Bush claims privilege to withhold CIA leak records - Page 6

jallman · 07-18-08, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

You're exactly right. But did he? And, can the President retroactively declassify information? Does his declassification go into effect on the date it's signed, or whichever date he chooses even if it's in the past? I think it should go into effect on the day it's signed or later, because there's already too much "retroactive immunity" BS going on for my taste.

I don't think it really matters. If it wasn't an offense of enough note for the man in charge to care about it, I have to wonder what the motive of the ones calling for blood are. It obviously isn't protection of US "secrets".

TheNextEra · 07-18-08, 11:25 PM

Yeah it's a shame Nixon wasn't as protected as Bush is now, Nixon wouldn't have gotten into all the trouble he did. It's nice to know the president can be a criminal as long as he doesn't get a blowjob in the white house.

jallman · 07-18-08, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNextEra

Yeah it's a shame Nixon wasn't as protected as Bush is now, Nixon wouldn't have gotten into all the trouble he did. It's nice to know the president can be a criminal as long as he doesn't get a blowjob in the white house.

That had what to do with this current discussion?

TheNextEra · 07-18-08, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

That had what to do with this current discussion?

That Bush can get away with criminal activities that Nixon Couldn't. It's quite easy to make the connection.

jallman · 07-19-08, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNextEra

That Bush can get away with criminal activities that Nixon Couldn't. It's quite easy to make the connection.

Except that Bush hasn't committed criminal activities. I thought you were making a point here.

section eight · 07-19-08, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

This is an overblown interpretation. This is not what it says. IT says that when the govt officially and intentionally comes out and says,

No it doesn't find me the words "intentionally" and "officially" in section 422, the whole point of section 422 is to demonstrate that once a leak occurs the same information can't be "leaked" a 2nd time, once it's out of the bag it's out of the bag.

Quote:

"Yeah, so-and-so was a covert agent. " [Like has happened w/ Valerie Wilson since].
It was not the govts intent nor desire that VW's affiliation with the CIA be made public. Therefore, Armitage's slip-up, he was a part of his authorized actions.
The mistake of one person is not the same as an official decision and position of the USG.

It doesn't say "official" sorry but a member of the Executive telling a member of the press her identity more than qualifies as "public disclosure".

Simon W. Moon · 07-19-08, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

No it doesn't find me the words "intentionally" and "officially" in section 422, the whole point of section 422 is to demonstrate that once a leak occurs the same information can't be "leaked" a 2nd time, once it's out of the bag it's out of the bag.
It doesn't say "official" sorry but a member of the Executive telling a member of the press her identity more than qualifies as "public disclosure".

Do you have an idea of what sort of evidence would convince you? Just curious if you know what it would look like if you saw it.

section eight · 07-19-08, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

Do you have an idea of what sort of evidence would convince you? Just curious if you know what it would look like if you saw it.

Evidence of what? I can read Section 422 and see that it doesn't say the word "official" in it at all.

Look it was Armitage who leaked the name but since he didn't know she was covert and he didn't do it with malice no crime was committed, and according to Section 422 anyone else who made her identity known after Armitage already had publicly disclosed it to the press are not guilty of a crime either, I'm sorry if you don't like the law but it is the law.

Simon W. Moon · 07-19-08, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

... I'm sorry if you don't like the law but it is the law.

I'm fine w/ the law. And I'm fine w/ your ...umm... peculiar interpretation. Just pointing out that you're wrong. Feel free to find some case law that supports your interpretation whenever you get a chance. Hint: case law is where you go to see what the interpretation of is.
GL

Binary_Digit · 07-20-08, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Except that Bush hasn't committed criminal activities. I thought you were making a point here.

Obstructing a criminal investigation is a crime.