You "warn" the White House that their actions are not consistent with our democracy or heritage.

You are WARNING THEM OF WHAT???

You gonna sic Harry Reid on them, while continuing to IGNORE the efforts of those such as John Conyers???

Gee, I bet Rove is quiverin' in his boots.

Steve,

I agree with you, but it won't matter what we think. This seems like their "get out of jail free" card to me. Just one more nail in the coffin of our erstwhile constitutional government. The Republicans and the media apologists will hail this as a bold new interpretation of the Constitution in a post 9/11 world, and BushCo will be saluted as taking bold decisive action to protect us from terrorism.

POA -- if the White House is engaged in issuing "secret" executive orders that give secret authority for 'the management' of secret information -- then we are done. I doubt the White House has done this, but someone speculated to me that they might have.

More later,

Steve

This EO was ammended by eo 13292. Here it is with the lineout.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eo13292inout.html

Great post.
I would also think that selective declassification is not kosher.
If a document or information is declassified then it should be listed as such somewhere for American citizens (including the press) to look up and review. Selective release has a number of inherent flaws, not the least of which could be tantamount to insider trading.
Is the Vice President allowed to secretly declassify information to a select group, say Haliburton, about upcoming government actions that may require government contracts?

Somebody needs to notify GeeDubya and the Attorney Generalissimo about this, since GeeDubya has stated that he will find out who is leaking secrets and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Or did he mean that would apply only to persons who leak information that is detrimental to GeeDubya and his Bushwhackers?

Rene Gayde

Again, this may be more "important" than the hunting accident, but the question is, how do you explain this to voters? There have been many, many terrible things this administration has done that are very "important", yet they fall off the radar screen, leaving Democrats to scratch their head in wonder as they shoot down any piece of White House gossip that starts to sprout legs.

What are you saying? Cheney's above the law? Reckless? Willing to use his powers to cover up his incompetence? That's all in the hunting story. The hunting story does not need to be rushed off to the hospital and hid from view like a 78 year old man shot in the face. It needs to be a springboard we use to launch ourselves into these other stories. If people are talking about how Cheney seems to think he can get away with shooting someone and not face any legal action, we can show how he does this in other areas as well. It's all part of the same behavior.

(P.S. This is probably obvious, but is Cheney claiming he can declassify things just so he can say he "declassified" Plame's status?)

Memekiller
My understanding is that there is no interpretation that allows the vice president to declassify certain types of information and the outing of Plame would fall into those categories.

The portion of the Executive Order that grants the VP the power to declassify information is classified. That's some catch, that Catch-22.

Hi Steve -- I have been making similar arguments at firedoglake. This is what I posted last night in response to this AP article.

This strikes me as a sloppy article. And its message strikes me as a typical product of the Admin's MO, so let's break it down.

First of all, what's the classified information we're talking about here? The NIE? Or, more radically, Plame's identity?

Cheney disclosed that he has the power to declassify sensitive government information.

No guff -- since EO 13282 gave him broad powers to originally classify information, he ipso facto has the power to declassify any information that he has originally classified.

But that's not what the article suggests, of course:

"... Cheney said there is an executive order that gives the vice president, along with the president, the authority to declassify information...."

The obvious suggestion being that Cheney could declassify any information. Very different ball of wax.

So what are Cheney's actual words?

"There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president."

Now that of course doesn't say anything about declassification. EO 13282 did indeed (conveniently) give him original classifying powers, but a strict reading of the executive order nowhere indicates that this implies anything about the power to declassify information that the VP didn't originally classify -- like, presumably, the NIE (or Valerie Plame's identity, for that matter).

So Cheney doesn't appear to actually make the claim that AP attributes to him. But in a rhetorical move that's absolutely typical of the liars that populate this Admin, he precedes his mention of the new classifying powers that Bush's EO gave him with lots of mention of declassification: "I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions." (What kind of random, non-sequitur nonsense is that? -- well, isn't that always a tip-off with these people?) So the listener is led to believe that the follow-up statement about the Executive Order giving him classification authority is actually relevant to this issue.

(Now I don't know for a fact that original classifying authority does not entail a general, indiscriminate power of declassification (i.e. over all classified information, not just information that one has originally classified). But all I have to go on is EO 13282 and its predecessor, Clinton's EO 12598. And I simply see nothing in either one which entails such a corollary.

Moreover, the mere fact that Cheney engages in this kind of typical rhetorical move strongly suggests to me that in fact no such corollary exists. As a general rule with these guys, whenever they slyly suggest something that they do not actually say (on a literal rereading of their words), you can bet your bottom dollar that the thing that they're suggesting is in fact false. (You can apply this to about a thousand different Admin statements about Iraqi WMDs.) Otherwise, why not just come out and assert the thing they're obviously trying to suggest? So although I'm no expert in national-security or constitutional law, this kind of thing makes me suspect very strongly that Cheney's power to unilaterally declassify intellligence that he did not originally classify is on at best shaky legal grounds, if not outright non-existent.)

So why doesn't some journalist up and ask Mr. Cheney, point-blank, the obvious question: Did you, prior to 8 July 2003, have the authority to unilaterally declassify (portions of) the NIE?
And if so, did you in fact do so?

Yes or no. No evasions about "ongoing investigations" -- there is no investigation at the moment into the leak of the NIE.

(I'll leave alone the stunning possibilities implicit in the idea that Cheney or Libby might claim that Cheney unilaterally declassified Valerie Plame's identity. For now, to avoid cognitive meltdown, I'm going to chalk that one up to Mr. Yost's confusing reporting.)

......"if the White House is engaged in issuing "secret" executive orders that give secret authority for 'the management' of secret information -- then we are done."

And why would that suprise you??? They have been given a free pass on everything from gay whores doing sleepovers in the West Wing to lying this nation into a costly and disastrous foreign adventure. Two highly suspect results in a Presidential election, a perjurer for Attorney General, a zealot for the UN, spying on Americans, torture, an unsuccessful and mediocre lawyer to head FEMA, the Patriot Act, Alito sitting on the Supreme Court, Delay on the appropriations committee,record costs for fuel amidst record profits for fuel producers, billions stolen in Iraq, dead American kids floating face down in New Orleans, survivors being kicked out onto the streets, buck passing, lying, cheating, stealing, a non-existent Fourth Estate and a bunch of money grubbing complicit mewling cowards for an "opposition party".

And you think ..... "if the White House is engaged in issuing "secret" executive orders that give secret authority for 'the management' of secret information -- then we are done."

Look Steve, the last straw has come and gone. Its just that you were napping, and failed to hear the snap.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Are leaking and declassifying synonymous?

If not, shouldn't anyone who leaks forfeit his or her security clearance, whether he or she has the authority to declassify or not?

And if they are synonymous, the question of whether the vice president has the authority remains open.

The vice president's behavior demonstrates that he cannot be trusted with classified information, whether he has the authority or not. The declassifications/leaks for which he claims authority were irresponsible and damaging to national security.

Steve,
There are already secret orders..I can't quite remember the context, but it might have had to do with terrorist surveillance lists. At any rate, this White House is making secret Executive Orders.. I doubt Congress is awhere of their content.

carsick - Right you are. I believe one of the reasons is to NOT declas it will do great harm to the nation. Therefore let's out Plame to discredit Wilson, etc. Better for the national security, you know.

bob at 11:29:

"Are leaking and declassifying synonymous?"

No -- and this distinction is extremely important. As I've written elsewhere:

... let's make at least an analytic distinction between Libby being "authorised" to leak the NIE to a couple of select reporters (under the pretence of being a "former Hill staffer", no less) and actual, formal declassification of the NIE. Even if the VP is allowed to declassify unilaterally.

Shouldn't the MSM asking a very basic point of information -- was the NIE ever declassified prior to 8 July 2003? Not some mumbo-jumbo about "authorisation" -- whatever this means -- Was it ever formally, officially declassified (by whatever authority, including the Pres or VP)? Presumably there must be some record of this -- even if the VP can unilaterally declassify the NIE, without the CIA's input, one presumes that there must be some formal documentation somewhere of this official action.

Because if not, and even if the VP has the authority to unilaterally declassify the NIE (which at least these paragraphs [i.e. Section 3.5 of EO 13282] make it sound like they do not), then it seems that this "authorisation" did not involve any official declassification, and thus was quite illegal.

By the way Steve, as far as being "done", the true gauge is whether or not our votes are counted as cast. If one bothers to circumvent the MSM when investigating whether or not it is so, one discovers Bev Harris' efforts, (BLACKBOXVOTING.ORG), John Conyers past unilateral efforts that exposed maassive vote fraud in Ohio, as well as the recent GAO report, and discovers that our votes ARE NOT, and HAVE NOT, been counted as cast. And that simple reality renders ALL OTHER DEBATE on ALL OTHER ISSUES as mere mental masturbation. Merely exposing the corruption and violation of constitutional law by this administration accomplishes exactly NOTHING if our representatives do not ACT UPON such exposures, and WE THE PEOPLE have lost the power of our vote.

This issue, I might add, has been almost VIRTUALLY IGNORED by people such as yourself. You have been perfectly willing to give these turncoat asses like Reid exposure and credit for transparent political CHARADES like his invocation of Rule 21, yet have virtually IGNORED the efforts of people like Harris or Conyers' who are the TRUE patriots working to save that "democracy and heritage" that you are fond of lauding.

As remarkable as it may seem, like I said in a recent post, these exposures of the arrogance and criminality of the Bush Administration are passe and fruitless. We were shown LONG AGO that such exposures lead NO WHERE, and that the Democratic leadership is unwilling and uninterested in exploiting them. We had the evidence and the platform, LONG AGO, to send these bastards packing, but there they sit, still soiling the carpets in the White House like there is no tomorrow. And, with these crazies in power, THAT is a very real possibility.

Congress? What Congress? Whose Congress?

More concerned about getting political plums and re-elected, the Republicans have all rolled over to Bush. The Democrats haven't stood up in over six years.

In the meantime, as their individual freedoms are eased away - a little more here, a little more there - Americans are wrapped up in soap operas, sports, computer games, rigged news casts and phony political talk shows.

Unless a miracle occurs, we are already done!

It's not a matter of "if".

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

I think Dick needs something like the following. Unless, of course he thinks that he should be providing it for George.

Dec. 3, 1627

It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has done what he has done.

Richelieu

Confused here...what exactly is an "executive order", in a legal sense? Shall I assume it doesn't require Congress' approval? If that is true, why doesn't Bush just "executive order" the Patriot Act, warrantless snooping, and the like?

Also, if the Prez is given power to formulate such orders, then immediately classify it, and being the only to declassify it, how does a that a democracy make?

I'm waiting for the executive order that all voting machines be Diebold paperless machines with "classified" software. How's the real estate in Canada look?

"Confused here...what exactly is an "executive order", in a legal sense? Shall I assume it doesn't require Congress' approval? If that is true, why doesn't Bush just "executive order" the Patriot Act, warrantless snooping, and the like?"

Give him time, he's workin' on it. Next in line, an Executive Order that negates term limits. (Oh, I forgot, a timely "red alert" would pretty well take care of THAT minor inconvenience.)

I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm guessing there's not an absolute law about this. If there is a state of emergency, I can see where disclosing classified information may be necessary, say to unauthorized first responders, or intelligence workers. But to do so for political purposes amounts to treason, regardless of the law.

That and $1.61 will get me coffee.

vachon - Yes, I believe the rationale for the change was in the case of Martial Law where one would need a completely autonomous veep due to lack of communications, etc. Worse case scenario. When part of the govt is destroyed there must be legal auth to fight.

Here is the doc with what was changed.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eo13292inout.html

california r c
Without the emergency authorization how else would Will Smith have been able to save us from the aliens.

Steve:

Can't we simply admit that...Cheney IS the president? Hasn't that been obvious from Day One? Doesn't it get more obvious as each day passes?

Isn't it also clear that these folks run government badly because they don't believe in government? And this corollary: These folks regard the public sphere as their own private sphere with which they can do as they please?

carsick - Well, I for one am thankful you see it that way. That is the point.

Yes, of course the VP can declassify things.

But that is not what he did. He authorized disclosure of material which was NOT declassified. It remained classified after its disclosure.

This is a crime.

Append a quote time:

"Here is an excellent link to thoughtful commentary whether the VP has declassification authority to out covert agents whose husbands happen to be democrats..."

The USA has morphed into the USSR if such Party purges are considered as even remotely legit...

Executive orders can be written on a cocktail napkin. Of course, Cheney would have had such an executive order the day they were sworn into office. He's the de facto dictator. As for Libby, he's going on trial for perjury, not for leaking classified information. See how smart Fitz is? He didn't fall into that trap. Cheney may well have to testify about telling Scooter to rat out Wilson's wife to reporters. It makes him look horrible in terms of national security and the setback to our WMD operations in Iran.

Is there not a distinction between classified information and information that is specifically protected by law. It seems that "classification" is something that about any bureaucrat with a rubber stamp can do.

What may be legal and allowed under law or executive order is not necessarily moral or right. So the outing of CIA agents may (stress the may) be "allowed" but it is clarly wrong. And even more wrong for political purposes which is what it was. The fact that Cheney can't seem to differentiate is a truly scarry thought. That a man who is that powerful has gone so far and seems so impervious, should be scarry to everyone.

I don't think Cheney "slipped it into" the interview. I think the interview was held solely to advance the Executive Order smokescreen. Cold blooded bastard.

Bush amended the order.

Still not seeing where Cheney can declassify however.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html

Very nice post, Steve. I am quite comforted to see the Leakgate defense unrolling yet again. We have seen Administration slowly turn their defense from haughty riducule that the WH and EOB staff were involved at all, to this week's hints of a "just following orders" defense by Libby. And by the way, I suspect Mr. Hume's question and Mr. Cheney's answer were just testing the water for this kind of admission.

Why am I comforted by all this? Rule 1: the coverup is always the ultimate cause of (legal) demise. The VP and President, as well as the usual suspects in the WH/EOB, were deposed by Fitzgerald, and if they never mentioned declassification by fiat, perjury is a good place to start. (OK, so the VP/Pres weren't deposed under oath IIRC, but that's not important.)

You write that the Exec Order gives the VP the power to classify "in the context of his duties." That is not quite what the Executive Order says. It says (every time the VP is mentioned) that he has the power to do this or that "in the performance of executive duties."

This is because the VP has no constitutional duties at all except for presiding over the Senate, which is not an "executive duty." By statute the VP is a member of the National Security Counsel, which is an "executive duty," but the NSC is an advisory and coordinating body only. Why would one member of it, with no other security responsibilities, be involved in classifying NSC information? Also, the President appointed Cheney to be the head of the Energy Task Force, which was an executive duty, and he would have had the right to classify or de-classify information in the course of performing his duties there. There may be other appointments as well. But Cheney has to be performing specifically assigned "executive duties" to classify information - otherwise he would be usurping the President's executive power, which the Constitution doesn't allow.

Y'know, since he can declassify information at whim, it ought to be real easy for him to help Fitzgerald clear up who it was who leaked Valerie Plame's identity, right?

This is clearly cheney's move to protect himself from any attempt by Fitzgerald to suck him into the Libby prosecution with the ultimate aim to shut down the case against Libby --to render the prosecution impotent and
quiet the publicity by making the issue one of
executive privelege--rather than Libby's obvious violation of the law. If Plame's undercover status was declassified by cheney then Libby has done nothing illegal.
This is consistent with the regime's claims to executive power to spy domestically as it wishes and to refuse documents necessary for congressonal oversight.
It is consistent with the tyrannical aims of
this regime and, it will get worse believe me------
The regime is a geater threat to the traditions of this country--is a greaer immanent threat now-- than Al Quada ever was--- the threat from the bush/cheney axis of evil continues to grow like a cancer.

This is clearly cheney's move to protect himself from any attempt by Fitzgerald to suck him into the Libby prosecution with the ultimate aim to shut down the case against Libby --to render the prosecution impotent and
quiet the publicity by making the issue one of
executive privelege--rather than Libby's obvious violation of the law. If Plame's undercover status was declassified by cheney then Libby has done nothing illegal.
This is consistent with the regime's claims to executive power to spy domestically as it wishes and to refuse documents necessary for congressonal oversight.
It is consistent with the tyrannical aims of
this regime and, it will get worse believe me------
The regime is a geater threat to the traditions of this country--is a greaer immanent threat now-- than Al Quada ever was--- the threat from the bush/cheney axis of evil continues to grow like a cancer.

"The regime is a geater threat to the traditions of this country--is a greaer immanent threat now-- than Al Quada ever was--- the threat from the bush/cheney axis of evil continues to grow like a cancer."

You have spoken an absolute truth.

pissed off american captures what I feel is important quite well. we are whistling while rome burns. participation in an illegitimate government farce is worse than apathy.

I AGREE; BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT REVELATION COMING OUT OF THAT FOX "NEWS" INTERVIEW WAS THE THE ALLEGED DECLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY CLAIMED BY CHENEY. HELLO AMERIKA!!

After witnessing what just happened over the last 5 days, I'm now convinced that Cheney wouldn't testify even if he was asked to. I'm half-convinced he'd just not show up to court, and dare someone to arrest him.

This man has arrogance like I've never seen before.

A Layman’s Look at Disclosing State Secrets: Executive Order 12958

OK, let me start off by stating up front: I teach English, U.S. history and government, that’s all. I’m not an attorney and have no expertise in analyzing government directives or documents. But think about it: state secrets are among the most closely guarded assets of any government. That begs the question: wouldn’t declassification be heavily proscribed? Wouldn’t any President create a protocol which would preclude declassification of secrets deemed to remain secret? Moreover, would there ever be a process which would authorize any arbitrary disclosure of classified material? I’ve looked at Executive Order 12958- the one Dick Cheney claims gave him authority to disclose Valarie Plame to Scooter Libby to Karl Rove to Robert Novak- and I just cannot find such authority anywhere.

12958 was signed by Bill Clinton in April, 1995 to create a systematic approach for the classification and declassification of documents. For example, it creates a procedure for automatic declassification unless an agency head declares its continued classification to be necessary. It also states that documents should not be classified unless they fall under some fairly specific guidelines, and never to “conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error,” or to “prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency,” among other things.

It also sets up a protocol for an individual to challenge a security classification. As I would presume the Vice-President to be among those ‘authorized holders of information’ under Sec. 1.9(a), he would be “…encouraged and expected to challenge the classification…” he thought to be in error. Sec. 1.9 (b) (1 through 3) establishes the procedures for seeking reclassification or declassification, and Sec 5.4 outlines the appeals process should he not be satisfied with the decision rendered under Sec. 1.9 supra.

There is nothing arbitrary about the declassification process. Sec. 5.7(b) mandates sanctions on “Officers… of the United States Government,” who “disclose… information [which has been] properly classified.” These sanctions can include- among several punishments- reprimands and suspension without pay, but the agency head “…shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority” of anyone who “demonstrates reckless disregard…” to this Executive Order. In this case, the agency head in charge of Dick Cheney is George Bush.

Section 3.2(b) states that only a Department Head has the authority to declassify as “…an exercise of discretion…” an item within his or her own department. Section 3.4(b)(2) states that agency heads need not declassify information that would otherwise systematically be declassified if it would “assist in the… use of weapons of mass destruction,” or, under (b)(6), “impair relations between the United States and a foreign government.” Under 3.4(e) any declassification must meet with “…a plan for compliance…” within the Executive Order itself. Unless I missed something, that limits the authority to Porter Goss in the case of Valarie Plame. Steven Hadley, as National Security Advisor, can override Goss- but that’s not what Cheney has proclaimed.

The Executive Branch is mandated by Sec. 4.2(d) to “…assure protection of [classified] information…” and 4.2(b) states that “classified information shall remain under the control of the originating agency…” in this case, the CIA. 4.2(c) demands that classified information “… shall not be removed from the premises without proper authorization,” and the only one who could provide such authority besides the President would have been the Director of the CIA.

Now, to be fair, there is a long list of people and offices that can be included in a “special access program” as defined in Sec. 4.4, but the office of Vice-President is not on that list.

An infraction of 12958 includes “…any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.” So here’s my take on the whole thing. Executive Order 12598 does not authorize anyone to arbitrarily disclose anything that is legally classified. Quite to the contrary, it establishes a systematic procedure and protocol for the declassification of state secrets. From the language of the Order, it seems to be an effort to make transparent the operations of government without compromising national security. Under this Order, documents marked ‘Secret’ during the Korean War can be made public, using specific and explicit guidelines- the most important among them being a systematic review by the agencies involved in the original classification.

Mr. Cheney does not say whether he requested that Valarie Plame and her operations be declassified, or that he had attempted to appeal any adverse decisions on requests he might have made. To the best of my knowledge, neither Tenet nor Goss had declassified Plame’s status nor any of the WMD operations in which she had been engaged. I might be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that ordering Scooter Libby to leak Plame-related information to the press would seem both “unauthorized” and “willful,” and considering that its purpose was to discredit Joe Wilson, “negligent” also seems to fit. You know, I’m really glad he brought this Executive Order to my attention!

Even if? Cheney had the authority to declassify classified info it would never extend to declassifying the identity of an undercover agent for the CIA. He endangered her, her contacts and ruined some important investigative work. No one is that far above the law. I am against capital punishment but I believe Cheney should hang.

PissedOff and KM have hit the point exactly. My understanding of the Libby grand jury testimony that has been reported is that his superiors told him to leak classified information from the NIE. They did NOT de-classifiy it, nor is it true that the very act of telling him to leak it is tantamount to de-classifiying it. So whether or not the VP has the authority to de-classify is beside the point. Cheney very artfully stepped around it last night and I'm sure would be glad to see us chase our tails on an irrelevant issue for two weeks.

Ok,
I have been reminded of the secret law case I was thinking of by a helpful reader over at firedoglake.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/11/111404.html

has the details. It seems that the TSA is operating under secret laws which US citizens may not see.
If there are secret laws, why not secret executive orders? Presumably they exist, although I acknowledge in advance avaroo's point that we Democrats must focus on coming up with their own policy proposals rather than fretting about the minutiae such as the Constitution and criminal acts by the administration.
Hat tip in advance to my donkey comrade, avaroo.

If that is true, why doesn't Bush just "executive order" the Patriot Act, warrantless snooping, and the like?

What makes you think he hasn't? We've already learned that he ordered warrantless snooping and his flunkies have said that whether or not the Congress re-enacts the Patriot Act is irrelevant because Dimwit can already do everything the Patriot Act supposedly authorizes him to do.

He's probably got a secret Executive Order that orders all Executive Orders that circumvent the Constitution to be secret.

As someone pointed out above: "That's some catch, that Catch-22."

Any sense why Hume asked this question? I assume it may be part of the Scooter defense approach but was the theory already circulating and hume just wanted to bring the defense public?

Jim,
I believe the arch of strategy is to turn questions of law into questions of politics.
Can the VP declassify classified information and leak it at his discretion? The President will claim that he can delegate that authority to Cheney. In a normal political atmosphere, Congress and the public would strenuously object, and either the President would demur, or be impeached.
The political will to confront Bush is not sufficient, and the legal remedies are not quick.
It would be interesting to compare these tactics with the precise methods that Hitler used to arrogate more power to himself---no snark intended here, nor an attempt to score cheap rhetorical points.

Steve -

The power to classify and declassify are different animals. Otherwise, the Secretary of Agriculture would have the power to declassify CIA documents, and visa versa. Indeed, not even the President has original authority to declassify classified documents - the same 2003 EO that gave the VP some power to classify also states that the President's ability to declassify is limited to reviewing appeals of decisions of agency heads approving or denying declassification. Even the President doesn't have original authority to declassify, merely appellate power.

Glad to see you also recognize the distinction. More on the same at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/16/12759/5214

Stay away from the Kool-Aid - Mark

All Administrations do this.

Maybe the Executive Order that allows Cheney to declassify information is itself classified. Call it the Ouroborus Secrecy Order.

Mr. Clemons has commenters far more serious and wise than Steve himself (although some of you are indeed paranoid nutcases).

Of course, Steve's "if...then we are done" formulation is ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised to find Steve has used similar constructions in the past, and failed to recognize their impact when proved true.

There is NO doubt that there are indeed secret executive orders, secret portions of otherwise public excutive orders, etc. ad nauseum (and there is no relief from this nausea).

Steve is a process man, an establishment man, god love him.

Just as it has slowly dawned on some weak minds that "the President's program" of extra-judicial domestic evesdropping is NOT the only such secret (and facially illegal) spying program, Steve's "doubt" that are "secret" executive orders that give secret authority for 'the management' of secret information will eventually stand as an example of supreme naivety.

I am afraid I agree with Pissed Off American. As each new scandal unfolds, we think it will find traction, but instead, another comes along to take it's place. They are not being called to account.

Refusing to discuss the election fraud is whistling in the dark. All of these other issues won't matter if we don't face it. Bev Harris of Blackboxvoting.org, Mark Crispin Miller who wrote "Fooled Again...", John Conyers, these people have to be heard and not avoided.
Steve, what is your position?

If Cheney says that he de-classified Plame's status and then leaked it, he is admitting that he leaked an agent's identity. Why wouldn't he just say so? What possible reason could there be for not telling the nation this in the first place? If he knew he didn't do anything wrong then why didn't he just point us toward this executive order and be done with it?

Could it be because he thought he HAD broken the law?

Regardless of whether or not Cheney broke any law he has displayed some spectacularly bad judgement in releasing an ex-covert op's identity. The claim of "trying to set the record straight" by saying that Plame sent her husband to Niger has been debunked. Trying to claim that the Niger deal was a threat to National Security is also bogus because we knew then that Iraq had at least twice as much yellow-cake uranium in country already, why would they need to buy more if they couldn't process what was already there?

So what's left? Was this some kind of random information spouted by the VP of the US? Is it normal to release ex-covert op's identities? I'd be worried, regardless of how long it had been since she was in the field, that someone out there might have an operation or two jeopardized by thousands of people knowing that this woman was/had been a covert operative.

I guess my point is that in the end there's no benefit in this information being spread all over the news. Regardless of whether or not Cheney broke a law he displayed spectacularly bad judgement and he has shown that he can't be trusted with state secrets. Considering that we're involved on two seperate fronts (with a third possibly being opened in Iran in the near future) I would think that protecting our covert operative's identities (past and present) would be a good idea.

Half -- thanks for the confidence. ;-) i may in fact be far more naive than many posters -- but I call things as I see them. I've been correct in my assessments far more than I have been wrong. Of course I know that there are secret executive orders issued -- but that's not what I said, is it? I said that if there were secret executive orders issued over the issue of declassifying or classifying national security information -- i would be surprised and extremely concerned. I don't believe that there are such orders, but others I know speculate that there might be. I try and be constructive and honest about my views. I also don't like overstating problems.

There is no doubt that I am a critic of the Bush administration -- but I'm not done trying to right the ship, either this one or the next one that may follow. Many readers of this blog, like POA for instance, are completely done with the administration and seem on the verge of revolution. Good luck to them if they go that route. I'm not ready for that option, but my powder is dry. I believe in engagement with reasonable people, even those with whom I disagree.

That's my way, and that will continue to be the general tone of this blog -- though I have my flame-out moments too.

Just wanted to clarify, and glad you find the comments on this blog interesting -- if not the blog itself.

best,

Steve Clemons

I think the scandal is that the WH modified this executive order expressly so the VP could leak classified information for political purposes.

Steve,
You are gracious to respond so kindly to my clear provocation. I ought to be clear that I find your own work essential reading (however worthless may be an endorsement from an anonymous reader).

I stand by my comments on your commenters -- you've got some of the best readers going...and some conspiracy nuts.

I'd love to hold you to the question on secret-orders-on-(de)classification, but I don't hope we'll ever see direct evidence of this.

I don't doubt that you're 'trying to right the ship' as you see it -- for the most part I share what I think is your view of the direction we ought to head. I'll probably continue to be very cynical toward what I see as an 'establishment' approach to change, but I don't deny your successes and your insights.

In the near term, I've little doubt that more significant, positive change is coming from adherance to process than from attempts at overturning it.

Sincerely,
Guy Who Isn't Owning Up To His Identity

Interesting topic. As we see Cheney says he can declassify and he can reclassify. He allowed declassification during the meeting with Rove and others to stop Mr. Wilson and he will reclassify that same information if requested by Fitzgerald. This way the lie is covered. The right question is can Cheney declassify information while a CIA official is still active working on Iran case then reclassify it when the case is investigated by Patrick Fitzgerald. As you have seen resently a man gets shot by Cheney and Cheney had been drinking before and after with the police reporting case closed. We torture prisoners and the world knows it while Bush says thats democracy.

"I stand by my comments on your commenters -- you've got some of the best readers going...and some conspiracy nuts."

Ok, I'll bite. Tell me, exactly WHAT has been opined on this thread that falls under the heading of "conspiracy theory"?????

The legal merits of argument for the power of the pres and vp to declassify are moot if bush and cheney will simply do as they wish in any case and dare anyone to do something about it.
The dems won't --perhaps even if they do win a majority--and the repubs won't.
I foresee cheney refusing to testify or be deposed further for fitzgerald--claiming yet another extention of executive privilege,
and obviously cheney is claiming power to declassify at will-- and who is to challenge it
and for that matter the spying? the ACLU has
a suit challenging the spying-- but needs a specific person who has been spied upon if the case is to be substantive-- and the executive will not release this info. Even if the courts declare the spying illegal-- george is unlikely to cease.
There will be no limit to the bush gang's ever wider grab for power , accompanied by implausible legal posturing and refusal to produce relevent documents ---because there is simply no one who will challenge it beyond lip service! There is virtually no threat of impeachment now. And this is why the grab will continue.
Given this patent grab for power and given the lessons of history it would be naive to ignore the possibility that the power twins' ultimate goal is dictatorship---and reduction of the Constitution to empty words.
All the Pres need do is secure the loyalty of the top military brass -- and he can suspend the Constitution whenever he can create a convenient crisis.
George's spying is opposed, according to polls, by only 50% of the American public.
If they are eased into dictatorship I surmise that this 50% will happily go along.
This is a scary time for anyone who values liberty.

"Many readers of this blog, like POA for instance, are completely done with the administration and seem on the verge of revolution."

Not me. A successful revolution requires a majority of the citizenry as participants. We are a LOOOOONG ways from that eventuality. But make no mistake, absent massive dissent and protest from the American people your attempts to "right the ship" are for naught. It should, by now, be painully obvious to you that the current political machine, right OR left is not working in our nation's best interests. My goal is to cleave through the denial, and actually be one of the risk takers, that considers and voices the possibilities that are marginalized by the kind of labeling we see "Half" attempting here with his non specific allusions to "conspiracy theorists". I challenge him, or you, for that matter, to specifically describe the premises that have been offered here that fall under the heading of "conspiracy theory".

One thing should be cleared up. Despite the confusions sowed by last night's AP article, it is unlikely in the extreme that this question has anything to do with Valerie Plame's identity. As Patrick Fitzgerald stated very explicitly in his Oct. 28 press conference, "I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003." So, according to Fitzgerald, no one declassified Valerie Plame's CIA relationship prior to her outing.

The question about Cheney's declassification authority concerns the leaking of (portions of) the NIE and other classified intelligence about Iraq both before and after the war. Not Valerie Plame.

Linked to this in addendum currently at bottom, here.

...if the White House is engaged in issuing "secret" executive orders that give secret authority for 'the management' of secret information -- then we are done.

Possibly we might be, then, given that the practice of Presidential intelligence "findings" authorizing this, that, and the other, being kept secret is a long-standing practice, long pre-dating the Bush 43 reign, FWIW. SEC. 503. [50 U.S.C. 413b](a) of the National Security Act Of 1947, I think, though IANAL.

Of course, you are well aware: Of course I know that there are secret executive orders issued -- but that's not what I said, is it? I said that if there were secret executive orders issued over the issue of declassifying or classifying national security information -- i would be surprised and extremely concerned. I'd be extremely concerned, as well, but not surprised.

So then, if what Fitzgerald said is true: that Plame's ID was classified at the time of the leak, and Cheney's trial balloon defense, for himself and Libby, is power to declassify an active CIA agent's name and leak it for political purposes; we really have a pretty tricky situation.

I dare them to try this defense.

Declassifying leading to insecure protection of this country is UNAMERICAN pure and simple. Dick pulled Val off the WMD claims in IRAN> That is NOT APPROPRIATE DECLASSIFICATION under anyone;s rules..... and Dick knows it too. He singlehandedly made our country MORE dangerous didn;t he????

Pissed Off American: "The Democrats haven't stood up in over six years."

• 2002, Iraq Resolution vote, 60% NAY, with change of leader to Rep. Pelosi (the first female Minority Leader in history).

• 2005, Bush Social Security dismantling, failed.

It is a fallacy, and facile, to consent to discussing Cheney's crimes individually.

Conyers documented 15 major Federal crimes. Cheney is guilty of most of them. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. Obstruction of Congress. Misuse of U.S. Funds. The US law against torture.

Cheney himself is clearly involved in a conspiracy to enrich his former employer, and the massive corruption in Iraq implicates either him or Karl Rove.

Was Karl Rove also acting as Cheney's mouthpiece for impromptu declassification for political reasons?

When Rice told the NYT the name of the British-turned Al Qaeda mole, shutting down that source of information on an impending US attack -- was that her own declassification power, or was it approved by Rove? Does he have the power?

Can Scottie Mac declassify? How about Gannon/Gukhert, the fake Marine top? Can Grover Norquist declassify? What about Pat Robertson.

FUX NEWS can now report that Bill O'Liely has just declassified the plans for an atom suitcase bomb, because it was sweeps week.

Pissed,

My references to conspiracy and paranoia were not intended to be taken soley (or even primarily) in the context of this thread, but yes, there have been a few over-the-top comments here which suggest their authors have at least temporarily abandoned rationality:

"like there is no tomorrow. And, with these crazies in power, THAT is a very real possibility"

"He's probably got a secret Executive Order that orders all Executive Orders that circumvent the Constitution to be secret."

"Can't we simply admit that...Cheney IS the president? Hasn't that been obvious from Day One? Doesn't it get more obvious as each day passes?"

"the last straw has come and gone"

"Next in line, an Executive Order that negates term limits."

Since I'm self-cast as a provocateur here, let me add this, I disagree with Steve on his "if...then we are done." I think it quite plausible that the "if" conditional has been satisfied -- that is, we are already living in a situation where there are secret executive orders relating to secret authorities for classifying and declassifying national security material -- I just don't agree with Steve's hyperbolic "then we are done." I don't think Steve really thinks "that's the end" either. He's free to correct that misapprehension of mine, though I wouldn't blame him if he considers that he's waded far enough into this swamp for the time being.

"like there is no tomorrow. And, with these crazies in power, THAT is a very real possibility"

"He's probably got a secret Executive Order that orders all Executive Orders that circumvent the Constitution to be secret."

"Can't we simply admit that...Cheney IS the president? Hasn't that been obvious from Day One? Doesn't it get more obvious as each day passes?"

"the last straw has come and gone"

"Next in line, an Executive Order that negates term limits."

It appears you have justified your labeling by citing a bunch of tongue in cheek comments that were meant to underscore the gravity of concern many of us feel. Do you REALLY think I meant to seriously opine that there will be no tomorrow?

Ironic, isn't it, on a thread where two stolen elections are mentioned, as well as lying this nation into war, as well as having a perjurer for Attorney general, and a number of other assertions that can hardly apply to a nation that purports itself to be a democratic and moral society, you pick the above inanities as your foundation for calling some of us "conspiracy theorists". You also fail to mention the efforts of some very real and very active patriots, such as Harris or Conyers, that are working to expose just how far removed we have become from being this "democracy" that you and Steve think is still salvagable by civil and political machinations committed by a pack of mnoney grubbing self serving turncoats such as is now inhabiting Washington DC.

Personally, I think your admonissions are solely designed to divide and deflect, and you are about as sincere and real in your comments as Avaroo is.

Pissed Off American: "The Democrats haven't stood up in over six years."

? 2002, Iraq Resolution vote, 60% NAY, with change of leader to Rep. Pelosi (the first female Minority Leader in history).

? 2005, Bush Social Security dismantling, failed.

Posted by Paul in LA at February 17, 2006 07:47 AM

You are attributing a comment to me that I didn't make. That is NOT my comment. However, I do generally agree with it. As far as your examples of "democratic courage" go.....

Are we in Iraq or not?

How much did the REPUBLICAN opposition have to do with defeating Bush's privatization designs???

I have my tin foil hat on all of the time now that I learned about the great Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory..... you know, about the 19 Arabs with box cutters....

It amazes me how many have not looked at the data. It amazes me how many continue to think things are still 'ok'.
...that neocons don't exist. ...that the PNAC doesn't exist and never wrote about their plans.... that it's simply 'ok' to be lied into a criminal war.. to be spied upon, to have fascism written into the unPatriot Act...and many, many other travesties of this republican, neocon, corporatist and criminal government.

oh yeh, things are just hunky dory.... what maroons.

Dr rw
Clinical Neuropsychologist

I hate to burst everybody's bubble, but looking at EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292 it does appear that the Vice President has declassification authority.

In the definitions section, Section 6, Declassification authority is defined at the official who originally classified the information OR a supervisory official of that person. The term supervisory official is not defined. However, it is a certainty that the Vice President can claim such as status under this Order.

Alternatively, the Order does allow for declassification if a judgment is made that the need for public disclosure outweighs the damage to national security. This is undoubtedly the argument that the VP can make. However, the Order requires some sort of evaluation be made by the Executive Agency. But the Executive Agency, according to the US Code, is any department of the Executive, which presumably includes the office of the VP. So Under Bush's order the VP can make his own evaluation and declassify practically at will.

This has nothing to do with the fact that he broke the law by revealing a covert agents name!!!!!!!!!!!

Pissed,
I hesitated to reply and apparently should've followed my first mind. I'll leave you (on this thread at least) with these thoughts:

Overlooking that I also praised Steve's readers, you seized on the fact that I found some paranoid and/or nutty, and asked me what I found nuts here. While I told you I was speaking of Steve's comments generally, not those on this thread in particular, I indulged you and picked out a few zany quotes.

Your response was twofold. First you tell me the quotes aren't reflective of their authors' real intents -- they're 'tongue in cheek.' Fine, I've heard Ann Coulter say something similar about her more indefensible statements. Second, you chastise me for not responding to something you didn't ask me, i.e. what about the more-or-less reasonable other points that commenters have made!

Uh, what can I say? I didn't point to those as nutty because I didn't find them nutty. You may take the fact that I passed over these points as an indication that I believe there is merit to many or most of them.

You defend what I see as nutsy comments by calling them tongue-in-cheek and then you assert that I must be insincere! That's great for you, but I won't spend more time on it.

Finally, you imply that US democracy is not 'salvagable' -- I'd call this nuts too, but I'm afraid you'll just tell me you're being ironic or tongue-in-cheek or something else. Suffice it say that if you do believe that, you are shouting into the wind here at Steve's board.

Democracy has not adjusted to the new media which, combined with the centralized control of most news media, has created an unprecedented tool for propaganda. In addition to having for free the sympathy of the major news media---an advantage worth many billions at a minimum---one party has a near lockhold on corporate contributions.
We don't have democracy in any meaningful sense now---not at the national level; the opposition cannot get its message heard fairly.
Democracy does not consist of casting ballots alone; besides the necessity for a transparent media which aggressively pursues stories, a strong democracy relies on the power of many civic institutions. Commercialization and consumerism have eroded both the public's civic sense as well as its opportunities to have a civic society outside of merely spending money.

Why doesn't he give up the info on his meetings with OIL companies then? We need to demand he turn that over to Congress ASAP! The whole damn corrupt crooked Adminstration needs to be run out of D.C. on a RAIL! Along with some in Congress who are siding with these murdering,lying fascist corporate whores who are LITERALLY destroying America! Get them out of office and NOW! Now Bush regime wants to sell 6 of our ports to KNOWN terrorists and yet corporate whore press doesn't report it, except for CNN and Lou Dobbs! The damn papers put in is small print and/or not at all! They don't want the public knowing what is going on to keep them as sheep! Wake the hell up people!If you love America, demand the immediate removal of these aholes and now!

Dear Half --

Very much liked your response above to mine. I think that there is a legitimate debate about either sinking the ship or righting the ship. Completely understand that many think things aren't reconcilable any longer.

I'm still slightly optimistic.

All the best,

Steve Clemons

A few questions.

If a president can issue an executive order giving classifying power to the vice president, where does it stop?

Could a president therefore give such powers to ANYONE in the executive branch, to people like Karl Rove?

What legal authority do these, and other, executive orders have? Are executive orders mentioned in the Constitution? If not, where does their legitimacy come from?

And how can a SECRET executive order be legal?

Aside from whether or not No. EO 13292 authorizes Cheney to generally declassify, I am also concerned about the overall amendments to EO 12958, which I found at http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eo13292inout.html (thank you, California reality check). They appear to further concentrate power re classified materials in the hands of the President and Vice President, to diminish oversight/review, and to relieve "officers of the government" of accountability. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm wondering if any lawyers are on top of this.