Brit Hume once asked Dick Cheney whether he had declassified "information" in response to Joe Wilson's op-ed. Cheney claimed he had the ability under an Executive Order to declassify such "information."
HUME: On another subject, court filings have indicated that Scooter Libby has suggested that his superiors — unidentified — authorized the release of some classified information. What do you know about that?
CHENEY: There's nothing I can talk about, Brit. It's an issue that's been under investigation for a couple of years. I've cooperated fully, including being interviews done by a special prosecutor. All of it's now going to trial. Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is a great guy. I worked with him for a long time. I have tremendous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case and it is therefore inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case.
HUME: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a vice president has the authority to declassify information?
CHENEY: There is an executive order to that effect.
HUME: There is.
CHENEY: Yeah.
HUME: Have you done it?
CHENEY: Well, I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions.
HUME: Have you —
(CROSSTALK)
CHENEY: I don't want to get into that. There's 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.
But the EO in question--EO 12958 as modified by EO 13292--says no such thing. The modified EO gives the Vice President to classify information.
The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
But it didn't change the definition of "declassification authority," which only allows the originator of information or that person's supervisor to declassify already classified information.
(l) "Declassification authority" means:
(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position;
(2) the originators current successor in function;
(3) a supervisory official of either; or
(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official.
In short, only George Tenet or his supervisor--George Bush--could declassify stuff that the CIA had originally classified. At least that was true before Bush could turn his own Executive Orders to pixie dust. Since Bush got authority to change his orders without telling us, we have no way of knowing what his Executive Orders actually say mean.
Unless, of course, he bothers to tell us.
As it happens, the Bush Administration has told us (or, rather, they've told Sam Brownback, which I guess is as close as they're going to come to telling us), belatedly, what EO 13292 says means. In a letter to Brownback meant to clarify whether or not Dick is his own Fourth Branch of government, Fred Fielding directed Brownback to two press conferences Dana "Bay of Pigs = Missile Crisis" Perino for clarification on what EO 13292 says means.
The President has asked me to confirm to you that, as was made clear by the President's spokespersons on June 22 and June25, 2007, the Executive Order deals with the President and the Vice President separately from agency heads and thus the Office of the Vice President, like the President's office, is not an "agency" for purposes of the Order.
And sure enough, back on June 22, Dana Perino did state that the Vice President, along with the President, is not an agency.
MS. PERINO: If you look at the EO, the President, in the performance of executive duties, and the Vice President are treated separately from agencies.
(She also appears to have suggested that Bush has duties that are not within the Executive Branch, but heck, while we're torching the rule of law, why not the Constitution?!?!?)
But Dana "Bay of Pigs = Missile Crisis" Perino said far more about what EO 13292 says means than simply clarifying that OVP is not an agency. Over and over, she stated that Bush intended to treat Dick just as he, the President, would be treated according to the EO. And while you're reading, note how closely Dana parrots the OLC opinion that says the President gets to make his own rules.
MS. PERINO: No, and I don't think that anyone has suggested that. I went back and I looked at this EO -- I don't know if anyone else had a chance to actually read it. I think one thing is clear: first of all, it's the President of the United States who is the author of the EO, and is the sole enforcer of the EO, the executive order on classified materials. And it's clear from the reading of it, the Vice President is not treated separately from the President in the EO.
[snip]
MS. PERINO: If you look at the EO, the President, in the performance of executive duties, and the Vice President are treated separately from agencies. The President did not intend -- I went back and looked into this -- the President did not intend for the Vice President to be treated separately from how he would treat himself. Agencies are to report to ISOO, and they do. I don't think there's any suggestion that no one else is complying. The Vice President was not intended to be separate from the President in this regard.
[snip]
MS. PERINO: The President and the Vice President are complying with all the rules and regulations regarding the handling of classified material and making sure that it is safeguarded and protected.
What is different is, regarding that small section of this ISOO office, that they are not subject to those -- they are subordinate to the sole enforcer of the EO, which is the President of the United States, and they are not subject to such investigation -- as I understand it, as I read the EO and as I had preliminary discussions in between the gaggle and today.
[snip]
MS. PERINO: That I don't know. All I know is what I have here, which is the executive order that was released in 2002, I think, did not intend to treat the Vice President any differently than he would treat the President.
[snip]
MS. PERINO: If you go back and you read the EO, it's -- the President's intention was never to separate the Vice President out from himself. The President, as the sole enforcer of the EO, is instructing agencies on how to handle classified material on a range of issues.
[snip]
MS. PERINO: I think what is absurd is Chairman Waxman asserting some sort of authority over the President regarding an executive order, of which he is the sole enforcer.
[snip]
MS. PERINO: I didn't talk to him about that. I don't believe so. Especially since, as I just said in the EO, he's the sole enforcer of the EO, and he never intended for the Vice President to be treated separately from himself.
It's fairly clear what has happened: between the gaggle and the press briefing, Dana asked some questions, and someone explained to her that the President doesn't have to abide by his own rules--"he's the sole enforcer" of his EOs--and so it is presumptuous of Henry Waxman or anyone else to expect that Bush and Dick abide by the EOs Bush signed.
Though just in case you were wondering, contrary to the plain text meaning of the EO, Dana tells us that Bush intended for Dick to be treated the same as the President in the EO.
And that appears to apply to the whole EO.
So now we know why Dick told Brit that,
There's 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.
Because, Dana tells us, Bush didn't intend for the President and Vice President to be treated separately by the EO. In other words, somewhere in his kingdom of Pixie Dust, Bush has secretly given Dick the power to declassify anything the President can declassify (in addition to the classification authority Bush gave Dick explicitly).
Anything.
You all see where I'm going with this--but that's going to have to wait until the next post.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Zed! Actually
FITZ!
I did it! I haven’t fitzed in months, maybe over a year. Whoo hhoo.
And yes this is compeltely juvenile. WHich is why I enjoy it so much
Well, of course you “fitz’ed” over here. That’s bc no one does that over here. It’s like sitting on a seat no one wants, at the front of the room!!
;-p
Actually that statement by Cheney is true. Cheney has the authority to classify information and docuemnts. As the original classified he has the authorit to de-classify anything he originally calssifed.
What he doesn’t have, I and I don’t give a rat’s ass what digbat Dana said in a press briefing (which has no force of law–but may in some instance become an “admission agaisnt party intrest”) that EO does not say ANYTHING near what she was trying to create the misimpression it says.
We are back in the land of “they are just making shit up”
maybe it’s b/c I’m so short, or maybe it’s b/c I’m that annoying sort like the guy on Welcome Back Cotter who used to always raise his hand and say “ooh ooh, Pick ME Mr. Cotter”
But I like sitting in the front, center.
It DOESN’T matter that they’re making shit up. OLC has given them carte blanche to make that shit up. “Here, Mr. Cheney, here’s your shit wand.”
How can Bush be the “sole enforcer” and Cheney be the same thing..the “sole enforcer”?????
This is my favorite Perinoism:
MS. PERINO: That I don’t know. All I know is what I have here, which is the executive order that was released in 2002, I think, did not intend to treat the Vice President any differently than he would treat the President.
So, in fact, we have Predzinet Cheenee, “Sole Enforcer”…sounds like he created the EO, and through the other Predzinent Bush a bone…Non?
“and threw”
Actually, LS, using the same logic, she appears to have made Dick President here:
Also, shouldn’t there be a neologism that applies here, not a Perinoism, but a Bay of Missile Pig?
As discussed thoroughly at FDL today, in the event of a challenge in a courtroom (or in a Senate trial for that matter), how much cover does a demonstrably faulty OLC opinion give them?
Tons. See also, Jack Goldsmith.
Hmmm.
Though that’s one of the reasons why I look forward (against my better judgment) to the OPR investigation into the OLC opinions rationalizing the illegal wiretap decisions.
Geez!!! So, if W made Dick President…how many more terms can he stay??? /s
Maybe W doesn’t even know he signed Dick’s EO…and he’s not even the Prezdinent anymore!! Here W, sign this…D’oh kay….
Why isn’t that just a Nurnberg defense?
EW
It does matter that they are just making shit up. It’s like the Emperoro’s New Clothes. If we all tie ourselves in knots about “what does this mean” “what new powers does he have now”–we are tacity agreeing that they can do this.
If we just say: NOOOPE, you are full if fertilzer and everybody knows it. It will stop. Folks have to stop treated the outrageous, the ridiculous, as sane.
We must change the pardigm. We must not give this foolishness one iota of respect or deference
emptywheel:
Didn’t that exchange with Hume occur at the tail end of his post-shooting interview. Was there a reason for that?
Jeebus, not you too with the zed, Fitz junk. Oh my…..
Here is my thought. Is my thought now, and was my thought when the issue of EO 12958/13292 first bubbled to the surface.
Under Article II, Section 1, and the 25th Amendment, the Vice-President only has powers of “the executive” upon the death or incapacity of the executive, i.e. the President. If you read the EO in this light, they are full of dung about Cheney’s powers in the first place.
707
Oh, Dana!
Yes, it was the shooter interview.
Christy and I published the news that Scooter had been authorized by Shooter on Feb 2, and then Murray and Carol Leonnig published it on February 9, just before Shooter went on his spree. So the declassification thing actually immediately preceded Dick’s drunken shooting spree.
Will the real President, please stand up!!
Is Bush, the boy who never grew up or Mr. Smee, Captain Cheney’s sidekick?
I’m voting for the loyal Mr. Smee with tic, toc, tic, toc
LHP
Barring some legal recourse (and I’m waiting for your explanation of how we discredit this legally) then the first step to the Emperor’s New Clothes is to point out, such that everyone case see it, that the Emperor is naked.
That’s part of what I’m trying to do. A lot of very smart people are saying, “well, golly, that EO thing would be really scary if Bush were doing it indiscriminately.”
Ergo, I’m trying to show that he is.
Bay of Missile Pig=Curtis LeMay?
Depends one who the “them” is. Do Ithink the OLC opinion gives cover tothe CIA agents in the feild? Yeah, I do. Especailly if it turns out, and I have a hunch it might, that BEFORE enganging in “enhanced interrogation” the CIA grunts in the feild asked for legal guidance.
In determining whether something s “legal order” that must be followed lest one risk insubordination, I don’t think any court is going to hold that a non -lawyer be held to the standard of a legal scholar.
Which is different that the President. He went behind the back of the head of OLC to get John Yoo to write him these bogus opinions. I think a fair case could be made that this evidencesd a consciousness of guilt.
Croc got the Captain in the end, didn’t he?
Thank YOU!
Or bad faith, yes, if he made a consistent effort to avoid the normal process?
Oh, I’m not criticisizing you analysis, just wish you would laugh at them. It’s what they deserve
We have many crocs… Fitzy, Comey, Waxman, Whitehouse, and the indomitable
Pat Leahy (my hero).
Who determines the President’s state of decapitation “incapacitation”???
Dana “Bay of Pigs = Missile Crisis” Perino = Dana Pigino?
What’s a matter, counselor, you don’t believe in Pixie Dust?
BTW, while I’m whining about legal means to overturn this, how do we leverage the AG’s stated believe that EOs mean what they say they mean?
I think it was more like, “Why yes, Mr. Cheney, that is your shit wand!”
They didn’t give him anything, just rolled over with a flourish.
Cheney can fly, he can fly?
You think Valerie Wilson laughs at them? Or any of the spooks who are susceptible to precisely the same treatment?
It’d be funny if they were using Pixie Dust to spy on me, torture others, and out spies. Once I figure out a way to stop that, I’ll declare beer century and laugh for a month.
So CIA is in the end in the stronger position than W/Dick/Addington wrt the faulty OLC opinions. Good answer. Though if state secrets privilege obtains — paging SCOTUS — it might never matter practically.
By pounding that meme, and laughing at the absurdity of anyone who tries to
liestate otherwiseWhy?
In this case, no, because any time Dick wants to out CIA’s sources and methods, he will do so with apparent impunity (until he’s impeached).
In the case of torture, it means they won’t be prosecuted for torturing, but it means they’ve been asked to torture for six years.
And who knows what else it means? Maybe they’ve been asked to become assassins. Maybe they’ve been asked to infiltrate peace organizations. We don’t know how far the Pixie Dust extends.
That’s not going to work. Thus far, even very smart people are saying, “well, that’s cute. Just think how dangerous it’d be if he really acted on it.”
No one else even sees where they’ve gone with it, so they’re not laughing. They’re just rolling over on their side, which is precisely the response Dick wants.
CIA the agency? No, I think it ends up in weaker position, because of the scandal. The grunts out in the feild, are in pretty much the same legal position they always were a la the Bivens case. They were following an order that they had every reason to believe was legal (assuming that they sought and obtained an opinion form counsel)even though on it’s face they would intuitively fear it was not legal.
Does that make sense to you? There are lot sof things that are/are not legal that most lay people think are just the opposite. So, if you get told to do something and reply “I don’t think so, isn’t that agaisnt the law?” and the agency cousel or OLC comes back with a fancy looking written opinion that says it is legal–how can you be expected to contradict them?
Yup. Shadow government. Two leaders..one to show to the public…one of equal status to create policies to execute the dirty deeds…one that spends taxpayer dollars….one that uses drug money laundering to wage covert wars and covert missions…The lightside and the darkside.
[In my best Clintonian drawl]
Well, that depends on what the meaning of “they” is.
I need to see the exact statement to figure out how to best turn the screw around and point it back at the sender. But, just from your question, if “they” means the EOs mean what they, the EOS, say they mean; that fits right in with my reading and the precise wording contained within the four corners of the Constitution. The VP has no “executive” duties other than under those circumstances; why do you think the job was equated with a “bucket of warm spit” for centuries?
There I am relying on LHP’s analysis @ 25, keeping in mind that the context (from mine @ 11) was limited to “in the event of a challenge in a courtroom (or in a Senate trial for that matter)” — not whatever they manage to get away with between now and then. I don’t disagree that any number of other crimes may have been ordered under the demonstrably faulty OLC opinions.
Captain Cheney sends the American people a ticking bomb in the shape of an
EO… What a present?
Sorry LHP, I should have been clearer that I was only considering a position in a trial (Court or Senate), not a power position on the chessboard at large in the meantime.
Right. I’m just suggesting that, while those doing the torture and illegal wiretap under this EO (and note, we do know this was used to justify illegal wiretapping; we don’t know if it was used to justify torture) are protected from legal prosecution, they may not be protected from having their covert identities exposed.
Oh, now I get your point. I was thinking of them being in another role in a court, as in, suing CHeney for outing them.
Make sure you read LHP telling me I need to loosen up …
I disagree about the grunts in the field, unless they were extremely prudent to cover their asses with documentation. Otherwise they are merely better educated Lynndie Englands who’ll take the fall for their so-called superiors.
Somebody in a figurative way is going to have to take one for the team by self-outing while providing the contemporary equivalent of Ellsberg’s Pentago Papers; I am beginning to think this is the only way to pointedly reject the unitary executive pixie dust, now with flavors “state secrets” and “executive privilege”.
If you were a prop maybe you would be looser?
From Wiki regarding presidential Executive Orders. I don’t know if there is here, here or not..you legal eagles could shed light on it though:
“The precedent in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States might be of some relevance. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot give the president power to create laws, so it would follow that an executive order in restraint of a law, not enforcing, would be beyond the president’s power.”
bmaz @ 1:27 pm and lhp -
Do you think (based on the reasoning I see in comment 18) that the President possesses the authority to delegate executive functions to someone who at times asserts that his office isn’t part of the executive branch?
I took Kiriakou as an elegant maneuver to self-out (PR-wise) without revealing any interviewer/torturer identities in the eprocess. I don’t think he’d actually have standing though… would he?
Nosiree, You’re not going to get me to comment on the relative looseness of various Ruggers. Nosiree. I’m sure I could outrun LHP, but I’m likely to run right into phred, and then where will I be??
I clearly remember that Hume interview with Cheney covering his ass. Please Please Please someone Impeach these social I think they are a group of psychopaths..
I swear the Republicans could win the 2008 election (well selection) if they would take up the Impeachment issue.(Kucinich has all ready started the ball rolling) Can you imagine Senator Warner or Hagel (hell they are leaving) taking this up? This would win them the election I swear.
In a world of hurt ; ) Yep, that’s me a tough guy ; )
bmaz, delighted to see that you are up to speed on props and wings now.
To what extent does Schecter expound upon signing statements?
Can we share Leahy as a hero? Helen Thomas is another hero. Leahy acts and looks like the Catholic image of god I grew up with.
Leahy and Thomas both look and act like the god I want to imagine.
Well, that is an interesting, and good, question. This is purely a random musing, probably not even possessing the level of credibility of my usual tripe (i.e. not much). Maybe delegate tasks and work necessary to carry out the executive(Presidential) functions; but not the functions themselves. The president is hired (elected) to do a designated job; if he isn’t the one doing it then the will of the people has been usurped because a person they didn’t vote for President is acting as President. This is a problem i have long had about the way Cheney runs everything of significance while Bush rides his bike, works out, gets his 9 hours of sleep a day and clears brush at his patch of Texas dirt.
Intuitively, I have felt that an ‘integral’ part of the UE Theory includes the notion that members - those who have been ‘read in’ - have two positions.
The first position is their Constitutional job - For instance, President.
The second position is their Kingdom job - For instance, Unitary Executive.
The Kingdom job is the Constitutional job plus the *Constitutional Powers* of the next level up. So, Cheney’s Constitutional job of Vice-President is *empowered* inside the Kingdom to be the same as that of the President, which explains why we all feel that Cheney is the President.
In Bush’s case, there is no ‘next level up,’ so he gets Absolute Powers - his Word is Law for everyone, except himself and his designates, and he doesn’t have to tell US when he is not obeying his own Laws - he just tosses out some Pixie Dust ™ and does what he wants.
Cheney, otoh, gets to play with Presidential Powers, so he gets to classify and declassify on his own whim, be the point man on foreign policy issues, and fly out to Aircraft Carriers in the Persian Gulf to personally discuss War Plans with the Theater Commander.
I actually read somewhere, but can’t remember where - maybe a Tim Griffin quote? that said, in effect, that ‘the intent’ with the USAs was to arm them each in the War on Terror with the *powers* of the Attorney General of the US.
In the UE system, the Members are operating within a (some say sworn) Special Mission, to Save the United States from the Terror of the Axis of Evil. The assumed Hero of this Tale is Bush, ably served by his Courtly Round Table of Minions and Henchpeople.
The Rule of Law applies only to those operating within the Public Consitutional System. Within the Kingdom, Loyalty is the measure of Merit, and it Trumps the Rule of Law, at the whim of the King. Those Loyally doing the bidding of the King, are assured of immunity from the Rule of Law. Whole Federal Government Agencies can be incompetently run and looted by cronies - and it’s okay, if you’re smoking cigars with the King.
If this speculation is true, then Cheney would have the same ‘presidential immunity’ that the president enjoys by the Constitution.
Which means We’d have to Impeach them as a Pair, with Bush holding his nose up in the air, and refusing to recognize any of it…
Imagine that?
Isn’t it really important to take action to “discredit this legally” so that it doesn’t become an “established practice” kinda thing? That’s why I am so grateful to EW & LHP for leading the charge on this (and can’t wait for Christy’s return!).
For example, under their interpretation, could Cheney just sign the order to nuke Iran himself, without even bothering to tell George? Al the Spook thinks something very close to that almost happened in early September, and got called off only when Syrian tracking stations started shooting at the nuclear convoy heading towards Iran.
Bob in HI
Ray McGovern…(on torture tapes)
Are Americans Really “Better Than That?” »
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2...../#comments
I don’t think it does. But, I think it is saying something like that the president can’t make up directives, via EOs, that restrain the enforcement of existing laws that Congress has already passed (like torture or FISA, or outing CIA agents, or anything else)…the president can only issue EO’s that “enforce” existing laws and/or direct ways by which Executive branch executives should enforce those existing laws. The president is not above the law. Period.
lhp — if you’re still around, I agree that the OLC opinions give the agents in the field some cover, but doesn’t this argument fly in the face of Nuremberg? I was under the impression that the excuse of only following orders was an insufficient defense. If one of the agents in question woke up one morning in the Hague, do you think those OLC opinions would carry any real weight? Admittedly, this is a question directed with an eye toward an international tribunal, but I don’t see how an unconstitutional order can be found to absolve someone of a war crime in our system either.
“could Cheney just sign the order to nuke Iran himself without even bothering to tell George” Groan
Is he acting as President or as a de facto prime minister?
Phred- I was the consummate college student and yuppie out on the town. I don’t know squat about props and wings; but I know loose….
LHP is right. They are making this shit up. They do these things in order to make everybody think they are so powerful. They aren’t. They are the men standing behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz and they do it, only because no one is stopping them, but what they are doing is an exercise in burning up paper in a smoke and mirror operation. It is BS. Both Cheney and Bush are nekked!!
Yes, I asked the same Nurnberg question at 15. If that analysis wouldn’t apply, I would like to understand why.
I totally agree with that analysis. As I hae said until blue inthe face. EO’s are like agency rules only they apply to all releavnt agencies.
EO do not, can not trump statue or the COnstitutiton
PERIOD
Do you think that signing statements are the functional equivalent of informal executive orders that “restrain enforcement of existing laws”?
A rose by any other name; its just a matter of semantics. In our system of government there is no prime minister; so the presidency has been effectively usurped in those areas.
Well, now that you mention it, LHP stands for LOOSEhead prop, so maybe that’s where she gets it.
Hmmm @70, yep, I noticed that, but I got here late and just finished catching up, so thought I would ask again. I think Nuremberg is highly relevant here. IMO those CIA agents should be fretting bigtime, no matter what load of horseshit Yoo et al. sold them. My only real hope is they take Bush and all his little henchmen down with them.
Signing statement cannot rump statute either.
Bush misused the term and the vehicle. A signing statemnt is no more binding than , and bearely equivilanet to, the legislative hisotry of a statute.
It’s all lies from this WH
No. I think they are the words of the brat challenging the legal system…he refuses to go to his room.
If Congress can countermand an executive order, why can’t it countermand a signing statement?
Because they are boneheads.
Is it he - or someone else - who is challenging the legal system?
Addington and Fielding, I would guess…I dunno. They are all brats.
Kiriakou’s efforts, as far-flung as they were, came across as a massive PR campaign to inoculate the public against the evils of waterboarding, IMO. I did not see it as self-outing; he provided no documentation we didn’t already know about, nothing incriminating, never actually witnessed the waterboarding.
No, now that you’ve suggested Kiriakou might have been a form of self-outing, I think that this attempt to inoculate might actually have anticipated both documentation and self-outing by an agent.
Yeah; I would argue they don’t even have the effect of legislative history, as that is the collective underpinnings of the law, not and after the fact, self serving interpretation of the law.
They are all doing this stuff, because they are afraid….they have broken the laws of the country on numerous occasions. They should have been impeached a long time ago, but Congress is full of idjiots, and it has resulted in loss of life.
Sorry, got a post of my own up trying to be on two threads at once.
The difference wih Nueremberg was that they did not question the orders. This is playing out in the AT&T case right now. At&T had access to competent counsel who should have told them the wiretap authorization was invalid, so AT&T should have refused to cooperate like Quest.
If the CIA feild grunts, questioned the order and were given serious reasurances that torder was legal–they don’t have law degrees–hell, most real estate lawyers wouldn’t know any better either.
In a way (appropos of LHP’s thread on FDL) what they have done is to cast a spell — out of language, they have conjured up an elaborate, many-facteted justification currently hanging together in the air above all of us, but held together only by the friction of the words and the logic. But because there is no underlying reality actually connecting any of the joints, they have to eventually slip… and then the castle in the air just flakes apart into a flurry of its constituent OLC opinions and EOs and whispered illegal orders.
Poof.
So now it’s all a timing game. They need to keep appearances up long enough to depart the building before the blizzard.
Are you thinking of any particular real estate lawyer?
LHP — If Bush has misused signing statements what can be done about it? Aside from impeachment, since Pelosi can’t seem to find her table. Since a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime, presumably prosecution could proceed after he leaves office. But what statutes exist with which he could be prosecuted?
It seems to me this whole Presidency has been one long shell game, with BushCo one step ahead of the law at every turn. From what bmaz told me last night, whoever destroyed the torture tapes is unlikely to face jail time, which makes all this obstruction they’re engaging in a win-win situation for them.
How can we prosecute these folks and make it stick?
Sorry if this has all ready been posted
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22244282/
Dec13,2007
WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to hold two top aides to President George W. Bush in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate in its probe of fired federal prosecutors.
On a largely party-line vote of 11-7, the Democratic-led panel sent contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to the full Senate for consideration.
But what law is this trumping?
What law tells the President he can’t declassify indiscriminately? Case law says the President’s ability to classify and declassify is absolute. So how is this trumping law?
I agree this Pixie Dust trick can’t trump FISA (though they appear to be trying). But there’s no FISA in this case.
That is exactly it. They are scared, and they are acting like squid!!
Which is probably why they destroyed the tapes.
Furthermore, while the Pixie Dust EOs apply within this country, they don’t apply outside of this country.
The Europeans actually CAN laugh at this nonsense.
Thanks LHP — I agree that is an important distinction. And thanks for keeping up with both threads!
Marcy -
Please refresh my memory: do you have a citation pertaining to the President’s ability to classify and declassify? I recall a case that David Addington cited in testimony (or was it in a deposition?) at Scooter’s trial, but if I recall correctly, that case wasn’t relevant.
Just a guess…it says the president can declassify and classify by statute, which trumps his EO that gives power to the VP to do the same. He can’t change the law by an EO, but he could make directions to his Exec. Office minions on how to enforce the law. He can’t deem the VP to have the same authority as himself by an EO. That would be unconsitutional. JMHO.
The craziness is that he probably thinks he can, because maybe Addington and Fielding are throwing pixie dust all over W. They are probably giving him very bad advice…
Maybe the joke is on W.
Oh I agree, better to piss off a judge with minimal consequences than have evidence hanging around your neck like a veritable albatross.
Lets hope some Europeans with appropriate legal skills don’t just laugh, they cackle with glee as they rub their hands together in anticipation…
Another bit of good news
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200.....torture_dc
House votes to outlaw CIA waterboarding
By Thomas Ferraro 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defying a White House veto threat, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on Thursday to outlaw harsh interrogation methods, such as simulated drowning, that the CIA has used against suspected terrorists.
On a largely party line vote of 222-199, the Democratic-led House approved a measure to require intelligence agents to comply with the Army Field Manual, which bans torture in compliance with the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.
Stephen
The case Addington cited was Navy v. Egan. And I think that’s also one Bill Leonard cited in this context.
Even though they may be making everything up…it is still costing lives and careers…so although it is funny in a way….it is still deadly serious.
Well, it’s not Fielding (or it wasn’t, at the operative time), it was Abu G. So I think we can assume the advice was bad.
That said, as far as I understand, the one thing that governs classification and declassification for the executive branch is this EO. So if I understand it correctly, the case law gives Bush absolute authority (per Bill Leonard, not per Addington), to classify and declassify. Bush has taken that case law and made a Pixie dust EO in which he has “said” Cheney is to be treated like the President wrt classification and declassification. That is, Bush is lending Cheney is absolute authority to declassify.
Take yer basic Albertoad Gonzales for instance; please. Some bag named Harriet…..