The Imperial Vice President?

[Dr Dave]

It's just a little story, but it's kinda blowing my mind. The Vice President has the authority to declassify information? When is he allowed to do it? Does he have to ask the President for permission? Can he declassify information at his discretion?

I have a very good friend who used to be part of the military/industrial complex (Lockheed). He told me that anybody with any kind of security clearance can classify information. He pointed out that declassifying information was a different story entirely. "The government generally wants to put you in jail if you declassify something," he said.

I'm not suggesting that Cheney go to jail, much though that would please me on general principles. I do find it, um, a bit disquieting that he could claim this kind of authority, and that no one else in government seems to be challenging it, at least not at the moment. (I'm sure I'm about to be updated on this )

------
February 16, 2006
Vice President Says He Has Authority to Declassify Items
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 — Vice President Dick Cheney, whose former chief of staff is reported to have testified to a grand jury that his superiors authorized him to disclose classified information, said on Wednesday that he had the power to declassify material.

"There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority and obviously focuses first and foremost on the president but also includes the vice president," Mr. Cheney said in an interview on Fox News.

He said he had participated in decisions to declassify information, but he declined to say whether he had ever declassified information on his own.

Mr. Cheney said he could not comment on the case of his former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., who was indicted on five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice in October after an investigation into the disclosure of the identity of an officer of the Central Intelligence Agency, Valerie Wilson. Mr. Cheney said he might be called as a witness.

A document filed by the federal prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, said Mr. Libby had testified before the grand jury that he had been authorized to disclose information to the reporters about a classified National Intelligence Estimate that discussed Iraq's nuclear weapons capability.

At the time of the disclosure, in July 2003, the Bush administration was trying to rebut complaints that there was little evidence that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction.

-30-

[patricia]

This Vice President does seem to claim to have powers that no Vice President in my memory has had
It seems to me that the Vice President's office is meant to be a stand-by authority, should major medical crisis, other crisis, or death should befall the President, making it impossible for him to continue in his duties, whatever they are these days.
I would compare the Vice President's role with that of the runner-up in the Miss America pageant otherwise.
When did the Vice President become another President, making that two Presidents and NO Vice President??
This coincides with the impression that many people have that the real power is held by Dick Cheney and not George W. Bush at all.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Let's face it. We have a co-presidency here. Bush has no interest in the nuts and bolts of governing. He rather go bike-riding and clear brush. There's a reason that Cheney's considered the most powerful vice president in the history of the country.

We've got the government we deserve. Remember how relieved the punditocracy was when Bush named pros like Powell, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to be part of his administration? Is there any surprise that Cheney has such powers?

[patricia]

No Darryl. That's what many people feared and the crisis of Sept 11 changed everything. I think that Cheney and Co were just waiting for something that could be handled by war to happen. Bush, to me, seemed like a President who just wanted to wear the hat and sit in the Big Chair, not actually have to handle anything beyond reading speeches and being the Head Honcho. He craved the bowing and scraping that he would get from everybody, but didn't think this would be a job that required much work. IMO, Bush was in over his head as soon as anything beyond that happened.

[Daniel]

cheney's the black pope

[Monte Smith]

It's kind of amusing to hear that on the one hand, Dick Cheney is a secretive bastard and on the other hand, now he's capable of declassifying all our secrets. But I understand that you can do both things at the same time, so while it sounds conflicting it isn't. And I don't know a thing about the Veep's powers to declassify stuff either Before Cheney or After Dick. But I saw Senator Biden on the risible program HARDBALL and he was asked about it. He said he understood that the VP had been authorized to declassify stuff by an executive order and Biden was of the opinion that it was appropriate. That's all I got.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

It's kind of amusing to hear that on the one hand, Dick Cheney is a secretive bastard and on the other hand, now he's capable of declassifying all our secrets. But I understand that you can do both things at the same time, so while it sounds conflicting it isn't. And I don't know a thing about the Veep's powers to declassify stuff either Before Cheney or After Dick. But I saw Senator Biden on the risible program HARDBALL and he was asked about it. He said he understood that the VP had been authorized to declassify stuff by an executive order and Biden was of the opinion that it was appropriate. That's all I got.

No, it is conflicting, Monte. As I pointed out in my initial post--and you can easily verify this--it is not difficult to classify information. Declassifying information, on the other hand, is very serious business indeed.

[Scott Dolan]

Blah blah blah blah, blah..............................

Good fucking lord already, Finch. Does the guy have the right to do it, or not?!

If so, end of fucking thread!

psssh.........

Nevermind, instead of sitting around getting outraged along with you, I'll do the goddamn research on it myself.

[Scott Dolan]

Alright, so here it is.

Clinton's Executive Order 12958, which doesn't really state whether the VP has the power to declassify specifically, but the VP would fall into one or two of those rather ambiguous criteria.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html


And now Bush's amendment to Clinton's E.O., E.O. 13292, which does clearly state that the VP possesses declassification authority.


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

[Dr Dave]

I read it too, Scott. Let's face it, the document's focus is on classification of information. There's a part at the end about the penalties for revealing classified information, but I can't find anything that specifically addresses the question of the right to declassify.

Honestly, doesn't it bother you that the Vice President can, on his own initiative, decide that something isn't secret? Forget the Libby stuff for a minute--would you trust any politician with this kind of power?

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Doc D

I read it too, Scott. Let's face it, the document's focus is on classification of information. There's a part at the end about the penalties for revealing classified information, but I can't find anything that specifically addresses the question of the right to declassify.

*ahem*

From both E.O.'s:

PART 3--DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADING

And both to great length to explain both of these. Please re-read.

From Clintons:

PART 3 DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADING
Sec. 3.1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) "Declassification" means the authorized change in the status of information from classified information to unclassified information.

(b) "Automatic declassification" means the declassification of information based solely upon:

• (1) the occurrence of a specific date or event as determined by the original classification authority; or
  (2) the expiration of a maximum time frame for duration of classification established under this order.

(c) "Declassification authority" means:

• (1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position;
  (2) the originator's 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.
  

From Bush's:

b) Information originated by:

• (1) the incumbent President or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice President;

I'd suggest you go back and look over part 3 in both of them a little more closely.

Forget the Libby stuff for a minute--would you trust any politician with this kind of power?

A loaded question. Look, I have no love for the average politician anyway. But, it was a politician who originally classified the information. So..........

It doesn't really matter whether I approve, or not.

Honestly, doesn't it bother you that the Vice President can, on his own initiative, decide that something isn't secret?

Well, no, not really. I mean, who can decide what is secret and what is not? I understand what you're getting at here, and it could be troubling to a certain extent, but I'm simply not seeing the need for outrage here.

But, in all fairness, it is a question I should take some more time to consider.

[steve(thelil)]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Blah blah blah blah, blah..............................

Good fucking lord already, Finch. Does the guy have the right to do it, or not?!

If so, end of fucking thread!

psssh.........

Nevermind, instead of sitting around getting outraged along with you, I'll do the goddamn research on it myself.

He types really well with his head in the sand.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

*ahem*

[/LIST](c) "Declassification authority" means:
[LIST](1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position;
(2) the originator's 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.

This looks like the meat of it. And it does look like he has the authority to do it. How about that.

I'm a bit surprised at your indifference to all this.

[Gary Sisco]

Imperial or not, he won't be anything after 2008 but another rich motherfucker who can't shoot straight and never sweated a day in his life for his money, which fortune he made almost entirely by rubbing up against various Arab satraps and heads of police states.

It's been clear from the start that far's the party leadership (the real leadership) was concerned, without Cheney on board an Alfred E. Bush presidency would be a bad version of *Home Alone.* Indeed, they said as much in the run up to his annointment, and they said as much prior to 9/11 when it was freely admitted by all concerned that he was far from the brightest bulb in the box but that it wouldn't matter because of the capable advisers he'd have. Ha ha ha ha ha.

Can anyone spell Iraq or Afghanistan or balanced budget or national debt or even their own names?

If so, they've managed to fool me.

[Gary Sisco]

One interesting thing I haven't seen anyone (but me) comment on,throughout,is that legally speaking the v.p. has no place at all in any chain of command in the US, nor any executive power of his own, either. The last time such powers were extralegally taken over by a non-pres was Kissinger in Nixon (and Ford) days. And weren't those some times to look back on as anything other than a murderous period run by gangsters.

The VP and the office of VP in the US has no legal executive authority of any kind under the Constitution or the laws that govern the military. He has no legal authority to issue or countermand any orders whatsoever, nor does the office itself, regardless of who holds it.

[patricia]

But Gary, ultimately the average American voter who voted in '04 is to blame for this administration still being in the White House. They had their chance to run the bums out, but didn't. They got the government they deserve and that's a shame. Unfortunately, being bamboozled by the most devious spinmeister in my memory worked. And here we all are.
As you say, none of this will affect any of the occupiers of the White House in the long run. They will still be rich and their children will still be alive.
The only accomplishment of the Bush Administration has been the launching of an unnecessary and disastrous war. That is George W Bush's legacy. If only he cared.

[Gary Sisco]

Who's arguing?

I've been saying for decades that people get, ultimately, the society and government they deserve. They'd take matters into their own hands and change things, otherwise, instead of pissing and moaning, which accomplishes nothing at all.

Nevertheless, fully a third of the people are pretty much permanently alienated from both parties, and rightfully so, though, so let's not get too judgmental, Canadian friend. Look who your own people just elected, after all. ;-)

[patricia]

People seem to have forgotten that Democracy, or freedom if you like, is a participatory concept. Totalitarianism results if the people give up and just let the chips fall where they may. I see that happening right now. Even those who attempt to wake the populance up, at personal risk, are ridiculed and worse for doing so. This is bad.

[Gary Sisco]

By the way, does anyone but me find it more than passing strange that we're not allowed by the ideological fashion police to make judgments about music (as in good or bad, even) but at the same time can render judgments without comments (other than to disagree but even that is more of the same) about entire peoples?

The real truth of the matter, whoever likes it or doesn't, is that under capitalism a right-wing governing body will hold sway regardless of name or pretense, and that this will be increasingly so, here and elsewhere, as capitalism increasingly metast..., er, globalizes.

This should be no mystery.

[patricia]

I'm always astounded when I hear people claiming that this whole mess is based on bringing freedom to the Iraqi people and to the Middle East.
Anyone with a brain can see that this war, like most wars is about money and power. Period. The people who are having their lives destroyed and are being killed, thousands of them, are just a footnote.

[Gary Sisco]

So it's always been, Pat. Even Thucydides was saying that, fifth C BC, and it was long established wisdom already then.

Historically speaking, though, much as I loathe it, it's a mere dust-up.

Which makes it even more tragically funny to me that the world's only superpower, with the most expensive and powerful military, doesn't have enough troops to deal with both it and anything else at the same time, trillions of dollars later.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

So it's always been, Pat. Even Thucydides was saying that, fifth C BC, and it was long established wisdom already then.

And thousands of years later we haven't seen any real movement toward true co-existance.
What we've seen is more terrible ways to kill more people with less effort, using our intelligence, not to bring peace, but to become what we claim to deplore, mass murderers, with government approval.
Now, we needn't look into the eyes of anyone to kill them and thousands of their countrymen, with a single bomb, dropped impersonally from the air, or any number of other terrible weapons.
No effort is made to advance the notion that there is a way, other than killing and destroying each other's lives.
Civilization?? It's a myth. We as a species are no different than the savages from whom we evolved.

[Gary Sisco]

True except for the numbers perhaps. The Pelopponesian War's dead and maimed, never mind cities sacked including entire populations, alone, makes today's dust-up in Iraq seem like a training exercise. WW2 on the "western" allied side, at least, also, far's that goes. The Russians were the ones who really caught the brunt of that one. Five million died of hunger alone during the seige of Leningrad,alone.

The truth is the world is a less violent place than it was in the past, violent as it is. People were more honest about the reasons for killing and sacking in the past, though, that's for sure.

So, it's not a myth. For all the talk of the bad old violent US, for example, the numbers show otherwise. American violence is on a par today with the good old 50s people like to harken to. In short, growing less not more violent with time. Vietnam was a hugely more violent war, as were Reagan's terror campaigns of the 80s.

[patricia]

I wasn't singling out the U.S.A., but just wondering, as I do often, how mass killing, whether more or less extensive than in the past can be reconciled with the always stated goal of world peace. Murder is a crime, one of the constant taboos in any civilization. And yet, just as dead as the people are in a war, it's considered a step toward ultimate peace. Oh, really? Well, all right then. I stand by my contention that the only time we, as a species are non-violent is when we are not at war, at the behest of our politicians, who ultimately benefit from a victory, if killing strangers and destroying their country, for whatever reason can be a victory of any kind at all.
It just makes no sense to me to think that wholesale killing can breed anything other than a species with no respect for life. Of course, people are the ultimate renewable resource, unlike OIL and the other non-renewable ones.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by steve(thelil)

He types really well with his head in the sand.

It must really suck for a reactionary loon like yourself when I'm right, eh lil?

Unfortunately for you, my head is in the game. As I proved in my later posts. Instead of jumping on whatever insignificant, and false, statement supports your narrow, uninformed view, you should start doing your homework.

Cheney does indeed have the right to declassify info. End of story.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Doc D

I'm a bit surprised at your indifference to all this.

Just as I am surprised by how much outrage you've alotted this matter.

But, just to be fair(since I explained why it doesn't really bother me that much), why not explain to me why I should be more outraged by this?


The only thing I could think of last night was the Joe Wilson/Plamegate deal. So I checked the timelines wondering if 13292 came after Wilsons op-ed. But it didn't. Wilsons piece appeared July 6, 2003. But 13292 was written on March 25th, 2003.

Although, there could have been something floating around the D.C. halls in March about what Wilson was up to. But that's all highly speculative. Just the kind of speculation that would cause premature ejaculation in a half-headed dipshit like thelil.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Just as I am surprised by how much outrage you've alotted this matter.

But, just to be fair(since I explained why it doesn't really bother me that much), why not explain to me why I should be more outraged by this?

First: I never used the word "outraged." So back off, pal. If anybody's been hysterical on this thread it's been you.

Second: By your own timeline explanation, you are at least cognizant that the Vice President could--I'm not saying did!--decide to declare on his own hook that certain national security matters are no longer classified, and not tell anybody about it, and "leak" this information for his own purposes.

Given your cynical take on politicians, I remain surprised at the trust you are willing to impart to the Vice President.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Doc D

First: I never used the word "outraged." So back off, pal. If anybody's been hysterical on this thread it's been you.

Yes, of course. Isn't that the way it always is? The uneducated rightwing loon always flying off the handle...........

Given your cynical take on politicians, I remain surprised at the trust you are willing to impart to the Vice President.

Ah, just as you never said "outraged", I never said "trust". Look, I try to keep myself from getting fired up about things I have absolutely no control over these days.

You asked several question in your opening post. I helped answer them. Does it bother me? I still don't see how it can. Bush decided to make it clear that Cheney has this power.

I can't really form much of an opinion on it because I haven't seen any positive or negative ramifications concerning this authority.

Fair enough?