ISOO chief finds Cheney’s fourth-branch argument ‘remarkable’

December 26, 2007

Over the summer, Dick Cheney solidified his legendary reputation for lunacy when he and the OVP aides rationalized his opposition to executive-branch oversight rules by deciding that he’s not really part of the executive branch.

It stemmed from a bizarre fight the White House had with the National Archives’ Information Security Oversight Office, a fairly obscure federal office responsible for supervising the handling of classified information. After having complied with the rules in 2001 and 2002, Cheney decided he no longer wanted to cooperate, and exempted himself from ISOO oversight.

When the OVP refused to even acknowledge the agency’s requests for information, the ISOO went to the Attorney General’s office, asking if Cheney’s office had the legal authority to exempt itself from the executive branch. Alberto Gonzales not only ignored the questions, Cheney and his team responded by trying to eliminate the Information Security Oversight Office from existence.

J. William Leonard, head of the ISOO for 34 years, is stepping down now, and chatted with Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff about the ordeal. (via Spencer Ackerman)

So how did matters escalate?
The challenge arose last year when the Chicago Tribune was looking at [ISOO’s annual report] and saw the asterisk [reporting that it contained no information from OVP] and decided to follow up. And that’s when the spokesperson from the OVP made public this idea that because they have both legislative and executive functions, that requirement doesn’t apply to them…. They were saying the basic rules didn’t apply to them. I thought that was a rather remarkable position. So I wrote my letter to the Attorney General [asking for a ruling that Cheney’s office had to comply.] Then it was shortly after that there were [email] recommendations [from OVP to a National Security Council task force] to change the executive order that would effectively abolish [my] office.

Who wrote the emails?
It was David Addington.

No explanation was offered?
No. It was strike this, strike that. Anyplace you saw the words, “the director of ISOO” or “ISOO” it was struck.

What was your reaction?
I was disappointed that rather than engage on the substance of an issue, some people would resort to that…

You mean, Dick Cheney would rather destroy a government oversight office than “engage on the substance of an issue”? You don’t say.

Leonard seems to have come to the conclusion that Cheney’s office wasn’t being reasonable about all of this.

What rules were they saying didn’t apply to them?
The ones that tell you how you mark [classified documents], how you declassify, how you safeguard them, how you store…

Ultimately, the White House said the president never intended that the vice president would have to comply. This had to have been frustrating -to have been publicly thwarted for doing what you saw as your job?
Well, you know, that I’ve had 34 years of frustration. That’s life in the big city. I also accept that I’m not always right…. But this was a big thing as far as I was concerned.

A number of people have noted that the vice president’s office stopped reporting to you and complying with ISOO in the fall of 2003 when the whole Valerie Plame case blew up. Do you think there was a connection?
I don’t have any insight. I was held at arms length [from that.] But some of the things based on what I’ve read [have] given me cause for concern. A number of prosecution exhibits [in the Plame-related perjury trial of I. Scooter Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff] were annotated, ‘handle as SCI.’ SCI is Sensitive Compartmentalized Information, the most sensitive classified information there is. As I recall, [one of them] was [the vice president and his staff] were coming back from Norfolk where they had attended a ship commissioning and they were conferring on the plane about coming up with a [media] response plan [to the allegations of Plame’s husband, Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.] That was one of the exhibits marked, ‘handle as SCI.’

These were internal communications about what to say to the press?
Let me give you some the irony of that. Part of the National Archives is the presidential libraries….So we’re going to have documents [at the libraries] with the most sensitive markings on it that isn’t even classified. If I were going to do a review [of OVP], that would be one of the questions I would want to ask: What is this practice? And how widespread is it? And what is the rationale? How do we assure that people don’t get this mixed up with real secrets?

There are some dangerous people running the executive branch of government right now. I honestly can’t fathom how and why any reasonable person could defend them.

What I want to see is at 12:01 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, January 20, 2009, that the FBI arrests David Addington for treason.

And then we can send him to Gitmo and chain him down in the fetal position in 45-degree temperatures till he DIES.

It’s nothing that goddamned fascist pig doesn’t deserve.

  • ‘You mean, Dick Cheney would rather destroy a government oversight office than “engage on the substance of an issue”? ‘

    actually dickhead cheney would rather destroy government oversight completely.

  • I would say there have been dangerous people running the government since January 20, 2001, and that the plans and agenda they had – that was never part of any campaign platform – could only have been undertaken by a systematic and focused effort to disable any and all aspects of government that would have restricted them from pursuing that agenda, or made them accountable for the consequences that would otherwise have followed. If the means of getting what they wanted would have been considered illegal, or unconstitutional, there was a ready-made staff of enablers, yes-men and professional suck-ups who wrote memos in legalese that gave them the go-ahead.

    Clearly, the ISOO was in the way – so the remedy was obvious: either eliminate it altogether, or exempt from their oversight anyone and any office that was engaged in pursuing the goal of total control.

    Like you, Tom, I would like to see the whole lot of them prosecuted for the crimes – and I do believe these were crimes – they committed. What would do my heart good would be for the eventual Democratic president to go on an accountability rampage that would include not only DOJ pursuit of these people, but a concerted roll-back of all of the consitutional encroachments that occurred from January, 2001 to January, 2009, so that the country knows as clearly as it is possible to make it, that the line is back where it’s supposed to be, and that no president is going to get carte-blanche to continue to violate the principles and precepts that form the basis for the democracy.

  • > ‘You mean, Dick Cheney would rather destroy a government oversight office than “engage on the substance of an issue”? ‘

    Of course. Otherwise they’d have to admit they made the whole thing up and any 2nd-year law student would tear it to shreds.

  • Let’s face facts…Cheney isn’t out to destroy government oversight, he and his cronies have been out to destroy the government since the new deal. All of the inefficiencies, failures, and unconstitutional infringements on our rights are designed to turn people against the government. Facts are facts…they’ve done a good job.

  • Ann is right (as usual), I would add that someone really needs to clean house of the people these criminals appointed, too. All the political appointees should be submitted to a smell test by a bipartisan panel, and if they can’t pass that they need to be sacked. Leaving them in place would only add insult to injury to this whole fiasco, and I don’t care if it violates some normal policies, because those policies were designed to restrain people who weren’t dead set on being criminals.

  • There’s not a day goes by now that I don’t envision an angry mob of weapons-wielding Americans pouring through the gates of the Naval Observatory—like the barbarians when they poured through the gates of Rome. As for Addison, just shove an apple in his mouth, hang him over a big fire for a few days, and serve him up with poi.

  • I was disappointed that rather than engage on the substance of an issue, some people would resort to that…

    Politics today: opinions without actions.

  • ***Anne*** That is just the point. The line has been crossed and even if a dem “rolls” it all back so the line not to be crossed is clear another administration can revert right back to it because there were no consequences for having crossed it and a precedence has already been established. This is why we must impeach this administration. Impeachment makes the line uncrossable and already is the standard. To say there will be accountability in the future for this type of behavior will not prevent it. If this administration is impeached for this behavior now it will not come up again without the same consequences attending it.

    Cheney has abused the powers of his office to cover up high crimes and misdemeanors, many we know about but many more there are to come if investigations are permitted. This administration uses every tactic from discrediting the messenger to eliminating the investigative offices to using executive privilege to just refusing to comply with congress. They go to such enormous effort to hide and protect themselves that it literally spells guilt.

    The American people cannot depend on the good conscience of a future president to amend the abuses done by previous presidents. Our constitution demands we act now and follow the dictates already drawn out for us in that document. We must impeach this administration beginning with Cheney. The future of our democracy depends on making this administration accountable now.

  • The pardons after Iran-Contra lowered the bar on what is “acceptable” government behavior, and the pardons Bush will make just before he (hopefully) leaves office will lower it even more. A Democrat in the WH trying to clean up Bush’s messes probably won’t do much about past excesses and illegal behavior in a Rethug regime, and this Congress certainly isn’t interested in impeachment. Secrecy begets more secrecy, and power once grabbed isn’t easily grabbed back. I fear the imperial presidency is here for good, no matter who ‘wins’ next November.

  • I can hear it now: for the sake of the nation, we need to put all this behind us and forgive.

    For once I think Tom Cleaver is being too kind. Cold leaves you numb. I would keep the room at 115.

  • bjobotts – I know, and I have been saying for a long time that impeachment was likely to be the only thing that would draw a line and make clear what the limits of power are.

    Is it too late now? I don’t suppose it is ever too late when your ultimate goal is not necessarily to remove someone from office, but to roll back the unprecedented executive power that has been taken by this president, so that no future presidents either have the power left in place, or make use of it in future administrations.

    I am truly disappointed and angry that this underlying principle was not deemed important enough by the Democratic “leadership,” which has chosen to close its eyes to the danger they are leaving in place out of the mistaken belief that to start impeachment proceedings would seem too partisan. I’m sorry to say that I sometimes think they’ve completely missed the forest for the trees.

    I think it’s that inability to see what is really important that made me realize that Pelosi and Reid are not the brightest lights we could have had. I try not to think how much better off we might be if only Chris Dodd had been the Majority Leader.

  • Tom Cleaver couldn’t be more right. David Addington is a scurrilous traitor, who deserves nothing less than to be draw-and-quartered. Bastard!

  • The media will endlessly scream about dwelling in the past if a serious effort is made to expose and punish the monsters and the centrists will fold.

    • Comments are closed.