Did Bush misuse presidential powers?
Experts: Leaks are probably legal but 'amount to using sensitive intelligence data for political gain.'
The news that President Bush authorized the disclosure of classified information to certain reporters has set off a debate on whether or not Mr. Bush misused his national security powers.
FoxNews reports that papers filed Thursday by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald disclose that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the only person indicted so far in the investigation into who 'outed' CIA agent Valerie Plame, told a grand jury that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney
had authorized him to discuss with reporters the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) regarding Iraqi weapons systems.
Nothing in the papers indicate Bush or Cheney told Libby to reveal the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, nor do they suggest that either the president or vice president did anything illegal. But the documents do hint at more problems for the administration since some may show a plan to punish one of its critics, Plame's husband, Amb. Joe Wilson.
The
Associated Press reports that the picture painted by the court papers is of a hesitant Mr. Libby, who had "qualms about leaking classified information to the press, but was
quickly persuaded to drop them" after coming under pressure from Mr. Cheney, "who advised him that the president had authorized Libby to do so."
In his court filing, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald asserted that "the president was unaware of the role" that Libby "had in fact played in disclosing" Plame's CIA status. The prosecutor gave no such assurance, though, regarding Cheney.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said that "in light of today's shocking revelation, President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information. The American people must know the truth." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the president has the "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information." The White House declined to comment, citing the ongoing criminal probe into the leak of Plame's identity.
Knight Ridder reports that the court documents provided
the hardest evidence to date that the president and vice-president were "engaged in a campaign to disclose selected snippets of highly classified intelligence – much of it misleading, exaggerated or wrong – to a few trusted journalists in an effort to bolster their case for war."
The
BBC reports that, according to Libby, the aim of the leak seems to have been an effort
to rebut an article by Ambassador Wilson, Ms. Plame's husband, that questioned some of the evidence that was being used to justify the case for going to war against Iraq.
The
Washington Post reports that "legal experts say that the president had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of the information, but added the leak was highly unusual and amounted to
using sensitive intelligence data for political gain."
"It is a question of whether the classified National Intelligence Estimate was used for domestic political purposes," said Jeffrey H. Smith, a Washington lawyer who formerly served as general counsel for the CIA ...
Fitzgerald's court filing portrays the leak as part of an effort to discredit former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who contended in a newspaper column that intelligence about Iraq's nuclear weapons program was distorted in the run-up to the US invasion.
The
Boston Globe reports that the news Bush authorized the leaks "
buttresses the contention that many media leaks come from official sources, not whistle-blowers." The Globe notes that while leaking information to damage political opponents is "hardly unusual" in politics, the revelations of the president's role would seem to "damage the credibility of a president who has built a reputation for forthrightness, and who has gone further than previous presidents both in keeping information secret and in launching Justice Department investigations of alleged leakers."
"There's a certain amount of gamesmanship going on here," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the nonpartisan Federation of American Scientists. "At a minimum it is hypocritical coming from an administration that has claimed that leaks are anathema."
Both Aftergood and Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative group that sued the administration to force the disclosure of records from Cheney's energy task force, questioned whether Bush had followed established procedures for declassifying documents. "Presidents have the inherent power" to declassify documents, Fitton said. "The question is whether he's doing it in a regular and prudent way."
The
Globe also reports that with the disclosure of the president's authorization of leaks, "free speech advocates have gained an important argument both for openness in government and for the protection of leakers who don't happen to be president."
The
Los Angeles Times writes in an editorial that the president now faces "
an uncomfortable choice: he is either a leaker or a hypocrite."
There also is the issue of Bush's numerous previous statements, now making their way across the Internet at the speed of a DSL line, about leaking. One of the most popular is from Sept. 30, 2003: "Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Leave the legal issues about classified information and executive power to the constitutional scholars. The simpler question is whether Bush still believes, if he ever did, what he said in September 2003. If so, who in his administration needs to be taken care of?
John Cochrane of
ABCNews writes in an analysis piece that Washington is "still scratching its head" trying to decide if this news poses a danger to the White House, or is "
just a sideshow" to Libby's leagl troubles.
For the moment, both Bush and Cheney say they can't talk publicly because legal proceedings are under way. And we don't know what they told prosecutors in secret. The White House has asked for patience.
Former President Richard Nixon got in trouble by setting up an illegal "plumbers" unit to try to discover the sources of leaks, even if that meant breaking into offices, setting off the scandal known as Watergate. Now we may have a president who could find himself in trouble because he permitted a leak by making it legal. Bush critics would do well not to carry the Nixon analogies too far. But someone, somewhere, probably on a TV talk show, is likely to start calling this situation "Leakgate."
Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary, said the White House would have no comment on an ongoing legal procedding.
Also...
•
British jury rules filmmaker shot by Israeli Defense Force in Gaza Strip was 'murdered' (Ha'aretz)
•
Another 'coalition of the willing'?: US, allies seek a way outside UN to press Iran (Los Angeles Times)
•
Did friendly fire kill Canadian soldier in Afghanistan? (Toronto Star)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed