Roberts may be a bit strident, but he's entirely correct. And he doesn't have to go back to 1996 for the prevailing neocon position. In his Weekly Standard column yesterday, ubercon Bill Kristol wrote:

Glenn Greenwald, as usual, is one of the few that has his finger firmly on the pulse. His current column at Unclaimed Territory, Is Israel's War Our War?, addresses the push to this new, improved war among neocon pundits, concluding:

In any event, Israel has given us an October Surprise a bit early. And, however this plays out, it will be bad for the Democrats. Israel is too divisive an issue - and its lobby way too strong - to oppose anything the Executive may attempt. And, of course, being at another war will seem to be good for Republican economic interests as well as political interests (at least, until China starts unloading all of its dollars and seizing American factories on the mainland). And - who knows? - waging war against Syria and Iran could well precipitate an Armageddon of sorts. Perhaps there's something to the Islamist notion of "America the Great Satan" after all...

Tags: duly noted, politburo, source
humour: distressed

Heads of the CIA don't submit resignations, effective immediately, unless something big is up. Cable news, of course, has been ignoring the real story and speculating about past allegations of torture and intelligence failures in relation to Iraq and all of the leak scandals. Those dogs don't hunt. They're history - especially here in the United States of Amnesia. Someone like Porter Goss only resigns immediately if, say, they've recently denied involvement in a major league sex scandal - and they were lying.

In case you missed it (and, if you rely on cable news and the mainstream media, you have) the story broke in the Wall Street Journal (of all places) on April 27:


Evidently, defense contractors Wilkes and Mitchell Wade organized a number of "poker parties" involving politicians and prostitutes at the Watergate Hotel (how perfect), the Westin Hotel, and in the home of Kyle Foggo - the Executive Director of the CIA appointed by Porter Goss.

In a follow-up the same day, Ken Silverstein at Harper's Magazine turned up some more interesting information:


Let's see, how many current or former lawmakers on Defense and Intelligence committees now hold powerful intelligence posts? Well, there's one that used to represent the 14th congressional district of Florida, that served for a time as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and that was, until today, head of the CIA. Of course, the day after the story broke, a CIA spokesperson denied that Goss had anything to do with the defense contracting corruption scandal involving Cunningham, Wilkes, and a bunch of whores: "This is horribly irresponsible. He hasn't even been to the Watergate in decades. It's horribly irresponsible. Flatly untrue."

Uh-huh. I suppose this has nothing to do with the fact that Wade has pleaded guilty and is cooperating with prosecutors. Presumably, Porter Goss just wants to spend more time with Andy Card's kids. So far, the blogosphere follow-ups on this story have centered around the limousine company that transported the hookers to the hotels - and there's a lot of muck to rake there - but the resignation of Goss should put the focus back where it belongs. Under any other administration, members of the Intelligence and Defense committees and senior intelligence officers consorting with prostitutes (especially when being used to influence defense policy) would have been considered a major security risk - and a scandal of epic proportions. I'm not holding my breath, but at least Goss is now out of the policy-making picture. Though one wonders what new horror awaits us in his replacement...

Tags: political rant, source
humour: curious

First he more or less skewers Bill Kristol on The Colbert Report, then he takes on the entire Bush administration - and the press corps - at the White House Correspndents Dinner. Bush enduring Stephen Colbert's comments was like Claudius watching "The Murder of Gonzago" in Hamlet. It was priceless - hilarious, shockingly blunt, and dead on every target.

For some reason, though, I kept flashing on Tim Piggot Smith sneering at the black-bagged Stephen Fry in V for Vendetta, "Not so funny now, funny man..." Stephen Colbert may not be long for this world.

Tags: media, politburo, source, tee-vee
humour: encouraged

By the way, I thought this Op-Ed piece by Garry Wills in yesterdays NY Times was great. As the stupid Times doesn't provide access to their archive material unles you pay, here it is:


You go, Garry.

Tags: source

Another day, another civics lesson. Today, boys and girls, we return to the whole question of executive authority...

This all arose from yet another discussion at America's Debate relating, this time, to the Plame investigation and whether or not Scooter Libby's testimony will have any impact on the Oval Office - or, indeed, the upcoming Congressional election. One of the defenses put forward for the actions of the Bush administration is that the President is clearly allowed to disclose classified information. And, as one participant put it, "is also authorized to give that authority to others. If the order came from the President, no wrong-doing is possible, by definition."

On reading this, one is compelled to ask, "By whose definition?" Indeed, that's exactly what I did:

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
George W Bush, November, 2005
First, this whole "license to declassify" was created in Executive Order 13293, issued by President Bush on March 25, 2003. I think at least some might have a problem with a president issuing an order that says "I can do whatever I damned well please", then proceeding to do whatever they damned well please. This tends to be known as "autocracy". I realize, of course, that that is the way this administration has been operating since Day One, but does a president have the legal right to make the law up as s/he goes along??

Second, even if we accept Executive Order 13293 as the epitome of righteous lawmaking from the Oval Office (which it so clearly is not), it still would not give the president leave to declassify the NIE or anything else that he did not personally classify in the first place.

The three-year-old Executive Order specifies that declassification can only be effected by "the original classification authority". In other words, only the National Intelligence Board or the Director of Central Intelligence, as "the original classification authority", can declassify a National Intelligence Estimate. Period.

If the President or the Vice President or anyone else wanted to declassify the NIE, a specific request for declassification would have had to have been made. If a specific request had been made for this document, under the Mandatory Declassification Review provisions of the Executive Order, review of declassification of the NIE is required to be made by the originating agency. There is no claim that this was done and no record of it having been done. Otherwise, classified information can only be declassified when the conditions set at the time of the classification are met. For National Intelligence Estimates, that would be twenty-five years after they are issued.

If what Libby says is true, President Bush broke the law (even his own) and endangered national security and he should be censured, impeached, tried, found guilty, and imprisoned. Admittedly, this is relatively trivial compared to some of the other crimes of President Bush and his handlers, but the American people should rejoice at any opportunity to put this man where he belongs: out of office and behind bars.

Of course, no salient argument goes unpunished. This was one response:


And my response to that:

Ah, power. Power, power, power. We've been hearing a lot about that for the past five years. What, one wonders, ever became of the attendant Duties and Responsibilities of our servant, the Executive?

I was also wondering when the great neocon invention, "the unitary executive", was going to rear its ugly head in this debate. The notion that "all power in the Executive branch is derived directly from the power of the Presidency" is just wrong. I won't even bother arguing that all power in the Executive is derived directly from the people - we seem to have moved well past the point when we remembered that the President works for us - and we "delegate" power to him. But the executive branch is not "simply a delegation of the President's powers to others". It is the delegation of the Government's power - to others within that Government.

The unitary executive theory is just that: a theory, not a law. Sorta like intelligent design, only shakier. Except, in this case, the opposing point of view - that of checks and balances among the branches of government and of a limited, indeed weak, Executive - is not another theory, it is the law. While the usurpation of power embodied by the unitary theory is in danger of becoming the prevailing paradigm, especially under this administration, there is yet hope that the intent of the Founders will again be in the ascendant - perhaps because of this administration. Well, I can dream, can't I?

But let's forget about neocon fantasies (and my libertarian dreams) for a moment and concentrate on something real. The Constitution of the United States of America was established to define the branches of government and secure the rights of the states and their citizens. In doing so, its authors sought to limit the powers of federal government - especially those of the Executive. When certain powers are secured in that document, it is those powers and those powers alone that are conceded. There is no clause that implies that "any other powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the President". Indeed, it's quite the opposite. Those powers are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

Within the federal government, powers (or what should be the lack thereof) that are not delegated have their limitations defined in the United States Code - of which, more in a moment. But, from the outset, presidential power was never intended to be unilateral or unchecked. The Constitution states - rather plainly - that it is the duty and the responsibility - the Power, in fact - of the Legislature:


There are no qualifications there. There's no "all Laws except those made by the President". More pertinently, there's no "all other Powers... or in any Department or Officer thereof except those claimed by the President". The power to regulate "power" in the federal government is vested in Congress.

Further, the unitary executive theory holds that all three branches of government have the power to interpret the Constitution. This is nonsense. Only the courts can do that - and only through the legal process:


Again, no qualifications. But this is why there's been so much talk of "judicial activism" of late - not because the judiciary threatens the Legislature (contrary to what PR would have us believe, Congress can easily enact new laws to overrule the Supreme Court should they feel the Justices have overstepped their bounds), but because they challenge the authority of the "unitary executive".

It is worth noting that every time the unrestrained power of the executive has been at issue in a court decision - every time - the courts have ruled against the executive. The unitary executive theory not only lacks Constitutional foundation, it lacks any legal precedent to support it.

The bottom line here is the question of why this country was born in the first place. Was the Constitution written in reaction to some weak little commune that needed a strong authority figure or in reaction to an unfair and capricious tyrant with too much individual power? What, exactly, were the Founders seeking to change? The means by which an autocrat could rule by decree? I don't think so.

Prior to the American Revolution, a sentiment like "if the head of state decides to declassify something, then it is declassified" would make perfect sense. Post revolution - and according to the US Code, that is simply not true. President Bush can issue all the Executive Orders he wants but they cannot violate the law. He could issue Executive Order 13398 stating that the President has the right to seize anyone wearing a yellow necktie and run them through with a scimitar. Guess what? Abduction and murder would still be illegal - even for President Bush. The same can be argued for Executive Order 13292 (and a host of others). Presidential decrees - especially those that extend well beyond the bounds of "expressing how things are going to get done" - are not de facto legal, constitutional, or just. Something isn't a law because the President says it's a law. The point is that legislation already exists relating to classified information - and the President cannot simply revise it at will.

The CIA is a peculiar organization, to say the least. It was constituted by Congress, reports to Congress, and is overseen by Congress, yet is directed by the National Security Council, falls vaguely within the Department of State, advises the President, and is semi-autonomous. With such a murky agency (especially one with such an apparently infinite brief), one would think that the Legislature would be very cautious in defining its oversight - particularly in relation to handling classified materials. One would be right. They were.

The law relating to National Security can be found in the United States Code Title 50 Chapter 15. The CIA, as defined in the Code, is an investigative agency authorized and overseen by Congress. The purpose of National Security legislation, as stated in the Code, is "the establishment [by Congress] of integrated policies and procedures for the departments, agencies, and functions of the Government relating to the national security". Note the word "integrated". The law doesn't mean "integrated within the executive branch" any more than "the Government" means "the President". It is Congress - specifically the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives - through whom the Director of Central Intelligence must, for example, certify the handling of all classified material. Further,


That's pretty clear. Presumably, as the DCI is merely a presidential "delegate", the President himself has the same obligation to Congress. (In fact, this is the case - see below.) Regardless, the argument that the President is the DCI is specious. The President has the responsibility, granted by Congress, to appoint the DCI with their advice and consent. This does not make the DCI a surrogate President - it makes him or her a civil servant answerable to the Legislature.

But let's look at the Code in relation to classified materials. The first section of Subchapter III - Accountability for Intelligence Activities is entitled "General Congressional oversight provisions" and it specifies that it is up to "the House of Representatives and the Senate" to "establish, by rule or resolution of such House, procedures to protect from unauthorized disclosure all classified information, and all information relating to intelligence sources and methods" about which they are to be kept "kept fully and currently informed". I don't see the word "President" in there anywhere. [Okay, the President is mentioned in the statute. He is also obliged - by law - to keep Congress "fully and currently informed" of all intelligence activities. This is yet another example of the Executive being subordinate to Congress - specifically in relation to national security and intelligence.] Nowhere in the United States Code is the authority to "establish... procedures to protect from unauthorized disclosure all classified information" abrogated to the President. Executive Order 13292, of itself, is unlawful. But even were we to accept such an order as valid, it still doesn't give President Bush license to declassify material over which another branch of the federal government has oversight. The power of the Legislatur