So it looks like Scooter Libby got orders to leak classified information to the New York Times. From President Bush by way of Cheney, according to his testimony.

Libby's participation in acritical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in theNational Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain information." --Fox News

In other words, this doesn't necessarily relate to the Plame leak. It is interesting, though, and raises a number of fascinating secondary questions. Specifically, the issue of leaking classified information, how it's justified, and whether it is ever acceptable. There are, I think, at least three distinct ways of looking at it:

1. Leaking classified information is always morally wrong, period, end of story, and should be punished.(The 'absolutist' position)
2. Leaking classified information is acceptable if
   1. it is used to expose wrongdoing,
   2. the damage done by the wrongdoing is greater than the damage done by the leak, and
   3. the person leaking the information is otherwise unable to stop the wrongdoing.

   (The 'whistleblower' position)

3. Leaking classified information is acceptable if the person leaking ranks high enough inthe government that their decision amounts to ad-hoc declassification. (The 'judgement call' position)

The conflicting cases of the Plame leak and the NSA surveilance leaks reveal the interesting schisms between these three views. Both Democrats and Republicans tend to use the rhetoric of the absolutist position. Based on what instances they choose to complain about, however, they seem to be motivated by the whistleblower and judgement call positions, respectively. I tend to favor the whistleblower position. Why? Allowing the 'judgement call' position to be adopted basically gives our elected officials the ability to use classification as a political weapon -- a poison pill-trap that only they are immune to. Documents can be classified, then leaked selectively. Those who attempt to learn the context -- and reveal potential lies of omission -- enjoy no such immunity and can then be prosecuted.

The 'whistleblower' exception works in the opposite direction. If restricted information is leaked by an individual seeking to 'right a wrong,' and the full context makes it clear that no wrong was in fact done, declassifying the document will reveal the truth. I can see a case being made for all three positions, but I think there's a much greater danger for abuse in both the 'absolutist' and 'judgement call' scenerios. Recognizing the danger of human corruption, and the lure of power-for-power's sake, has always struck me as an essential tenet of true conservatism.

EDIT: Gary Farber on Obsidian Wings offers some helpful clarification. It IS true that the President has complete legal authority over what is classified and what is not. In my mind, the fundamental question is not so much about legal authority but the moral, ethical, and democratic concerns raised by the use of classification as a tool of rhetoric. In the 'poison pill' case I mention above, the reason for shifting classification is not to preserve national security, but to to control the information landscape and thus the outcome of a national debate. Winners write history, and Classifying Authorities write the present, one might say.