Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is this the part of the EO 12958 that Bush/Cheney claim allows them exemption from oversight?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 01:52 AM
Original message
Is this the part of the EO 12958 that Bush/Cheney claim allows them exemption from oversight?
Edited on Sat Jun-23-07 01:57 AM by Emit
Is it this part of the EO that Bush and Cheney claim allows them to be exempt from oversight?

Executive Order
Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958,
As Amended, Classified National Security Information

~snip~

Sec. 3.5. Mandatory Declassification Review. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all information classified under this order or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification by the originating agency if:

(1) the request for a review describes the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort;

(2) the information is not exempted from search and review under sections 105C, 105D, or 701 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-5c, 403-5e, and 431); and

(3) the information has not been reviewed for declassification within the past 2 years. If the agency has reviewed the information within the past 2 years, or the information is the subject of pending litigation, the agency shall inform the requester of this fact and of the requesters appeal rights.

(b) Information originated by:

(1) the incumbent President or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice President;

(2) the incumbent Presidents White House Staff or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice Presidents Staff;

(3) committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or

(4) other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. However, the Archivist shall have the authority to review, downgrade, and declassify papers or records of former Presidents
under the control of the Archivist pursuant to sections 2107, 2111, 2111 note, or 2203 of title 44, United States Code. Review procedures developed by the Archivist shall provide for consultation with agencies having primary subject matter interest and shall be consistent with the provisions of applicable laws or lawful agreements that pertain to the respective Presidential papers or records. Agencies with primary subject matter interest shall be notified promptly of the Archivists decision. Any final decision by the Archivist may be appealed by the requester or an agency to the Panel. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.

(c) Agencies conducting a mandatory review for declassification shall declassify information that no longer meets the standards for classification under this order. They shall release this information unless withholding is otherwise authorized and warranted under applicable law.

(d) In accordance with directives issued pursuant to this order, agency heads shall develop procedures to process requests for the mandatory review of classified information. These procedures shall apply to information classified under this or predecessor orders. They also shall provide a means for administratively appealing a denial of a mandatory review request, and for notifying the requester of the right to appeal a final agency decision to the Panel.

(e) After consultation with affected agencies, the Secretary of Defense shall develop special procedures for the review of cryptologic information; the Director of Central Intelligence shall develop special procedures for the review of information pertaining to intelligence activities (including special activities), or intelligence sources or methods; and the Archivist shall develop special procedures for the review of information accessioned into the National Archives.

~snip~



Entire EO here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's the same EO Cheney referred to during his hunting accident interview with Brit Hume
... Fox anchor Brit Hume brought up a controversy arising from the CIA-leak case, in which prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court papers that former top Cheney aide Lewis Libby testified he had been authorized "by his superiors" to disclose information about the classified National Intelligence Estimate to members of the press. "Is it your view that a Vice President has the authority to declassify information?" Hume asked. "There is an executive order to that effect," Cheney said.

~snip~

Cheney was referring to Executive Order 13292, issued by President Bush on March 25, 2003, which dealt with the handling of classified material. That order was not an entirely new document but was, instead, an amendment to an earlier Executive Order, number 12958, issued by President Bill Clinton on April 17, 1995.

At the time, Bush's order received very little coverage in the press. What mention there was focused on the order's provisions making it easier for the government to keep classified documents under wraps. But as Cheney pointed out Wednesday, the Bush order also contained a number of provisions which significantly increased the vice president's power.

Throughout Executive Order 13292, there are changes to the original Clinton order which, in effect, give the vice president the power of the president in dealing with classified material. ...

Classification Authority.
(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register...

In the Bush order, that section was changed to this (emphasis added):

Classification Authority.
(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register...

In another part of the original Clinton order, there was a segment dealing with who was authorized to delegate the authority to classify material. In the Clinton order, the passage read:

(2) "Top Secret" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President or by an agency head or official designated...
(3) "Secret" or "Confidential" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; an agency head or official designated...

In the Bush order, that segment was changed to read (emphasis added):

(2) "Top Secret" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President; or an agency head or official designated...
(3) "Secret" or "Confidential" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President; or an agency head or official designated...

Both executive orders contained extension sections defining the terms used in the order. One of those terms was "original classification authority," that is, who in the government has the power to classify documents. In the Clinton order, the definition read:

"Original classification authority" means an individual authorized in writing, either by the President, or by agency heads or other officials designated by the President...

In the Bush executive order, the definition was changed to read (emphasis added):

"Original classification authority" means an individual authorized in writing, either by the President, the Vice President in the performance of executive duties, or by agency heads or other officials designated by the President...

~snip~

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602160841.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
2. You're getting the directionality wrong...
It's not a matter of the executive order allowing exemption, it's the executive order not applying... because long after the fact, the President says so and says through his people that it's not what he intended, even though the clear meaning of the words in the order is that the order applies.

Keep in mind that this order was published. It would've raised some eyebrows at the time if it said anything nearly like what's being claimed now: that one part of the order applies to the offices of the president and VP, and another does not, in spite of saying that it does in plain legal English.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Unless I'm missing something, this part of the EO clearly states that
Edited on Sat Jun-23-07 03:04 AM by Emit
Information originated by:

(1) the incumbent President or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice President;

(2) the incumbent Presidents White House Staff or, in the performance of executive duties, the incumbent Vice Presidents Staff;

(3) committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or

(4) other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. (i.e., Mandatory Declassification Review)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I can't tell properly, sorry. This is all snippets of the small picture.
I have no idea what this has to do with the agency that wanted information from the VP office re: declassification - not re: whether info should be declassified, but to document the declassification that had already occured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Mystery solved - it's a completely different EO.
Full text of Executive Order 13292:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. 13292 is the amended EO 12958. The part in question I posted includes amended
Edited on Sat Jun-23-07 10:23 AM by Emit
sections Bush signed in March of 2003.


"Executive Order 12958 was amended on March 25, 2003, by Executive Order 13292 ..."
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/eo-12958-amendment.html

edit clarity and to add link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. From what I can read, this is specific to the right of the
originating agency to review BEFORE declassification. The way I read it, the exception relates specifically to the review only, excepting the 4 'entities' listed in your post from having to have the originating agency review before declassifying.


Sec. 3.5. Mandatory Declassification Review. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all information classified under this order or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification by the originating agency if:


(1) the request for a review describes the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort;
(2) the information is not exempted from search and review under sections 105C, 105D, or 701 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-5c, 403-5e, and 431); and

(3) the information has not been reviewed for declassification within the past 2 years. If the agency has reviewed the information within the past 2 years, or the information is the subject of pending litigation, the agency shall inform the requester of this fact and of the requesters appeal rights.


That exception is quite different from what Cheney is claiming because he is claiming his office is not subject to oversight by an independent federal watchdog and the exception noted above does not give him that right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Ah, so that's it, thank you for clarifying
I knew something wasn't jiving properly here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Okay, that makes sense. Thanks much for your insight. Now, how 'bout this?
(I just posted this on another related thread, but it's fitting here, too)

According to the letter sent by William Leonard to Addington, he writes

"...I recently received a written complaint suggesting that the Office of the Vice President (OVP) is 'willfully violating' a provision of the Order and of "Classified National Security Information Directive No. 1' (32 CFR Part 2001) (the Directive), which implements the Order. The specific concern is with respect to the failure of the OVP to 'report annually to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office statistics related to its security classification program' in accordance with section 2001.80 of the Directive."

PDF file link: http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/isoo-ag.pdf

Here's 2001.80 of the Directive:

Sec. 2001.80 Statistical reporting <5.2(b)(4)>.

Each agency that creates or handles classified information shall report annually to the Director of ISOO statistics related to its security classification program. The Director will instruct agencies what data elements are required, and how and when they are to be reported.

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/eo-12958-implementing-directive.html#2001.40

According to your OP:

Fratto conceded that the lengthy directive, technically an amendment to an existing executive order, does not specifically exempt the president's office or the vice president's office from the requirements. Instead, it refers to "agencies" as being subject to the requirements, which Fratto said did not include the two executive offices. "It does take a little bit of inference," Fratto said....


According to the EO that Bush issued in March 2003:

Part 6. General Provisions

Sec. 6.1. Definitions.

For purposes of this order:

~snip~

(b) “Agency” means any “Executive agency,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any “Military department” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/eo-12958-amendment.html#1.1


5 U.S.C. 105 defines "Executive agency" as:

TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 105

§ 105. Executive agency


For the purpose of this title, “Executive agency” means an Executive department, a Government corporation, and an independent establishment.


The same U.S.C. defines an "Executive department" as:

TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 101

§ 101. Executive departments

The Executive departments are:
The Department of State.
The Department of the Treasury.
The Department of Defense.
The Department of Justice.
The Department of the Interior.
The Department of Agriculture.
The Department of Commerce.
The Department of Labor.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The Department of Transportation.
The Department of Energy.
The Department of Education.
The Department of Veterans Affairs.


The same U.S.C. defines a "Government corporation" as:

TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 103

§ 103. Government corporation

For the purpose of this title—
(1) “Government corporation” means a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the United States; and
(2) “Government controlled corporation” does not include a corporation owned by the Government of the United States.


and it defines an "independent establishment" as:

TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 104

§ 104. Independent establishment

For the purpose of this title, “independent establishment” means—
(1) an establishment in the executive branch (other than the United States Postal Service or the Postal Rate Commission) which is not an Executive department, military department, Government corporation, or part thereof, or part of an independent establishment; and
(2) the Government Accountability Office.



See for definitions: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sup_01_5_10_I_30_1.html

According to that website, "The most recent edit of Title 5 of the US Code was released by the Law Revision Counsel - LRC - ( http://uscode.house.gov/) of the U.S. House of Representative on 2007-04-17...and most recently processed by the Legal Information Institute on Wed Apr 18 04:25:12 2007"

So, according to the definitions referred to in the EO Bush signed, the OVP nor the President's office (Frotto: "agencies ... did not include the two executive offices...") is included.

Is this how Bush and Cheney are claiming they are exempt????

This is driving me nuts trying to find their logic -- and mind you this is Addington's doing.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. You treat it too kindly by calling it "logic".
It's simply Frotto saying Bush didn't mean what he wrote, so there.

Nevermind that what the President writes is the only valid basis upon which to follow his executive orders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Perhaps.
But Addington is no fool. He's behind this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. He knows that as thin as this is, it's Bush's only shot at covering Cheney's rear
It's not foolish. It's brazen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Addington is trying to say it is implicit rather then explicit
and, imo, it is neither. As quoted, "...it refers to "agencies" as being subject to the requirements ..."

and as I posted above re General Provisions - Definitions - Agency

"...and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. In your post above you have this....
which, to me, says the OVP is included because it does come into possession of classified information so I don't see how this can be used to back up Cheney's claim.

Part 6. General Provisions

Sec. 6.1. Definitions.

For purposes of this order:

~snip~

(b) “Agency” means any “Executive agency,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any “Military department” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; AND ANY OTHER ENTITY WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT COMES INTO POSSESSION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. (The capitalization is mine for emphasis)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Yes. Once again thanks, Spazito. There it is in black and white.
Of course, Cheney's office is denying that his office is an "entity within the executive branch."

Hence the spin from last week:

PERINO: "This is a little bit of a nonissue...

...It's just simply a matter of a small portion of an executive order regarding reporting requirements, of which he is not subject to, and -- the interpretation of the EO.

Because the President gets to decide whether or not he should be treated separately, and he's decided that he should..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070622-4.html

I also caught this at the end of the EO:

Sec. 6.2. General Provisions.

~snip~

(b) The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html

And Kagemusha above is correct. I'm treatiing it too kindly trying to find any "logic."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC