Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Libby: Bush OK'd Secret Intel Leak
- Thread starter shemp
- Start date
Answer the questions.
Three words:
Dubai.
Ports.
Deal.
How much for that tower? It seems to be in good shape, but the location sucks.
The President is the sole classification authority. All classified materials that are generated and all materials that are declassified stem directly from his authority as Commander-in-Chief. His judgment - and his judgment alone - dictates what information is classified and what information is declassified. Congress can ask - but is not guaranteed - that certain information is declassified. The President can delegate this authority to others and in practical circumstances this is how declassification is usually achieved but the authority is his and his alone in a very real sense.
As far as paperwork is concerned, declassification is achieved through executive order. The president designates class/declass authorities and that command or person can issue orders to effect this designation in individual instances. There are provisional authorities granted as well but those probably fall outside the scope of this discussion. The rest of the process is left to the pencil jockeys. The document custodian will revise the classification markings, attribute the new classification date and sometimes attribute the authority by which the change in classification was made.
ETA: The document custodian will have to do some auditing requirements that fall outside the scope of this discussion as well and vary according to the level of classification, the type of media and command-specific practices.
As far as paperwork is concerned, declassification is achieved through executive order. The president designates class/declass authorities and that command or person can issue orders to effect this designation in individual instances. There are provisional authorities granted as well but those probably fall outside the scope of this discussion. The rest of the process is left to the pencil jockeys. The document custodian will revise the classification markings, attribute the new classification date and sometimes attribute the authority by which the change in classification was made.
ETA: The document custodian will have to do some auditing requirements that fall outside the scope of this discussion as well and vary according to the level of classification, the type of media and command-specific practices.
Last edited:
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Para 1: I'm not sure what you think the difference is: once something is disclosed, it is no longer secret.
Para 2: What you think is fair may not be fair. By your logic, how would any classified information of any sort be disclosed to the public in any manner other than a "leak". Once its officially declassified, it's not a leak, it's a disclosure. Now, I admit that one could make it seem like a leak, and perhaps that is what you are getting at.
Para 3: The department responsible for classifying information has the authority to declassified said same. For example, the DoD classifies the blueprints of a new warfighter. The President, at a whim, can declassify said same. If congress doesn't like it, they can impeach him.
It should be somewhere in Title 10 of the United States Code. I'll cite the relevant section when I have a chance.
ETA: Strike that. It's not Title 10. Title 18 defines the crime of disclosure of classified information:
18 USC; §798(b)
I'll look for the section that deals with classification authority later, but this is the relevant part that deals with Libby's defense.
Last edited:
Nah, I see where JD's going and I agree. It might be "secret," for example, that the president is going to nominate Joe Blow to the FCC. "Secret" in the sense that the President wants to announce it in his own good time, or when the background check comes back, or whatever. And if McClellan tells one of the White House press types that Joe Blow's the guy because he owes that reporter an exclusive, he has "leaked" it. Bush is known to hate leaks ("leaks" here defined as information he doesn't want out, at least at the time, disclosed without attribution), and he is thought to oppose them ("leaks" here defined as selective disclosure without attribution to reporter A rather than the pool). So one might reasonably make a political judgement about the President if one believed that he declassified the document with a mind toward selectively dribbling it out rather than inviting the entire press to examine it. That was part of the OP, too.
That's separate, of course, from any legal consequences which might be present here, of which there are none.
wastepanel
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 572
I think this is all moot because Libby is not being charged with outing a CIA agent. He's being tried for perjury. It means he lied during the investigation. Unfortunately, all this acknowledgement does is cloud the water so he can get away with it.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
This "leak" of the evidence is meant to do just the opposite, me thinks.
Oh, are we going to take yet another thread to 10 pages on unrelated topics, Claus? Because I can play that game, too.
wastepanel
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 572
Does everyone realize they are all arguing hypothetically (as in if Libby was charged with outing an agent)? Nobody's been charged with outing an agent.
wastepanel
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 572
I like this game better.
Correct. In fact, this information also has nothing to do with the actual charges, which you correctly identified as having to do with lying to investigators. I think Lister's interpretation is correct -- this is a disclosure designed to put pressure on the administration to cut Libby even further loose than they already have.
Whether the president, vice-president, or Libby were legally entitled to leak the information is not the key issue here. It's a distraction.
In 2003 a CIA officer was outed in the media. An investigation was authorized to determine the facts of the matter. It was agreed at that time, by the White House as well as others, that this was a serious matter and that it was important to get to the bottom of who did what.
At that time people at the White House were claiming to have had no involvement in the matter. Whether they were weaseling and actually meant that (in their opinions) they had no criminal involvement is irrelevant. The point is that, in order to determine the facts of the matter, Fitzgerald needed to talk to people who had knowledge of the leak and needed to find out what they knew. And instead of cooperating with the investigation the people at the White House stalled, delayed, evaded, and dissembled.
Some of them -- notably Scooter Libby -- made statements to the investigators and testimony to the Grand Jury which turned out to be significantly false. That is what Libby is charged with -- making false and misleading statements which have hindered the investigation.
It is very difficult to know who is guilty of what if people lie to investigators or otherwise obstruct the investigation. And if investigators cannot determine who to charge and what to charge them with, then criminals walk free. That's why obstruction of justice is a serious matter.
It is nice if Libby is now telling the truth about how Valerie Wilson's name got leaked and her cover blown. If this is indeed the truth, it may help Fitzgerald get to the bottom of that matter and determine whether criminal charges are warranted (and if so which ones, and against whom). But that doesn't alter the fact that for the past couple of years Libby and others appear to have willfully tried to stymie Fitzgerald's investigation.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Libby did indeed have knowledge about how Valerie Wilson came to be outed -- that he had information pertinent to the investigation of that outing, and that instead of cooperating with the investigation as he was legally required to do he chose to conceal what he knew and to muddy the investigative waters. And his latest statements serve as one more confirmation of that increasingly obvious fact.
That is what Libby is charged with. That is what he is going to be tried for. And so far his defense seems to be one attempt after another to distract attention from that basic fact.
In 2003 a CIA officer was outed in the media. An investigation was authorized to determine the facts of the matter. It was agreed at that time, by the White House as well as others, that this was a serious matter and that it was important to get to the bottom of who did what.
At that time people at the White House were claiming to have had no involvement in the matter. Whether they were weaseling and actually meant that (in their opinions) they had no criminal involvement is irrelevant. The point is that, in order to determine the facts of the matter, Fitzgerald needed to talk to people who had knowledge of the leak and needed to find out what they knew. And instead of cooperating with the investigation the people at the White House stalled, delayed, evaded, and dissembled.
Some of them -- notably Scooter Libby -- made statements to the investigators and testimony to the Grand Jury which turned out to be significantly false. That is what Libby is charged with -- making false and misleading statements which have hindered the investigation.
It is very difficult to know who is guilty of what if people lie to investigators or otherwise obstruct the investigation. And if investigators cannot determine who to charge and what to charge them with, then criminals walk free. That's why obstruction of justice is a serious matter.
It is nice if Libby is now telling the truth about how Valerie Wilson's name got leaked and her cover blown. If this is indeed the truth, it may help Fitzgerald get to the bottom of that matter and determine whether criminal charges are warranted (and if so which ones, and against whom). But that doesn't alter the fact that for the past couple of years Libby and others appear to have willfully tried to stymie Fitzgerald's investigation.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Libby did indeed have knowledge about how Valerie Wilson came to be outed -- that he had information pertinent to the investigation of that outing, and that instead of cooperating with the investigation as he was legally required to do he chose to conceal what he knew and to muddy the investigative waters. And his latest statements serve as one more confirmation of that increasingly obvious fact.
That is what Libby is charged with. That is what he is going to be tried for. And so far his defense seems to be one attempt after another to distract attention from that basic fact.
Mephisto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 6,064
I agree, it difficult to blame anyone else when your political party is in control of nearly every branch of government. So far us "librals" have been painted as being responsible for the war in Iraq going poorly, the slow response to victims of hurricane Katrina, being Saddam sympathizers, supporting terrorists because we disagree with certain policies, being responsible for the influx of illegal immigrants, and for security leaks about NSA wiretapping . . . blaming us for Libby's "spilling the beans," wasn't a surprise.
Thinking about this more, I think this interpretation is incomplete. It explains why Fitzpatrick's office made the matter public. But the reason for seeking it, in addition to the reason I gave earlier, could be to establish motive. It builds the case that the administration was very highly focused on rebutting the false statements Wilson had made.
kalen
Your Daddy
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2004
- Messages
- 933
What if the President ordered Libby to make false and misleading statements because, you know, 9-11.
Actually this part of the indictment falls under the case of obstruction of justice and this is also his most serious charge. It carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. The lying and perjury carry a max of 5 years each. The prosecution will try to show that Libby intentionally obstructed justice by lying and misguiding the investigators. They will also try to show his motive—namely his role within the administration, especially around the leaks issue. They’ll probably contrast his conduct and testimony before and during the investigation. They will also want to contrast his conduct and testimony between the legal NIE declassification and the Plames leak. If his conduct were found to be inconsistent, he would be in deep doodoo.
Yeah. It looks like Libby is trying to drown the prosecution with paperwork. He wants vast amounts of paper from different agencies and he wants the government to go through the job of giving it to him. That is an all too common litigation tactic.
April 6, 2006 Government's Response to Third Motion to Compel Discovery
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/d...nments_response_to_third_motion_to_compel.pdf
Office of Special Counsel
Legal Proceedings
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/legal_proceedings.html
Indictment
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
You're obviously a shill for Bushitlerhalliburton if you don't agree with those who are utterly convinced this is grounds for impeachment. At least until the next utterly convincing grounds come along next week...