After hearing reports of the opening statements made in the Libby trial, it has now become more apparent that Dick Cheney authorized the leak, and then used Libby to spread it and to further lie about its source.
Since Senator Feingold is a diarist here, it is hoped that he or a member of his staff will bring this diary to his attention, and, I welcome his comments or his diary in response on why he will not pursue a Censure Resolution.
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. [ ]
Relating to the censure of Richard A. Cheney.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February , 2007
Mr. FEINGOLD submitted the following resolution
RESOLUTION
Relating to the censure of Richard A. Cheney
Article I: Violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982
(50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)
|
Whereas Congress passed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.), amending the National Security Act of 1947, to prohibit unauthorized disclosure of information identifying certain United States intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources;
Whereas Congress passed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.), with the expressed purpose ‘[t]o strengthen the intelligence capabilities of the United States’ (Rep. 97-201, S. Rep. No. 201, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 1981, 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N., 1981 WL 21378 (Leg.Hist.));
Whereas Congress passed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.), and stated in its FINDINGS that ‘informed policymaking by officials of the executive and legislative branches requires that the United States collect such intelligence from human sources, for that particular kind of intelligence provides insight into the intentions of foreign powers or terrorist organizations which is not available from other sources.... As the United States seeks to implement its foreign policy objectives, it requires in unusual and important situations the capability to use clandestine operators to complement its overt policy initiatives.’ (Rep. 97-201, S. Rep. No. 201, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 1981, 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N., 1981 WL 21378 (Leg.Hist.));
Whereas the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 states, in relevant part, that ‘[w]hoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both’ (50 U.S.C. 421 (a));
Whereas Richard A. Cheney, Vice-President of the United States, had ‘authorized access’ to classified information that identified Valerie Plame as a ‘covert agent’ as defined in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 426 (2); 50 U.S.C. 426 (4)(A));
Whereas Richard A. Cheney, Vice-President of the United States, authorized the ‘disclosure’, as defined in Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (‘to communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available’ (50 U.S.C. 426 (3)), information identifying Valerie Plame as a covert agent, to a person or persons not authorized to receive classified information;
Whereas the Central Intelligence Agency, at the time of the disclosure was taking ‘affirmative measures’—e.g., the use of clandestine means of communication to conceal her intelligence relationship with the United States government by using a cover-identity, the creation of a false business, and the maintenance of an office for her false business—in order conceal Valerie Plame’s intelligence relationship to the United States;
Whereas the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) legislative history makes it clear that ‘the actual information disclosed does not have to be classified. However, the government must prove that the defendant knew that he was disclosing a classified relationship the government seeks to conceal by affirmative measures’ (H. Conf. Rep. No. 580, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 11, reprinted in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 170, 172);
Whereas George W. Bush, President of the United States, limited declassification to ‘some exceptional cases’ where ‘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’ (Executive Order No. 12958, § 3.1 (b));
Whereas George W. Bush, President of the United States, in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union, stated: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ as an essential element of pre-war intelligence, justifying the urgency of the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Whereas Valerie Plame’s spouse, Joseph C. Wilson, IV, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, criticized the Bush Administration in an Editorial in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, regarding its use of pre-war intelligence, saying inter alia, that Wilson’s 2002 trip to Niger showed Wilson that President Bush’s claim that the existence of a link between Niger and Iraq on nuclear material, was ‘highly doubtful’. Wilson was critical about the pre-war intelligence generally, concluding: ‘Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.’
Whereas Richard A. Cheney, Vice-President, authorized the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity for political purposes and not ‘for the public interest’ (Executive Order 12958, § 3.1 (b)); namely, retribution to Valerie Plame’s spouse, Joseph C. Wilson, IV;
Whereas Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Special Counsel, United States Department of Justice, in a court filing on April 5, 2006, stated that ‘it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to "punish" Wilson’ (US v Libby, CR No. 06-394 (RBW), at 27-8 (DC Cir. 2006));
Whereas Richard A. Cheney, Vice-President of the United States, by his authorization to disclose the intelligence relationship of Valerie Plame to the United States, not only put Valerie Plame, her informants, and sources in life-threatening danger, but put similarly-situated agents, and their informants and sources, in similar danger; thus weakening the intelligence gathering capabilities of the United States and its agents;
Whereas Richard A. Cheney, Vice-President of the United States, by his authorization to disclose the intelligence relationship of Valerie Plame and the United States, severely weakened her clandestine ability to gather information from informants and sources, and severely weakened her clandestine methods of communicating further intelligence to the United States, and has thereby weakened the United States in its intelligence gathering capabilities;
Whereas the Vice-President's inherent constitutional authority does not give him the power to violate the explicit statutory prohibitions on authorizing disclosure of the identities of covert agents, as described in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.);
Whereas Congress has a Constitutional authority ‘to provide the Common Defense’ (U.S. Const., Art I, §8, cl.1) and to ‘make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces’ (U.S. Const., Art I, §8, cl. 14);
Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force that became law on September 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), did not grant the Vice-President the power to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.);
Whereas George W. Bush, President of the United States, has since September 30, 2003, made a series of public statements about the need for further investigation to find the source or sources of the leak, and repeatedly stating that the identity of the person or persons leaking Valerie Plame’s status as a covert agent was unknown to him, including—
(1) on September 23, 2003, stating that ‘[t]here's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. And so I welcome the investigation....I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business....And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would’ (emphasis added);
(2) on October 7, 2003, stating that ‘[t]his is a town of—where a lot of people leak. And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. .... And they'll come to the bottom of this, and we'll find out the truth. And that will be—that's a good thing for this administration....I mean this town is a—is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators—full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is—partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out.’ (emphasis added);
(3) on October 23, 2003, in responding to a question about the investigation of the leak: ‘It's a criminal investigation. It is an important investigation. I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information. As you know, I've been outspoken on leaks. And whether they happened in the White House, or happened in the administration, or happened on Capitol Hill, it is a—they can be very damaging. And so this investigation is ongoing and—by professionals who do this for a living, and I hope they—I'd like to know.’ (emphasis added);
(4) on July 18, 2005, stated that ‘I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.’ (emphasis added);
(5) on March 11, 2006, stated that ‘[t]his is a very serious matter, and our administration takes it seriously. ... I'd like to know who leaked, and if anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find out the leaker. ...We're talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth.’ (emphasis added);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
Resolved, That the United States Senate does hereby censure Richard A. Cheney, Vice-President of the United States, and does condemn his unauthorized release of information regarding a covert agent of the United States, Valerie Plame, in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421(a)).