  The President was simply engaging in some political push-back to counteract what Wilson was doing.

Was he playing politics?  Absolutely.  For better or worse, that’s the way it works.  The President has this authority and used it to defend his own policies.

What you’re seeing in this issue, Mike, and the NSA controversy is a battle that is almost as old as this country.  It goes back, in fact, to a battle between two of our founding fathers: Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.  I’m over-simplifying things a bit, but suffice it to say that Hamilton believed in executive power while Jefferson believed in Congressional power.  What we have is a system that fairly shrewdly, I believe, balances the power between the two branches evenly.  But still this Hamilton vs. Jefferson, "energy in the executive" vs. "energy in the legislature" rages in our country and will probably rage until America is no more (heaven forbid that should ever happen).

For the most part it is a healthy debate.  By pitting the branches at odds with one another (with the courts acting as a "referee" of sorts) we ensure that they check each other’s powers. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Mike, sorry…your question was directed at Carrick.  I took the liberty of answering, but he may disagree with me.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Congress has authorized the Executive branch to designate what is, and what is not, classified material relating to national defense or foreign policy.

Bat, this can be a little misleading.  In the past, when conflict between legislative and executive powers has arisen, Congress tends to "grant" the President powers that are already inherent to his office as a way to avoid granting that the President has the power without actually challenging it.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

From the executive order: 

"    (m)  "Declassification guide" means written instructions issued by a declassification authority that describes the elements of information regarding a specific subject that may be declassified and the elements that must remain classified."

Better look under the desk the order may be under those WMDs. 

MikeAdamson:

 

I won’t pretend to know American law as it pertains to national security but doesn’t it strike you as odd that information is declassified for the purpose of informing selected journalists and that apparently only three Administration figures are aware of the declassification?

I think you protest way too much.  I venture to say that "leaking" materials is done by governments all of the time.  Nor do I suppose it is illegal, if Bush authorized it, unless there is a specific statue that forbids the declassification of information.  (I’ll note that we are now taking the word of a known liar with something at stake in the matter, but I’m willing to do that for the sake of argument.)  The illegality would have arisen only if Scooter were to have leaked it without proper authorization, which frankly is quite likely.

Note that I accept that Congress plays a roie in the regulation and oversight of classifying and  declassifying sensitive information.  But it is the Administration in this country, and in the central bureaucracy in others, and not legislators who make the routine calls on what is classified or declassified and for what reason, whether that be for propaganda purposes or otherwise.

 

doesn’t this seem like a crazy way to run a railroad?

Which is the real meat of the matter.  What you are really objecting to is not what was done or whether it was legal (almost certainly the case), but how it was done.

Rob observes that

What we have is a system that fairly shrewdly, I believe, balances the power between the two branches evenly.

That’s what I thought too but if your view of Executive power is correct then your system is closer to the British and Canadian models than I suspect you’d admit. You’re talking about a framework of checks and balances that can,given circumstances like the GWOT, be unchecked and unbalanced at the President’s discretion…it’s even murkier when the enemy is unconventional like terrorists.

You’re talking about a framework of checks and balances that can,given circumstances like the GWOT, be unchecked and unbalanced at the President’s discretion

Not really, Mike, as the President’s war powers on the GWOT were only invoked by a vote of Congress. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

MikeAdamson:

 

You’re talking about a framework of checks and balances that can,given circumstances like the GWOT, be unchecked and unbalanced at the President’s discretion.

Rob might be, but I’m not.  It’s the difference between operational authority and fiscal, statuatory and oversight authority.  Operational authority was granted to the administration to prevent day-to-day ops from getting mired down in political infighting.  The balance comes in that any indiscretions on the part of the Administration can be quickly remediated by Congress or by emergency orders from the Supreme Court. I’m talking about in less than 24 hours if they so choose.

That’s not even close to the same thing as unchecked and unbalanced power.

Rob,

Congress can, in their appropriations, say that money "is to be spent on this, and not on this," can they not?

We’re talking about the national security blackhole here, something which makes military spending seem parsimonious and organized.  Remember, we’re talking about agencies and individuals who let both Robert Hannsen and Aldrich Ames get away with all manner of nightmares despite every possible warning about their nature as spies.  Indeed, historically Congressional oversight (especially before the 1970s) was quite lax; the current weakness in this area is due to the Congress own inability to act, not because it lacks the power.  Which sort of comments on what you write of the President doing; because this implies that mere historical gloss makes something constitutional.

Bat One,

First, let’s establish that the military has nothing whatsoever to do with the President’s authorization to release some from the NIE.

From whence does this power come from?  Are you arguing that it is inherent in his office? 

Except as adjunct to the military, the Constitutional does not specifically address question of national intelligence gathering, analysis, or reporting.

Ahh, since intelligence gathering was an arm of the military at the time, indeed had been for centuries and had been commented on by such scholars as Grotius, etc. this is a tortured reading of the text as it was understood.  Indeed, in divorcing the terminology from its overall context you are being quite ahistorical. 

Neither the Executive’s powers, nor those of Congress are specifically addressed in the Constitution.

To do a Scalia, they weren’t mentioned because they didn’t have to be.  Everyone knew that matters military included spies and various aspects of intelligence gathering.  Indeed, the commission of spies was part and parcel of the effort to defeat the British (as anyone who has passed through the CIA will tell you, during orientation one of the first things they talk about is America’s first spy - a miserable failure, but a spy nonetheless).  I must say that this is a very bizarre reading of the historical record on your part. 

In other words, again, there are certain powers that are constitutionally inherent to the president, regardless of who holds the office, and Congress, any Congress, may not constitutionally alter those powers legislatively.  Such powers could be in the area of military affairs, foreign affairs, domestic policy, or administrative in nature, as would be the case here. 

That is an extremely broad reading and application of a case that concerns surveillance of foreign entities, that is under a specific set of facts that are not readily applicable to the facts here.  Indeed, its also troubling that you’d hang your hat on what is essentially a Fourth Circuit opinion, an opinion which has no de jure power outside of the Fourth Circuit.  That and the fact that you’d so blithely grant the Presidency such unchecked power based on a theory of executive power that the founders wouldn’t recognize, and one which looks more like the absolutism of Louis XIV or James II than the vision of Montesquieu.  Indeed, it goes dead center against the very notion of checked and comingled power that our entire government is based on and which every major and minor commentator (federalist and anti-federalist alike) adhered to during the wide ranging debate over the Constitution between 1787 and 1789.

Carrick said of me
What you are really objecting to is not what was done or whether it was legal (almost certainly the case), but how it was done.

Which makes sense to me because I live in and approve of a system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. If Libby’s account is correct then we are not talking about a normal "leak" or heads-up to a newspaper guy or gal…process wise I mean. I’m not crazy about the notion of using natioanl security issues to puch back politically but I’m not so naive to think it doesn’t happen.

I’m not crazy about the notion of using natioanl security issues to puch back politically but I’m not so naive to think it doesn’t happen.

 What is the President to do when the public is confronted with a figure of authority (as Wilson was at the time) saying untrue things?  The President fought back against Wilson’s mischaracterizations by releasing selected portions of intelligence he felt ought to be made public.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Crap, apologies for the double post.

Bat One,

Can you name the EO under which this was declassified then?

Crap, apologies for the double post.

No problem, I deleted the duplicate. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Epicurus:

 

Ahh, since intelligence gathering was an arm of the military at the time, indeed had been for centuries and had been commented on by such scholars as Grotius, etc. this is a tortured reading of the text as it was understood.

Unless you are referring to Supreme Court rulings of course, since  in the case of non-wartime military intelligence gatherings, the primary purposes is to twart domestic attacks, a primarily law-enforcement issue.

Bart One,

Indeed, I have to ask, how in the hell does your notion fit into any notion of a limited government of specifically enumerated powers?  Are you really supposed to be a "conservative?" 

Carrick,

You are going to have to tease that out a bit more since the gathering of domestic intelligence has been an affair that the Congress has concerned itself with since the time of the Continental Congress.

rob
The President fought back against Wilson’s mischaracterizations by releasing selected portions of intelligence he felt ought to be made public.

Which appear to have turned out to be mischaracterisations of no lower order. I may not agree with everything that Wilson has claimed but his account of uranium and Niger seems to strike closer to the truth than does Bush’s. 

MikeAdamson,

Whenever you deal with anyone in D.C. you have to have hipwaders on.

The enemy, Baath Party, Al Queda, the DNC, CBS, ABC, NBC are hoping to lose the war for the United States by taking away our will to fight.  Frankly this IS how we lost the war in Vietnam.

 If the President needs to release some information in order to keep the American Public informed with correct information, then I say so be it.  I’m sure he ran it through the various committee’s to verify that no harm would come of releasing that info.

If the president was within his rights to release the information why did he just put out a press release?  No, he had Scooter Libby "leak" the information and Scooter even identifies himself as a "Hill Staffer" not even an "administration source?"  Oh, what what a tangled web we weave…...

http://www.stickergirl.com/images/BBMAIN.jpg

Because the liberals don’t believe regular channels, but if it comes from leaks they’ll go nuts.

More seriously it appears that the administration wasn’t trying to get the truth out in the press so much as to keep the press from repeating Wilson’s lies. 

The only reason the President had to do that to get the real story out is because the MSM won’t do it’s job when it should be going after scumbags like Joe Wilson.

You’re not saying that if the press would have done their own background work that they would have already known that Joe Wilson wasn’t telling the truth about his Secret-Agent mission to Niger.

I think it’s likely that the Dan Rather types did know. 

Well, it seems the Bush apologists are out in full force tonight.  So let me get this straight, Cheney figured out how to go on Fox News to explain a shooting.  Tom Delay figured out whom to go to get his story out.  You mean to tell me Bush couldn’t pick up the phone and call Woodward whom he had given huge access to before.  Oh, it’s all the MSM’s fault, yeah and the dog ate my homework. What a crock!

No apologies(or apologism) necessary.  The President is right, and has been right all along.  You hate-filled lefties can’t stand the fact that, out of all the networks and newspapers that mouth your ideology, there is one that reports the truth about half the time.  Talk about fear!  You can’t stand it that we have any voice at all.  You want monolithic control or you get all scared.  Nice going!

No, Robert 108, I quite enjoy watching you all spin spin spin. 

No spin, just the truth.  I know that is foreign to you, but there it is.

puzzlefeet,

Yes, the story lacks credulity.

robert108,

The President is right, and has been right all along.

Have you ever asked whether he was wrong?

To what are you referring?  I was speaking directly to having to get the truth out about that lying scumbag Joe Wilson because the MSM wouldn’t do their job(informing the public).  He was also right about Saddam, the connections with OBL, the war on terror, etc etc.

Epi: He’s wrong about illegal immigration and the entitlement spending.  I have written this many times, but you are a newcomer, so I understand your position.  It’s just wrong.  I don’t pigeonhole well.

Great couple of weeks to be a gop, huh, people. Delay’s office boy Tony Rudy pleads guilty, then Delay himself cuts and runs, 2 DHS pervs arrested, Libby said Cheney said bush said it was ok to tell Judy (but only if you use a super duper undercover name), about cherry picked NIE info that kinda makes a case for invading and occupying a country that had no WMD, no 9/11 connection, no OBL connection…in fact before the war both Powell and Rice said that ole Saddam was not a threat… Curt Weldon uses his opponents sick daughter to attack him…no one wants the FEMA job, so they gave it to the assistant…fox poles have W with a 56% disapproval rating…not that poles matter or anything…the gop senate is passing a half arse immigration bill…Condi says 1000’s of mistakes, Rummy says aaahh I don’t think that’s right…Delay’s minion goes Donald Segretti at one of his opponents’ news conferences, real classy Hot Tub, real classy…the house gops are coming unhinged and failed to blueprint a new budget among other things and are in a wicked power struggle now that The Hammer is gone…John (Plato’s Retreat) Bolton will not have US on UN Human Rights Counsel…Big Al Gonzalez bombshells that bushco can tap Americans talking to Americans without a warrant…Katharine Harris has all(?) of her staff quit and still has 7mil to spend to keep her promise to hannity…Santorum is 11 points behind… Sensenbrenner is ticked off at the AG…McCain goes a pandering…Jack A gets 5 years 10 months…

"Can you name the EO under which this was declassified then"

Epictitus,

The basic tenet behind FOI is that all information is subject to release, with the exceptions noted.  Not the other way around.  The requirement is for an EO to support withholding information from release, not to justify or authorize its release.  To suggest otherwise is just plain silly.

If there is another legislative provision which requires an EO as authorization for the release of classified information by the executive, especially by the president, I’d be grateful if you’d provide the citation.

Bobbie,

It is always good to be associated with those who value principles, even when they fail to live up to those principles, rather than to count myself as one of those whose only guiding ethics are expediency and whatever hypocrisy is requisite to support it.

Rober108,

Your certitude suggests an unwillingness to question the specific policy you were actually discussing.   

Bat One,

I think I need to remind you of a question:

Indeed, I have to ask, how in the hell does your notion fit into any notion of a limited government of specifically enumerated powers?  Are you really supposed to be a "conservative?" 

I think you really need to justify the unenumerated, fiat power the Presidency has in your eyes, and how such makes the U.S. executive any different from the offices and powers claimed by Napoleon, James II, or any of the other many tyrants that have plagued man.  

Oh, and Epictetus and Epicurus are two different classical figures.

The basic tenet behind FOI is that all information is subject to release, with the exceptions noted. 

I’m the one who brought FOIA up when y’all were claiming that only EOs dealt with classification.  Having actually read the entire act I am well aware of its contents. 

The requirement is for an EO to support withholding information from release, not to justify or authorize its release. To suggest otherwise is just plain silly.

Since its your fellow travellers who suggested that was the case then they are the silly ones I guess.   

Rober108,

Your certitude suggests an unwillingness to question the specific policy you were actually discussing.   

Bat One,

I think I need to remind you of a question:

Indeed, I have to ask, how in the hell does your notion fit into any notion of a limited government of specifically enumerated powers?  Are you really supposed to be a "conservative?" 

I think you really need to justify the unenumerated, fiat power the Presidency has in your eyes, and how such makes the U.S. executive any different from the offices and powers claimed by Napoleon, James II, or any of the other many tyrants that have plagued man.  

Oh, and Epictetus and Epicurus are two different classical figures.

The basic tenet behind FOI is that all information is subject to release, with the exceptions noted. 

I’m the one who brought FOIA up when y’all were claiming that only EOs dealt with classification.  Having actually read the entire act I am well aware of its contents. 

The requirement is for an EO to support withholding information from release, not to justify or authorize its release. To suggest otherwise is just plain silly.

Since its your fellow travellers who suggested that was the case then they are the silly ones I guess.   

I’m the one who brought FOIA up when y’all were claiming that only EOs dealt with classification.  Having actually read the entire act I am well aware of its contents.

The old appeal to authority routine, huh?

While you’re at it, why not actually address any of the criticisms of your position rather than simply trying to obfuscate the issue?

It is very black and white.  The President has the authority to declassify the NIE document in question, in part or in total.  Period.
 

If you are claiming anything else, you simply don’t know what you are talking about, regardless of how many documents you’ve read front to back.

There’s been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president’s office as well.

Scott McClellan, White House, 9/29/03

There’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch.  There’s just too many leaks.  And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.  And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

George W Bush,  9/30/03

 I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.

George H. W. Bush. 4/26/99

Back on the scene, cripy and clean!

Epicurius,

I am well aware of that Epicurius and Epictitus were two different person, with two different philosophical approaches.  I am no more inclined toward such mistaken identities than you are toward typographical errors.

"I think you really need to justify the unenumerated, fiat power the Presidency has in your eyes, and how such makes the U.S. executive any different from the offices and powers claimed by Napoleon, James II, or any of the other many tyrants that have plagued man. "

Actually, I don’t "need" to do any such thing.  Like every other commenter, here or elsewhere, I write what I think (or in the case of most of those on the left, what they feel.)  You are likewise free to critique or question yer li’l ol’ heart out, but your questions in no way obligate me… much as my criticisms or questions impose no such obligation on anyone else.  Besides, any restrictions, limitations, or obligations aren’t really yours to impose, are they?

Carrack,

You have the demonstrate that the appeal is unwarranted before you can determine whether or not it is fallacious.  Am I not the one who first brought up FOIA back when y’all were yammering on about EO’s being the sole source of classification power?

While you’re at it, why not actually address any of the criticisms of your position rather than simply trying to obfuscate the issue?

Give me an example where I’ve done such.  If you had one I am sure that such an honest and upright commentator as yourself would have provided one.

It is very black and white.  The President has the authority to declassify the NIE document in question, in part or in total.  Period.

This sounds a heck of a lot like bluster. 

If you are claiming anything else, you simply don’t know what you are talking about, regardless of how many documents you’ve read front to back.

Apparently honest differences of position are not respected here.  You’ve lapsed into trollery and bluster.  Well, you can huff and puff with all the hot air you wish to, that is still not going to demonstrate your position.  It will make you look rather foolish and rude to any neutral observor though.

Rick: You forgot to mention that all your quotes apply specifically to the alleged leak of the name of a covert CIA agent, who, it turns out, was not covert.  Nice try.

Bat One,

Thanks for the cop out for your obviously indefensible position.  You’re obviously smart enough that if you could defend your stated position you would.  Why not simply admit the fact that a true conservative could never defend sort of fiat powers you claim that the President possesses?  That anyone who believes in limited, enumerated government could never stand for the sort of tyranny your language would allow?  Honestly, your attitude saddens me.     

Or here, take Carrick’s advice:

While you’re at it, why not actually address any of the criticisms of your position rather than simply trying to obfuscate the issue?  

Robert108,

Here we go again . . . she was identified in court documents as having been undercover.  Her operations were compromised and intelligence gathering assets in MENA were compromised.

The "leaks" referred to in this thread were specifically not about Plame.  That was my point.  Whether she was undercover at the time of the leak is still being adjudicated, I believe, but Fitzgerald specifically stateed that he had not uncovered anything to indicate that crime had been committed.  My main point still holds.  The quotes were about the Plame affair, not the subject of this thread, as plainly stated in the initial article.

Robert:

but Fitzgerald specifically stateed that he had not uncovered anything to indicate that crime had been committed. 

As a caveat I will note that Bat One’s attitude is what is so dangerous about war for a free people; warfare and conquest undermined the Roman Republic, it undermined the democracy in Athens (leading to the state sanctioned murder of Socrates), and it can undermine our republic by destroying the very foundation of our government (one of limited and enumerate powers) and our values as a free people.   

No, Rick, the indictment is not for outing a covert agent.  Read it.

Epi: The fall of Rome was due to the inability to defend their borders.  They were overrun.  I would support the "virual border" if those drones were armed with air to ground missiles.  Otherwise a fence with all the modern stuff to back it up will work pretty well.  I would also include a program to eliminate the conditions that make the invaders want to leave home.

You should actually reread your own claim.  You misled to believe that no crime had been committed at all.  I correctly your mistatement.  You can thank me.

Rick:  Here’s the link:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:caJ0Os8ENhgJ:www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf+libby+indictment&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1