• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Report released on Burger's theft

That was not at all what I was expecting from the title. Total disappointment, firecoins. Thanks a lot. :D
 
You keep your shady fries away from me! How can I be sure that they're even legit?

I'm going to admit my total ignorance of the real topic, but that press release sounds pretty scathing. I'll go learn something about it in hopes of having something constructive to add to your thread.
 
The topic is that Sandy Berger, the NSA for Pres. CLinton illegally removed & destroyed copies of highly classified document. He pled guilty to this in a court, was fined. He removed the documents during his preparation for the 9/11 commision who wanted to know the Clinton Administrations response to Al Qeida attacks during the 1990's until Bush took over 8 months before 9/11. It is believed by many including myself that something important was in these copies like notes or something which made the CLinton administration and particlarly Berger look bad.

The document I posted alleges Berger got special privledges that he was not entitled to that enabled him to remove the documents.
 
firecoins said:
The topic is that Sandy Berger, the NSA for Pres. CLinton illegally removed & destroyed copies of highly classified document. He pled guilty to this in a court, was fined. He removed the documents during his preparation for the 9/11 commision who wanted to know the Clinton Administrations response to Al Qeida attacks during the 1990's until Bush took over 8 months before 9/11. It is believed by many including myself that something important was in these copies like notes or something which made the CLinton administration and particlarly Berger look bad.

The document I posted alleges Berger got special privledges that he was not entitled to that enabled him to remove the documents.
Click to expand...
If Berger isn't going to jail over this mishandling of this classified material (an action that could have gotten me sent to Leavenworth when I was serving) then there is no story, just a lot of spin and public venom.

Likewise John Deutsch, the SI and TS on the laptop PC at home jerk who masqueraded as head of CIA for Bill Clinton.

(I had the bad fortune to meet Deutsch when he was an Asst Sec Def for Dr Perry, and I can only say, in truth, that he impressed me as just qualified for dog catcher. In a small town. )

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
If Berger isn't going to jail over this mishandling of this classified material (an action that could have gotten me sent to Leavenworth when I was serving) then there is no story, just a lot of spin and public venom.

Likewise John Deutsch, the SI and TS on the laptop PC at home jerk who masqueraded as head of CIA for Bill Clinton.

(I had the bad fortune to meet Deutsch when he was an Asst Sec Def for Dr Perry, and I can only say, in truth, that he impressed me as just qualified for dog catcher. In a small town. )

DR
Click to expand...
Berger was legally required to go to jail but was offered a sweet plea deal. I believe because the Bush administration didn't want to prosecute him.

Many corrupt politicians don't go to jail. Alan Hevisi, a NY Democratic politican, was caught using NY Sate funds for personal use. He pled guilty and his only requirement was he had to resign. This was a major story in the NY area. Jail time is not a measure of whether or not a corrut politician should be a big story or not.

Did Tom DeLay go to jail?
 
Last edited:
I agree this was a big story and should have been a bigger story.

But is there anything new here? Of course, we can't know exactly what he was up to. He stole documents and destroyed some of them.

I thought any plea deal would have required a statement about what he did and why he did it. I don't recall reading anything about that. He paid a fine, got some sort of suspended sentence and lost his security clearance for three years. Huh? A man convicted of intentionally mishandling secret documents and destroying some of them just loses his security clearance for three years? Seems mighty strange, but without any new information it seems about as mighty strange now as it did several months ago when the story was in the news.
 
firecoins said:
Berger was legally required to go to jail but was offered a sweet plea deal. I believe because the Bush administration didn't want to prosecute him.

Did Tom DeLay go to jail?
Click to expand...
I don't think Tom DeLay has been convicted of anything yet, in Texas, though he may be in time.

As for Berger: plea deal. Got it, thanks.

DR
 
Sandy Berger’s theft of classified documents from the National Archives was a big deal. His final sentancing was gift of god, or just the current administration.

“We now know that Mr. Berger left stolen highly classified documents at a construction site to avoid detection. We know that Mr. Berger insisted on privacy at times to allow him to conceal documents that he stole. One witness with a very high security clearance believed he saw Berger concealing documents in his socks."
Click to expand...

Berger was seen stuffing documents down his socks. Obviously he intended to steal documents. It was not a "mistake" as Berger publically claimed.

“Mr. Berger’s review of documents did not conform to the usual requirements for reviewing classified documents in a secure facility and under strict supervision. The Archives staff’s failure to contact law enforcement immediately and their contacts with Mr. Berger about the missing documents compromised the law enforcement effort."
Click to expand...

So the national archieves broke their own rules. This is failure in security by the national archieve and the law and order Bush administration.

“The public statements of the former chief of the public integrity section, Noel Hillman, were incomplete and misleading. Because Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection, we do not know if anything ‘was lost to the public or the process.’
Click to expand...

So an improper investigation was done. If we are basing whether Berger's theft was in fact a big deal based on the jail sentance or plea deal, we are off on a flawed premise to say the least.
 
"One witness with a very high security clearance believed he saw Berger concealing documents in his socks."

All right. A bit uncertain the way it is worded but I acknowledge the source.

Lurker
 
yes, I know. I wished they named the security officer. I wish we knew what he took and why he took it. It seems strange that Berger would do that unless it was important to him or the previous administration.
 
This struck me as misleading:
“Mr. Berger’s review of documents did not conform to the usual requirements for reviewing classified documents in a secure facility and under strict supervision. The Archives staff’s failure to contact law enforcement immediately and their contacts with Mr. Berger about the missing documents compromised the law enforcement effort."
Click to expand...

It was the library staff's alertness that led to Berger getting caught. They noticed him doing something that made them suspicious. They went out of their way to watch him carefully and when they thought there was a good chance that something not right was going on they worked with law enforcement to trap Berger. All of the above is based on my recollection of the articles published several months ago about the incident. Please correct me if I don't have the story right.

It sounds like the author of the sentence I quoted is trying to allude to the idea that inappropriate behavior by the staff contributed the problem. The fact is that if one is in that kind of job, it is reasonable to not call in the police every time you see something that is slightly out of the ordinary. You probably need to watch for a little while to see there isn't something of substance to back up your suspicions. And that sounds like what the staff did. I think the staff needs to be congratulated for their diligence that led to detection of a very unlikely crime. It is probably very rare that a senior or ex senior US official would actually steal and destroy documents.
 
Published stories do in fact say Berger was caught due to Archieve's staff's alertness. The newspapers in said no way whether the staff had or had not been following proper protocol. So it is possible for both to be correct and not contradict each other.
 
firecoins said:
Published stories do in fact say Berger was caught due to Archieve's staff's alertness. The newspapers in said no way whether the staff had or had not been following proper protocol. So it is possible for both to be correct and not contradict each other.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I was just questioning whether the spin was a fair representation of the situation. It is always possible with hindsight to figure out how somebody might have done something better, in this case, unless there are facts that I am unaware of, the situation is that the staff did a pretty good job and the particular spin that statement put on the situation sounded like it might be unfair even if there was some truth in it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom