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:

"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 link 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.

Tags: Justice, corruption, Dick Cheney, Espionage, intelligence (all tags)

Comments

6 Comments

Tip Jar

Seriously, I want that MoFo under oath.

by msaroff 2009-04-02 01:19PM | 0 recs
And I wanted to send him to the Hague:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/4/1/12461 1/8923

But, seriously, neither of us are going to get our wish.

Besides, Cheney would probably love it, right now, he's just a old attention whore, out their trying to get interviewed?

Who cares what the F he thinks or says anyway?

He's not going to prision, so hopefully he kicks the bucket soon, the miserable waste of oxygen that he is.

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-02 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: And I wanted to send him to the Hague:

In a just world, Dead Eye Dick would be renditioned to the Hague.

by Khun David 2009-04-02 10:54PM | 0 recs
Need-To-Know is the key component

In my experience, my DOE security clearance was based on my need-to-know about information relevant to my position.  I had a general Q clearance, so that I could attend classified meetings at that level.  But there were additional levels of clearance that I did not need, so I was never granted them.

In fact, nothing I ever did in that job ever required a clearance of any kind, but it made people who called meetings together more convenient for them, in case stuff inadvertently came up.  All-in-all, a clearance was more of a burden than an advantage for most people in positions like mine.

Now, what is the basis for former VP Cheney's need-to-know to justify having a clearance of any kind?

by Leading Edge Boomer 2009-04-02 05:00PM | 0 recs
Excellent question

And actually, even if you do have a clearance, you still need to have a "need to know" to access particular classified information.  In other words, just because you have a particular clearance, doesn't mean you can just walk over to CIA headquarters and start browsing through the files, reading everything at your clearance level.

I don't question Cheney holding a clearance as an ex-VP, but I do question why he has a need to know anything now that he's out of the government.

by sneakers563 2009-04-02 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Need-To-Know is the key component

But a former VP will continue to get classified briefings, and if his clearance is suspended, his CIA and NSA and DoD buddies will cut him off until it is resolved.

They have to, they know the regulations.

by msaroff 2009-04-03 06:20AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------