The Ticket (originally aired September 25, 2005)
This episode begins with a tease of the future, showing Jed Bartlet at the opening of his presidential library, three years from the present. He is reunited with CJ Craig (apparently married to reporter Danny Kincannon and a mother), Toby Ziegler (apparently teaching at Columbia University), Kate Harper (apparently an author), Rep. Will Bailey (now a junior Congressman on the Ways & Means Committee), and Charlie Young. Josh Lyman announces the arrival of Bartlet's successor, though it is unclear who that person is and what Josh's status is. Leo is not present, which originally could have been to help prolong the suspense about who would win the election but turned out to be appropriate given John Spencer's death months after the episode was aired.
Back in the present, it is four days after the Democratic National Convention, with Rep. Matt Santos and Leo McGarry hitting the campaign trail. Santos' poll numbers show him nine points behind Sen. Arnold Vinick; Josh is happy with the results given the long uncertainty over the nomination, but gets cautionary advice from advisor Joey Lucas. Josh coordinates building an organization for the general election, refuses to hire Donna as his deputy, and fights with the White House over its willingness to discuss a Republican education plan similar to Santos', while Santos and Leo work out their working relationship.
Meanwhile, the White House has its own problems, with at least two investigations underway into who leaked to New York Times reporter Greg Brock (1) the existence of a military-operated space shuttle (2). White House counsel Oliver Babbish meets for much of the day with CJ, and suggests that he thinks CJ is the suspect. Babbish recommends that the White House drop its own investigation, given that the leak seems to have come from the White House.
(back to top)
Leak Investigation (last updated September 25, 2005) (back to top)
The ongoing plotline involving CJ's possible leak of classified information to a New York Times reporter obviously is very reminiscent of an ongoing investigation into the possible leak of the identity of an undercover CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to conservative columnist Robert Novak in or around July 2003.
Not every leak of classified governmental information is punishable by a crime. However, it does seem likely that a leak of this nature could violate federal law, specifically 18 USC 793(e), which states that:
| "Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it … Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." |
As for the similarities to the Plame investigation, that situation began with President George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, in which he presented evidence that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and said, among other things, that "[t]he British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV questioned this statement months later with a July 6, 2003 op-ed piece in the New York Times in which he described his role in investigating - and discrediting - Niger's suspected link to Iraq's weapons program. Days later, CIA Director George Tenet issued a statement (on-line here) that the reference to Africa was suspect and should not have been presented to Bush.
Then, on July 14, 2003, conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote an op-ed piece discussing Wilson's Niger investigation, in which Novak identified Wilson's wife, Plame, as an "Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction" and wrote that "two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegations (column on-line here). Novak later wrote that he did not receive a planned leak and that he simply put together some information and made an imprecise word choice (column on-line here).
The Department of Justice began investigating the possible leak in the fall of 2003, but Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation in December 2003. From that time on, the investigation has been handled by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of the Northern District of Illinois.
Almost two years later, the investigation has not resulted in charges directly relating to the leak or even confirmation that there was a leak. Nonetheless, the investigation has raised First Amendment issues. Two reporters - Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of the New York Times - refused to divulge confidential sources as part of the government investigation, and were held in contempt. While many states recognize reporters' rights to protect the identities of confidential sources, there is no such right recognized in the federal system. After the Supreme Court refused to hear their appeals, Time magazine decided to produce Cooper's notes, Miller went to jail, and Cooper testified before the grand jury, explaining that his source had lifted the pledge of confidentiality.
Cooper then revealed that it was White House advisor Karl Rove who had told him that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the "agency" on "WMD" and was responsible for sending Wilson to investigate a possible link between Niger and Iraq. Cooper said that he had a "distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, 'I've already said too much.' This could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years."
Where the investigation is going next is unclear.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who said on September 29, 2003 that the idea that Rove was the leak was a "ridiculous suggestion" (transcript on-line here) and said on October 10, 2003 that Rove had provided assurances that he was not involved (transcript on-line at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031010-6.html), declined on July 12, 2005 to answer questions on Rove or to back up his prior statements, saying that it was "not the appropriate time to talk about those questions while the investigation is continuing" (on-line here).
President George W. Bush addressed the topic himself in a July 18, 2005 press conference (transcript on-line here) in which he said that "it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions" and that "if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
(back to top)
U.S. Space Programs (last updated September 26, 2005) (back to top)
It is no secret that the United States has been seeking to develop some military-related space capabilities in recent years, though there were no reports as of fall 2005 that it has developed its own space shuttle. Developing a military-operated space shuttle probably would not violate international treaties, but some of the actions that such a shuttle could be used for - developing bombs and other weapons that could be dropped from orbit - arguably could violate a treaty that the United States entered into in the 1960s.
Developing something like a space shuttle for military use was proposed in a 2001 report by a commission examining how U.S. space activities were organized and managed in support of national security. The Commission expressed concern about a "Space Pearl Harbor," an attack on U.S. satellites or civilian assets, and pointed out "warning signs of U.S. vulnerability" such as a 2000 report by the Xinhua news agency that China's military was "developing methods and strategies for defeating the U.S. military in a high-tech and space-based future war."
The commission recommended that one objective of U.S. space security policy should be "assured access to space and on-orbit operations," which a space shuttle would help achieve. The commission stated that U.S. interests "depend critically on assured and timely access to space" and that the United States "should continue to pursue revolutionary reusable launch vehicle technologies and systems."
Still, it does not appear that the Defense Department has actually put money into developing its own space shuttle, especially given the problems that NASA's space shuttle has had in recent years, most notably the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003 due to a breach in its left wing's thermal protection system caused by a piece of insulating foam. While the space shuttle Discovery returned to space in July 2005, it still faced problems during launch.
Military budgets available on-line here) show that the Defense Department has devoted millions of dollars in recent years to programs for launching satellites and payloads, but none to developing its own reusable launch vehicle, or something like a space shuttle. The following table shows the space programs identified in the FY 2006 budget (on-line as a PDF here) :
| Service
| Program
| Description
| FY 2006 Budget Amount (in millions)
|
| Army
| Ground Systems
| Super-high frequency beyond-line-of-sight communications to deployed forces
| $66.5
|
| Navy
| Mobile User Objective Satellite System
| Narrow-band communications
| $470
|
| Air Force
| Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite
| Worldwide communications
| $1,194.3
|
| Air Force
| Defense Support Program
| Early warning of missile launches and detonations
| $42.7
|
| Air Force
| Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
| Launches medium-to-heavy-weight satellites
| $864.4
|
| Air Force
| Medium Launch Vehicles
| Launches medium-weight satellites
| $111.2
|
| Air Force
| NAVSTAR Global Position System
| Provides global system of satellites for navigation purposes
| $719.6
|
| Air Force
| Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) - High
| New technologies for detecting strategic and tactical ballistic missile launches
| $756.6
|
| Air Force
| Transformational Satellite Communications
| Worldwide communications
| $835.8
|
| Air Force
| Space Based Radar
| Worldwide surveillance through satellites, first of which planned for FY 2015 launch
| $225.8
|
| Air Force
| Wideband Gapfiller Satellite
| Wideband communications
| $166.4
|
It is worth noting that the space shuttles operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have brought military payloads into orbit in the past.
As noted above, the United States is a party to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, better known as the Outer Space Treaty (on-line here). Article IV of this treaty does not prohibit the development of a military-operated space shuttle, but it does prevent the United States from installing any weapon of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth or on the moon and it limits the use of any lunar bases to peaceful purposes. Article V holds that states "shall render to [astronauts] all possible assistance in the event of accident, distress, or emergency landing on the territory of another State Party on the high seas."
Sources: The Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization was released on Jan. 11, 2001 and is on-line here; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's May 8, 2001 response is on-line here. The Defense Department's FY 2006 budget is on-line here; information on space programs was taken from the Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon Systems document on-line as a PDF here. The Outer Space Treaty is on-line via the State Department here.
(back to top)
|
|
|
Home / Calendar
The West Wing
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Colbert Report
Saturday Night Live
Commander in Chief
Law & Order
*
Issues
Resources
Site FAQ
Search via Google
Ripped from the Headlines?
West Wing: Santos discusses a lawsuit about intelligent design
West Wing: Electoral map as of the 10/9 episode; Santos needs to catch up big-time
SNL: The Miers nomination
South Park: Inspired by Katrina
Boston Legal: End to assault-weapons ban
Daily Show: A 2004 study found that 21 percent of young people regularly get their campaign news from comedy shows like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live. So, some footnotes.
NOTE: All photos are copyright their respective owners.
| |
