Update: Sandy Burglar steals from National Archives

[FrankRizzoXD40]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061221/D8M4TNQ80.html

I wonder what Democrat Sandy Burlgar's motives were when he stole classified documents from the national archives, shortly before he was scheduled to testify before the 9/11 commission. He was authorized as the Clinton administration's representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials. Who knows if we will ever find out exactly what he was doing and if he destroyed any documents that could have made him and/or other Clinton adminstration officials look bad. We will never know if the 9/11 commission ever received the correct documents.

Any thoughts?

Frank

[NewXD40fun]

The Clinton legacy must be protected at all costs......right? For Hillary's sake.


I'm surprised that Berger is still alive.




Tom

[FrankRizzoXD40]

It sure seems that way, Tom.

Berger Hid Archives Papers Under a Trailer, Probe Shows
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 21, 2006; Page A07

On the evening of Oct. 2, 2003, former White House national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stashed highly classified documents he had taken from the National Archives beneath a construction trailer at the corner of Ninth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW so he could surreptitiously retrieve them later and take them to his office, according to a newly disclosed government investigation.

The documents he took detailed how the Clinton administration had responded to the threat of terrorist attacks at the end of 1999. Berger removed a total of five copies of the same document without authorization and later used scissors to destroy three before placing them in his office trash, the National Archives inspector general concluded in a Nov. 4, 2005, report.

After archives officials accused him of taking the documents, Berger toldinvestigators, he "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck." But instead of admitting he had removed them deliberately -- by stuffing them in his suit pockets on multiple occasions -- Berger initially said he had removed them by mistake.

The fact that Berger, one of President Bill Clinton's closest aides from 1997 to 2001, illicitly removed the documents is well-known: A federal judge in September 2005 ordered him to pay a $50,000 fine for his actions and forfeit his security clearance for three years.

What Berger did, and the ham-handed and comical methods by which he did it, are freshly detailed in the National Archives report, which the Associated Press obtained first under a Freedom of Information Act request.

Although the report reiterates that Berger's main motive was to prepare himself for testifying before a commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, it makes clear that he not only sought to study the documents but also destroyed some copies and -- when initially confronted -- denied he had done so.

His lawyer, Lanny Breuer, said in a statement yesterday that Berger "considers this matter closed, and he is pleased to have moved on." Berger is a principal with Stonebridge International, a consultant to large energy firms that recently opened an office in China.

In the statement, Breuer emphasized that the Justice Department concluded that other copies of the documents at issue existed and that they were provided to the Sept. 11 commission. He also said the Justice Department affirmed that Berger had no intent to hide the contents.

Berger made four visits to the Archives to inspect Clinton administration records in 2003. The inspector general's office attempted to retrieve the missing documents and probed how the archives handled each of his visits. In its report, the office criticized the fact that Berger was given special treatment and also said the archives' investigation of his actions was "improper" because the FBI and Justice Department were not promptly informed.

The report states that in 2003, an official whose name was deleted informed the White House that the documents Berger reviewed during his first two visits -- in May and June of that year -- were so poorly organized and tracked that the archives "would never know what if any original documents were missing." Berger has said he removed nothing during those visits, and a source close to him said last night that no one had accused him of doing so.

In September and October, Berger was able to sneak papers -- slight variations of a report titled "Millennium Alert After Action Review," which looked at U.S. vulnerabilities to terrorists, as well as the notes he took from other classified documents -- into his pockets, the report said, because an unnamed senior official left the room while Berger made or took phone calls.

Although one archives official claimed to have seen Berger fiddling with what appeared to be a piece of paper "rolled around his ankle and underneath his pant leg," Berger told investigators he was merely pulling up his socks, which he said "frequently fall down." He said "this story was absurd and embarrassing."

Berger said that after spending hours at the archives on Oct. 2, he took a walk outside past a construction fence to leave four classified copies of the millennium document beneath a trailer. He later explained that he needed to return to the building for several additional hours of work and was worried that guards would see the documents bulging in his suit.

Berger got caught partly because suspicious archives employees secretly numbered the millennium document copies they showed him in October. When an official challenged him by telephone on Oct. 4, he turned over two copies of the millennium document that he said he had accidentally kept.
------------------------------------------
Emphasis added.

This story really does smell bad. The whole ordeal was over 2 years ago, but it is in the news today because the official findings of the investigation were released.

It looks like nobody took this very seriously. Can you imagine if a Bush administration official did this? I would be all over the front pages of every major newspaper in the country. It would be portrayed as a huge, earth-shattering scandal (rightly-so), instead of a few blurbs like we have seen with this story.

The most important issue here is what Burglar's motives were. Why did he feel the need to steal the documents, hide them under a trailer, and destroy some of them??? He had authorization to look at whatever he wanted an he also had permission to make sure that the commission got the documents they needed.

I can't think of any legitimate reason for someone, who already has permission to be in the national archives, to behave this way.

Frank

[bd]

Wow!

This is as bad as Bush authorizing Scooter Libby to leak secure information about CIA agent Valerie Plame.


I hope all parties involved are punished. This smells bad too, doesn't it?


bd

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by bd

Wow!

This is as bad as Bush authorizing Scooter Libby to leak secure information about CIA agent Valerie Plame.


I hope all parties involved are punished. This smells bad too, doesn't it?


bd

Not really, bd. The President is authorized to declassify classifed information.

Good try though.

Of course, if it turns out that someone did something wrong, then they should be punished. If it is found that Scooter Libby lied under oath, then he needs to face the consequences.

Why can't we ever stick to the topic of the thread?

Frank

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Not really, bd. The President is authorized to declassify classifed information.

Good try though.

Of course, if it turns out that someone did something wrong, then they should be punished. If it is found that Scooter Libby lied under oath, then he needs to face the consequences.

Why can't we ever stick to the topic of the thread?

Frank

bd is mad because Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald exonerated the Bush Administration for any wrongdoing in the phony Plame outing issue.

The Liberal extremist Bush-haters were absolutely positive that the Bush Administration was culpable...and they were proven wrong again.


The Berger incident explains why Clinton lied on that Fox interview last month. Clinton obviously knew that Burglar removed the right documents to protect him.



Tom

[bd]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Not really, bd. The President is authorized to declassify classifed information.

No you'd better do a little homework, you're assuming your opinion is right again...

From Executive Order 13292
Sec. 6.2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" shall be handled, protected, classified, downgraded, and declassified in conformity with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and regulations issued under that Act.

(b) The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration.

(c) Nothing in this order limits the protection afforded any information by other provisions of law, including the Constitution, Freedom of Information Act exemptions, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. This order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, officers, employees, or agents. The foregoing is in addition to the specific provisos set forth in sections 3.1(b) and 5.3(e) of this order."

(d) Executive Order 12356 of April 6, 1982, was revoked as of October 14, 1995.



Then an excerpt from the National Security Act of 1947 as ammended:

TITLE VI - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER
INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES

SEC. 601. <50 U.S.C. 421> (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years or both.

(d) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

And there is a certain protocol even the prez must follow to declassify information. He just can't do it off the cuff - at least he's not supposed to but he's never let law get in his way yet.

Good try though.

Of course, if it turns out that someone did something wrong, then they should be punished. If it is found that Scooter Libby lied under oath, then he needs to face the consequences.

Why can't we ever stick to the topic of the thread?

Frank

You've really picked up on a lot of things about this board in the couple of weeks you've been here....how astute. How about going with the flow instead of trying to change the way things have always been to suit yourself?


bd

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by bd

Quote:
TITLE VI - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER
INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES

SEC. 601. <50 U.S.C. 421> (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years or both.

(d) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

bd, are you trying to say that Scooter Libby, the VP's Chief of Staff is not authorized to receive classified information?

And even if he wasn't, President Bush can authorize him to receive that information.

Now, if it can be proven that Scooter Libby divulged classifed information to someone who is not authorized to receive it, like the press, then he should be punished.

Good try though

You started to change the subject of this thread, not me, buddy.

Now, what do you think about what Sandy Burglar, bd?

Frank

[hacker15]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Now, what do you think about what Sandy Burglar, bd?

Frank

Do you REALLY expect bd to be critical of a CLINTON staffer? Come on, Frank - get real......

bd will try to spin this so Burger was really working for the Bushies....

Old Dems never die - they just go on stealing documents and hiding them under trailers.....

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by hacker15

Do you REALLY expect bd to be critical of a CLINTON staffer? Come on, Frank - get real......

bd will try to spin this so Burger was really working for the Bushies....

Old Dems never die - they just go on stealing documents and hiding them under trailers.....

ROFL! That post got me laughing right out loud.

Thanks for that, hacker15!

Frank