|
Libby testifies that Cheney authorized him to leak classified information (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
ok so where is it clear that this info was not declassified for release?..and please let's not drag Plame into this for the only purpose to speculate. |
I see the wiggle room on this in other blogs. But if such a scenario were true, it really does beg some questions. Why would this information about a covert CIA operative who's sole job was to find WMD proliferation internationally be declassified for all to see? For what purpose?
And if anyone declassified this info. for Cheney to pass down to Libby or anyone else, there would have been no investigation, period. And if Cheney had declassified papers in his hands, so would the media upon immediate release.
But as testimony has clearly shown, the information was, in fact, marked "secret":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2002517_pf.html
I believe there is also one other authority I failed to mention who could declassify information - the President himself. But that doesn't bode well at all for Bush, because if that's the case then that clearly implicates Bush's involvement in the matter, albeit legal by Executive Order (which Cheney does not have). That would be really intersting considering how Bush has mentioned time and again that he was unaware of the matter.
But again, this hypothetical is highly unlikely about Bush declassifying because we would not have an investigation in the first place, and we certainly wouldn't be having an investigation continuing to this day. |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
But as testimony has clearly shown, the information was, in fact, marked "secret":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2002517_pf.html
I believe there is also one other authority I failed to mention who could declassify information - the President himself. But that doesn't bode well at all for Bush, because if that's the case then that clearly implicates Bush's involvement in the matter, albeit legal by Executive Order (which Cheney does not have). That would be really intersting considering how Bush has mentioned time and again that he was unaware of the matter.
But again, this hypothetical is highly unlikely about Bush declassifying because we would not have an investigation in the first place, and we certainly wouldn't be having an investigation continuing to this day. |
Now I'm confused. It is established that this was classified information that was being illegally leaked to the reporters. But I have one question: If Libby was given authorization to disclose this information, does that mean he can share this classified information with anybody or only people within the CIA?
I also have another question, if you are given permission to disclose classified information is the information now considered declassified or is still secret? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
the article you posted already addresses that fact. |
Oh no it didn't. The president clearly regards the leak of the classified data as a punishable issue that was clearly innaprppriate, otherwise he wouldn't have made the remarks that he did. For a party who widely supported Bush for his simplicity and straightforwardness I find it ludicrous that we're entering discussions akin to what the definition of "is" is. You know and I know EXACTLY what the President meant when he made his statement. The spirit of the issue is the impropriety of leaking or facilitating the leaking of classified information, of which Cheney seems to be guilty of despite what acts can actually be considered criminal according to the legal code. Now are you really trying to tell me that we shouldn't hold people accountable for their actions because semantically they're off the hooks??? Bear in mind what a sycophantic "yes" response entails. I will ing go through your posts and enjoy exposing every single instance of hypocracy that I can find ... and I don't imagine it will be a very difficult task. |
|
|
| Renegade |
Just been reading about this. ing awesome if true...
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
But I have one question: If Libby was given authorization to disclose this information, does that mean he can share this classified information with anybody or only people within the CIA? |
I could be wrong on this (it's a complicated case that's been pretty hard to follow), but I think that the point is that Cheney didn't have the authority to "authorize" Libby to spread the information in the first place. Put simply, it was (and is) illegal to disseminate the identity of covert CIA agents and no individual (except the president, based on what MisterOpus said?) has the authority to bypass this law. If Cheney really did "authorize" Libby to disseminate the identity of Valery Plame, then Cheney is also implicated in the illegality of this act, because he does not have the authority to legally authorize Libby to subvert this law.
In short, regardless of what Cheney may have said, Libby did not - so far as I'm aware - have any legal entitlement to spread the identity of Valery Plame. (Although it's worth pointing out that Libby is facing charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, he is not being charged with illegally revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent.)
Which begs the question, why is Libby revealing this now? I'm guessing:
- He's made a deal with Fitzgerald: less jail time in exchange for answers.
- He understands that the prosecution have a pretty good case, so he might as well start telling the full story rather than risking additional perjury charges.
- He has no way of escaping the charges and is feeling like a scapegoat, so he's decided to start bring everyone else down with him.
It's all speculation at this point, of course, but if it's true then it could be the most important development of the investigation so far. Go get 'em Fitzy. :cool: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Oh no it didn't. The president clearly regards the leak of the classified data as a punishable issue that was clearly innaprppriate, otherwise he wouldn't have made the remarks that he did. For a party who widely supported Bush for his simplicity and straightforwardness I find it ludicrous that we're entering discussions akin to what the definition of "is" is. You know and I know EXACTLY what the President meant when he made his statement. The spirit of the issue is the impropriety of leaking or facilitating the leaking of classified information, of which Cheney seems to be guilty of despite what acts can actually be considered criminal according to the legal code. Now are you really trying to tell me that we shouldn't hold people accountable for their actions because semantically they're off the hooks??? Bear in mind what a sycophantic "yes" response entails. I will ing go through your posts and enjoy exposing every single instance of hypocracy that I can find ... and I don't imagine it will be a very difficult task. |
in reference to your post at balls 22, it does.
| quote: | | Libby does not, however, appear to be claiming that he was acting specifically on Cheney's behalf in disclosing information about Plame to the press. |
what i know and what you know are the same. you don't know what was authorized for release and i only assume that if Cheney "authorized" anything it would have to be through the normal channels that any info were to be leaked. normally, is executive. executive is the channel. what else do you know that others don't? i assume you know nothing. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
in reference to your post at balls 22, it does.
what i know and what you know are the same. you don't know what was authorized for release and i only assume that if Cheney "authorized" anything it would have to be through the normal channels that any info were to be leaked. normally, is executive. executive is the channel. what else do you know that others don't? i assume you know nothing. |
You just don't get it do you? My post wasn't based on technical legalities. I don't care to rehash the definition of what "is" is if you're so obtuse that you didn't pick up on my prior reference. Sorry, I'm a repulblican realist so I don't quite understand the intangible technical bull you're trying to float my way. I don't see how it is justified to leak classified data to the press for propoganda purposes. The executive branch can only dislcose classified information with Bush's written authority. Did Bush give Cheney the authority to disclose classified information for propoganda purposes despite his admission that he did not know how the leak came to happen and did not encourage a leak in any such fasion??? Here's a suggestion, why don't you state your specific stance in this entire affair that's based upon principle. That way we won't "accidentally" flip-flop like some are prone to do when their principles are challenged along with their biases. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I don't care to rehash the definition of what "is" is if you're so obtuse that you didn't pick up on my prior reference. |
your second post wasn't even your own words. so all it could have possibly been was an assuption in order to to implicate. you're not fooling me or anybody with this crap. opinions are like political mouthpieces with a shortsided axe to grind.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
your second post wasn't even your own words. so all it could have possibly been was an assuption in order to to implicate. you're not fooling me or anybody with this crap. opinions are like political mouthpieces with a shortsided axe to grind.:rolleyes: |
Q, let's quick playin word games and try and understand each other's positions here. Occ raised an important point that I think you should not ignore:
| quote: | | Here's a suggestion, why don't you state your specific stance in this entire affair that's based upon principle. That way we won't "accidentally" flip-flop like some are prone to do when their principles are challenged along with their biases. |
To have a worthwhile debate of any sort, we need to understand exactly the other person's stance on the issue. We also need to have the same working definitions being used so we avoid any misunderstandings of any sort.
So for the sake of avoiding mudslinging and confusion, please tell us exactly what your position is with this issue, please. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
So for the sake of avoiding mudslinging and confusion, please tell us exactly what your position is with this issue, please. |
Please please, tell me now! Is there something I should know? |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| Bull! It was not Cheney it was Karl Rove the Leader of the US of A. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
your second post wasn't even your own words. so all it could have possibly been was an assuption in order to to implicate. you're not fooling me or anybody with this crap. opinions are like political mouthpieces with a shortsided axe to grind.:rolleyes: |
Of course the second post wasn't my own words. What does that have to do with anything that I'm saying (and by prior references, I obviously didn't mean the article)? Do I need to spell things out for you in simple terms that you can understand? Fine ... Bush claims to have not known where the leak came from. Bush said he would fire anyone associated with leaking Plame's name. Cheney authorized Libby to release classified information from the NIE as propoganda to support the war effort ... the authority to do such a thing would HAVE to come from the president from a legal standpoint. The fact that Cheney didn't explicitly tell Libby, "hey tell Judith Miller that Valerie Plame is an undercover op" is as rediculous as saying that Clinton did not lie because we didn't fully understand what the definition of "is" was. The Plame leak was part of the NIE that Cheney authorized Libby to leak. I thought you ing republicans weren't into playing these silly word games that revolve around semantics. What ing principles are you adhering to with respect to this entire case???
What Libby did was wrong. What Cheney did, authorizing Libby to release classified information to the press for propoganda purposes was wrong. Whether that will land them in jail is irrelevant ... it was inappropriate, threatened national security, and reeks of impropriety. When Bush criticized the leak, and promised to fire everyone responsible, he clearly took a moral stand against the unauthorized leaking of classified data. Did Cheney tell Libby that he could leak classified data from that NIE to the press??? Are you standing by any godamned principles with respect to this case or do you just blow wherever the wind convenientely takes you? Jesus christ take some kind of stand that we can hold you ing accountable to. And you're trying to tell me "opinions are like political mouthpieces with a shortsided axe to grind"??? For s sake I've stated the principles I stand by with this case from the get go so my opinions can be critisized if it's found that I'm being "shortsided" or inconsistent. Whenever we ask you to elaborate as to what principles you subscribe to with anything (other than to defend the Bush administration), we're conveniently greeted by crickets. You may be coy by avoiding such committments in order to ward off blatant examples of hypocracy and a definite stance on issues, but don't think people don't realise what you're doing.
Or am I wrong? What is your principled stance? Why don't you tell us where you stand so we can hold you accountable to what you say your beliefs are? Are you an old school democrat who thinks the federal branch should wield more power? Are you an old school republican who thinks states should wield the power? Are you for fiscal conservatism or big government growth? Please tell us, we're all ears. |
|
|
|
|
