Please explain why outing a non-official cover CIA agent for political purposes

[Observer]

I really do get tired of having to do your thinking for you...

EO 12958, issued by William Jefferson Clinton
EO 13292, issued by George W. Bush.

Now that I have cited them for you, do you want me to explain them to you?

[johnhp]

I really do get tired of having to do your thinking for you...

EO 12958, issued by William Jefferson Clinton
EO 13292, issued by George W. Bush.

Now that I have cited them for you, do you want me to explain them to you?

Neither of them have provisions that specify that the VP can declassify the information.  If you believe they do, cite those particular provisions.

[Velleity]

Whether it is "okay" or not "okay" isn't what matters. What matters is whether he has the legal authority to do so.

He did.

Except he didn't and the information was not declassified before it was disclosed.

You're pushing your idiotic unified executive theory, which you will not admit to be an extrapolation from what you always claim to be the simple meaning of the Constitution.

It's just more of your bullshit Obs. That's all. And besides, the legality of isn't really the issue anyway as Pepsi pointed out.

[Observer]

Neither of them have provisions that specify that the VP can declassify the information.  If you believe they do, cite those particular provisions.

Not true.

Section 6.1(i) details declassification authority.

If you had actually read the document, you would know that. YOu really should stop pretending to be an authority on topics about which you know nothing.

[Observer]

Except he didn't and the information was not declassified before it was disclosed.

Since he didn't release the information, it doesn't really matter, does it?

The fact remains... if Cheney wanted to release the information, he had full legal authority to do so.

[johnhp]

Not true.

Section 6.1(i) details declassification authority.

If you had actually read the document, you would know that. YOu really should stop pretending to be an authority on topics about which you know nothing.

Interesting.

EO 12958 Section six quoted in full:

Sec. 6.1. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" shall be handled, protected, classified, downgraded, and declassified in conformity with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and regulations issued under that Act.
(b) The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration.

(c) Nothing in this order limits the protection afforded any information by other provisions of law, including the exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. This order is not intended, and should not be construed, to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or its employees. The foregoing is in addition to the specific provisos set forth in sections 1.2(b), 3.2(b) and 5.4(e) of this order.

(d) Executive Order No. 12356 of April 6, 1982, is revoked as of the effective date of this order.

Sec. 6.2. Effective Date. This order shall become effective 180 days from the date of this order.

http://fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo.html

And EO 13292 6.1(i) quoted in full (both versions):

(i) "Confidential source" means any individual or organization that has provided, or that may reasonably be expected to provide, information to the United States on matters pertaining to the national security with the expectation that the information or relationship, or both, are to be held in confidence.

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


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

In EO 13292, you would place the source for the power of the VP to declassify material in a section on definitions; in EO 12958 you would place it in General provisions.  The word declassify does not appear in this section (6) in either order.  No wonder you do not quote documents.

[Velleity]

Since he didn't release the information, it doesn't really matter, does it?

The fact remains... if Cheney wanted to release the information, he had full legal authority to do so.

That isn't a fact and no, he's not above the law.

Stop thinking in two dimensions for once in your life. You can't use classified information as your own personal database to gain political advantages over others, any more than you can burglarize an office to try to get dirt on your opposition. It doesn't work that way.

[Velleity]

In EO 13292, you would place the source for the power of the VP to declassify material in a section on definitions; in EO 12958 you would place it in General provisions.  The word declassify does not appear in this section (6) in either order.  No wonder you do not quote documents.

I showed him that he was full of shit way back when. Inconvenient facts never register on him.

[johnhp]

I showed him that he was full of shit way back when. Inconvenient facts never register on him.

i guess the idea that refusing to answer was getting him nowhere, so he had to make something up.

[Velleity]

i guess the idea that refusing to answer was getting him nowhere, so he had to make something up.

I guess. Who knows? This is someone who can never ever admit that he's wrong, admit that his ideology isn't 100% correct all the time, admit that "Liberal" has any merit to it, or even admit that he doesn't know some thing or another.

I call that narcissism, but if you have a better explanation. . .

[Observer]

i guess the idea that refusing to answer was getting him nowhere, so he had to make something up.

I plead guilty to a typo.

The declassification authority is 6.1(l).

Again, if you had actually READ the document, you would know that.

[Observer]

I showed him that he was full of shit way back when. Inconvenient facts never register on him.

Vel, you were wrong "way back then", and you are wrong now.

Nothing changes.

[Observer]

By the way, I got a kick out of the way you two started rubbing each other all over when you thought you "had" me regarding the EO.   

Try actually reading the whole document next time.

[ivanm]

Did I miss something?  What does the theme of opening post have to do with all this arguing? Wouldn't it be more interesting and educational to discuss the nuclear threat as Valerie sees it?

Frankly I see less threat from the existing high yield weapons than from the small dirty bombs and such that can be hand carried into a crowded area.  The impediment to using high yield nukes by Iran and N. Korea seems to be the lack of a long range missile to deliver the war head although Iran and N. Korea both seem to be working on such missiles.  Off hand it appears that N. Korea is much further along than Iran in this respect.

Does this interest anyone or would you guys rather throw rocks at each other?

[johnhp]

I plead guilty to a typo.

The declassification authority is 6.1(l).

Again, if you had actually READ the document, you would know that.

oh, sorry, no prize for you:

(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.

You are misunderstanding the document.  These are provided as definitions for purposes of the order.  Where, explicitly in the order, is the VP empowered with the broad sweeping declassification power you have suggested?