Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

I would wait to pass judgement... this sounds like hearsay to me.

Actually, it sounds like the definition of hearsay. If Libby could've proven it, he should have come out with proof before this. Stating it in this way only makes it legally impotent. If it's true or not, this was a foolish legal move. Other than creating a stir for the newspapers, it cannot legally do anything in court.

@Steve Watts - from the time Libby was first indicted he said that he received specific permission from Cheney to leak information. Probably the reason for him only saying Bush was involved recently is that the prosecution may be saying that Cheney did not have the executive power to authorize this type of leak. Libby may have been trying to protect the president by withholding his name.

I'm sorry Miss Dev is this seems a little direct, but did you read the article?

Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say.

This is a textbook definition of hearsay.

@Steve Watts: If Libby is currently trying to compel the government to give up documents, then his statements are at least going to be read by the Judge and very likely could weigh on the decision of whether to order the production of those documents. Whether the statements are admissible or not, they do have some significance. Moreover, the statements were made during grand jury testimony... when exactly was Libby supposed to come out with his "proof?" His trial hasn't begun, therefore his burden to "prove" anything is non-existant.

Anything coming from the president - directly or indirectly, documented or not, constitutes an executive order.

That doesn't mean its ethical.

Anyone else remember that Bush ran and won on "Values" in 2004? Yeah. I didn't think so.

Legally, nothing will happen. This will just be added to the 2006 Democratic stump speech. Maybe some folks in the middle will wake up and realize that unchecked one-party power by either party is bad news.

The allegation by Libby that Bush (indirectly) told him to leak the information is heresy. What's not heresy is that Cheney was the conduit.

"Dick Cheney told me to leak this information" is not heresy. What it is, however, is a pretty damning thing for Cheney. He is not authorized to declassify information on his own. If questioned, Cheney could implicate Bush, and that would not be heresy. Alternatively, Cheney could take one for the team and be the fall guy.

Libby's implication of Bush-through-Cheney shows that he's not willing to be the fall guy on this one. It means this can go higher up in the White House.

Killfile, I believe you mean "hearsay." Heresy is different.

Well with the Religious Right in power.....

yea.... hearsay.

Hoss, i think it means it's about time We The People fire him.

k, I think we should not vote for him in 2008!!

What's misleading about it? All of the supporting details are in the article.

The problem is the emotional reaction people have to the word "leak." It implies an illegal act. The facts in the story do not support an illegal act. The president authorized a release of previously classified information. The New York Times reporter may have considered it a leak, but we have no proof that it was illegal on the president's part.

The presumed illegality was that Libby may have identified an active CIA agent by name. There is no evidence that the president or vice-president were involved in identifying her via Libby.

rockman said ...

The president authorized a release of previously classified information. The New York Times reporter may have considered it a leak, but we have no proof that it was illegal on the president's part.

We don't know what that classified information was. So, your supposition that "the facts in the story do not support an illegal act" is no less credible than those you oppose. We have no proof, but Libby has been indicted as a direct result of the leak of Valerie Plame's name. It's entirely plausible, on those facts, that this is related.

And, between the lines, you're right: the president has the power to release previously classified information. I'm less concerned about the legality than the intent. If Plame's name was included in the information authorized for release, it's not a far leap to believe that the release was retalitation for Joseph Wilson's reporting on Niger. While not illegal, such an action further calls into question the moral fiber of a man who considers his own morality his greatest strength.

Actually the indictment of Libby is NOT about the leaking of Valerie Plame's name. He was indicted because the prosecuter believes he was lying during the investigation. Quite different

There is no evidence that the president or vice-president were involved in identifying her via Libby.

When I watch a sporting event of some kind, and the team I want to win loses because of a "bad call" by the officials, I get angry. Then I calm down and say to myself: "If they were winners, they wouldn't have been in a position that a single bad call would affect them."

Whether its legal or not, no "good" President, like the sports team, would have been in this position in the first place. Its not just this "leak." Its a laundry list of shady deeds, bad statements, poor planning, etc. Even if only HALF of it is true or justified, its really freaking scary. Seriously, does anyone actually REMEMBER Clinton? Does sex in the White House = 2300+ dead soliders and countless dead civilians because of "bad intelligence"?

The way the media is over hyping this, I agree, and consider it a "bad call." But it doesn't mean that this administration is a winner.

No, it's a different special prosecutor. Fitzgerald was appointed by the Ashcroft DoJ.

well i doubt there will be even a hint of indictment. The law on leaking a covert agents identity is overly vague. But you can accuse them of lying since the onset pretending to not know who leaked Plames name but that isnt a criminal offense. I will be really amazed how they try to spin this though.

If both Bush and Cheney knew about this leak than they need to be indicted and prosecuted.

Hate to disappoint you but the President determines what's classified and what's not. Nothing has been stated as to what the information leaked was and people are jumping to conclusions.

I hope that this doesn't slip away like so many other questionable actions by this team. But this does not surprise me what so ever.

Too late - I think the Immigration Bill is already eclipsing this story in the new cycle. Remember, we have the attention span and memory of a ... oh, is Britney pregnant again?

the president and vice president are allowed to leak classified information. er rather to declassify just about anything. Not sticking up from the obvious ethic violation, just keeping the facts straight.

Disclosing classified information to someone without clearance does not equal declassification. Not even for the president. If Bush wanted to declassify the fact that Plame was a CIA agent, for whatever reason, he may be authorized to do it. But if that was what he did, thus making it part of the public record, then why would he and/or Cheney have funneled that to a select few reporters? If the information was classified then, and is still classified now, then what occurred in 2003 is the textbook definition of a leak.

Matt's right, declassification (much like wiretapping) is a process governed by law, for the protection of information and the American people. Would you want President Kerry having access to just tell anyone our secrets, at any time?

Telling someone something classified isn't "declassification," it's leaking. Declassification is what you should do before you tell someone.

To be fair, the media will do anything that drives attention and visitors. Its not a liberal vs conservative thing.

Which one is supposed to be the biased one? CNN and MSNBC seem to be the most informational, the Washington Post's barely makes sense without reading the article, and Fox's headline pluralizes "leak" when the other two don't.

I was responding to a3dmofo's contention that the headline was misleading.

Ah! Thanks for the clarification, I missed that. It might've been better as a threaded "reply" to a3dmofo's comment.

Wouldn't it make it not so much a leak, but more like a subtle press release?

And you are right, he is the President and Command in Chief, so it is his role to play on what intelligence is released - thank you for clarifying this for the people who think that Bush has broken more laws.

The is no intelligent way to spin this into an illegal act by the president. But the Bush-haters have already made up their mind, so that's all they need.

The article clearly states that Bush personally released certain pre-war classified intelligence information to Libby and allowed it to be given to a reporter. The president has the authority to declassify any reports he sees fit to declassify. It does not detail what that information was, but it's fairly clear that it related to the controversy over what classified information he had prior to the war and there is no indication that it had anything to do with Valerie Plame's status as a CIA employee.

This article in no way proves that any law was broken, so the leftists among us are all hot and bothered, once again, without reason.

In all likelihood, this is the argument that will be raised; President Bush did have the authority to declassify this information. The question then becomes, not whether it was illegal, but whether it was improper for the President to declassify information for the purpose of "outing" a political opponent. Interestingly, the Republican spin meisters have already been hard at work on this one and I have a feeling that after all the information is out, the popular sentiment will be that "it's not that big of a deal" and that this is just an example of the Democrats making a mountain out of a molehill.

I believe that the main issue here (for me, at least) isn't that the president declassified information - because he does have the right to do that. But rather that Libby is a whole load of trouble for "leaking" the identity of a CIA operative - when he apparently received permission to do so. Also, that the upper echelons were acting shocked and angry about this leak when we now know that it was authorized.

This would be a non-issue if the administration would have come out and said "that information was declassified" - but they didn't.

Libby is in trouble not for "leaking" the identity of a CIA operative, but for obstructing justice.

He may have the lawful authority, and even that is debatable, but regardless of whether it is inside or outside the law, it is wrong (in my opinion).

Declassifying information is a huge responsibility, and it should never be taken lightly or done for political reasons. If the President does, in fact, have the authority to change the classification of information without any oversight from elsewhere within the government, I think this is a huge gap in our national security, and something needs to be done about it. It seems particularly dangerous if declassification can be done on a whim, verbally, and without documentation.

Can you argue intelligently for the right of the President to authorize release of information without any type of oversight?

@Bill Bard -

Libby would not be in hot water for obstructing justice if the CIA operative's identity was not leaked.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071800157.html

I would also like to add that after reviewing several articles, Bush in 2004 said that anyone found to have leaked the operative's name (as well as other classified information) would be fired. I find it hard to believe that Bush had officially declassified this information and then would say that he would fire anyone for leaking this information and calling it classified if it had been declassified.

10.6 - What information do you have that this was done for 'political gain'?

As Matt stated above, telling someone a national secret without permission or oversight from other departments isn't "declassification," declassification is a defined process.

daweb, what information do you have that this was done for any other rational reason? Administration officials went out of their way to declassify this information as a response to an article that - and there's no argument here - was telling the truth about trumped-up WMD claims. Joe Wilson tried to do our country a favor and it's looking like the very top levels of our government tried to discredit him and "get him back" for trying to slow the march to war. To instantly brush this off as "Well, it wasn't illegal" is to give the biggest free pass to the administration so far: Even if it's eventually determined that it was legal, isn't this HUGE? Isn't this something that you should be REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT? Allegations from numerous sources are saying our guys lied about a war and broke the law trying to punish a man who tried to tell us the truth.

Discounting this investigation before the legality has even been properly debated is the worst example of Follow The Leaderism. If these events raise alarm bells and investigations and suspicions on the conservative side of the room, then I declare Republican party's collective conscience and concern for America is truly dead.

If these events raise alarm bells and investigations

That is, if they DON'T raise alarm bells. Gah, and I was on such a tirade, too.

10.9 Pretty simple really. Innocent till proven guilty. At this point you don't know what was leaked, or for what purpose and yet you seem convinced of guilt. I merely point out what is obvious to me. You are jumping the gun by a long way.

Oh, also Doug Nelson - You claim that there is no argument about the legitimacy but I would not agree with you there. You are talking about an article by a man that sat in a cafe drinking tea when he was supposed to be investigating information about Iraq seeking (not buying) yellowcake from Niger. You claim it is common knowlege that this was all made up. I will merely point out that the last time I looked, the Brits were still standing by their intelligence that it happened and no one had managed to disprove this. Do you have some information the rest of us are not aware of?

I seem convinced that you should be concerned, and not discount it so quickly.

This should concern you, and me, and the country, because if it's true, it's a Really, Really Big Deal, that ties in with both the administration's false pretense for the war and their willingness to supress any disagreeing information. It's the biggest, most publicly-known event in the long chain of small reports and questions regarding the justification for our actions. The outcome is important, the implications are important, and it shouldn't be cheapened by people trying to lay a groundwork for the shirking of responsibility ("Well, wasn't she already outed?" "Doesn't the President have that power?") before, as you said, anything is even decided or proven.

I want to make sure that, if it turns out this is true, if it turns out it's all true, there's no back door you'll use to get out of admitting the President's wrongdoing. You can't wander around making up tiny arguments for why, even if he did it, Bush isn't to blame, and then tell me I shouldn't get worked up because it's not yet proven.

Conservatives are spinning this as if already lost, just in case he does and they need an excuse to still like him. If you can play "if he did it, it's still okay," I can play "if he did it, he should go to jail." In the absence of more evidence, we both have to work on outcome perceptions, don't we?

Investigations by both the CIA and the State Department claimed the documents were forgeries. The administration later admitted the claims were "a mistake." Colin Powell memoed senior officials about how "unlikely" the claims are. The Brits offer no proof behind their claims.

daweb, if you want to claim that Italian and British intelligence are more trustworthy than our own, it kind of sounds like you're picking which agencies to believe based on what you want to hear. Hey: You should be President!

they claimed some specific documents were forgeries. This is not the same as saying that the intelligence was wrong. I don't believe that these documents were what the presidents statements were based on. Those document may have been what Wilson was looking into it based on. As I said, the brits stand by their statments to this day.

Miss Dev at 10.7:

Bush in 2004 said that anyone found to have leaked the operative's name (as well as other classified information) would be fired.

I remember this as well, so I am interested to see what comes of this. It is one thing if the President wanted to correct the lies of Joseph Wilson by clearly declassifying this information in a formal way or at a press conference, but to leak it through an underling when he has spoken out against leaks before is a bit sketchy. Nonetheless, it is possible that Libby could by lying, or even worst, Dick Cheney lied when he gave Libby permission and claimed it was from the President. This is all just conjecture at this point. Let us wait and see what comes from this investigation...

As far as I know, Libby has NOT been accused of leaking her name. Has anyone heard differently?

no point in arguing with daweeb. far beyond the reach of fact or reason. obviously hasn't done the reading/research and if so, even worse. i wonder if you really are even serious. arguing for something as conclusively discredited as the Niger/uranium claims...wow. you probably also think that global warming is a hoax. are you one of those people that just argue the opposite point no matter what?

daweb:

He has not be indicted for leaking her name because it was not a crime to do so, as she did not fit all the requirements of an undercover field agent. Also it is argued that he referenced her only has "Wilson's wife" and thus did not in fact "out" her by name either. Or at least that is my understanding of it all.

Son of Hob, this is exactly my point! Thank you!

thesonofhob

He has not be indicted for leaking her name because it was not a crime to do so, as she did not fit all the requirements of an undercover field agent.

I don't think the President and CIA would allow a special prosecutor for this if it wasn't clearly a crime to out her knowingly. Identifying her is a big deal. Not only did it expose a CIA Front Firm, which is one of the most difficult covers for the agency to create (a testament to her value to the CIA), but it also exposed an agent who traveled overseas in 2001, 2002, and 2003 as part of her undercover work on rogue nuclear programs (according to Larry C Johson a former CIA officer himself).

The reason that they weren't charged with violating Covert Agent Identity Protection Act was that it was impossible to prove that either Libby or Rove (both of whom exposed her identity to the press) knew her covert status when they revealed her status as a member of the CIA. The fact that they didn't mention her by name isn't really important as the law states that anyone who "intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information" has committed a crime.

aburd:

I am going to look into this a bit more. Some of my details may be wrong, but the real point I was trying to make was that Libby was never indicted for outing her, but instead for perjury and obstruction of justice. And remember an indictment is not a conviction.

"Also it is argued that he referenced her only has "Wilson's wife" and thus did not in fact "out" her by name either."

How is saying to a representative of the press "By the way, Wilson's wife is a CIA operative" suddenly not outing her? He didn't just get real sleepy and started talking about his favorite undercover agents. I mean, Novak wrote a detailed piece of how the Mission to Niger went down, according to his opinion/sources.

(And I know Novak was not the first to get the heads up, and all that...)

He did not say By the way, Wilson's wife is a CIA operative. Remember the entire issue was over Wilson claiming that he was chosen for the mission to Niger by Cheney himself, when in fact it was Valerie that recommended him. Thus from what I read, it was possible that Libby just said something to the tune of, Wilson's wife recommended him for the mission, not Cheney.

Again how is it bad when the administration just tells the truth? People argue that it she was outed as political retribution, but how has this hurt her? She was never in any harm, and since then her husband has written a book netting a hefty sum of money. Do we want lies to be allowed to continue just as long as it hurts President Bush? Do we only care about leaks when they help President Bush?

When the warrant-less wiretap story came out there was not a rush by the media to uncover who leaked that story, nor when it was leaked that we might have secret detention bases in other nations. Either all leaks are good, or none are.

Again how is it bad when the administration just tells the truth?

It is potentially a disaster in this case. This woman worked on WMD issues. Can you imagine a worse person to out as part of a political smear campaign? If her sources, whom she was working with as recently as 2003, have information concerning rogue nuclear weapons or weapon development that now we don't have access to we could face a disaster. Not only is it ethically disgusting (whether or not it qualifies as a crime under the extremely narrow CAIPA) to out a CIA agent because her husband told the truth, America as a whole without exaggeration could be hurt by this.

People argue that it she was outed as political retribution, but how has this hurt her?

Again, it ruined her cover and her career. Valerie Plame, a woman our Nation spent much time and money in order to establish a cover identity for in order to allow her to do work on rogue nuclear programs, can no longer do her job. The fact that her husband has now written a book may not make up for the fact that she had her ability to do her job taken away from her.

When the warrant-less wiretap story came out there was not a rush by the media to uncover who leaked that story, nor when it was leaked that we might have secret detention bases in other nations.

Please try to keep this on topic or we will never be able to discuss this. This will derail the entire discussion if you push it.

because her husband told the truth

If her husband had been telling the truth there would have been no need to out her.

A ) Joe Wilson has lied repeatedly throughout this. It is amazing to me that the press let him get away with this so much. B)Aburd, you are making an asumption that she was outed (no proof that it was illegal or even an intentional outing or leak yet) as a political ploy. I don't buy that this has yet been established. you really should qualify your remark as opinion and not state it as fact.

C) the comment about the press not having any interest in who leaked information about a National Security program is ABSOLUTELY relevant when looking at how they are covering this story. Not sure why you so casually dismiss it.

Joe Wilson has lied repeatedly throughout this.

Proof, please?

"He did not say By the way, Wilson's wife is a CIA operative."

Uhm ok... I sort of knew that.

In actuality, we don't know that he didn't say it that way, but I agree that he most likely didn't. I just assumed that people would take my wording as irony.

Claus Jacobsen:

Oh, I took it with irony and a laugh, hence the direct quote to further the irony (yet apparently failing).

I am going to take some time off this thread, think about things, do a bit of my own research and see where my support/opinions land. A thread this combative is not the best place to reflect on the big picture. With the quick attacking and often dubious claims I am "forced" to dig into my current position without really thinking about anything. Like Douglas MacArthur, "I will return."

OK, cool. I know that feeling. I hope I didn't upset you by failing to see the irony countering my irony :)

I don't know the McArthur quote. Actually, I thought it was Arnold Schwarzenegger (joking again, I know he said "Arh be barck", and that is an entirely different thing)

Sure. Read this article here

couple of key passages for those that don't want to read the entire article.

In particular he said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.

There's still more: As Susan Schmidt reported — back on page A9 of Saturday's Washington Post: "Contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."

The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

Ironically, Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link — his information actually created additional suspicion.

@daweb: Even if all of that is true, and Joe Wilson was a bad bad man, that still doesn't explain why his wife's status was released. I know you continue to argue that there is no proof that she was outed as a political ploy, but there will probably never be any proof unless Libby can get access to internal documents. Right now, the facts point to an effort to discredit Joe Wilson, and potentially damage his ability to go into the field, by outing his wife. The ethical way to refute comments by Joe Wilson (which who had even really paid attention to until all of this happened?) would be to show why what he said was inaccurate. Then again, the people running the Whitehouse are the same people who, instead of challenging his ideas, made personal attacks against John McCain by questioning his PATRIOTISM in the 2000 Republican primaries.

there is no proof that anyone leaked her name to somehow 'get revenge' on Joe Wilson. I also point out that Joe Wilson is a publicity hound and is just as likely as anyone else to have 'leaked' his wifes name. I think the facts point to the administration working to get the truth out about the dangers posed by Iraq. I don't agree that there was any effort to specifically discredit Joe Wilson but rather to correct facts that were being inaccurately reported.

Personally I think we need more of an investigation into why it is that Joe Wilson's appointment to do work for the CIA did not contain the basic requirements that normally go along with such an assignment, including things like filing a report, and not talking to the press about the information gathered etc. That to me seems to be a real lapse in judgement on the part of the CIA.

daweb: I'll agree. I think two prosecutors/investigators need be used. One each from both parties, and have them both work on the same investigation, first to continue this leak and second to look into the entire CIA screw up of using Wilson in the first place.

And don't forget the leak of a secret program that taps the phone conversations of Terrorists and people inside the USA. People like to forget that that was a leak of classified information. We need to know who leaked it and why. Seems to me that it just might be politically motivated.

@daweb: If you can honestly not distinguish between (1) the leaking of information about NSA wiretapping of US citizens without a warrant and (2) Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent then there is no way that you can have an intellectually honest debate about this subject.

I can easily distinguish between them.

on one case we have an unconfirmed potential leak of the identity of a former undercover CIA agent, on the other hand we have the confirmed leak of an ACTIVE program that is being used to thwart terrorists trying to attack the USA.

Pretty clear differences in my mind. Both are wrong. (well if the one is in fact a leak/outing) Both deserve to be investigated and the guilty parties punished.

And don't forget the leak of a secret program that taps the phone conversations of Terrorists and people inside the USA. People like to forget that that was a leak of classified information. We need to know who leaked it and why. Seems to me that it just might be politically motivated.

This is a non-issue. See if you can follow my logic.

• Fact 1: The existence of the NSA has been public for several decades
• Fact 2: The mission of the NSA (signals intercepts and intel) has been public for several decades
• Fact 3: The War on Terror isn't exactly being kept a secret
• Synthesis 1 (of 1,2,&3): The United States will use its Signals Intercept capability in the War on Terror
• Fact 4: The FISA legislation is publicly available, detailing how the Executive may get a warrant AFTER the wiretap has been preformed
• Synthesis 2 (Of Syn 1 and Fact 4): The NSA can intercept phone calls with no need to wait for a warrant.

So really, the only portions of this plan which are classified are the following.

• Who the NSA is listening to - as in NAMES (still not public)
• That no one is bothering to get the warrant AFTER THE FACT.

So really - the only breach of National Security that occurred was that someone blew the whistle on an illegal practice within the NSA. Don't we have whistleblowers laws for that?

Killfile, you believe it was illegal. It was not. Perhaps this will help you to understand.

Daweb - Members of the FISA court have come down on both sides of this issue. The Constitutionality of the President's expansion of power during a time of war is something that has to be decided by a court of law on a case by case basis. Neither you, I, or the National Review have any authoritative opinions to contribute on this topic save this one -- it must be decided by a court of law.

More to the point - if nothing illegal was going on than nothing about the program as released by the Times is classified (per my previous analysis) in any way.

It occurs to me that my previous post was unclear in light of the full content of your source, so allow me to quote from your citation.

The Truong court, 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."

The Emphasis is mine. The distinction between Foreign Intelligence information and the surveillance of US citizens is distinctly laid out in the FISA legislation and in case law. Quite distinctly, the law states that such surveillance may not involve communications to which a domestic party is privy.

A court of law, and only a court of law has the ability and the Constitutional authority to interpret the phrase "foreign intelligence" in the FISA statute to mean "correspondence involving at least one foreign power or party" given the language used in the law itself. Bush may well be within his rights - but he does not have the authority to make that decision.

Under the Constitutional system that is the supreme law of this land, he must get that decision from a Court. Congressional hearings are the first step to that decision (strange as that sounds) which then raises the question - why won't Alberto Gonzales give straight answers to the Congress?

More to the point - if nothing illegal was going on than nothing about the program as released by the Times is classified (per my previous analysis) in any way.

That makes absolutely no sense. Things aren't classified because they are illegal, they are classified because the knowledge of their existence can benefit the enemy. Think about it, if Al Qaeda knew we were listening to their calls they would stop making the calls.

Think about it, if Al Qaeda knew we were listening to their calls they would stop making the calls.

What? Al Qaeda is dangerous, not stupid. How daft do you think they are? You don't commit the most significant terrorist attack in modern history against the world's last remaining super-power and the planets leader in signals intelligence without the expectation that they're going to listen to your phone calls - or at least try very hard.

You can't play the "national security" card on this. If declassifying the program means that Al Qaeda stops making the phone calls than why is the program still running? Al Qaeda clearly knows we're listening to their calls. If they've stopped making those calls - who are we listening to? If it's not the terrorists than why would it be covered under the president's claimed expansion of war powers?

Why is this program classified? It's no secret that we have signals intelligence capability. It's no secret that we're fighting a war on terror. Why would it be a secret that we're trying to use signals intelligence to stop terrorists?

Killfile, first you say this

So really - the only breach of National Security that occurred was that someone blew the whistle on an illegal practice within the NSA. Don't we have whistleblowers laws for that?

I show you a well written argument showing at the least that it is up for debate. (personally I think it showed that it was not illegal) then you reply by saying it is up for debate and needs to be decided by a court of law?

of course, it is your next statement that really caught my attention.

More to the point - if nothing illegal was going on than nothing about the program as released by the Times is classified (per my previous analysis) in any way.

Please tell me that this was a mistake, that you don't believe that somehow only 'illegal' programs would/should be classified and that anything legal that the government is doing is and should be public information?

The distinction between Foreign Intelligence information and the surveillance of US citizens is distinctly laid out in the FISA legislation and in case law. Quite distinctly, the law states that such surveillance may not involve communications to which a domestic party is privy.

Seems clear to me that this is further proof that this does NOT cover the situation.

See, I look at it this way. This is 'Foreign Intelligence'. The conversations are between someone OUTSIDE the US and someone INSIDE the US. It is not covered and as it is still Foreign Inteligence the FISA laws cannot infringe on the Presidents power. Pretty simple really.

Also, notice that although you hear congress making a lot of noise (it is after all an election year) they have not stopped the program (yes, remember that they do control the money). If they really had a problem with this, they would stop funding the program. If they really had a problem with this when they were originally briefed on this before it was leaked they could have cut the funding then as well. The didn't. That tells you something.

See, I look at it this way. This is 'Foreign Intelligence'.

Right - but you don't have the authority to make that decision. A Court of law does.

The language of the legislation and the language of the case cited in your source both use the phrase "Foreign Intelligence" which has been used in the past consistently to mean intelligence to which a domestic party is not privy. That's what it means. That's what it's always meant.

It is the role of the Judiciary to interpret the law. If we are going to redefine "Foreign Intelligence" in the US Judicial system to mean "intelligence to which at least one foreign party is privy" then a Court and only a Court has the power to do that. Until such time as a Court does do that - the existing standard must remain and under that standard the President's actions are legally questionable if not outright illegal.

This is a separate issue entirely from the non-issue of actually prosecuting the New York Times for releasing information that everyone already knew, save the additional detail that the legal system that we all thought was in place was, in fact, being circumvented. If you remove the phrase "warrantless" from the Times' report, nothing in there would surprise anyone.

Please tell me that this was a mistake, that you don't believe that somehow only 'illegal' programs would/should be classified and that anything legal that the government is doing is and should be public information?

Ah the old Straw Man argument. I didn't say that. Allow me to enlighten you as to what I did say. I said that every aspect of this program was public knowledge before the Times released its report save two.

1 - The names of the people the NSA is spying on
2 - The fact that Bush didn't get warrants to authorize that spying.

Everything else is commonly known. I note that at no time have you, or anyone else disputed that assertion. Now - since no one released the names in question and since, under current readings of the laws and case-law in question the President is acting outside the scope of his established authority, the decision to make public fact number 2:

1 - Can not be construed to hurt the program in any way
2 - Can not be construed to hurt national security in any way

We're not talking about nuclear secrets here. We're talking about classifying a program of which every aspect save two was common knowledge. Why not make the program public and just classify the list? We classify things because we're hiding them. What does this blanket classification hide that classifying the subjects of surveillance doesn't?

Actually what you said was

So really - the only breach of National Security that occurred was that someone blew the whistle on an illegal practice within the NSA. Don't we have whistleblowers laws for that?

And

More to the point - if nothing illegal was going on than nothing about the program as released by the Times is classified (per my previous analysis) in any way.

Just as I pointed out. You seem to be stating here that the only reason for this program being classified (or any program) would be because it was illegal. not a strawman arguement at all. Why do you not merely admit to making a mistake in how you were making your argument?

Oh, and we have whistleblower laws, yes. but I don't recall them covering leaks of government classified data or programs. Perhaps we should both go back and research exactly what those laws do cover. Any bets on who is correct here?

You seem to be stating here that the only reason for this program being classified (or any program) would be because it was illegal. not a strawman arguement at all. Why do you not merely admit to making a mistake in how you were making your argument?

I'm sorry my phrasing wasn't clear enough for your tastes. What you've obviously taken away from my text was not my intent. I'm not flawless in my writing capabilities. I can live with that.

However, given that you have steadfastly clung to a piece of language which I have repeatedly repudiated and attempted to rephrase, I take it that you have no objections to my following analysis. If the best you can bring to the table is a nit-pick on a statement of mine that was insufficiently clear it seems that we are agreed: Bush's domestic spying program falls outside of the powers of the president as they exist under present law. In layman's terms this would make the program illegal, the classification of the program questionable, and the actions of the administration to prevent proper oversight a possible case of obstruction of justice.

Killfile, I agree with you on this, but what is this fascination you have with the word "daft"? You really love that word, don't you?

Killfile, I understand that that is your opinion. it is not mine.

Not only that, but no one has even proven that Libby did in fact leak Plame's Name

Common sense has taken a royal holiday when it comes to logic and reason by people who hate the president.

Too true (and eloquently stated.)

I'll reserve judgment until all of the facts are out, if ever they are, but it seems to me that the implication of the story is that, although the "certain information" that Libby was allegedly authorized to release remains "unspecified," Bush, through Cheney, authorized the release of information which included the classified status of Valerie Plame. That, to me, is an "outing." Moreover, regardless of whether it has been sufficiently discussed in the media yet, there are serious indicators that "classified" information had been passed around the White House (and Air-Force One) like any other political memo. Someone is going to get thrown under the bus on this one (is the former press secretary next?), and it looks like, as with what happened with Michael Brown, Scooter Libby is deciding not to be that person.
My point above was, and continues to be, that regardless of the legality of the actions taken by Bush Jr., Cheney, or Libby, the impropriety of them should not be in doubt.

The president was being criticized for invading Iraq under false pretenses when he actually knew, from classified reports, that Iraq had no WMD. So he unclassified some of those reports to refute that claim and released them to a reporter via Libby.

Oh my sweet Jesus.

The President had just said, during the State of the Union, that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Wilson published an article, shortly after the invasion, that refuted this claim. Five days later, the CIA itself issued a statement discrediting Bush's claim as well.

You claim of "unclassifying" reports isn't true and has nothing to do with this whole mess. The only information given up was Wilson's CIA connection (his wife), in an attempt to discredit his claims (even though we now know them to be true).

How is this a political act to "out" an opponent? It's a lawful act to correct a malicious rumor that was being spread by a political opponent.

A "malicious rumor" is when you say someone's trying to make a nuclear bomb. When you find out that it's not the truth and you attempt to assign responsibility for a war based on fake claims, that's called "patriotism."

Daniel, that is NOT what he has been charged with.

Daniel A. Hallo:

He did no such thing, If you are speaking of Valerie Plame she does not fit the legal guidelines of an undercover field agent, hence Libby was never indicted for revealing her identity, instead he was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice I believe.

And Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman, he was only impeached because he lied under oath.

@Phaedrus72: This is not meant as a slight towards you, but from your comments in other posts, I would have suspected that you were a conservative in moderate's clothing. Yet, in your comments in this thread, it seems as though you are not. Just out of curiosity, is it correct to say that you disagree with the alleged actions of the President in ordering the "outing" of Valerie Plame?

If in fact he did, then of course I disagree with his actions. I am a moderate conservative, an Independent. I am not a Bush yes man. I can see the writing on the wall. Hence my other comment, Sugar, we're goin' down!

"The matter of whether Plame's identity was covered under the act has not been settled." (Good ol' Wiki)

Now, I agree that it is an assumption to say that Plame was outed, if by outing you refer to a criminal act. Outing, however, is not necessarily a criminal act. How about leaking then, since we are doing the semantics?

"Leak: (v. leaked, leak·ing, leaks) informal To become publicly known through a breach of secrecy / informal To disclose without authorization or official sanction" (Free Online Dictionary)

So, there is nothing that prohibits us from using terms like leaking or outing. The question remains, if there has been comitted one or more criminal offenses, and which if any high ranking officials are involved. The case is serious enough, and to my knowledge of cases involving special prosecutors, high profiled government officials and media figures like Woodward, and the incarcaration of journalists (Miller), it is not likely to go away or be dismissed as an inferior case, even if Britney Spears give birth to a two-headed pony and the "Truth Squads" claim that Iran has invented a giant vacuum cleaner that can suck up the entire US West coast into orbit.

"The law act written, in part, as a response to several incidents where CIA agents' identities were published for political reasons. Such disclosures were arguably protected speech under then existing law"

Another interesting thing: The spirit of the law, as students of law or jurists or fans of court tv may know, is at the root of controversial cases. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act has as one of it's aims the protection of CIA agents against being outed for political reasons. Seems that is a plus for the prosecutor - there must be a reason why he was appointed in the first place. Usually in public prosecuation cases, and especially in cases that involved impeachment, a not too frequent occurence in US history, a case will be dropped if there is little or no chance that it may lead to conviction.

But it's all academic, until more evidence emerge. Also, you don't go through your pockets for sunscreen, when you are half way in a free fall.

Just my 2 cents...

I concur on WOW

I don't get it, I just don't get it.

I've been there before.

I think this is due in part by the fact that no matter what they do, there will always be a lot people that rationalize and defend this administration to the end.

Remember, the opposite is true. Some people attack this administration's every move to no end. They're both extreme, and they're both absurd.

Remember - Bush also lied about Katrina and being informed of the possibility of levee breaks and overwhelming disaster.

Uhh.... no he didn't. Bush was warned about water running over the levees, not about the levees breaking. There is a big difference. The morning after being told of this fact, Bush asked Brown about the possibility of the levees breaking.

You did read the AP's correction of their false accusations right?

Forgot the link: Newsbusters.org

"In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

"The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

"The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing."

I will concede that point (and no, I didn't read the recension). However, Bush DID say that no one informed him to the possibility of such a widespread disaster. That, as proved in the tapes and in later statements by Bush, is a lie.

The very reason you worry about levee "overtopping" is because water flowing over the side of a levee can erode the dry side and cause the levee to fail. Overtopping can lead to a failure. I'm sorry no one explained this to the president, but you'd think he would have surrounded himself with the kind of people who would.

Did you see his "bull@!$%#" blow-up on CNN? That embarassment is punishment enough in my opinion.

well said.

Fitzpatrick, as the prosecutor, CAN'T say any of these things. At this point, the only thing Fitzpatrick can do is try and convince the grand jury to indict Libby and then prosecute him.

He can't even tell you at this point that the leaking of Plame's name was in fact a crime.

I didn't say or imply that a crime was committed. And yes I am well aware that Libby is, in fact, being tried for lying under oath and not the leak. That was neither my point, nor something I disputed.

And since he may be the only one that can know at this point, no one else should be making these accusations either.

The information that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative came from the administration, that much is quite clear based on what Cooper, Miller, and Woodward have said in public and testified to as well as what Libby has testified to. That is the gist of my point. The integrity of this administration is already suspect and doesn't need Fitzgerald to show it.

When Bill Clinton lied about his affair, I was disappointed. I hated that a guy who I supported had made what I considered to be an error in judgement. I realized that I knew plenty of people who would do the same thing if they thought it might keep them from being caught "with their pants down," so to speak. Nevertheless, I had to think long and hard about whether I would continue to support him or to defend his actions. I decided that my partisan political feelings were strong enough to overcome this lapse in judgement on his part. I felt that his willingness to lie about a personal affair in an attempt to keep it a secret wouldn't carry over to issues that I felt were more important, such as decisions of war and peace. It was a hard decision, but in the end I continued to support President Clinton. I can't even imagine how difficult it must be for some people to continue to support President Bush.