Some dare call it - Treason!

Jan 27, 2006

Yesterday in a recent post I discussed the not terribly surprising revelation by Senator Rockefeller that Dick Cheney had been yanking Sen Roberts leash and blocking completely of Senates Phase II Investigation for over two years.

Never mind Impeachment, in that diary I said the T-Word.

Treason

On that point a few comments were skeptical, and it is that point which I wish to address today. Former CIA Operative Larry C Johnson, who worked side by side with Valerie Wilson has stated the following last August.

There was nothing on the public record or in any public document identifying Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative. That information was classified. Sending Joe on a mission to Africa does not point the finger at her. Moreover, she did not make the decision to send him.

Johnson continued.

Regardless of Armitage's role as an initial source for Novak, we are still left with the fact that Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby abused their power and were actively engaged in a coordinated effort to discredit Joe Wilson for his behind the scene efforts to alert the public to the falsehoods in the President's State of the Union address.

While Richard Armitage may have had no malicious intent, the same cannot be said for Cheney, Libby and Rove. They knew exactly what they were doing. According to The Washington Post, during the week of July 6, 2003, "two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to at least six Washington journalists." Sometime after Novak's column appeared, Rove called Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball" and told him that Mr. Wilson's wife was "fair game."

Although the Libby Trial is ongoing and has yet to reach a verdict - can there by anyone who truly believes that the VP's Office wasn't directly involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame-Wilson's CIA identity to the press?

Even if you believe Libby's claims that "he heard her name from Tim Russert" or other members of the media - the question remains, who told them?

Although the issue of Plame's CIA status has been left out of this trial, it is an issue we should not ignore.

In my previous diary I quoted from the testimony of the Vice Presidents CIA briefer (who told him that Plame was associated with the agency) in June 2003.

"I thought there was a very grave danger to leaking the name of a CIA officer," the briefer from Langley, Craig Schmall, said he told Messrs. Cheney and Libby during a morning session at the vice president's residence. "Foreign intelligence services where she served now have the opportunity to investigate everyone whom she had come in contact with. They could be arrested, tortured, or killed."

My point yesterday was that this proves that revelation of Plame's identity by Robert Novak and his subsequent revelation that Plame's cover job working for Brewter-Jennings was a CIA Front Agency (which was intent on preventing Iran from going Nuclear) - were both immensely damaging to our intelligence efforts and did aid and comfort our enemies.

Anyone remember that crazy trapeze scene from the first Mission Impossible movie - where Tom Cruise steals the "NOC List"? That list is real, it hold the names and identities of each of the CIA deep (Non-Official) Cover agents. Well Valerie Plame-Wilson was a NOC.

One skeptical commenter, Steve Davis yesterday responded with...

No it doesn't. Treason is a specific crime

in the United States that consists solely of providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Outing a CIA agent is not providing aid and comfort to the enemy because we were not officially at war with anybody when it was done. And unfortunately, if it was done by the Vice President, the executive branch has enormous leeway in declassifying information, so they probably get a pass.

Yes, we were at War, the Iraq War Resolution had been passed and signed the previous October.

Yes, the Vice President does have the ability to declassify information due to an executive order from March 25th, which was just a few weeks after Joe Wilson's second interview on CNN where he criticized the Administration Iraq-Nuclear claims.

However, the Vice President did not unilaterally declassify Plame's status. Declassification is a very specific procedure, which requires the affecting agencies to be notified and all relevant documents to be updated and remarked.

I should know, I worked in a classified environment for a dozen years at Northrup-Grumman where the B2 Bomber was secretly developed and built during the 80's. At the time I had a Top Secret SAR (Special Access Required) Clearance which is equivelent to that required by those currently working on the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". SAR is used to compartmentalize information - simple having a TS clearance itself isn't enough, you have to be cleared for that specfic program.

From the above mentioned Executive Order.

(b) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure.

All Secret Material must be marked with a caveat denoting the level of clearance required, and project id, either at the top or sides of the document. This would be true of any documents mentioning Plame's Status with CIA, and if that information were to be declassifed - all those documents would have to be changed.

That didn't with Valerie Wilson's status happen prior to Novak's column - despite Bush's cryptic claims otherwise.

Just like Rove, Libby and Cheney in 1982 I signed a Classified Information Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Which states that an person who has been trusted with classified information not confirm or deny the validity of that information even with members of the press.

Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?

Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.

Under this agreement and the law, classified information can not be shared with anyone who does not have the appropriate clearance to receive the infomation.

Sometime around June 2003, Cheney's CIA briefer told him that Plame worked for the agency - it would have also been incumbent upon the briefer to let Cheney know the classification level of this information. (That info should have been SAR level at least IMO, but since I've never worked directly with CIA data I could be mistaken on this detail)

Either way Cheney couldn't possibly share it with anyone else without a clearance or declassifying it before hand. Libby had a clearance, Rove had a clearance - but Robert Novak and Judith Miller did not.

Let's get back to the point, anyone sharing classified information with the specific intent of doing harm to this nation and/or aiding our enemies - is guilty of Treason

18 USC § 2381.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

It can not be doubted that revealing the identity of NOC and her front agency working an Nuclear Proliferation does give aid and comfort to our enemies particularly Iran and North Korea - who both happen to now have very strong Nuclear programs, something that some members of the Bush Administration have been secretly rooting for.

This astonishing revelation was buried in the middle of a Washington Post story published yesterday. Glenn Kessler reports from Moscow as he accompanies Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

Before North Korea announced it had detonated a nuclear device, some senior officials even said they were quietly rooting for a test, believing that would finally clarify the debate within the administration.

Until now, no U.S. official in any administration has ever advocated the testing of nuclear weapons by another country, even by allies such as the United Kingdom and France.

This is clear indication of intent - this is motive for the crime.

Hiding the fact that this information has been illegally shared as Sen Roberts did is Misprision of treason Treason...

18 USC § 2382

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

In 1953 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for Espionage after they revealed Nuclear Secrets to Russia.

If you want an example of taking this view too far, last June Rep Peter King has argued that the New York Times Staff should be tried under the Espionage Act for revealing information about the secret tracking of Banking Transactions. Never mind the fact that this information had already been released by the government itself, and the fact that the Espionage Act would apply to the government employees who revealed the information - not the Times who was cleared to receive it in the first place.

In the 80's one co-worker of mine at Northrop named Thomas Cavanaugh (although I didn't know him) was sentenced to two life sentences for attempting to smuggle classified information to Russian agents in order to help pay off his enourmous credit card debt.

How can we hold Government Agents such as Rove, Libby and Cheney to a lower standard than we held the Rosenbergs or Cavanagh?

Clearly what they have done - is Treason.

It's well past time we started calling this situation exactly what it is - if only to start opening the Overton Window a crack.

Vyan, vyan1.geo@yahoo.com

Was Iraq War a `Blunder' or Was It Treason?

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Dave Lindorff

New Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), is calling President Bush's invasion of Iraq a "stark blunder" and says that his new scheme to send 21,500 more troops into the mess he created is just digging the hole deeper.

I wonder though.

It seems ever more likely to me that this whole mess was no blunder at all.

People are wont to attribute the whole thing to lack of intelligence on the president's part, and to hubris on the part of his key advisers. I won't argue that the president is a lightweight in the intellect department, nor will I dispute that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and that whole neocon gang have demonstrably lacked the virtues of reflection and humility. But that said, I suspect that the real story of the Iraq War is that Bush and his gang never really cared whether they actually would "win" in Iraq. In fact, arguably, they didn't really want to win.

What they wanted was a war.

If the war they started had ended quickly with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, that would have served their purposes, at least for the short term. Bush would have emerged from a short invasion and conquest a national hero, would have handily won re-election in 2004, and would have gone on to a second term as a landslide victor. But if it went badly, as it has, they figured he would still come out ahead. He would be a wartime president, and he'd make full use of that role, expansively misdefining his "commander in chief" title to imply authority over the Congress and the courts, to grab power heretofore unheard of for a president.

This, I suspect, was the grand strategy underlying the attack on Iraq.

If I'm right, there may have been method to the madness of not building up enough troops for the invasion to insure that U.S. forces could occupy a destroyed Iraq and help it rebuild, method to the madness of allowing looters free sway to destroy the country's remaining post-invasion infrastructure, method to the madness, even, of allowing remnant forces of Hussein's to gather up stockpiles of weapons and even of high-density explosives, so they could mount an effective resistance and drag out the conflict.

So many apparently stupid decisions were made by people who should clearly have been too smart to make them, from leaving hundreds of tons of high explosives unguarded to cashiering all of Iraq's army and most of the country's civil service managers, that it boggles the mind to think that these could have been just dumb ideas or incompetence. (L. Paul Bremer, for instance, who made the "dumb" decision about dismantelling the Iraqi army, prior to becoming Iraq's occupation viceroy, had headed the nation's leading risk assessment consultancy, and surely knew what all the risks were of his various decisions.)

I mean, we expect a measure of idiocy from or elected leaders and their appointees, but not wholesale idiocy!

This disaster has been so colossal, it almost had to have been orchestrated.

If that's the case, Congress should be taking a hard look at not just the latest installment of escalation, but at the whole war project, beginning with the 2002 campaign to get it going. Certainly throwing 21,500 new troops into the fire makes no sense whatever. If 140,000 of the best-equipped troops in the world can't pacify Iraq, 160,000 aren't going to be able to do it either. You don't need to be a general to figure that out. Even a senator or representative ought to be able to do it. So clearly Congress should kill this plan.

Since it's not about "winning" the war, it has to be about something else. My guess would be it's about either dragging things out until the end of 2008, so Bush can leave office without having to say he's sorry. But of course, it could also be about something even more serious: invading Iran.

We know Bush is trying mightily to provoke Iran. He has illegally attacked an Iranian consulate in Iraq (an act of war), taking six protected consular officials there captive. He is sending a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf, and is setting up Patriot anti-missile missile bases along Iran's western border. This buildup has all the earmarks of a pre-invasion. All that's needed now is a pretext--a real or faked attack on an American ship, perhaps, ala the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" that launched America into the Vietnam War.

The way I see it, either way the president is committing treason, because he is sending American troops off to be killed for no good reason other than for aggrandizing power he shouldn’t have, and/or simply covering his own political ass.

Treason is the number one impeachable crime under the Constitution, and we're at a point where Congress is going to have to act or go down in history as having acquiesced in the worst presidential crime in the history of the nation.

12:01 pm pst

Opening our Fitzmas Presents

December 15, 2006

by emptywheel, emptywheel@earthlink.net

No no NO! I am not about to announce that Fitzgerald is indicting Dick, sorry. But yesterday both sides in the Libby case filed status reports (Libby's and Fitzgerald's) and, I gotta tell you, I feel like a kid who just realized that Christmas is right around the corner.

One of the big reasons why I'm so tickled is that, contrary to some rumblings from a few weeks, ago, it appears there will not be a delay in the trial. I know a lot of you were all worried about greymail and now that the Judge has approved the government's substitutions, that threat is gone (sorry I didn't post on it--I was honestly just never that worried about it, so I didn't have anything to say on the matter). But now Fitzgerald reveals that a separate issue--his intent to appeal the CIPA Section 6(a) ruling--is done:

The government does not intend to appeal the Court’s ruling pursuant to CIPA Section
6(c), and the government will move to dismiss its Notice of Appeal on the Court’s CIPA Section 6(a) ruling.

And in a footnote, Fitzgerald reveals he is prioritizing the remaining declassification/substitution review so there will be no delay in the trial. So it looks like -- there will be no delay in the trial.

Well, that was my big concern. Here's what everyone else's big concern was: Dick. Fitzgerald explains the following:

The government is not aware of any government witness who is intending to assert a blanket privilege, and the government does not otherwise anticipate any of its witnesses moving to quash or limit trial subpoenas. The government also does not intend to examine any witnesses on any topic for which we expect an assertion of privilege. Although the Jencks Act materials the government will be turning over contain a very limited number of topics where privilege issues may arise, the government does not intend to examine witnesses on those topics.

This almost certainly means 1) Dick Cheney has not indicated he will claim executive privilege and therefore won't testify, and 2) while there may be things Dick said in his testimony about which he would claim privilege, those things aren't issues that Fitzgerald will ask about. (Hmmm.) Or the short version: expect to see Dick testifying during the trial.

That's about everything of interest in Fitzgerald's filing. Now onto Libby's.

First, Libby seems like he's going to make one more go at the greymail defense. The one remaining substitution issue relates to government evidence, and about that they say:

In this regard, the defense notes that it may well object to the substitutions offered by the government, either under CIPA or under the general rules of evidence,

Well, like I've been saying, they're busy laying some grounds for appeal, so they might as well object to everything. I'm less worried about this than I was about greymail in the first place, but maybe Jeralyn will tell me I'm wrong.

More interesting, is the news that two of the journalists Libby wants to call to testify are going to fight the subpoena.

Mr. Libby has issued or will issue trial subpoenas to several news reporters whom he may call as defense witnesses. Based on communications with counsel for those individuals, the defense is currently aware of two reporters who may resist testifying.

In one case, we have agreed with counsel for the reporter that any objections that may be made in the event the reporter is actually called to testify can be addressed at the time of trial without causing any delay in the proceedings. Communications with counsel for the other reporter who has indicated he may resist testifying are ongoing. It is the defense's understanding, however, that the reporter will likely file a motion to quash upon issuance of any subpoena for testimony. If that occurs, the defense believes it can negotiate an expedited briefing schedule under which this Court can resolve the motion in advance of trial.

Now, I'm more interested in whom Libby will call than their efforts to avoid testifying (since it sounds like this will get resolved). Obviously, this doesn't involve Judy, Russert, or Cooper, because they're already going to be called by the government. So here are some other possibilities: Novak (to testify to godknowswhat, but we do know he had a meeting with Libby), Sanger (to testify about the NIE leak?), Andrea Mitchell, Clifford May (on the generous assumption Libby considers him a "reporter"), Kessler, Walter Pincus ... and, of course, Woodward.

I'm guessing that, at a minimum, Libby wants to call Mitchell (justifiably so, given her claims, then denials, that she had learned of Plame's identity), Woodward, and Pincus. And I would suspect that Pincus is the last named of these witnesses--the one who would try to avoid testifying. But those are guesses.

It's almost certainly not Woodward. Libby reveals he wants to introduce the tape of the Armitage-Woodward interview, and notes that,

The defense does not anticipate any objection to the subpoena from Mr. Woodward, assuming the Court rules the tape recording relevant and admissible.

My guess? The Court is not going to rule the tape recording relevant and admissible. The tape recording, recall, includes Armitage speaking the line, "everyone knows that." It refers to Joe Wilson's identity, though Libby wants to introduce the tape and claim that Armitage was, in fact, referring to Plame's identity. Now, to argue that the tape should be introduced, Libby will have to argue that in fact Woodward told him of Plame's identity at their meeting on June 27 (recall that Woodward has no record of saying so, but who cares, if you're Libby). He will further argue that, Armitage told Woodward that everyone knew of Plame's identity in June, so that Libby was right in remembering someone telling him that "everyone knew" of Plame's identity, but simply wrong in remembering that person to be Russert. Russert, Woodward. I can understand the confusion. With the added bonus that, if he got the tape admitted, Fitzgerald would be forced to call Armitage to explain that he was referring to Joe, not Valerie, there.

But I think the court will rule this inadmissible. I think so for two reasons. First, Judge Walton has always supported Fitzgerald's argument that Armitage is an innocent accused, so will be uninterested in trying Armitage during the trial. But further, Libby will have to go to some lengths to suggest that Woodward did tell him of Plame, which would be the only way he could argue that what Armitage said has any bearing at all. I may be wrong about this--the case is there to be made, if Ted Wells is as brilliant as they say. But the evidence so far in the case suggests it won't be admissible.

Libby allows for several more reasons for a delay (who knows, he might yet delay my Fitzmas, damnit). But the final bit--which I love--is this. Fitzgerald wants to submit all of Libby's grand jury testimony into evidence. Of this, Libby's team says:

it is clear that large portions of Mr. Libby's testimony bear no relevance to this case and would serve no purpose other than to distract and confuse the jurors during their deliberations. The government has further indicated that it does not presently intend to read or play a tape of the entirety of Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony during trial, but will instead publish to the jury only selected portions of Mr. Libby's testimony during its case-in-chief. The defense hereby requests that the government be required to identify the portions of Mr. Libby's testimony that it intends to publish now...

Shorter Libby: I said some really incriminating things to the grand jury. And I provided a whole lot of evidence that my motive for lying was to protect Dick. We need to know if you're going to publish this now, so we can respond accordingly.

I can't wait to see what is under my Fitzmas tree!

Update: For Ruth, Exhibit A, which is Fitzgerald telling Jeffress that, yes, we do get to see all the stupid things Libby said to the grand jury. Consider it your stocking stuffer.

December 15, 2006 at 13:13 in Bush/Republican Scandals, Contributor--emptywheel | Permalink