« I REALLY Do Not Want to See Your Vacation Pictures -- Colonoscopy Edition | Matthew Saroff's Blog | Mr. Obama, Tear Down That Wall! »
Reviewing Dick Cheney's Security Clearance
So I was reading this account of a Seymour Hersh interview on Fresh Air in which he says that Cheney loyalists have been "burrowed" into sensitive government positions, and continue to feed him information:
And the first thing that went through my head was, "People from the NSA are talking to a guy who orchestrated the outing of a covert CIA agent?"
Then I realized that the real question was, "Why does Richard Bruce Cheney still have a security clearance?"
Based on my reading of the entire Lewis "Scooter" Libby case, it's clear that Patrick Fitzgerald had concerns that Cheney was aware of the leaks on some level, though he lacked any hard evidence (missing emails anyone?) to go any further.
That being said, a security clearance is not a legal procedure, it's an administrative procedure, and to a significant degree, it is necessary for the holder of this clearance to show that they not a security risk, either intentionally or through negligence.
There is also an additional duty to report any credible potential security violations to the appropriate authorities.
This is a lower standard of proof than, for example, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, or obstruction of justice statutes.
There is therefore a significant concern that Dick Cheney violated the terms of his clearance, and pending an investigation, his clearance should be suspended pending an investigation.
Unlike a government employee whose livelihood is dependent on having a clearance, this should not provide an undue burden, and a hearing, with witnesses, including Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Mr. Cheney, testifying under oath, would be an appropriate venue to decide whether or not he was either deliberately or negligently cavalier with sensitive intelligence data.
Of course, if Mssrs Cheney or Libby were to make untrue statements in the process of giving their testimony, that would be a matter for the federal prosecutors.
Youtube link
Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.
"I'll make it worse. I think he's put people left. He's put people back. They call it a stay-behind. It's sort of an intelligence term of art. When you leave a country and, you know, you've been driven out the, you know, you've lost the war. You leave people behind. It's a stay-behind that you can continue to have contacts with, to do sabotage, whatever you want to do. Cheney's left a stay-behind. He's got people in a lot of agencies that still tell him what's going on. Particularly in defense, obviously. Also in the NSA, there's still people that talk to him. He still knows what's going on. Can he still control policy up to a point? Probably up to a point, a minor point. But he's still there. He's still a presence."(Audio at bottom)
And the first thing that went through my head was, "People from the NSA are talking to a guy who orchestrated the outing of a covert CIA agent?"
Then I realized that the real question was, "Why does Richard Bruce Cheney still have a security clearance?"
Based on my reading of the entire Lewis "Scooter" Libby case, it's clear that Patrick Fitzgerald had concerns that Cheney was aware of the leaks on some level, though he lacked any hard evidence (missing emails anyone?) to go any further.
That being said, a security clearance is not a legal procedure, it's an administrative procedure, and to a significant degree, it is necessary for the holder of this clearance to show that they not a security risk, either intentionally or through negligence.
There is also an additional duty to report any credible potential security violations to the appropriate authorities.
This is a lower standard of proof than, for example, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, or obstruction of justice statutes.
There is therefore a significant concern that Dick Cheney violated the terms of his clearance, and pending an investigation, his clearance should be suspended pending an investigation.
Unlike a government employee whose livelihood is dependent on having a clearance, this should not provide an undue burden, and a hearing, with witnesses, including Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Mr. Cheney, testifying under oath, would be an appropriate venue to decide whether or not he was either deliberately or negligently cavalier with sensitive intelligence data.
Of course, if Mssrs Cheney or Libby were to make untrue statements in the process of giving their testimony, that would be a matter for the federal prosecutors.
Youtube link
Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.
Advertisement
















Seriously, the idea that Dick Cheney could be trusted with anything more sensitive than a chicken salad recipe is simply nuts.
April 2, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you f'ing serious? Cheney can't be trusted with anything. He would look at a chicken salad recipe and say that it proves al qeda is inflicting salmonella on the US because the salad sat on the picnic table too long; and there are moles burrowed in gov't that would argue his case.
This guy sees what he wants to see and if you don't see it the same, he'll have you waterboarded.
"Two plus two equal five, Winston."
April 2, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Figures he'd blame the chickens for what surely was the mayonnaise's fault.
April 2, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said!
April 3, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This problem is so deep that his current security status is only a symptom. He should have been impeached after it became known that he gave orders to out Plame. There was enough evidence to do that from what I read, and besides he admitted as much. Now he is giving signals to terrorists that this is a good time to attack the US; he has admitted on television to ordering torture. There is no good reason for this criminally sociopathic traitor to be free, nevermind rich.
I just wish he were arrogant enough to go to Spain on holiday!
April 2, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There is therefore a significant concern that Dick Cheney violated the terms of his clearance, and pending an investigation, his clearance should be suspended pending an investigation."
Other than the Plame thing, is there any evidence to support this "significant concern"?
Why would Cheney still have high level security clearance anyway?
April 3, 2009 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is cleared because he is a former Vice President, and he likely continues to get classified briefings as a courtesy.
April 3, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe. I'm sure he doesn't get daily access to the PDB etc.
April 3, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Other than the Plame thing, is there any evidence to support this "significant concern"?'
Really? Is this a three strikes, you're out kind of thing? Blowing the cover of just ONE agent investigating nuclear proliferation should be enough to be declared a risk to national security.
It's like asking, "other than starting an unneccesary war, is there any evidence to support the idea that Bush was a horrible President?"
April 3, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this! I like your solution! :-)
April 3, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I read this correctly, and there have to be hundreds of thousands of pages written on this, the New Administration could make it a felony--a serious felony--for key government personnel to speak to Cheney. With an executive order.
Interesting. Surely DOJ and DOD and NSC have considered this. ha
Really fine post.
April 3, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, they could not make it a felony, but anyone who maintains a close relationship with someone who has their clearance under challenge is risking their clearance as well.
April 3, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bear with me now Matt. If I have a certain security clearance and divulge information to someone that does not, and I know it when I do it, this amounts to a felony under, probably, twenty or more statutes.
You take away this traitor's clearance, and NO ONE WITH CLEARANCE may speak with him about any subjects disclosed under his clearance.
I never practiced in this area, but I have seen enough NCIS, JAG, and West Wing along with hundreds of CSPN discussions on this issue so that I have some confidence in this.
Similarly, it is bullshit to say that no laws were broken amounting to a felony conviction for outing Plame. It is just bullshit.
April 3, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said: "People from the NSA are talking to a guy who orchestrated the outing of a covert CIA agent?"
NSA is part of the DoD. The CIA is CIA. Cheney was and still is a DoD guy, and he hates the CIA. Rumsfeld and Cheney tried their best to ensure that the CIA failed in Afghanistan. This is common knowledge. If Dick Cheney were to die under suspicious circumstances, the 'possible suspects' list would include everyone in the CIA and most of those in the Republican party who have any standing at all. He screwed everyone. If anyone is helping him it is because he has something on them, and Dick's got a lot of things on a lot of people. When he eventually dies there will be a loud and collective sigh of relief, most of it coming from those who most people believe are on his side. The more interesting question to ask is "Will George W. Bush ever be seen in public with Dick Cheney again?" As the history gets filled in more, poor George looks worse and worse, a pawn in the hands of a master. That the master was completely loony does not take away from the fact that he was the master. And to some lesser degree he still is. Cheney is a dangerous man, especially to those we might think to be his friends. And those 'friends' of his who still go to church silently pray that Dick's heart will stop sooner than later. Especially George who got used like a cheap whore at a frat party. Of course, George being George, he passed all that screwing along to us.
All these guys would turn on each other like the mean dogs they are if they could get away with it. Cheney knows this better than anyone. That's why he hangs on so hard to the leash. He's made a career of it.
April 5, 2009 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink