There is an ad currently running on Comedy Central for David Spade's show in which the comic says that Michael Jackson is having a 50 foot robot of himself built which will roam the desert shooting laser beams from it's eyes. He then asks the viewer, "Wouldn't we be more shocked if he didn't?"

Looking around the net this morning and perusing a few of the thousands of "will Bush pardon Scooter?" stories, that ad kept popping into my mind.

I think that Bush will pardon Scooter, I will be shocked if he doesn't, the real question, for me, is when?

You can be sure the question is being discussed in hushed tones in the West Wing this morning, but the hand wringing is audible out here in the heartland.

"Obviously, there'd be a significant political price to pay," said William P. Barr, who as attorney general to President George H.W. Bush remembers the controversy raised by the post-election pardons for several Iran-contra figures in 1992. "I personally am very sympathetic to Scooter Libby. But it would be a tough call to do it at this stage."

In the West Wing, Pardon Is A Topic Too Sensitive to Mention
By Peter Baker - Washington Post

Update [2006-4-8 0:15:51 by Tom Ball]: This article was presciently posted back in February. It's relevance to current events required that I revive it for the masses.

The Executive's authority to classify or declassify information does not come from Congressional statute.  Rather, Presidents have long held that it is part of the President's inherent authority. Courts have concurred.

THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAS BROAD AUTHORITY IN CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS

In 1951, President Truman signed Executive Order 10290 (pdf), the President relied on his Constitutional authority as President of the United States to enact a classification scheme.

In Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), the Supreme Court stated in its dicta that the authority to control access to sensitive information is vested in the President of the United States.  Accordingly, an argument can be made that the President need not "ask permission" from the CIA or NSA or anyone when it comes to classifying or declassifying information. This is because the CIA or NSA do not have any power to deal with classified information that does not emanate from the President himself:

The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 890 (1961). This Court has recognized the Government's "compelling interest" in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business. Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 509, n. 3 (1980). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 267 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 106 (1876). The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief.

Since World War I, the Executive Branch has engaged in efforts to protect national security information by means of a classification system graded according to sensitivity. See Note, Developments in the Law - The National Security Interest and Civil Liberties, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1130, 1193-1194 (1972). After World War II, certain civilian agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Atomic Energy Commission, were entrusted with gathering, protecting, or creating information bearing on national security. Presidents, in a series of Executive Orders, have sought to protect sensitive information and to ensure its proper classification throughout the Executive Branch by delegating this responsibility to the heads of agencies. See Exec. Order No. 10290, 3 CFR 789 (1949-1953 Comp.); Exec. Order No. 10501, 3 CFR 979 (1949-1953 Comp.); Exec. Order No. 11652, 3 CFR 678 (1971-1975 Comp.); Exec. Order No. 12065, 3 CFR 190 (1979); Exec. Order No. 12356, 4.1(a), 3 CFR 174 (1983).

It should be obvious that no one has a "right" to a security clearance.

Notice the passivity of such agencies. They're "entrusted" with national secrets and are "delegated" authority by the President. But such authority rests only in the President. Keep that in mind as we now go through President Bush's executive orders on classification.

More below...

In talking to people online, I have heard two conflicting message. The one, prevalent of most people here, is that the Democratic Party has not shown enough spine and that we need to return to the days of 1860 and draw a clear distinction between ourselves and the Republican Party. But the problem comes when I try to help lay out a Progressive agenda including my endorsement of Russ Feingold for President and Chuck Pennacchio for Senate. All of a sudden, when it comes time to actually do the hard work of challenging our favorite DINOs in the primary, people freak out and tell me why it is so impossible to elect Feingold because (insert difficulty here).