A few thoughts on Paul O’Neill vs. the person who leaked Valerie Plame identity:
1. An investigation of O’Neill seems like an easy call to me. He did hand over massive volume of documentation to a journalist, and it’s entirely reasonable that the government would want to know what he had. We just can’t have every government official grabbing classified information on the way out the door.
2. It seems that there’s not much reason to believe that an investigation will reveal wrongdoing on O’Neill’s part. World O’Crap seems to have a good argument for why he’s probably is in the clear. The documents in question were apparently provided by the Treasury, not snatched by O’Neill. But I can’t pretend that I understand the relevant law.
For what it’s worth, O’Neill says that the documents were sent to him by the general counsel for the Treasury Department. I find it hard to believe that O’Neill and Suskind would have published this book without making sure that they were protected on this front. Who knows.
3. I honestly don’t understand some of the stormy rhetoric I’m hearing from the right. O’Neill is being investigated. It took less than 24 hours. If O’Neill did anything wrong, you can be assured that he’ll be prosecuted. Seriously, what else do you want?
If you expect liberals to go to the board and write “I will not make a fuss about Valerie Plame” 500 times, it’s not going to happen. We don’t know if O’Neill revealed any classified information. The question is, “was there a violation of the law?” In contrast, we already know that someone revealed the identity of Valerie Plame. The question is, “who did it?” And the fact that it took 74 days before there was any interest in the second question doesn’t smell any sweeter today.
You really think it is kossher that the investigation comes from the White House? Regardless of whether or not something was leaked, it gives me the distinct impression taht if the interview had been supportive of Bush, we would not have this investigation of O’Neil, unless called for by one of the investigative agencies.
Using Federal investigations to punish people who disagree with you is an abuse of power. The right wing would not have tolerated this kind of thing with Clinton — certainly an investigation into the investigation would have begun.
I honestly don’t understand some of the stormy rhetoric I’m hearing from the right.
Uh, just maybe it’s to shift the focus of attention away from Bush?
Worked for Arnold (groping -> LA Times), Plame leak (W.H. culpability -> Wilson is a liberal), etc. Call it the “deflector shield” tactic.
I see the words “in contrast”, but I don’t see a contrast. The question in both cases is, was there a violation of law.
Coach,
I don’t have a problem with an investigation. The guy gave 19,000 documents to a reporter, and he had been in a position to obtain classified materials. It seems reasonable to double-check that the materials he disclosed were classified or not. Sure, the right would have screamed about a parallel situation during the Clinton years, but they wouldn’t have been wrong.
Thomas,
In the case of Valerie Plame, we know that information has been released that was classified and illegal to disclose. What we don’t know is who did it. (It’s possible that there may be a narrow legalistic defense, based on the idea that the leaker didn’t know that Plame was covert. T think that that’s unlikely, for a number of reasons I’ll go into if you like.)
In the case of O’Neill, we don’t know that there was any illegal disclosure. But if there was, it’ll be easy to find out who did it.
It’s “who did it?” vs. “did our suspect do anything?”
I do not see how you can not view this, with the timing, that this is using a federal investigation as a vendetta. That is always wrong. Investingating a possible leak is certainly a function of government, but the concern in this case should come from professional rather than from a purely political perspective. If you think this investigation would have happened if O’Neil said only glowing things about the administration, fine, but if you do not, I do not see how you cannot view this as outrageous — and for a libertarian leaning person, this should be over the top (not that you are, just many of Bush’s supporters seem to be).
I say investigate. Bring it on. But investigate Bob Woodward, too.
And Bob Novak.
Josh Marshall is all over this. Apparently, this Administration thinks it’s ok to give classified info to a cooperative reporter. It’s not a privilege that they want to extend to anyone else.
“[Peter] Beinart raised the quite apt point that members of the Bush administration gave Bob Woodward classified documents for his highly flattering book about the lead-up to the war (did I mention it was highly flattering?). So why wasn’t there an investigation then?
Deborah [Perry] responded that this was a case ‘where the Bush administration was working with’ the reporter. (That’s what I caught by ear and remembered for the few moments it took me to put the dog down and grab the computer.) In other words, when it’s a compulsively friendly reporter who’s working with the White House on an adoring book, then they can give out classified documents at their discretion. But when it’s unfriendly, you go to the slammer!
(Late Update: Here’s the actual quote from the transcript: ‘But, again, that was the Bush administration working with Bob Woodward in terms of what they were willing to…’)”
I’m sensing some circularity in your post… which is not a criticism of the post as much as the logic apparently underlying this O’Neill thing…
First, you say “an investigation of O’Neill seems like an easy call” because he “did hand over [a] massive volume of documentation to a journalist” and “we just can’t have every government official grabbing classified information on the way out the door” Of course not. On the other hand, if DC were a ship, its perpetual (and perpetually permitted) leaks would’ve sent it to the bottom of the Chesapeake long ago, so it’s not like everyone and their mother’s uncle doesn’t know that this is standard operating procedure among both gov’t officials and DC media types…
Then you write that “it seems that there’s not much reason to believe that an investigation will reveal wrongdoing on O’Neill’s part,” an assuption with which I agree, by the way…
So my question (to the White House, I s’pose) is this: though an investigation seems like “an easy call” because “we just can’t have every government official grabbing classified information” on their way out of office over to their publisher’s office, isn’t the fact “that there’s not much reason to believe that an investigation will reveal wrongdoing on O’Neill’s part” an equally good reason NOT to have an investigation? Do we really believe that either O’Neill or CBS News are dumb enough to put CLASSIFIED (not SECRET, CLASSIFIED) info on National Television during Wartime? Think of the ratings nightmare…
Additionally, isn’t an investigation into a guy most agree didn’t really do anything wrong in the first place sort of redundant, not to mention WASTEFUL? Isn’t this exactly the sort of Big Government waste this administration has opposed since day one?
If there is any evidence to suggest “political” motivations behind this investigation (and O’Neill’s sudden half-retraction- “I think I’d vote to reelct the President, by the way…”- yesterday), this is it… The administration is willing to break its Amazing track record of Conceptual Continuity and Principled Faith in Something just to make O’Neill look like some candy-assed, fondue-swilling Euro-geek in the Big Media…
… And all this at a time when billionaires are being taxed into multi-millionaires… SHOCKING.
Gowingz,
The thing is, while I think that O’Neil is telling the truth, the government can’t just take his word for it. It has a responsibility to investigate. It doesn’t need to be expensive- they could check the files that the general counsel provided, check the files that Suskind was provided to write the book, and see if (a) they match, and (b) they were classified. I don’t think that this is the place to economize.
Imagine that, say, Dick Morris had given a journalist 19,000 government files for a book slamming the Clintons in the late 90s. Wouldn’t you expect that there’d be an investigation to take a peek at what was in those 19,000 documents? I would. Sure, the right would scream that the investigation was politically motivated. But what’s the alternative?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review