Yesterday Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert hatched a brilliant stunt to turn the tables on investigation-happy Democrats. Republicans would go nuts investigating who leaked the story about illegal CIA torture camps, and Democrats would look like h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s if they complained about it.
The story reversed itself in a big way when Trent Lott revealed that same afternoon that the leaker was probably a Republican Senator. Or Dick Cheney, not that that’s any better. So much for the 11th commandment.
Here’s another situation where Frist has to choose between a set of bad options. He tried no-commenting, which is really just a play for time. Showing why people stonewall for time in the first place, Frist then nonsensically denied that he’d actually signed the letter, although it appears that the thing’s going forward signature or no.
All of this is fine with Democrats. If Congress intends to investigate the leak, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t investigate the allegations themselves. Do we have our own clandestine gulag archipelago? Torture on a massive scale? Really puts Dick Cheney’s eagerness to torpedo anti-torture legislation into perspective. This will certainly give ammunition to those pushing for investigations into that other leak that Frist and pals have tried so desperately to ignore.
In the last week Harry Reid blindsided Frist with a crazy stunt that worked out spectacularly in his favor, helped out in no small part by Frist’s brilliant decision to throw a public temper tantrum about it. Bill Frist responded with a stunt of his own, a gambit which may turn into one of the f-cking stupidest moves in recent DC history. In all seriousness, how much longer do you suppose Frist will carry on in his leadership post? If the SEC investigations don’t do him in then somebody might have to discover an undocumented nanny or, in extremis, make one up.
***
Tip of hat to Carpetbagger, whom you ought to be reading regularly if you’re not doing so already.
Lines
I never thought I would be cheering for Trent Lott, but in reality, he’s a real leader while Frist is a petulant child and is quickly approaching gigantic dumbass status.
Ah, the smell of burning DC flesh in the morning…. Nothing better than scorched earth politics to generate humor.
Jon H
If the Dems take the House next year, I sure hope they’re taking notes on Reid’s style.
Al Maviva
I will repeat what I said last week.
If the leak of a mildly classified (confidential) or unclassified but discreet fact like the employment status of a no-longer-field-hand person Valerie Plame deserves a multi-year special prosecutor investigation, then the leak of top secret code word material subject to special access programs restrictions – which if this was a “black budget” item it was – deserves at least as much. The facilities’ status as a black budget item is no big deal and non-disclosure to congress doesn’t make it illegal, I’d be careful about using that term. The whole reason there is an intelligence budget process is because some operations are too sensitive to discuss with anybody, save in the broadest of outlines. Leaking information to target a political foe is no big deal either. That’s what all of Washington does all the time. It is a big deal only if the information is classified. That’s the only thing that gives the Plame affair any significance to my way of thinking, though it gives it quite a bit of significance. Lying to investigators, obstructing justice – again a big deal. It’s another crime. Leaking highly sensitive information about ongoing operations, is a really big deal, not even in the same universe as the Plame leak. It is of a whole ‘nother order of magnitude.
I still stand on what I said last week. The Plame investigation should be carried out until the bitter end. if Libby’s only crime was perjury, and there is no underlying crime, I don’t care, it should go to a jury and to the extent the judge has discretion Libby (or any others convicted of a crime) should be maxed out. We expect more than minimal compliance out of civil servants. And whoever leaked about the CIA prisons should be investigated, and really truly prosecuted to the full extent of the law, along with the reporter who received this information knowing it was highly classified. I don’t care if it’s the ghost of Ronald Wilson Reagan himself behind the prison leak, it was probably a crime.
And finally, if a Republican leaked it, if it wasn’t plain undiluted stupidity, then there was probably a pro-Bush motivation behind the leak. Anybody leaking that information would know that the CIA would take immense heat for the existence of these facilities, even if they are completely legal. What better way of getting back at the CIA, than putting it in a position where it has to publicly demand a leak investigation into a leak regarding a potential crime (and a certain public relations disaster) committed by the CIA itself?
So please note, before you flog me in writing here, I’ve made five or six consecutive statements against my partisan conservative interests here.
Fire away.
Jon H
“then the leak of top secret code word material subject to special access programs restrictions – which if this was a “black budget” item it was – deserves at least as much.”
You can’t classify something to conceal illegal activity.
So that would be a definite defense strategy – allege that the activity was classified in order to cover up illegal interrogation activities.
It’d certainly explain why Cheney’s so hot to get CIA exemptions from restrictions on interrogation techniques.
Veeshir
Yeah, but what if it was McCain? He appears to have a motive, his anti-‘torture’ amendment.
Would that be that bad?
Mike S
Yes, screw the first amendment.
Jon H
“Yeah, but what if it was McCain? He appears to have a motive, his anti-’torture’ amendment.
Would that be that bad?”
It’d be bad for anyone who wants a Condi/McCain ticket in 08.
It’d be great for anyone in the GOP who wants to get rid of McCain.
It’d be bad for anyone who thinks McCain, while flawed, is still better than most of his GOP colleagues, especially on pork.
ppGaz
This could not have been anticipated. Fristie is doing a heckuva job.
salvage
When all that went down yesterday I was reminded of Wile E. Coyote covered in soot wondering what the hell went wrong.
Rush Limbaugh’s response is awsome. (Yes I’m blog whoring).
Lines
well, McCain was not in the meeting where the black sites were discussed. They intentionally left him out of the discussion.
Next attempt to deflect the argument that Cheney or another high Republican official that attended the GOP secret meeting leaked classified materials to the press?
Al Maviva
>>>You can’t classify something to conceal illegal activity
You assume these facilities are illegal. I can’t be sure they are without knowing more details. In the fact based world, assuming the truth of an allegation because we’d like it to be true doesn’t work. Moreover, the stated reason for classification in the Post report was to shield the facilities from terrorist attacks aimed at freeing the inmates, an event which has occurred at facilities where terrorists are openly held. That is a legitimate purpose.
>>>Yeah, but what if it was McCain? He appears to have a motive, his anti-’torture’ amendment. Would that be that bad?
Nope, wouldn’t be bad at all if it gives a boost to efforts to hamstring interrogation efforts and bring us up to the white glove standards of the Geneva Conventions. How you do it matters, however. If you do it openly, say, “I’ve just discovered this illegal activity” you can easily claim the mantle of an above-board whistleblower. You leak to a drinking buddy who writes for the Post, however, it doesn’t look like whistleblowing at all, rather it looks like you are a blowhard or advancing some petty grudge. Besides, I’m pretty sure it’s not McCain, rather it’s likely Roberts or a Roberts staffer, and yes, I do suspect it’s a shot fired at the CIA.
>>>Yes, screw the first amendment.
Hey, just as I’d like to see Miller & Novak & Russert & Corn jailed if the association of Plame’s name & employment status is classified, then I’d like to see the reporters of this leak jailed too. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. As for the leakers, when they sign up to gain access to classified, they sign away their first amendment rights with respect to that information. It’s part of the deal. It also strikes me as really stupid to try to punish only the leakers to the media. If the policy is to stop leaks, it seems to me you have to punish both parties, since this is a crime that takes two people, or it doesn’t really happen.
ET
And to think – they were touting Frist as presidential material. I shudder at that thought.
BTW – I read Carpetbagger regularly – and he is good.
Steve
The government cannot get into the business of saying that some information is off-limits for reporters to print, no matter how good their reasons might be. That’s the First Amendment. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” is not a legal argument.
I completely agree there should be an investigation into this leak, of course. And that investigation must also address the issue of whether the matters which were leaked involved illegal activity, because that goes to the issue of whether the leaker was, in fact, a whistleblower.
I think the Democratic complaints regarding Frist and Hastert’s investigation (not that anyone is complaining any more) were not premised on the notion that leaks are trivial and should never be investigated. The complaints stem from the fact that this Congress will not conduct any oversight of the White House whatsoever, but when they suspect a Democrat might have leaked something, they just can’t wait to get that Congressional investigation started up. Funny how priorities have changed since the Clinton years, when investigating every single allegation concerning the Executive Branch was understood to be Congress’ foremost priority.
rilkefan
I’ve seen it persuasively argued that Lott, bless his grayish heart, doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The article is apparently the result of thorough investigation, not the hasty transcription of a hot tip.
Frank
Rilkefan- Cmon how likely does that sound? :)
(Where are you hearing that anyway?)
Mike S
Which is why I had such a hard time with that aspect of the investigation. I detest Judy Miller yet took the unpopular view to my side that this could very well be a bad thing.
Something I know very well. The leakers put their own freedon, and sometimes lives, at risk when they leak. Some feel a story is too important to worry about themselves while others are just dicks.
You are advocating the removal of the 1st Amendment. Try to remember that your party will not always be in power and you are, in a sense, arguing for the ability of the government to control all aspects of what you know.
HH
Dems attack Lott as racist, Lott is punished by Republicans, Lott turns against them whenever possible, Dems cheer Lott as a great leader.
Words fail me.
Miller
The leaker is said to be a male Senator from Texas. So he obviously won’t face any punishment.
Lines
No, Democrats are enjoying the fact that Lott is a better leader than Frist. Great that does not him make.
Nice try at a broad generalization, but it was clumsy. I’m sure your next attempt will much more well thought and and grounded at least in some sort of decent rumor if not fact.
Steve
Obviously a fence post is a better leader than Frist. But I still don’t see what any of this flap has to do with Lott being a “great leader.”
For Lott to accuse his own party of the leak may make him a stand-up guy, it may cause liberals to hail him as a man of integrity because he said something they happen to agree with, but finger-pointing at one’s own side is hardly a quality you seek in a “great leader.”
Steve S
Well as funny as this all is, because the Republicans set themselves up for the bomb.
Democrats should still look at this and consider what would they have done to respond had the allegations gone the way the Republicans thought they would.
Tim F.
Yup. The 11th commandment has done very well for the Republican party and they’d be very ill-advised to dump it now. It seems to me that Trent Lott shows here the opposite of leadership; he seems happy to let his bitterness at getting dumped by the Bushies (and, by proxy, Frist) trump the well-being of his party.
What makes no sense to me is, how could Frist not have known that a Republican Senator did this? Particularly when Lott, apparently, did. If he has this little knowledge of what his own flock is doing then he should be let go on general principles.
demimondian
I’m with Steve S here. What would we (Dems) have done if the leaks hadn’t come out of the Republican caucus? Right now, I can tell Rick, cordially, that his guys are in ever deeper doo-doo. What would we have done if the leaker had been a Demo, tho?
Is IARIYAD?
Anderson
Anyone got a link for the “male senator from Texas” bit?
Btw, you may as well say “John Cormyn.” Circumlocution didn’t work for Scooter, didn’t work for Karl ….
Carpbasman
Dems cheer Lott as a great leader
Some Dems. In fact, I know nothing of Lines politics, but assuming arguendo that he is a Democrat (as seems likely) he’s the only person I’ve seen who could plausibly be characterized as “cheering him as great leader.” Though, this is in itself questionable and it isn’t impossible to think that Lott is a good (as in effective) leader and think that he is an irredeemable racist. Though, I don’t know that what Lines said is amenable to that characterization.
At any rate, what most Democrats have been expressing is schadenfreude in the fact that Lott, the arch-conservative who was removed from his position in part because Bush wanted Frist playing point in the senate, 1)is exacting revenge on Frist and the Whitehouse by undermining a political move designed (in part) to take heat off the Whitehouse from the Plame investigation and 2) percieves Bush’s political situation to be weak enough that such open defiance is possible.
well, McCain was not in the meeting where the black sites were discussed. They intentionally left him out of the discussion.
You have a link for that?
Davebo
Actually it’s “John Cornyn”. Who intimated that he was the leaker?
rilkefan
“Is IARIYAD?”
I don’t think it’s possible to draw a simple line on leaks vs whisteblowing, but outing a man’s wife to punish him for publicly and honestly opposing your policy (or punishing her for coming to an analysis that you dislike) is just not comparable to outing an extralegal gulagesque offense to our values.
Otto Man
Actually, it’s The Guy Who Thinks Gay Marriage Will Lead to Men Marrying Box Turtles.
RSA
So, what is the story with Cheney’s Republicans-only meeting? If Lott’s statements are a confirmation that this classified information was discussed during the meeting, I’d be interested in knowing who was at the meeting, and whether everyone had an appropriate security clearance. This may be seen as partisan overreaching, but the idea that classified information is leaked, and someone says, “Oh, we Senators were talking about this over lunch the other day–I bet it was one of us,” strikes me as showing that some people (including both Cheney and Lott) are being ridiculously cavalier about sensitive information.
Lines
Carp:
I’m trying. So far I’m not finding it again, but it seemed to be an insider report of the luncheon where the black sites were discussed. The discussion was about how McCain was purposely left out of a discussion about torture. There’s so much chaff out that that I’m just not seeing it anymore.
Lines
Fuck, maybe I dreamed it. It doesn’t appear to exist anywhere…. Please ignore my comment about McCain being left out of the luncheon unless someone can supply a link to the story.
p.lukasiak
Next attempt to deflect the argument that Cheney or another high Republican official that attended the GOP secret meeting leaked classified materials to the press?
if this was such highly classified stuff, why was it being disclosed to a whole BUNCH of GOP senators? If we are really talking “super-duper-secrets-black-ops-budget” stuff, that stuff shouldn’t be made known to anyone — including US Senators, except on a “need-to-know” basis.
But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why Cheney disclosed this information to a group of REPUBLICAN senators — he trying to keep the anti-torture amendment from being passed. This was, in other words, a disclosure of HIGHLY classified information aimed specifically at achieving a political objective — and the partisan nature of the disclosure should result in Cheney losing access to classified materials.
Cyrus
demimondian Says:
I wouldn’t say It’s All Right If You’re A Democrat – I’d say It’s All Right If You’re Whistleblowing An Illegal Or Grossly Unethical Act. (But IARIYWALOGUA is even more unwieldy, so…) If it turns out that the CIA doesn’t have these so-called torture camps or the leaker mischaracterized and [significantly] overstated their nature, absolutely prosecute him/her. But if the CIA has torture camps and they’re illegal, then whistleblowing is what someone is supposed to do and there are laws to that effect. And if the CIA has torture camps and they aren’t illegal but still are, you know, torture camps, then I’m not sure what the whistleblowers legal fate should be, but ethically I would definitely be on his side.
From what I’ve read, the torture camps are illegal and unethical. And it’s against the self-interest of a Senator (especially a Republican one) to make an accusation like this falsely, so I’m inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt at first. Some disagree with the “illegal and unethical”, but considering who those people are, forgive me if I wait for evidence. The left-wing message here is not “Three cheers for leaking state secrets!”, it is “Three cheers for whistleblowing about torture camps!”
Tim F.
In my view, if you knowingly break the law you should be prepared to go to jail for it. If you think that you broke the law for a good reason then you should go to jail and feel good about yourself for doing so.
History should decide whether what somebody did was right. Law enforcement should decide whether what somebody did was illegal.
I am fully in favor of investigating criminal acts, as long as the principle is applied fairly. Because the the fairness problem I am extremely skeptical of granting much law enforcement power to congress, which is plainly and unapologetically partisan. Refer the matter to a prosecutor and let him determine whether a prosecutable act was committed.
Defense Guy
I would love to see the press not print this kind of crap (classified information on intelligence assets), but according to the USSC they government can’t stop it unless….
This decision was in regards to the NY Times publishing the ‘Pentagon Papers’. I don’t necessarily agree with it, as I think the burdon on the government to prove a “sure” result is too high. It is, however, the way it is.
Carpbasman
Fuck, maybe I dreamed it. It doesn’t appear to exist anywhere…. Please ignore my comment about McCain being left out of the luncheon unless someone can supply a link to the story
Happens to me all the time. The only reason I asked is that McCain’s been getting a bit of guff from the left blogosphere for saying that he never heard of the sites before the leak came out when Cheney had earlier discussed it at the luncheon. His not being invited would certainly be a compelling explanation.
CalDevil
Doesn’t matter who leaked it – Dem or GOP. Needs to be investigated. Let the chips fall where they may.
Steve S
Well said, Tim F.
Well said.
Perry Como
Also a good answer for the contrived ticking time bomb scenario and torture.
valc
First of all, it’s not against the law for a reporter to print classified information, it’s against the law for someone with a clearance to reveal it.
Secondly, I think Frist and Hastert look like idiots for having a fit about who revealed the information, but not being outraged that the “black sites” exist at all. The leadership of the Republican party, including the President, Dick Cheney, and the nine pro-torture Senators, have disgraced this country by acting like a group of Third World thugs.
Veeshir
First of all, it’s not against the law for a reporter to print classified information, it’s against the law for someone with a clearance to reveal it.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
Like in WWII when a paper printed that our subs could dive deeper than the Japanese thought so they would just sail right under the depth-charges the Japanese were dropping.
That cost many lives. Sometimes in war you have to understand which side you’re on.
Shygetz
Veeshir is right–the newspaper reporters must live with the moral burden of what they print.
I think these will sleep just fine at night, and I don’t blame them one bit.
valc
Veeshir, this isn’t about revealing tactical or strategic information to the enemy. This is about revealing that the US is behaving in a way most Americans find repulsive. Why do you think George Bush spends so much time denying that the US tortures people, despite the photographs and the paper trail demonstrating that we do. Why do you think he had Alberto Gonzales draft up a new definition of torture that allows anything short of organ failure.
The administration and its defenders are only concerned about appearances, which is why they attempt to cut off any avenue that gets the truth of the matter. They suppress the release of the photos. They reassign and threaten soldiers who report the abuse, and now they want to track down anyone who leaked the story about the torture camps.
Have you really lost so much perspective on right and wrong that you think the reporter is the unethical party here?