This is crosspost from my
site.
I recently came across an inciteful article by Robert Parry at Consortium News which puts the Republican defense into historical perspective. It seems that liberal apologists for Phillip Agee, the former CIA agent who exposed covert agents in CounterSpy magazine, made virtually the same arguments to defend him. It was the Agee case that inspired the covert agents act which Rove apparently violated.
In National Review Online (NRO), Andrew C. McCarthy made the following argument as to why Rove has not violated the law and this is just a tempest in a teapot:
Have you heard that the CIA is actually the source responsible for exposing Plame's covert status? Not Karl Rove, not Bob Novak, not the sinister administration cabal du jour of Fourth Estate fantasy, but the CIA itself? Had you heard that Plame's cover has actually been blown for a decade -- i.e., since about seven years before Novak ever wrote a syllable about her? Had you heard not only that no crime was committed in the communication of information between Bush administration officials and Novak, but that no crime could have been committed because the governing law gives a person a complete defense if an agent's status has already been compromised by the government?
Mr. Parry explains how these arguments are a rehash of Agee defenders as to why Agee was not responsible for the death of the CIA's Athens station chief:
In the mid-1970s, a similar debate raged over CounterSpy, a magazine associated with renegade CIA officer Phil Agee, for listing Welch's name before the CIA station chief was gunned down in Athens in 1975.
Though U.S. officials, including then-CIA Director George H.W. Bush, blamed CounterSpy for contributing to Welch's death, the magazine's defenders noted that Welch had been previously fingered as a CIA officer by a European publication and that the CIA had carelessly assigned him a house previously used by CIA station chiefs.
But the CounterSpy defense didn't stop Congress from citing the Welch assassination as the principal justification for passing a law in 1982 making the willful identification of a CIA officer a criminal offense.
That law is now at the center of the investigation into whether officials in George W. Bush's administration committed a crime by disclosing Plame's identity as retaliation for her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, writing that Bush had "twisted" intelligence in hyping Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
* * *
But the flaw in both the CounterSpy and Rove defenses is that just because information might have reached a limited number of unauthorized people doesn't mean that everyone who might want to harm a CIA officer knows the facts. For instance, there's no evidence that Moscow or Havana shared what they might have known about Plame with al-Qaeda or other Islamic terrorists.
Yet by leaking the Plame information to Novak, Bush administration officials exposed to al-Qaeda and its allies not only a CIA officer who was involved in tracking weapons of mass destruction, but also overseas agents who may have assisted Plame in her work and the cover company she used while spying abroad.
Similarly, the Greek assassins who gunned down Welch may or may not have known about the earlier leak of his name or about the use of his residence by previous CIA station chiefs. It's also unclear if the terrorists read CounterSpy.
But by listing Welch's name, CounterSpy increased the danger to the CIA station chief - just as Rove and other Bush administration officials heightened risks for Plame and anyone who assisted her in tracking WMD shipments.
Previous unauthorized disclosure of classified information does not declassify that information. During my military service I had a Top Secret clearance with SCI, which means that I had access to super-duper top secret information. Much of the most sensitive information that I dealt with was cryptographic equipment and codes. I am sure that, over time, some of the classified manuals that I used were disclosed to unauthorized people. That did not make that information automatically declassified as the Rove apologists want to pretend. If that were the case, lots of stuff that was disclosed to a limited audience would be let loose into the ether. Additionally, when it comes to fighting terrorism an unauthorized disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's identity to the Cubans or Russians does not mean that al-Qaeda will find out. The Cubans and Russians tend to protect the intelligence that they gather and it is unlikely that they would release information of covert agents outside of their governments.
Will the President Enforce His Own Executive Order?
President Bush says that he wants to wait until the special prosecutor makes his report before he takes any action against Karl Rove. Bush acts like the violation of law must be categorically proven before he can act. I wish that he would read things before he signs them because in March of 2003, Mr. Bush signed an executive order which provides guidelines for protection of classified information and how to handle those who improperly disclose it:
Sec. 5.5. Sanctions.
(a) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office finds that a violation of this order or its implementing directives has occurred, the Director shall make a report to the head of the agency or to the senior agency official so that corrective steps, if appropriate, may be taken.
(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently:
(1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;
* * *
(4) contravene any other provision of this order or its implementing directives.
(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.
(d) The agency head, senior agency official, or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order.
(e) The agency head or senior agency official shall:
(1) take appropriate and prompt corrective action when a violation or infraction under paragraph (b) of this section occurs; and
(2) notify the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office when a violation under paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section occurs. (bold emphasis added)
At the White House it would be logical that either the president himself or Andrew Card, his chief of staff, is the agency head or senior official charged with enforcing this order. Did the president or Andy Card take appropriate and prompt corrective action when the violation occurred? Notice that no formal indictment or criminal allegation needs to be made before corrective action must be taken.