Sandy Berger

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5463586/

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON - Democrats assailed Republicans who suggested Wednesday that former White House national security adviser Sandy Berger sought to hide embarrassing materials when he removed classified documents related to the investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The presidential campaign of Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts accused the Bush White House of disclosing the existence of a criminal investigation for political advantage. After news of the investigation surfaced, Berger, who served in the Clinton administration, quit as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign Tuesday to limit the political fallout.....

“The timing of this leak suggests that the White House is more concerned about protecting its political hide than hearing what the commission has to say about strengthening our security,” the Kerry campaign said in a political memo distributed by email.

---

Let me think back a little here....hmmm.... Sounds like the "What might be there" that was in President Bush's Military Record is of a greater import than the "What might be there" that was in the missing TOP SECRET documents; at least according to the Democrats that is.

Now the only legitimate complaint the Democrats have here is the fortuitious timing of the leak for the Republicans. The only othe alternative being that the Democrats knew the leak was going to occur sooner or later and decided to release the information in a situation that would be as favorable to them as possible. Not very plausible though, and I am of the opinion that, YES, the Republicans leaked the story. The sad part is that both parties do this type of crap all the time. That doesn't make it right though, and the individual responsible for the leak needs to have their butt kicked. But still the Democrats espouse the leak as being criminal, while they say nothing about the criminality of Berger's probable compromise of National Security.

All this being said, I am now curious to know what information was contained within the missing documents.

Ok. Politics aside, can I ask the obvious question that no one is answering (or perhaps even asking): why was he allowed to take out these sensitive documents in the first place? I thought they had improved security, not decreased it.

Very Good Question MSMittens.

I have worked in a secured calassified information facility, and typically papers, briefcases, and folders are searched prior to an individual leaving the facility.
Additionally, in order to access Top Secret information, it requires dual access (or two people to open the safe). This was brought on by the infamous Walker espionage case back in the 70's (I think). <edit> The only way you get Classified hardcopy materials out of a SCIF is to sneak it out. <edit>

Anyways you are supposed to sign for the documents you receive and sign them back in, with the understanding that no information is allowed to leave the facility without prior authorization, as per the local SCIF Brief and your signature on a Classified Information Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Once you are given access to classified information there is NOTHING, to prevent you from not signing an item out or stuffing it in your pants. It's like opening the file drawer at your desk taking a photocopy and hiding it. This is a national archive, I library of classified information. He has trusted access too and he violated every but of trust he was given. A hight level figure like a former National Security Adviser working for the 9/11 commission say, probably would not be routinely searched. How he was able to do it is not an issue perhaps it's the fact that he walked in and openly stole documents and did not return all of them. Perhaps they will tighten the rules a little after this and force people we trust to have another level of oversight.

Then why hasn't he been charged with a crime? Is it not treason (or something like that) to remove highly classified material and destroy it?

It just strikes me that somewhere something went lax. Yes, there is an amount of trust for those with clearances of that level. However, they should still be checked. My understanding was that the documents in question at the Archive were of a high security levels.

I would think that how he was able to it should be an issue. What other things have "left" the Archives that are of a sensitive nature?

Quote:

---

Source: Houston Chronicle

Researchers at archives are under watchful eye
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Pens are forbidden, pencils provided. Each scribbled piece of paper is checked, then stamped. Cell phones and jackets go into lockers. Prying eyes make sure nothing precious walks off.

Researchers at the National Archives are watched every step of the way.

Despite precautions like those, former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger somehow came away with material he wasn't supposed to have.

"The nation's record keeper" safeguards and makes available to the public 5 billion pieces of paper, 9 million photographs and 11 million maps and aerial photographs. But, there's a procedure everyone must follow.

A person must show a photo ID, obtain a researcher ID card and fill out a form telling what they're interested in looking at and the reason. An archives staffer looks at the pages leaving the room to make sure they either be photocopies with the archives' special mark, or notes taken by the researcher that are checked and stamped.

---

I think that Berger is betting on a Kerry Presendential pardon, in accordance with past issues where the National Security Advisor was under investigation for stealing classified information.

Source: http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040719_2130.html

Quote:

---

Berger is the second high-level Clinton-era official to face controversy over taking classified information home.

Former CIA Director John Deutch was pardoned by Clinton just hours before Clinton left office in 2001 for taking home classified information and keeping it on unsecured computers at his home during his time at the CIA and Pentagon. Deutch was about to enter into a plea agreement for a misdemeanor charge of mishandling government secrets when the pardon was granted.

---

As for why not legal action has been taken, it's because when the offense was suspected the National Archive Officials called the Clinton's Attorney. Hmmmmmmmm..........

Quote:

---

Breuer said the Archives staff first raised concerns with Berger during an Oct. 2 review of documents that at least one copy of the post-millennium report he had reviewed earlier was missing. Berger was given a second copy that day, Breuer said.

Officials familiar with the investigation said Archives staff specially marked the documents and when the new copy and others disappeared, Archives officials called Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey to report the disappearance.

---

MS Mittens you hit the "nail on the head". Why isn't he being charged? They first raised issue in October, so whatever controls exist seemed to work and ID a problem. But he was trusted. High level secure access soley relies on trust. There are no x-rays leaving facilities and the FBI can't bait everyone. You do realize he admitted to hiding documents in his pants? The failure is NOT within the secure facility perhaps. It's in the process of justice. He has now committed a crime serious enough to earn jail time but watch what will happen. Heck since we are in a state of war and it was related to terrorist activity, the law stated he could be executed. That's a bit over the top though.

Why would they want to blow the whole probe now, when you can get more dirt on him and others by waiting and gathering more info? I can't wait for the Nations Top Cop to lay down the law on berger.

You know this is just what bush was talking about "It is time to bring morals back into the whitehouse"
Bill a liar, Sandy a thief ect...... *tisk,tisk,tisk*

Would condi do this?