I seem to recall something about "limited."
I know my commentary on this abuse of power is getting old, but it seems like the scope of these seized powers is getting larger everyday. Keep in mind Congress didn't even know about the NSA program until the press ran a story. If you stop investigative reporting, and that includes from the MSM, and MSMRight, we all lose. Notice that Gonzalez "denied that authorities would randomly check journalists' records on domestic-to-domestic phone calls in an effort to find journalists' confidential sources." He doesn't say "could."
Imagine if during Clinton's term, the Executive branch, which retains sole authority to say what is national security and what isn't and doesn't have to prove their decision, arrested Limbaugh for any of the leaks he reported during any of his many scandals or actions. Or, would Hannity feel as able to attack the left if he knew his calls were being monitored during a Democratic presidency?
Agian, has the Cato link says, W won't be president forever. We could be building a portfolio of powers that Hillary could have at her disposal.
Posts
8 comments:
The article you chose to attach to your post states that the administration has decided to punish those who disseminate CLASSIFIED information. Which is...
as defined in the Classified Information Procedures Act, 18 USC App. 3, section 1(a) as "any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an executive order, statute, or regulation, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security."
This isn't just some "leak", perhaps about Monica, as you try to imply. Granted, national security is not a well-defined term, but trying to argue that a Clinton sex scandal leak could have been treated as this leak about security issues is way off the mark.
I completely agree that any precidents set by the right will be enjoyed by the left so care should be shown. However, your example does not make your point.
Those who are leaking and those who are spreading CLASSIFIED information that is clearly directly related to our nation's security should be punished to the full extent of the law regardless of what side of the political spectrum they inhabit.
Actually the issues I had in mind were selling guidance technology to China, and opeining up encryption technology to the global market. But good to know that you confirm what I imagine is Clinton's nightmare, all anyone remembers is the sex scandal. Hold on...yup, just reread the post, I never mention "sex"...pervert. But let's get to the ideas I did have in mind. Rather than deal with the controversy of those decisions, Clinton could have just "classified" them. Any whistle-blower who leaked them would be toast, and no one could hide/protect them. Also, reread your legal definition and notice what's missing. There's no oversight on what is and isn't "national security." Theoretically, the Executive branch could lable anything "classified" because they are the sole determiner. Because we now know that the Executive branch can also with-hold evidence from Judges and Juries on National Security issues (again, only they decide) there is no way, at all, of checking what the EB classifies.
Let's look at another case. Nixon could have classified all material relating to the Whitewater break-in, and, during the trial, he could have with-held significant portions of evidence, or sought to dismiss the trial all under guidlines and classifications that the EB unilaterally establishes. Now you might say that that would be very corrupt, but my reply is that anyone capable of the initial action is certainly capable of a cover-up.
My basic point is that if you were signing a partnership agreement that gave this much power to your partner, without giving you any ability on oversight, especially when that power is fully transferable to another person, then I would tell you that you're an absolute fool.
Definitions are useless when there's no check to be sure they are being applied.
To further illustrate my point. The FCC can't determine if the NSA warrant taps are legal. They can't investigate because the issue is classified. This is not a system of checks and balances. Nor is it a system of transparancy for the soveriegn, the people. You can mark anything "classified" and restrict investigations in the name of "national security" and that's the end of that. Keep in mind, this is a permanant gift to the executive branch. There is no illusion that this is temporary.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/FCC_says_they_cannot_investigate_NSA_0523.html
The question I cannot answer is: who enforces the Classified Information Procedures Act? Whoever that is would get the final say as to what national security is. Strike that. The PEOPLE will have final say. The enforcers would have second to final say.
The American people are not going to stand with a president who makes information relating to trips to Vegas for strip club VIP lounge visits classified. Whereas your point definately has validity, I believe you are over stating it.
Please describe how the people can find out about abuse of classified information if its...classified, and involvement and discovery in a legal case can be deemed in the national interest and off limits.
In order to have enforcement, you have to have knowledge. No knowledge, no enforcement. For the entire history of this country, knowledge has come through "leaks." If as you say leaks should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, then you have to accept less leaks, less knowledge, less enforcement, and ultimately, more probability of abuse.
What you're saying is that the people will magically enforce what they don't have access too. I honestly don't understand how that can happen, if you do, please enlighten.
OK, I'll describe it. The president invites an intern into his office for "pizza". Allegations fly that something inappropriate happened. The press tries to report on this. The president calls all information surrounding the incident classified. Congressmen start a daily critique asking how can something like this be called national security. The people agree and see this as an abuse of power and the president is discredited and eliminated.
So, there is a major check on the extent to which classified information can be abused. Is it a perfect check? Of course not. Just as the freedom of the press is abused, so to will any amount of classifying power be abused. But what we have seen from this president has not been abuse.
As has been the case with most of our disagreements, I agree with you up to a point but feel you overstate the case.
Wow, you call an extremely remote possibility a "major" check. I'd take that trade in a heartbeat. I get my way 99.99% of the time, and you get a remote, almost entirely unlikely opportunity to check my power. Beautiful. Lets play with your scenario. First, for pure fantasy's sake, a Democrat President, and a Democrat controlled House and Senate. Now, where's you daily critique? Also, let's assume a second term President to eliminate the possibility of voting him out. Now you're left with impeachment, but you can't impeach without evidence. Evidence you can't get because everything's "classified." So it's likely that in your scenario of control, that it doesn't even come to pass.
Like you say, as has been the case with most of our disagreements, I agree with you up to a point but feel you overstate the case.
As fun as your wild speculations are I figured I would look into the question I raised even though I was hoping you'd do it (you've always been the over-achiever, not me).
CIPA (the act we've been so vigorously discussing) is a procedural statute which neither adds nor detracts from the substantive rights of the defendant or the discovery obligations of the government. Every claim for classified status must be upheld by a judge in any criminal proceeding.
As reasonable as the 99.99% number was prior to this revelation, it looks a bit "over stated" to me now.
Post a Comment