[NYCFarmboy]

Clinton National Security Adviser to Plead Guilty to Removing Classified Papers

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/po...&partner=MYWAY

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: April 1, 2005



ASHINGTON, March 31 - Samuel R. Berger, a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, has agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge and give up his security clearance for three years for removing classified material from a government archive, the Justice Department and associates of Mr. Berger's said Thursday.


A well-respected figure in foreign policy circles for many years, Mr. Berger has also agreed to pay a $10,000 fine as part of an agreement reached recently with the Justice Department after months of quiet negotiations, the associates said.

He is expected to enter his plea on Friday in United States District Court here, capping an embarrassing episode that reverberated in last year's presidential campaign.

Mr. Berger was a senior policy adviser to Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee, and was often mentioned as a possible secretary of state in a Kerry presidency. But he quit the campaign abruptly in July after accusations surfaced that he had inappropriately removed classified material from a secure reading room at the National Archives.

The material involved a classified assessment of terrorist threats in 2000, which Mr. Berger was reviewing in his role as the Clinton administration's point man in providing material to the independent commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Officials with the Archives and the Sept. 11 commission ultimately determined that despite the incident, the commission had access to all the material needed in its work.

When the issue surfaced last year, Mr. Berger insisted that he had removed the classified material inadvertently. But in the plea agreement reached with prosecutors, he is expected to admit that he intentionally removed copies of five classified documents, destroyed three of them and misled staff members at the National Archives when confronted about it, according to an associate of Mr. Berger's who is involved in his defense but who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plea has not been formalized in court.

The Justice Department, without discussing details of the agreement, acknowledged that Mr. Berger had said he would plead guilty to a single misdemeanor count for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents.

Mr. Berger, 59, was unavailable for comment Thursday. In a statement, his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, said that Mr. Berger "has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near."

"He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives," Mr. Breuer said, adding that Mr. Berger "looks forward to putting this episode behind him very soon and continuing his career of public and private service to this country."

It is unclear what impact the case will have on Mr. Berger's future in government. While the plea agreement requires Mr. Berger to give up his secret security clearance for three years, it allows him to have his clearance reviewed and restored within that time if the government asks him to serve on a panel or in another position with access to secret material, associates said. But some political analysts said the case against him, which Republican leaders seized on last year in accusing him of imperiling national security, may have made him unemployable in government in the short term. He is currently chairman of a global business strategy firm.

The charge carries a maximum sentence of a year in jail, but the plea agreement, which must be approved by a judge, does not call for jail time.

The criminal charge stems from Mr. Berger's removal of documents from the National Archives on two occasions during his review of material for the Sept. 11 commission.

On Sept. 2, 2003, in a review of documents over several hours, Mr. Berger took a copy of a lengthy White House "after-action" report that he had commissioned to assess the government's performance in responding to the so-called millennium terrorist threat before New Year's 2000, and he placed the document in his suit pocket, the associate said. A month later, during another session at the Archives, he removed four copies of other versions of the report, the associate said.

Mr. Berger's intent in removing the documents, the associate said, was to be able to compare the different versions of the 2000 report side by side and trace changes.

"He was just too tired and wasn't able to focus enough, and he felt like he needed to look at the documents in his home or his office to line them up," the associate said. "He now admits that was a real mistake, which he regrets."

Mr. Berger admits to compounding the mistake after removing the second set of documents on Oct. 2, 2003, the associate said. In comparing the versions at his office later that day, he realized that several were essentially the same, and he cut three copies into small pieces with scissors, the associate said. He also admitted to improperly removing handwritten notes he had taken at the Archives, the associate said.

Two days later, staff members at the Archives, who had grown suspicious, confronted Mr. Berger, and he now admits to misleading the Archives about what had happened. He indicated that the removal was inadvertent, and though he returned the two remaining copies of the report, he said nothing about the three he had destroyed, the associate said.

[malvolio]

Not much of a crime compared to outing an undercover CIA agent, as someone in the Bush administration did.
Funny how they never found out who, isn't it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by malvolio:
Not much of a crime compared to outing an undercover CIA agent, as someone in the Bush administration did.
Funny how they never found out who, isn't it.

Way to try to change the subject. Actually, if you had ever held a security clearance of any kind (and mine was only a Secret), you'd understand that stealing Top Secret classified documents and probably shredding them (although he hasn't pled to that charge EDIT: yes he has, see below) are extremely serious crimes. If Berger had been an anonymous lower enlisted guy instead of the former advisor to the President of the United States he'd be seeing the inside of Fort Leavenworth rather than being allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. The fact that his purpose seems to have been to subvert the 911 Commission by depriving it of the official records it needed to do its job just makes it worse.

On the Plame kerfuffle, there probably wasn't a crime at all (see for example, this Washington Post op-ed by the authors of the criminal statute allegedly violated). That's probably why that story ended up going nowhere so far. Wilson in any case was a liar. He said his wife had nothing to do with his being sent to Niger and it turned out that in fact she recommended him. What Novak revealed wasn't her identity as an intelligence agent (which was public knowledge) but that she and her husband were engaged in nepotism. Nepotism and national security don't go well together.

But this is off-topic anyway, just another attempt to deflect attention from a serious national security scandal of the last Administration -- and had he not been caught, and had the election gone differently, the "Kerry Administration."

Full disclosure, I met Berger last year before this broke at a Q & A and had the chance to ask a question relating to Iraq and his advice to Kerry (he was Kerry's national security advisor at the time and was being hinted at as a possible Secretary of State or Defense). This guy was very influential, and in my opinion, kind of slippery. Hopefully, this conviction will keep him far, far, away from the seats of power in future.

Edit: Just to clarify what he is admitting to and is being convicted of:

he is expected to admit that he intentionally removed copies of five classified documents, destroyed three and misled staff members at the National Archives when confronted about it, according to an associate of Mr. Berger's who is involved in his defense but who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plea has not been formalized in court.

New York Times

[Millennium]

Originally posted by malvolio:
Not much of a crime compared to outing an undercover CIA agent, as someone in the Bush administration did.

Actually, that depends on the agent. To get a top secret classification, a piece of information has to be deemed such that it would cause "exceptionally grave" information to US national security, were it to be leaked. The other grades are less severe, but the point is that they are classified by the amount of damage they would do.

Not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out how stuff works.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by malvolio:
Not much of a crime compared to outing an undercover CIA agent, as someone in the Bush administration did.
Funny how they never found out who, isn't it.

No, it's not much of a crime compared to the Valerie Plame affair. But it is still a crime for which he should be punished.

The despicable actions of the Bush administration in outing Valerie PLame do not negate, or excuse, the actions of Sandy Berger.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, that depends on the agent. To get a top secret classification, a piece of information has to be deemed such that it would cause "exceptionally grave" information to US national security, were it to be leaked. The other grades are less severe, but the point is that they are classified by the amount of damage they would do.

Not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out how stuff works.

True, but government, and especially the military, has a habit of classifying material by rote procedures. There is tons of stuff out there that is highly classified and doesn't need to be.

I've got a family friend with a Top Secret security clearance--probably a Top Secret/NOFORN, he could never say exactly what his level was--from working at one of the nuclear weapons labs. Pretty much every written document produced by the lab was classified simply because it was produced by the lab. I mean things like internal staff memo's about paper recycling procedures and staff cafeteria notices. Why does that kind of stuff need to be classified?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
True, but government, and especially the military, has a habit of classifying material by rote procedures. There is tons of stuff out there that is highly classified and doesn't need to be.

I've got a family friend with a Top Secret security clearance--probably a Top Secret/NOFORN, he could never say exactly what his level was--from working at one of the nuclear weapons labs. Pretty much every written document produced by the lab was classified simply because it was produced by the lab. I mean things like internal staff memo's about paper recycling procedures and staff cafeteria notices. Why does that kind of stuff need to be classified?

These were National Security Council documents relating to advice given directly to the president that were stored in a vault in the National Archives. I don't think there is any question about them being overclassified.

In any case, the classification is the classification. You handle documents according to the classification affixed, not what you think it should be. When I was in radio commo we had to handle the chads from ticker tape as classified SECRET documents. It may have been irrational (try assembling a document from a bucket full of chads), but it didn't change our duties with respect to them. Of all people, a former National Security Advisor to Clinton and Deputy National Security Advisor to Carter knew that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Ygads, it get's worse!

The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.

The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.

Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.

Washington Post

So in other words, because of the Berger coverup, we'll never know the actual truth about what the US government did or did not know prior to 9/11.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
These were National Security Council documents relating to advice given directly to the president that were stored in a vault in the National Archives. I don't think there is any question about them being overclassified.

In any case, the classification is the classification. You handle documents according to the classification affixed, not what you think it should be. When I was in radio commo we had to handle the chads from ticker tape as classified SECRET documents. It may have been irrational (try assembling a document from a bucket full of chads), but it didn't change our duties with respect to them. Of all people, a former National Security Advisor to Clinton and Deputy National Security Advisor to Carter knew that.

Stop looking for a fight, Simey. I am not disagreeing with you or your contention about the severity of Berger's crime and the need for him to be punished. Read my post above where I say exactly that.

This post of mine was in reply to Millenium tangentially related to Sandy Berger's crime but dealing more directly with the larger issue of document classification.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ygads, it get's worse!

Washington Post

So in other words, because of the Berger coverup, we'll never know the actual truth about what the US government did or did not know prior to 9/11.

Berger coverup?!? Now who's being paranoid.

Yes, there was an attempt by Sandy Berger to cover up his action as it relates to the theft of these documents but are you trying to imply there was a coverup in relation to the attacks of 11 September?

[budster101]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Berger coverup?!? Now who's being paranoid.

Yes, there was an attempt by Sandy Berger to cover up his action as it relates to the theft of these documents but are you trying to imply there was a coverup in relation to the attacks of 11 September?

I'm pretty sure that's what he means.

[adamk]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ygads, it get's worse!

So in other words, because of the Berger coverup, we'll never know the actual truth about what the US government did or did not know prior to 9/11.

Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost...

i am taking "copies" to not mean "originals". and i couldn't find any refutation that "previously" has been changed. the shredding of the "copies" occured at his office, not in the national archives, so shouldn't the originals still be there?

[RAILhead]

I7 WUZ TEH BU$H3Z FAUL7!!11! H3 IZ TEH WHARM0N93R!!1!1! H3 IZ TEH 73RR0RIS7 0F TEH W0RLDZ!11!1 TEH REPUBZ AR3 TEH BAD GUYZ1!!!11


...let the circus begin...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Stop looking for a fight, Simey. I am not disagreeing with you or your contention about the severity of Berger's crime and the need for him to be punished. Read my post above where I say exactly that.

This post of mine was in reply to Millenium tangentially related to Sandy Berger's crime but dealing more directly with the larger issue of document classification.

Fair enough, on that super-tangental issue, I agree that the military sometimes overclassifies documents (see my comment about the chads).

But oh, boy! Talk about an irrelevant tangent. This story is just mind blowing. Berger, a former National Security Advisor is asked by President Clinton to review documents for the 9/11 committee. He goes to the National Archives and takes 5 documents relating to what the government knew about attacks on the US before 9/11. He smuggles five documents out, and takes them to his office and takes a pair of scissors and shreds three copies of one of the documents that had been circulated in the government relation prior to the Milennium celebrations.

What the hell was in those documents (or hand written in the margins by the people who saw those copies)* that was so explosive that he took such a massive risk? That to me is the real question.

I am just utterly amazed he is getting off with only a fine and a suspension of his clearance.


* adamk: this is what you are overlooking. The document can be a copy and still contain unique information (because the documents were circulated as a series of copies, and people write notes on the copies they read). Information perhaps so unique that someone would risk jail and professional ruin to steal and destroy it.

[budster101]

Originally posted by adamk:
i am taking "copies" to not mean "originals". and i couldn't find any refutation that "previously" has been changed. the shredding of the "copies" occured at his office, not in the national archives, so shouldn't the originals still be there?

Actually,

It looks to me after reading and re-reading the article he took originals and 'copies' of those same originals. In addition to this we will never know if he actually destroyed originals as well as copies of those originals. Read on.

"Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.


National Archives officials almost immediately suspected that Berger had removed materials after his Oct. 2, 2003, visit. They called Bruce R. Lindsey, a former White House lawyer and Clinton's liaison to the archives to complain. Lindsey, sources said, called Berger, who soon acknowledged to archives officials that he had removed documents -- by accident, he told them -- and returned notes that he made, as well as the two documents he had not destroyed." ...

"On Oct. 2, 2003, he again spent hours at the archives and took four more versions of the document. Back in his office, he studied them in detail, realized they were largely identical, and took the scissors to three of the copies, the associate said."

So,

He had to take some originals if he noticed that he had "four more versions of the document, later to realize they were identical and ... shredding them.

VERSIONS: Keyword here. People make notes on documents by hand, and there is what he was "searching for"... something unique that he took multiple copies of the same documents. Why would he do this?

This reads like a cover-up to anyone with average reading comphrehension and a nose for how these things work.

[adamk]

Originally posted by budster101:
Actually,

It looks to me after reading and re-reading the article he took originals and 'copies' of those same originals. In addition to this we will never know if he actually destroyed originals as well as copies of those originals. Read on.

"Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.

it is stated that he had copies of the documents. whether berger knew this or not, does not change the fact that he still had copies...

National Archives officials almost immediately suspected that Berger had removed materials after his Oct. 2, 2003, visit. They called Bruce R. Lindsey, a former White House lawyer and Clinton's liaison to the archives to complain. Lindsey, sources said, called Berger, who soon acknowledged to archives officials that he had removed documents -- by accident, he told them -- and returned notes that he made, as well as the two documents he had not destroyed." ...

"On Oct. 2, 2003, he again spent hours at the archives and took four more versions of the document. Back in his office, he studied them in detail, realized they were largely identical, and took the scissors to three of the copies, the associate said."

So,

He had to take some originals if he noticed that he had "four more versions of the document, later to realize they were identical and ... shredding them.

not necessarily. ever make a backup of a file you've already backed up? i have and i deduced that i have two copies of the same file were identical and... deleting them.

VERSIONS: Keyword here. People make notes on documents by hand, and there is what he was "searching for"... something unique that he took multiple copies of the same documents. Why would he do this?

i think the important thing that i missed is what simey pointed out, the hand-written notes in the margins, but i wonder what information could be included there, since anyone with the required clearance would be able to see it? it seems like if large descepencies ("no it wasn't hezbollah, it was al-qaida!") were noted by someone that added/questioned key points of the document, it would be committed officially for the record in some way.

[budster101]

Originally posted by adamk:
it is stated that he had copies of the documents. whether berger knew this or not, does not change the fact that he still had copies...

not necessarily. ever make a backup of a file you've already backed up? i have and i deduced that i have two copies of the same file were identical and... deleting them.

i think the important thing that i missed is what simey pointed out, the hand-written notes in the margins, but i wonder what information could be included there, since anyone with the required clearance would be able to see it? it seems like if large descepencies ("no it wasn't hezbollah, it was al-qaida!") were noted by someone that added/questioned key points of the document, it would be committed officially for the record in some way.

Not computer file copies, but as I noted as well, copies as in different versions of the same documents with hand written notes on them. These things cannot be considered copies then. If they have original hand written notes on them. Get it?

[adamk]

Originally posted by budster101:
Not computer file copies, but as I noted as well, copies as in different versions of the same documents with hand written notes on them. These things cannot be considered copies then. If they have original hand written notes on them. Get it?

yes, budster it should be clear to the average reader that i got it when i wrote "i think the important thing that i missed is what simey pointed out, the hand-written notes in the margins". you speak of this reading comprehension.

since you have a nose for these types of things, i will re-ask my question - to you and anyone else - what sort of information could these side notes contain that is of such vital information that would not be committed to the record officially? or would they simply be editorial in nature?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Fair enough, on that super-tangental issue, I agree that the military sometimes overclassifies documents (see my comment about the chads).

But oh, boy! Talk about an irrelevant tangent. This story is just mind blowing. Berger, a former National Security Advisor is asked by President Clinton to review documents for the 9/11 committee. He goes to the National Archives and takes 5 documents relating to what the government knew about attacks on the US before 9/11. He smuggles five documents out, and takes them to his office and takes a pair of scissors and shreds three copies of one of the documents that had been circulated in the government relation prior to the Milennium celebrations.

What the hell was in those documents (or hand written in the margins by the people who saw those copies)* that was so explosive that he took such a massive risk? That to me is the real question.

I am just utterly amazed he is getting off with only a fine and a suspension of his clearance.

I still think you are leaning a bit too far in the direction of paranoid conspiracy's. Remember, that's what us lefties are supposed to do, right?

I still think this has to do with the Kerry election and Berger's role as political advisor to them. I am guessing there is some info in one of those documents they hoped to use to advance Kerry. How they could do that, without revealing their source, is beyond me.

But, I find it hard to believe that marginalia in a national security briefing could contain such damaging information that it needed to be destroyed. If something was that explosive someone would have felt the need to write down it somewhere.

My guess, and this is total pie-in-the-sky speculation, is that there was something in the marginalia about Saddam Hussein supporting terrorists. If so, then information like this--from a high-level national security official in the Clinton Administration--would give ALL sorts of political ammunition to the Bush campaign if it ever got out. But again, this is purely speculation on my part.

Although Berger's research was related to the 9/11 commission I don't think the coverup was related to the 9/11 atacks. Berger had to hid something, but certainly nothing explosive rleated to the 9/11 attacks.

[budster101]

Originally posted by adamk:
yes, budster it should be clear to the average reader that i got it when i wrote "i think the important thing that i missed is what simey pointed out, the hand-written notes in the margins". you speak of this reading comprehension.

since you have a nose for these types of things, i will re-ask my question - to you and anyone else - what sort of information could these side notes contain that is of such vital information that would not be committed to the record officially? or would they simply be editorial in nature?

Tell me this: Why shred something that isn't vital?

He took 5 versions of one document.

Each copy could show various high ranking people's notes on terrorism.
He shredded 3 of the 5 versions? Why not all 5? Why not one? Why any?

He actually replaced documents with some others... why? Why put something back? After all it was just a 'copy'.

[NYCFarmboy]

it makes me sick to my stomach they are letting him off so easily for destroying these classified documents. He should rot in jail.

can you imagine the fury on the other side had it been a Republican who had destroyed documents implicating Bush?

[budster101]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
it makes me sick to my stomach they are letting him off so easily for destroying these classified documents. He should rot in jail.

can you imagine the fury on the other side had it been a Republican who had destroyed documents implicating Bush?

Watergate.

Who was deep throat? Anyone want to guess?

I think it was a prominent Senator.

[adamk]

Originally posted by budster101:
Tell me this: Why shred something that isn't vital?

not vital, yet classified. would you rather he throw a classifed document in the trash so the janitor or secretary could possibly look at it? his law firm had shredding facilities. why didn't he use it? maybe, the staff didn't have the same clearance he did.

Originally posted by budster101:
He took 5 versions of one document.
Each copy could show various high ranking people's notes on terrorism.
He shredded 3 of the 5 versions? Why not all 5? Why not one? Why any?

could. yes, could. i don't know what is contained in those marginal notes. that is why i (three times now), and dcmacdaddy, asked what important and vital information would be idly written in a margin and not committed to the record if it's import was so great to national security. it may be no one on this board knows. do you?

Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.

it could be that the previous versions were drafts of the final document and may have contained the changes/notes by various high ranking officials. that is why you create newer versions of documents, to include changes from the previous versions. it seems like several people had access and were allowed to make notes... though destroying the originals makes it impossible how faithfully those were adopted.

Originally posted by budster101:
He actually replaced documents with some others... why? Why put something back? After all it was just a 'copy'.

i didn't read anything him about replacing/switching documents, unless you mean, after what he had done was discovered. are those the documents (and his personal notes) you're talking about? the ones he returned? you should point it out if i'm missing something.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by adamk:
not vital, yet classified. would you rather he throw a classifed document in the trash so the janitor or secretary could possibly look at it? his law firm had shredding facilities. why didn't he use it? maybe, the staff didn't have the same clearance he did.

could. yes, could. i don't know what is contained in those marginal notes. that is why i (three times now), and dcmacdaddy, asked what important and vital information would be idly written in a margin and not committed to the record if it's import was so great to national security. it may be no one on this board knows. do you?

it could be that the previous versions were drafts of the final document and may have contained the changes/notes by various high ranking officials. that is why you create newer versions of documents, to include changes from the previous versions. it seems like several people had access and were allowed to make notes... though destroying the originals makes it impossible how faithfully those were adopted.


i didn't read anything him about replacing/switching documents, unless you mean, after what he had done was discovered. are those the documents (and his personal notes) you're talking about? the ones he returned? you should point it out if i'm missing something.

Do you remember who Fawn Hall was?

Fawn Hall, if you recall, was Oliver North's secretary. She was caught shredding telephone records of Oliver North connected to the Iran Contra scandal (on her boss' orders).

In her testimony Monday, Hall laid out the story of how, at North's direction, she had altered and shredded documents and, several days later, on her own initiative, smuggled highly classified papers out of the Old Executive Office Building. She told of concealing the papers in her boots and dress in order to elude an NSC official who was there to prevent such removal in the face of a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe.

Yesterday she faced a barrage of questions on her motives and those of North, and expressed no remorse except at the fact that she had failed to complete the assignment to alter crucial documents, replace them in the files and destroy all originals.

When that news broke, I don't recall anyone giving North the benefit of the doubt. In fact, Hall's testimony was one of the reasons the country knew full well that what North was doing was criminal.

We may never find out exactly what was so incriminating about these documents that Berger felt it necessary to risk several felony charges, jail time, the loss of professional and social standing, harm to his multi million dollar business, and so on. After all, he destroyed them. But it is a fair guess that he didn't risk all that for a lark. That means that since we have to draw conclustions by speculating, they reasonably can be bad ones.

The real question is the one that was asked in Iran Contra: was he covering up just for himself, or for others?

[SVass]

As someone who did hold a TS clearance for a long time (before I retired), I can agree that much is (over)classified as a convenience to the author. Notes added to documents are to aid a user in the same way as underlining. There are two important points to be made. Stealing the documents and destroying copies is not Treason or heinous since the law requires an intent to injure this country prior to making this a serious crime. His act was more like jaywalking. Secondly, any significant punishment would bring serious retribution in the future to current Republican officeholders. Congressmen (and women) have included classified information in public speeches and leaks. Executive branch officials have taken classified memoranda home in the past and been reprimanded (not punished). The current publicity is a typical Republic attempt to smear a Democrat while not arresting Robert Novak (or his leaker) who did intentionally reveal classified information. sam

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by SVass:
As someone who did hold a TS clearance for a long time (before I retired), I can agree that much is (over)classified as a convenience to the author. Notes added to documents are to aid a user in the same way as underlining. There are two important points to be made. Stealing the documents and destroying copies is not Treason or heinous since the law requires an intent to injure this country prior to making this a serious crime. His act was more like jaywalking. Secondly, any significant punishment would bring serious retribution in the future to current Republican officeholders. Congressmen (and women) have included classified information in public speeches and leaks. Executive branch officials have taken classified memoranda home in the past and been reprimanded (not punished). The current publicity is a typical Republic attempt to smear a Democrat while not arresting Robert Novak (or his leaker) who did intentionally reveal classified information. sam

I agree that cabinet officers have been caught mishanding intelligence information in the past and it hasn't been treated seriously enough. For example:

In 1996, the CIA learned that former director John Deutch had mishandled classified materials by keeping them on as many as eight unsecured home and office computers - which also were used by Deutch�s children to surf the Internet. The CIA didn�t report the find to the Justice Department until March 1998, and congressional oversight panels were not notified until June 1998. In April 1999, the Justice Department found that Deutch was sloppy but not criminal in his mishandling of the materials, and the former director's security clearance was revoked in July 1999. The case has since been reopened to ensure fair treatment in light of the Wen Ho Lee case.

Link

I agree also that members of congress have also been sloppy and cavalier in their treatment of secrets. For example, the notorious (and very serious) leaks of the Pike Committee in the mid 1970s. However, congressmen are immune from prosecution for their official acts. Executive branch officers are not.

I cannot agree that Berger's coverup was equivilent to "jaywalking." I hope you took your TS more seriously than this. Berger has plead down to a misdemenor, buty he could have easily received a felony conviction for what he did. That is serious.

The contrast to the Clinton Administration Deutch matter is stark. CIA Director Deutch was a klutz, and idiot, who grossly mishandled top secret material. But he apparently didn't act with criminal intent. Berger did. He deliberately stole presidential-level materials, and deliberately destroyed them so that Congress couldn't access them in the most important investigations since Pearl Harbor. That is not something to trivialize.

[adamk]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[Berger] deliberately stole presidential-level materials, and deliberately destroyed them so that Congress couldn't access them in the most important investigations since Pearl Harbor. That is not something to trivialize.

the commision doesn't think it's so bad (from the original article):

Officials with the Archives and the Sept. 11 commission ultimately determined that despite the incident, the commission had access to all the material needed in its work.

which makes me wonder how important those side notes were. it may be that they are unimportant or that their contents would spell political disaster for the current, as well as former, administrations. in that case, a simple slap on the wrist is enough to hush up the whole situation, while vitally important information was forever last.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by adamk:
which makes me wonder how important those side notes were. it may be that they are unimportant or that their contents would spell political disaster for the current, as well as former, administrations. in that case, a simple slap on the wrist is enough to hush up the whole situation, while vitally important information was forever last.

I don't see how it could have anything to do with the current Administration when the documents he destroyed were written in 1999. So if his reasons were political as part of a cover up, it could only be of the Administration which Berger himself was a part.

[typoon]

Originally posted by SVass:
As someone who did hold a TS clearance for a long time (before I retired), I can agree that much is (over)classified as a convenience to the author. Notes added to documents are to aid a user in the same way as underlining. There are two important points to be made. Stealing the documents and destroying copies is not Treason or heinous since the law requires an intent to injure this country prior to making this a serious crime. His act was more like jaywalking. Secondly, any significant punishment would bring serious retribution in the future to current Republican officeholders. Congressmen (and women) have included classified information in public speeches and leaks. Executive branch officials have taken classified memoranda home in the past and been reprimanded (not punished). The current publicity is a typical Republic attempt to smear a Democrat while not arresting Robert Novak (or his leaker) who did intentionally reveal classified information. sam

If someone from ANY Repbulican administration did something like this Democrats would be calling for their heads on a platter.

[SVass]

Of course, I have treated my clearances as a serious matter. But, Berger's transgressions are on the order of interference with a congressional investigation, NOT aiding an enemy (Novak et alii) nor even obstruction of justice (North). I have had to bite my lips when Reagan approved construction of a worthless air plane (the B-1) while I was working on the B-2 and Republicans acclaimed him for his waste of several hundred billion dollars. Remember that criminal intent is REQUIRED for many felonies and when receiving a clearance I was required to sign a statement that included a complete copy of the law, so I have read it many, many times as each signature attested that I have read and understand the law. Stupidity is not a crime and the usual penalty for that is either loss of job or election to the presidency. sam

[Millennium]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
However, congressmen are immune from prosecution for their official acts. Executive branch officers are not.

Not quite true. Like the President, members of Congress cannot be arrested and put on trial. However, like the President, members of Congress can be impeached and removed. So can Supreme Court justices, actually. I'm not sure if either of these has ever actually happened, but they can be done.

The reason that government officers are immune from arrest is so that one branch cannot start simply arresting members of another in an attempted coup d'etat. However, this creates an obvious hole: if you cannot arrest government officers, then how are they to be prevented from (or brought to justice for) going corrupt? The system of impeachment serves to plug that hole, by allowing for a somewhat nontraditional pseudo-trial which can at worst result in that officer's expulsion from office (and along with that, removal of the officer's immunity so that a real trial can be held).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Not quite true. Like the President, members of Congress cannot be arrested and put on trial. However, like the President, members of Congress can be impeached and removed. So can Supreme Court justices, actually. I'm not sure if either of these has ever actually happened, but they can be done.

The reason that government officers are immune from arrest is so that one branch cannot start simply arresting members of another in an attempted coup d'etat. However, this creates an obvious hole: if you cannot arrest government officers, then how are they to be prevented from (or brought to justice for) going corrupt? The system of impeachment serves to plug that hole, by allowing for a somewhat nontraditional pseudo-trial which can at worst result in that officer's expulsion from office (and along with that, removal of the officer's immunity so that a real trial can be held).

What I said is exactly true, but it might be clearer if I expand on it. Members of Congress are immune from prosecution for their official acts in Congress, providing they do so as part of a "Speech or Debate in either House." That immunity is found in Article 1 Section 6. In fact, that immunity has been extended to congressional staffers, though curiously enough, the Supreme Court declined to extend the same immunity to executive staffers (I don't recall the name of the case, but I read it last semester in Federal Courts class).

Members of Congress can, of course, be tried for their non-official acts. Dan Rostenkowski is an example of that. They can also be convicted of any crime in their home districts, or of "Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace" even when they are attending a session of Congress or on their way two or from a session of Congress, but they are immune from all other crimes in those situations. This is all in Article 1, Section 6.

However, in cases like Otis Pike and his staffers where Congressmen have leaked classified information as part of their job as a member of Congress, that would certainly fall within their absolute immunity conferred by Art 1 Sec. 6. The executive branch cannot bring a prosecution for that act, however irresponsible it is, or whatever a statute might say.

Congress, of course, can police itself, but it rarely does so. There is in fact no such thing as impeachment for members of Congress themselves. Article 1 Section 4 says that

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

So instead of the two house impeachment process used for judges and executive officers, each house can remove its own members with a two thirds vote. But the house can't vote on senators, nor the senators members of the house. The executive and judiciary have no say in it at all, of course.

[iLikebeer]

Hmm, not sure where you guys are getting that the notes are on the documents themselves. The story says,"He also admitted to improperly removing handwritten notes he had taken at the Archives", which makes sense.

If a document is classified, you can't write your own version of it and take it home. He probably stuffed his own notes in his pocket too. It seems as though the reason he is getting off so light is because he was acting out of stupidity and not criminal intent.

He claims to have been comparing the 5 different versions of the report against each other. He didn't "shred" the 3 reports as much as he seemed to cut them into sections to compare against each other.

Sorry, that's a really short article in the NYT which has a few claims and unconfirmed reports. Have to wait and see.