Now This Log

« 19 October 2005 « - Back Archives Next - » 8 November 2005 »

day permlink Monday, 7 November 2005

permlink Loose lips? Whatever.

LA Times: Rove's Security Clearance Widely Questioned
An intelligence analyst temporarily lost his top-secret security clearance because he faxed his resume using a commercial machine.

An employee of the Defense Department had her clearance suspended for months because a jilted boyfriend called to say she might not be reliable.

An Army officer who spoke publicly about intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks had his clearance revoked over questions about $67 in personal charges to a military cellphone.

But in the White House, where Karl Rove is under federal investigation for his role in the exposure of a covert CIA officer, the longtime advisor to President Bush continues to enjoy full access to government secrets.
Oh right, national security rules are for other people.

Jonathan Alter: Is Rove a Security Risk?
Under Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton in 1995, such a disclosure is grounds for, at a minimum, losing access to classified information.

Section 5.1 of Clinton’s executive order prohibits “any knowing, willful or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.”...

That means the only proper answer to a reporter’s questions about Joseph Wilson’s wife would have been something along the lines of, “You know I cannot discuss who may or may not be in the CIA.” The indictment makes clear that this was not the answer Official A [Rove] provided when the subject was discussed with reporters Bob Novak and Matt Cooper.

The sanctions for such disclosure are contained in Section 5.7 of the executive order. That section says that “the agency head, senior agency official or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order.” Any reasonable reading of the events covered in the indictment would consider Rove’s behavior “reckless.” The fact that he discussed Plame’s identity with reporters more than once constitutes a pattern.

In the past, other officials have lost their security clearances for similar disclosures--even without a pattern...
Former White House Counsel John Dean responded to Alter, saying the rules have actually been changed by Bush to make disclosure a less serious offense (gee, why?):
First, Clinton's [Executive Order] 12598 was superceded on March 23, 2003, by Bush's E.O. 13292. Section 5.7 is now 5.5. ...

Removal of access to classified information has no "at medium" requirement, rather it is discretionary: "Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation."

In short, it is anything but clear that Rove will have his security clearance taken away--although he should.
At a minimum. permlink   Current Events   1 comment(s)  
The L.A. Times had three examples of people loosing there clearance. Was the dates of these events mentioned in the L.A. Times article? Also, what was the date of Rove's comments? In addition, was the C.I.A. person considered covert at the time? Was this information about her already out there at that time. Hope I doing this right, this is the first time I've been on a blog. I got your address from the book "The Weblog Handbook" by Rebecca Blood. I do not have a blog.
      ...posted by Warren Modell on November 13, 2005 4:27 PM
Add a comment...

« 19 October 2005 « - Back Next - » 8 November 2005 »

Home - Log - NowThis Consulting - Writing - Media - Links - About
© MCMXCVII-MMVI Steve Bogart