MSN Tracking Image
  MSNBC.com
Newsweek.com

Alter: Rove May Lose His Security Clearance
Because he disclosed Plame’s CIA identity to reporters, the Bush aide could lose his clearance.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jonathan Alter
updated 10:04 p.m. ET Nov. 4, 2005

Nov. 2, 2005 - The conventional wisdom in Washington this week is that Karl Rove is out of the woods. But while an indictment against him in the Valerie Plame leak case is now unlikely, he may be in danger of losing his security clearance.

According to last week’s indictment of Scooter Libby, a person identified as “Official A” held conversations with reporters about Plame’s identity as an undercover CIA operative, information that was classified. News accounts subsequently confirmed that that official was Rove. 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.” While the law against revealing the identity of a CIA operative requires that the perpetrator intentionally disclosed such classified information (a high standard, which may be one reason Fitzgerald did not indict on those grounds), the executive order covers “negligence,” or unintentional disclosure.

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 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 CIA director John Deutch and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger (who got in trouble after leaving office) both lost their clearances when they took classified information home without proper authorization. More recently, officials of the Coast Guard were sanctioned when they warned relatives of a possible terrorist threat against the New York City subways before public disclosure of the threat.

Ironically, Valerie Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, almost certainly engaged in unauthorized disclosure of classified material himself when he wrote publicly about his CIA-backed mission to Niger, though he no longer has a security clearance to lift.

Because Rove’s apparent violation is covered by executive order, not legislated law, the issue of his security clearance is unlikely to wind up in criminal court. But he may face a civil suit from the Wilsons, who could seek damages because of the damage done to Plame’s CIA career by the leak.

Having his security clearance yanked would not require Rove to resign as deputy chief of staff to President Bush. But it would prevent him from taking part in policymaking that relates to national-security issues, which would mean a much-reduced role in the Bush White House. Some Democrats have asked the president to apologize for the Plame leak case—an unlikely event. But asking him to enforce executive orders could be a more legitimate line of inquiry. At a minimum, President Bush should be asked whether he believes this executive order applies to everyone in the White House—even Karl Rove.

Joe Wilson Responds:
Just read your article on Rove's perhaps losing his security clearance. In it you suggest that I almost certainly disclosed classified information but don't have a security clearance to lose.I suggest you reread the article I wrote.  I was very careful not to disclose names of sources or anything that could be remotely termed classified. The names of my sources were disclosed by the SSCI report.I suppose you could argue that the trip itself was classified, but then if you read my book you would have learned that I made it clear to the CIA that I would not undertake a clandestine operation and would have to clear it with the State Department and the ambassador in Niger, both of which I did.While the trip was discreet it was by no means secret. By the way, the book itself was cleared by the NSC, State and the CIA before it was published.I would never have talked about the trip itself had the administration not misused the information. In fact, I tried for several months to get the administration to correct the record to no avail before writing the article myself. When I did write the article I did not even mention the two other reports that had been submitted by our ambassador on the ground and by a four-star Marine Corps general, even though I was aware of them, since the rules covering them may have been different than those covering me.I would appreciate your correcting the impression you have left with your readers.

Sincerely,Joe WilsonJohn Dean Responds:
I just read the piece on the removal of Rove's classification authority.  A couple of points.  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.  But more importantly "classification authority" is a defined term [in] both orders.In Clinton's order (and Bush's is virtually the same): "'Original classification authority' means an individual authorized in writing, either by the President, or by agency heads or other officials designated by the President, to classify information in the first instance."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.John Dean
Former White House counsel
© 2009 MSNBC.com