I would argue that there�s a rather large difference between authorized and unauthorized leaks.

Well, James, your argument is not entirely accepted by Bush, who indicated after the Novak column that: �Leaks of classified information are bad things. We�ve got too much leaking in Washington.�

Busted.

The President has the legal authority to declassify information, but there are normal channels for doing so. Telling an aide to leak classified information to the New York Times is not a normal channel. A normal declassification procedure would involve going back to the originating agency, such as the CIA, and then putting out a public, declassified version of the document.

All kinds of good stuff in there, all of which - naturally - reinforces my point that the whole process seems to have gone completely off the rails. Your results may vary.

"Declassification authority" means:
(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position;
(2) the originators current successor in function;
(3) a supervisory official of either; or
(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official.

So now I'm picturing Jefe Bush deputizing declassification authorities.

Badges? We don' need no steenking badges!

As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe might say, Just what kind of Mickey Mouse outfit are you running there, anyway?

But the preznit has the authority to pardon, no? He could just delegate the authority to the leaker, who would then hand back the authority to the prezit who would then pardon the leaker.

It's all good. Hakuna Matata.

What bothers me the most is this endless justification of what we all think is wrong. It may turn out that no one is held criminally liable for any of this but for us to just accept this kind of behavior as normal or ok is asking too much. What's next then?

Second - It is possible the President has the authority to summarily declassify information based on his power to appoint the people who have statutory power to classify or declassify that info.

But that is irrelevant to this issue.

As I understand it, neither the data in the NIE nor Plame's identity was ever declassified. It was simply leaked to reporters. Unless the President made a concious (and documented) decision to declassify the information, it's still classified, and the act of leaking it was still a federal crime, even if the President had leaked it himself.

Sure, sure. But one wonders whether he even knew what was being declassified. Does he have the authority to delegate his authority? "I hereby decree that stuff that helps our case with Bob Woodward is declassified."

Glad you enjoyed it. Why does it seem that you never have anything to say but instead attack the poster? First off, the CIA said she was under cover. Second, she was working with a front company set up by the CIA which is now destroyed. Third, anyone who had ever been in contact with her is at risk. Fourth, she was a well trained expert in WMD, specifically nuclear proliferation. By your response, it's just as well that she doesn't work there anymore. We'll just spend another 20yrs or so to get a replacement. And yes, allowing our enemies to know the name of one of our spies and potentially their contacts is exactly what I call giving aid to the enemy.

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authoriz...

But I think it�s a stretch to assume that this would include the disclosure of an undercover CIA asset.

...who had previously been assigned, apparently, to an embassy, which means official cover, which pretty much makes any claim that she was covert when "outed" just plain laughable.

That�s not executive privilege, it�s treason.

Oh? As in "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"...?

MrGone, your slapstick commentary is priceless.