F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

[Rob Lister]

Sandy Berger in deep, deep doo-doo, and the doo is getting deeper and darker every minute. Rather than post a single link, I'm going to post to the google news search link.

http://news.google.com/news?q=sandy+berger+classified+documents&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nn

He stole/destroyed classified documents from the national archives and was caught red-handed.

It sucks to be him. Then again, he has high political ties so he'll probably get out of it somehow.

The whitehouse has yet to comment. They probably will not, at least for a while. That's best.

Neither has the Kerry campaign commented.

 

[aerocontrols]

Does anyone have any ideas as to why, upon catching Berger stealing, the Archives folks called Bill Clinton's lawyer Bruce Lindsey instead of... the Justice Department?

How does one inadvertently steal classified documents?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm sure it was all just a wacky misunderstanding.

 

[Sane]

...

Neither has the Kerry campaign commented.

Because Berger is acting as an informal advisor to Kerry?

 

[richardm]

He stole/destroyed classified documents from the national archives and was caught red-handed.

From one of the top stories listed by Google:

Gergen admits Berger violated Archive rules by leaving the building with notes on classified documents. But, he added, "It's not a serious violation."

Taking copies of classified documents is also forbidden. But, Gergen noted, the originals were never removed, and the 9/11 commission was never denied access to documents.

If the original documents remained in the archive, and all he took were his own notes and copies of the originals (which, admittedly, he shouldn't have done) how major is the problem? It's not as though he shredded the original and sole copy.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

If the original documents remained in the archive, and all he took were his own notes and copies of the originals (which, admittedly, he shouldn't have done) how major is the problem? It's not as though he shredded the original and sole copy.

I understand that the problem is not that he destroyed documents, but that he took secret information out of the building without permission. The problem is the security breach--classified information is now out of the open--not that the archives now are lacking documents.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

If the original documents remained in the archive, and all he took were his own notes and copies of the originals (which, admittedly, he shouldn't have done) how major is the problem? It's not as though he shredded the original and sole copy.

I understand that the problem is not that he destroyed documents, but that he took secret information out of the building without permission. The problem is the security breach--classified information is now out of the open--not that the archives now are lacking documents.

Reading the various articles, it appears the problem extends to the actual documents themselves, not just the notes. Fox is reporting that he was observed, by the archive staff, stuffing 'certain documents' down his pants (not to be confused with pant pockets), and that on his next visit they marked his requested documents and then found them 'missing'.

This spin/take on it is too confusing to analysis just yet but even if the other take on the story is true then deep, dark, stinky doo-doo is an understatement. Another source claimed that a search of his home uncovered some of the documents. Another source claimed that his lawyer stated that Berger "knew it was wrong but didn't think it was illegal", which, if true, stretches credibility futher than a homeopath stretches a dilute solution.

This WILL be a major election issue, not matter whose spin/take on the truth bares true. Not only is it an issue for the Kerry campaign (for the obvious reasons) it is an issue that directly impacts the 9/11 commission.

 

[aerocontrols]

Re: Re: F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

Because Berger is acting as an informal advisor to Kerry?

What's an 'informal' advisor?

Is that what you call an advisor who has become an embarrassment?


Graphic from the New York Times.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

What's an 'informal' advisor?...

Aero,

I love you man! I even want to have your digital love child! I just lack the computerized uterous. Still, you are a sucker for a semantic strawman. Are we about to digress into a 1000 post topic on the difference between formal and informal? I think...possibly.

 

[gnome]

Re: Re: Re: Re: F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

Reading the various articles, it appears the problem extends to the actual documents themselves, not just the notes. Fox is reporting that he was observed, by the archive staff, stuffing 'certain documents' down his pants (not to be confused with pant pockets), and that on his next visit they marked his requested documents and then found them 'missing'.

Ok if he really did this he gets stupid points as well as illegal points. Maybe we can give him the Winona Ryder award...

Any other sources for this part of it?

 

[Sane]

Re: Re: Re: F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

What's an 'informal' advisor?

Is that what you call an advisor who has become an embarrassment?

Becoming the 'formal' adviser is a cut-throat competition. Berger was only trying to gain an edge, I'm sure.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

Becoming the 'formal' adviser is a cut-throat competition. Berger was only trying to gain an edge, I'm sure.

If you are asserting that he was doing this as part of a competition, you may want to seriously consider the strawman you are raising. I suggest you return to the semantic one. It's far more defendable.

 

[aerocontrols]

Aero,

I love you man! I even want to have your digital love child! I just lack the computerized uterous. Still, you are a sucker for a semantic strawman. Are we about to digress into a 1000 post topic on the difference between formal and informal? I think...possibly.

No 1000 posts for me, I'm afraid. Just a single post to demonstrate to the intellectually honest that 'informal' advisor is just CYA by the Kerry campaign.

He is, but is unlikely to remain, one of the Kerry campaign's top foreign policy guys.

 

[Rob Lister]

No 1000 posts for me, I'm afraid. Just a single post to demonstrate to the intellectually honest that 'informal' advisor is just CYA by the Kerry campaign.

He is, but is unlikely to remain, one of the Kerry campaign's top foreign policy guys.

He may soon become one of Martha Stewart's butt-buddies, gender-separation aside. But he won't serve as much time, assuming he serves any. If I did what the LEAST damaging articles suggest he did, I'd be serving at least 20 years for each document and/or NOTE taken. He'll likely get some sort of reprieve, probably on technical grounds.

 

[Sane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

If you are asserting that he was doing this as part of a competition, you may want to seriously consider the strawman you are raising. I suggest you return to the semantic one. It's far more defendable.

Stawman? I was just trying to be funny!

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

Stawman? I was just trying to be funny!

You succeeded. I didn't laugh outright but, deep down, there was an ominous chuckle. Deep down and ominous because this, contrary to what EVERY talking head on tv is saying currently, repub and dem alike, is probably going to have a major impact on not only this election, but overall U.S. politics as well. This is a big, big deal, no matter what the spin.

The consensus of the 9/11 commission relied greatly on documents Berger was reviewing and turning over to them. This is NOT small potato(e)s that can easily be swept under the rhetoric carpet. This has major implications for both parties.

 

[Samus]

aerocontrols: How does one inadvertently steal classified documents?

I realize this may have been a rhetorical musing, but I'm going to answer it anyway.

It is possible to accidentally bring classified material out of a secure area. It would be due mainly to disorganization; failing to keep the papers belonging to the archives in a separate pile from the papers one is generating.

However, when taking notes on classified material, a person is supposed to have those notes reviewed by someone at the archives to ensure they cannot be considered classified (I'm assuming that the individuals at the archives that do this job are original classification authorities per EO 12958 Sec. 1.4).

For a former national security advisor to forget to have his notes reviewed, and to mix archive documents with his own, is nothing less than inexcusable. The man should have his clearance revoked, because if it was Joe AverageClearedPerson that did this, that's probably what would happen.

Even with his careless behavior, I don't consider this to be much of an issue for Kerry's campaign. One less person on the short list for cabinet slots, I guess.

<font size=-2>Edited to correct typo</font>

 

[Rob Lister]

I realize this may have been a rhetorical musing, but I'm going to answer it anyway.

It is possible to accidentally bring classified material out of a secure area.

Most sources are reporting that he brought such documents out of the 'secure area' in both down his pants and in his socks. Others are reporting that actual 'original' documents were recovered as the result of a search warrant of his home. Others, such as the NYT, are reporting it on page 36B (just a guess at the page but my understanding is that it was well buried) in a small box without any details whatsoever.

What do YOU believe?

Be honest.

Be objective.

Don't let your politics get in the way of the truth.

Keep an open mind (I am) but don't let your brains fall out in the process.

 

[richardm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: F-National Security Advisor in DEEP doo-doo

This is a big, big deal, no matter what the spin.

The consensus of the 9/11 commission relied greatly on documents Berger was reviewing and turning over to them. This is NOT small potato(e)s that can easily be swept under the rhetoric carpet. This has major implications for both parties.

{adjusts scandalometer}

Surely the size of the potatoes depends entirely on what was taken?

The potential for scandal - and correct me if I've misunderstood - is that Berger might have destroyed some drafts of memos that might incriminate his former boss.

But, he never actually removed or destroyed the original documents, just copies of them and notes he'd made on them. So while it is a big deal that somebody breached the rules on removing classified information, I don't see where the big, big deal that would cripple Kerry's campaign is ?

 

[Samus]

Rob Lister: Most sources are reporting that he brought such documents out of the 'secure area' in both down his pants and in his socks. Others are reporting that actual 'original' documents were recovered as the result of a search warrant of his home.

I honestly haven't been following this story, so I don't know about the reports that he was stuffing classified documents in his pants. I don't imagine that would be very comfortable.

Rob Lister:
What do YOU believe?

Be honest.

Be objective.

Don't let your politics get in the way of the truth.

Keep an open mind (I am) but don't let your brains fall out in the process.

I gave my opinion. He should have his clearance revoked as a matter of routine procedure. If an investigation reveals foul play, then prosecute as necessary.

I was only posting to shed light on the comment about this possibly being an accident, by saying yes, it can happen by accident.

Not when you're stuffing secrets in your knickers though... that's pretty much intentional.