Libby: Bush OK'd Secret Intel Leak

Rob Lister said:
What are you referring to CFL?

The president can and does declassify information on a continious basis. Nothing unusual about that. It requires no justification other than his whim, his signiture, and a date.
Click to expand...
The US President can out the identity of a CIA spy on a whim?
 
CFLarsen said:
The US President can out the identity of a CIA spy on a whim?
Click to expand...

To answer both you and Dillon, the answer is yes: but he would be held accountable by the congress, as he is for all acts.

But who said he outed Plame? Who even suggested it?
 
CFLarsen said:
The US President can out the identity of a CIA spy on a whim?
Click to expand...

Seconded. I thought the crime was outing an actively covert agent? Since when is Bush authorized to claim that an actively covery agent (and it has been established that Plame had that status) does not have to be protected? Wouldn't doing so mean he has to void the law protecting all agents?
 
Rob Lister said:
To answer both you and Dillon, the answer is yes: but he would be held accountable by the congress, as he is for all acts.
Click to expand...
Can you offer any legal authority for that claim? I would be surprised, though not necessarily shocked, if it were true that the president can declassify information simply by giving an oral instruction to disclose it.
 
pgwenthold said:
Seconded. I thought the crime was outing an actively covert agent? Since when is Bush authorized to claim that an actively covery agent (and it has been established that Plame had that status) does not have to be protected? Wouldn't doing so mean he has to void the law protecting all agents?
Click to expand...

The argument is moot since there is no contention that he outed an actively covert agent, or any other type of agent, for that matter.
 
Rob Lister said:
The argument is moot since there is no contention that he outed an actively covert agent, or any other type of agent, for that matter.
Click to expand...

To reiterate
Since when is Bush authorized to claim that an actively covert agent (and it has been established that Plame had that status) does not have to be protected?
Click to expand...
 
I think Rob's point, which is a correct one, is that the article doesn't say that Bush authorized the disclosure of Plame's identity; it only says he (allegedly) authorized the leakage of prewar intelligence regarding Iraq.
 
Rob Lister said:
To answer both you and Dillon, the answer is yes: but he would be held accountable by the congress, as he is for all acts.
Click to expand...

A congress controlled by the President, yes.

Do you really think it is a good thing that one person has that much power? He can break the law, say it's OK, and have the branch of government he controls OK it, too.

That's an invitation to power abuse.
 
shemp said:
Jesus, I guess if I get my hands on some classified papers, I'll just release them and claim that I was doing it to support the war.
Click to expand...

Oh, when did you get hired by the New York Times?
 
JamesDillon said:
I think Rob's point, which is a correct one, is that the article doesn't say that Bush authorized the disclosure of Plame's identity; it only says he (allegedly) authorized the leakage of prewar intelligence regarding Iraq.
Click to expand...

But even that is a mischaractorization based on the articles weasle word: Leak

If info is not classified (or otherwise confidential), there is no "leak", rather, there is disclosure. Are we attacking him for disclosing information?

Maybe we should, but would somebody, for Ed's sake, let us know what infomation he authorized for disclosure so we can have some reasonable understanding of its impact?

I'll say again, so far we know this:

Bush declassified some stuff.
 
Rob Lister said:
no. The congress is an independent branch of the goverment.
Click to expand...


Which is presently controlled (although less so as time goes on) by the current administration.

So your "no" means "yes". Newspeak?
 
You want to change the subject? Why? What's wrong with the subject as it is? Do you not like it because you don't have a leg to stand on?
 
CFLarsen said:
Answer the questions.
Click to expand...

Start a thread in which the question is topical and I shall consider responding, if I find your thread worthy. That you have no leg to stand on regarding this topic is not an excuse for you, or others of your ilk, to change it.
 
Plus we have to keep in mind that the outing of Plame was to teach someone a lesson who was going to bring new information to light that Saddam wasn't seeking nukes through African uranium.

Too bad Bush couldn't cover his own ass well enough. This house of cards is going to take a while to fall down. The Republicans might as well just give up the 2006 Election now, the covering that's going to take place here is going to be horrific. It is just not looking good at all.
 
Rob Lister said:
Start a thread in which the question is topical and I shall consider responding, if I find your thread worthy. That you have no leg to stand on regarding this topic is not an excuse for you, or others of your ilk, to change it.
Click to expand...
If you want to chicken out on the questions, perhaps you could explain why I "have no leg to stand on" regarding this topic?

Or is that beneath you as well?
 
Rob Lister said:
But even that is a mischaractorization based on the articles weasle word: Leak

If info is not classified (or otherwise confidential), there is no "leak", rather, there is disclosure. Are we attacking him for disclosing information?
Click to expand...

I don't think information has to be classified to be "leaked"; it need only be secret. Per dictionary.com:

leak 3. Informal. To become publicly known through a breach of secrecy.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the Iraq intelligence was legally classified (although it seems safe to assume that all intelligence is classified until it is declassified), I think it's fair to call the disclosure of secret intelligence to the press a "leak."


[I'll say again, so far we know this:

Bush declassified some stuff.
Click to expand...
You're still assuming that Bush can declassify things just by saying, "Disclose this information." As I've said, I would be surprised if that's true, and you haven't yet responded to my request for some legal authority suggesting that it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom