That’s the headline on my latest piece for The National Interest. It looks at the case of (retired) General James Cartwright, former vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, under investigation for a leak relating to the Stuxnet worm, a US-Israeli cyberwarfare exercise directed against Iran. The key points
* Like most leaks, the one for which Cartwright is being investigated revealed nothing that wasn’t known to the Iranian targets of the exercise or easily inferred by anyone who had followed the story in public media
* Unlike the leaks for which whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden have been prosecuted/persecuted, this was an absolutely standard Washington leak, done for personal gain. Assuming the facts are as alleged, Cartwright, an insider, gave information (classified as secret, but actually well known) to a journalist, in return for favorable coverage. This is such standard practice that it would be hard to find anyone in government (in DC or elsewhere) who hasn’t done it
But, Cartwright had made lots of enemies and so appears excluded from the general immunity that covers such leaks. Moreover, thanks to Obama, the stakes are high. Based on the Manning precedent, he could be charged with aiding the enemy, a crime that carries the death penalty. The only comparable case of an insider prosecution is that of Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, who leaked the identity of an active CIA agent for political gain. He was sentenced to thirty months, which was immediately commuted. Even then he was prosecuted for perjury, not for the actual leak.
Having reached the point where the weapons of the security state are being turned against insiders, it will be interesting to see how things play out. Hopefully, those involved will look over the precipice and pull back.
{ 18 comments }
Barry 07.03.13 at 11:47 am
No, for precisely the reasons you stated in the previous paragraph – true insiders have little to fear. And if you don’t know that you are a true insider, then you aren’t.
john c. halasz 07.03.13 at 12:25 pm
30 months.
P O'Neill 07.03.13 at 1:24 pm
Here’s the article link:
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-strange-case-james-cartwright-8683
Also JQ since you’re here — any chance of a post on the Rudd-Gillard situation and context up to the election? The events are pretty mystifying even to those of us used to parliamentary party political skullduggery.
Shelby 07.03.13 at 6:23 pm
The only comparable case of an insider prosecution is that of Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, who leaked the identity of an active CIA agent for political gain.
This is of course not true, as has been publicly known for nearly seven years. (This kind of thing undercuts your points about Cartwright, which I don’t dispute.)
In an interview with CBS News first broadcast on September 7, 2006, [Richard] Armitage admitted that he was Novak’s “initial” and “primary source” (Novak’s words).
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Richard_Armitage
Libby’s conviction was not a “slap on the wrist” for leaking anything; it was for obstruction of justice, false statements and perjury. So far as I know, the sentence was within the standard guidelines for those offenses.
John Quiggin 07.03.13 at 7:50 pm
I’ve added the link and corrected the error on the length of the sentence Libby didn’t serve. A reminder not to post last thing at night.
@P O’N something on Rudd and Gillard soon, I hope
@Shelby Libby’s leak was to Judith Miller, not to Novak.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/01/30/Judith-Miller-testifies-at-Libby-trial/UPI-88941170201999/
Your point that Libby wasn’t convicted for the leak but for perjury was the same one I made in the OP. No one was ever charged over the multiple leaks in this case.
john c. halasz 07.04.13 at 12:05 am
@5:
Well, the pardon was a weird half-cover-up of a failed cover-up of a cover-up. But IIRC Libby did get disbarred, so he’s had to rely on royalties from his semi-porn novels and whatever think-tank sinecures have been tossed his way. But, at any rate, to bring this into the present, the Obama Administration seems to be in a moral panic over its own “big data” operations of Nixonian proportions. And, as always, it’s less the capacities and competences of the “apparatus” that are to be feared, than the incompetences, which it is one of the main functions of secrecy to conceal.
heckblazer 07.04.13 at 1:15 am
I’d argue that a major reason for Libby only being convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice is that his perjury and obstruction of justice were in the end quite effective. His loyalty was rewarded too, since Libby ended up vice-president of the Hudson Institute. Based on the think tank’s 2011 tax return Libby was paid $266,535, with an estimated $21,424 additional income from “the organization and related organizations”, which is a better salary than his boss would have had as vice-president.
Barry 07.04.13 at 3:19 am
Shelby 07.03.13 at 6:23 pm
Another:: “The only comparable case of an insider prosecution is that of Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, who leaked the identity of an active CIA agent for political gain.”
Shelby: ” This is of course not true, as has been publicly known for nearly seven years. (This kind of thing undercuts your points about Cartwright, which I don’t dispute.)”
If you mean that he leaked publicly known classified information, that’s still against the law. If the administration had wanted to punish him, as opposed to support him in a leak program he did on their behalf, he’d still be in trouble.
sherparick 07.04.13 at 2:56 pm
The reason Libby could not be prosecuted is that his leak was authorized by VP Cheney, who in turn was acting in the name of President. Classification is an “Executive” action, and by definition the President, or his designated “Mayor of the Palace,” has the authority to declassify anything, including Ms. Plame’s cover. So Libby by definition was no longer leaking “classified” information. However, he lied about who had directed him to leak and that he had leaked to protect Cheney, who apparently had acted without talking to Bush first. When I followed the story, it seem to me that during the Bush administration this was the point that Bush discovered how much Cheney has usurped his power and made him look like a fool, and that shortly thereafter Cheney’s influenced vanished, Rumsfeld, was fired, and the Bush administration at least became a lot less awful in its policies. (late 2006 through January 2009).
Whether Cartwright might have similar defense remains to be nis to b
sherparick 07.04.13 at 3:12 pm
“Remains to be seen,” as I hit “submit” a little to quick. The classification laws, including the Espionage Act, speaks of the “unauthorized” release of “classified” information without authority. Cheney, who had apparent authority, authorized Libby to release the information to damage an administration critic, who in his perverted way of thinking considered all critics as enemies of the United States. Armitrage, who apparently told the secret basicaly says he made a mistake and did not know she was a covert agent when he told Novak about her role on her husband’s trip to Africa. The reasons Fitzgerald did not prosecute him is because apparently Armitrage never dissembled about his role during the investigation and cooperated completely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Richard_Armitage
John Quiggin 07.04.13 at 11:20 pm
@9 Do you have a source on Cheney’s authorization of Libby. Or is the claim that a leak by the Executive is automatically lawful? That would be consistent with the Nixon-Bush-Obama theory of unlimited executive privilege.
SamChevre 07.05.13 at 3:06 pm
JQ @ 11
Here’ s the Executive Order on classified information:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
I would read 1.3.1 and 3.1.3 in combination as saying that the President has the right to de-classify any classified information he wishes.
John Quiggin 07.05.13 at 5:23 pm
@SamChevre I don’t doubt that the President can declassify any information he wishes. The question I have is whether telling a reporter something, or authorizing a subordinate to do so, constitutes declassification.
Also, given that Armitage was investigated over the subsequent leak and didn’t use an executive privilege defence, does that mean that information about Plame’s role was reclassified after the Libby leak.
Again, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the general principle of “If the President does it, it’s legal” applies here.
Barry 07.06.13 at 1:50 pm
Perhaps JQ didn’t phrase the question well – does the *law* say that?
Peter T 07.06.13 at 2:24 pm
The wiki article references the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If this has provisions similar to Australian law, then a covert agent’s identity is not a matter for classification or declassification. Revealing it without authorisation is a specific offence, not a matter for executive discretion. Not that that would matter to Cheney (or Bush).
Barry 07.06.13 at 3:25 pm
Thanks, Peter. I wouldn’t be surprised if executive orders allowed a lot, but I would also be surprised if the laws on classification didn’t block much more.
Cheryl Rofer 07.06.13 at 7:01 pm
@John Quiggin: The release of classified information is not equivalent to declassification. This is the reason that newspaper reporters can get a chuckle by noting that some US government agencies are blocking The Guardian. The government material published there remains classified, and if it winds up on unclassified computers, it’s a pain to have to clean up.
There are procedures for declassification that must be followed so that all the relevant people are clear on the status of the material.
John Quiggin 07.06.13 at 7:48 pm
@Cheryl That was my impression. The legal power of the executive to declassify info is a red herring, since this was just a leak.
Still, I wish I hadn’t raised this case, since the whole question of Libby/Plame is a distraction from the issues relevant today
Comments on this entry are closed.