If Cheney can legally declassify information, why has he been silent for three years?

[YankeeRebel]

So Vice President Dick Cheney now tells us that he has the legal power to declassify information and leak it to the media. Isn't it funny that we are learning about this only after his chief of staff, Scooter Libby, testified that he was authorized to do this by his superiors? It makes you wonder . . .

If Cheney always had the legal power to declassify this information all along, why didn't he just come clean about his actions when this story broke in 2003? If he was legally empowered to do this, why didn't he come out and say, "It was me. I am the one who declassified this information, and here is the proof that I can legally do it"?

But that's not what Cheney did. Instead he clammed up. If you accept what Cheney is saying is true, then you can only conclude that his intentional silence led LOTS of people (including officials in the Department of Justice) to believe that a crime had been committed. If he was legally protected in his actions, why would he allow everybody to think this? It makes no sense.

If you accept what Cheney is saying is true, then you have to conclude that he intentionally allowed this widespread investigation by the Department of Justice to happen. At any point he could have stopped the investigation by saying, "Look, it was me. I did it, and I have the legal right to do it." But Cheney remained silent and let the investigation go on. Why would he do this? It makes no sense.

If you accept what Cheney is saying is true, then you have to accept that Scooter Libby for some unknown reason intentionally perjured himself and obstructed an investigation of an action that was lawful. You have to believe that an innocent man who is apparently guilty of nothing went up before a grand jury and provided false testimony for no good reason. If you were innocent, would you do that? It makes no sense.

In the almost 3 years since the identity of Valarie Plame was leaked to the media, Cheney has had EVERY opportunity to resolve this matter by citing his legal authority to declassify--but he NEVER did it. Why not?

How can you explain this seemingly illogical and irrational behavior?

The only answer that makes sense to me is that Cheney believed that he and the people in his office had broken the law. They spent almost three years trying to cover it up. Now that the finger of guilt is pointing directly at Dick, this "authorization to declassify" suddenly appears from nowhere and is being used as a "Get out of Jail Free" card.

If anybody has any good explanations of why Cheney never cited his "authorization to declassify" in 2003, 2004, or 2005 and let this investigation continue, I am all ears.

[JackOfHearts]

Originally Posted by YankeeRebel

In the almost 3 years since the identity of Valarie Plame was leaked to the media, Cheney has had EVERY opportunity to resolve this matter by citing his legal authority to declassify--but he NEVER did it. Why not?

How can you explain this seemingly illogical and irrational behavior?

The only answer that makes sense to me is that Cheney believed that he and the people in his office had broken the law. They spent almost three years trying to cover it up. Now that the finger of guilt is pointing directly at Dick, this "authorization to declassify" suddenly appears from nowhere and is being used as a "Get out of Jail Free" card.

If anybody has any good explanations of why Cheney never cited his "authorization to declassify" in 2003, 2004, or 2005 and let this investigation continue, I am all ears.

Let's see.... You leaked the identity of an agent that works for our country. That isn't the same as declassification, whatever authority you may have. And i'm pretty sure that's illegal as hell. Cheney can be liable to legal action if he was the one that authorized the leak. It's a personal abuse of power because if memory serves, Plame and/or her husband were vocal opponents of the war in Iraq.

[Inquartata]

I may have missed the story, but when did Cheney make this claim?

[YankeeRebel]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I may have missed the story, but when did Cheney make this claim?

Here's a link to the story from the MSNBC website.

"WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney says he has the power to declassify government secrets, raising the possibility that he authorized his former chief of staff to pass along sensitive prewar data on Iraq to reporters.

Cheney coupled his statement in a TV interview Wednesday with an endorsement of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, his ex-aide. Libby is under indictment on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about disclosing the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame."

[Inquartata]

Thanks. I'd missed that one.

I note that he says that he has "advocated declassification", not that he has done it; and that he has "participated in decisions", not made them unilaterally...

Does anyone know which executive order is being discussed?

[umbrella]

Because he's intelligent!

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Thanks. I'd missed that one.

I note that he says that he has "advocated declassification", not that he has done it; and that he has "participated in decisions", not made them unilaterally...

Does anyone know which executive order is being discussed?

Apparently, only Cheney knows which one. None of the articles I have seen discussing it have indicated that he can unilaterally declassify information. Many seem to think he was referring to Executive Order 13292 which seems to give the veep unilateral authority in classifying information, but still requires an authorization by the head of the agency that classified the info. Of course, then we can follow the legal chain of agency 'heads' which may prove to be an out.

Caution: Emphasis added to certain portions of the following where it may not have existed before. Proceed with caution (and without *****ing).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030325-11.html

Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.

(b) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure. This provision does not:

(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

(c) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office determines that information is classified in violation of this order, the Director may require the information to be declassified by the agency that originated the classification. Any such decision by the Director may be appealed to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.

Of course, there are a number of Executive Orders that are classified, but so far Cheney's Unitary Co-Managing Executive Powers theory doesn't hold up.

4.1(c) Classified information shall remain under the control of the originating agency or its successor in function. An agency shall not disclose information originally classified by another agency without its authorization. An official or employee leaving agency service may not remove classified information from the agency's control.

The definition of agency:

(i) "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105, and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.

[jeff]

And in related news: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Monday: "President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/200...YwN5bnN1YmNhdA

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

None of the articles I have seen discussing it have indicated that he can unilaterally declassify information.

And nothing he said in that interview approaches claiming unilateral authority. Come back up to the main way, Ess, that red herring may smell tempting but it leads dow a dead-end bypath...

Meanwhile, thanks for the cite.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

And in related news: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Monday: "President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale."

Have you read the entire testimony? I mean, I know the one summary statement makes a better jest in isolation, but the testimony was lengthy and the main mention of Washington referred to the interception of letters, and that of Lincoln referred to telegraph messages, etc.

[YankeeRebel]

Originally Posted by umbrella

Because he's intelligent!

If Cheney really had this legal power, then the intelligent thing to do would have been to declare it in 2003 when the story broke. It would have stopped the investigation and grand jury trial. Scooter Libby could have remained Cheney's chief of staff and saved himself god-knows-how-much money in legal bills.

Cheney allegedly had the legal ability to make all of this go away, and he didn't use it. That doesn't sound very intelligent to me.

[Inquartata]

It would have involved admission of guilt, though. He probably thought it was better to hope the investigation didn't find anything. But now that ship has sailed, and there's little to lose any longer.

[YankeeRebel]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It would have involved admission of guilt, though. He probably thought it was better to hope the investigation didn't find anything. But now that ship has sailed, and there's little to lose any longer.

What is the shame or punishment in commiting a lawful act?

[Inquartata]

Ask the Democrats, who have been screaming about "exposing an agent" and "endangering operatives" for a year or more now...even though Plame was not an agent under the statutes at the time of exposure.

There can be disadvantage even in perfectly legal, moral acts.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Ask the Democrats, who have been screaming about "exposing an agent" and "endangering operatives" for a year or more now...even though Plame was not an agent under the statutes at the time of exposure.

Regardless of how lightly you take the retaliatory outing of Plame's status, the CIA and apparently the special investigator don't seem to agree with you...

[Inquartata]

Rebel Fencer, may I present Exhibit A...see post immediately previous.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Rebel Fencer, may I present Exhibit A...see post immediately previous.

To my knowledge, it wasn't the Democrats that began the investigation...

AND I wasn't yelling... in that post.

[Inquartata]

Riiiiiight....

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Riiiiiight....

Of course, you get your inside knowledge of who's classified and who isn't from your inside connection at the CIA?

Sorry if I once again take the actions of the CIA to mean that they feel that damage was done by the leaking of Plame's status.

As a note, the investigation was not centered on rather or not the statute was violated AND the investigation is ongoing. Libby was the first round. He cut his own throat and now Cheney's trying to cover his own *** on the matter.