I can’t find that in the linked CNN article. It says:
I’d like more info about those “handwritten notes,” but it’s not clear whether they were or were not part of the “after-action report,” or notes Berger made himself. In any case, this raises the question of why? If he wanted to destroy the documents, why destroy only three copies and return the remaining two? But if he just wanted them for reference, why destroy any of them? 
Just in case anyone else is lacking a cerebral cortex, I’ll end the suspense.
No. I don’t think he should ever be allowed access to anything more classified than the sale at the local supermarket.
Does that answer it well enough? Or wasn’t I clear?
At the risk of being wooshed … you are aware of G. Gordon’s pre-radio career?
Yeah.
I just assumed that was taken for granted. The fact that I enjoyed his program prob’ly wasn’t common knowledge though.
It’s not clear how using Mr Liddy as an example is “turning the tables.” I suspect that duff is toiling under at least one misapprehension or another.
Whence the snippiness? Have I hurt one of your feelings? Would you like to talk to about it?
What would you think of the judgment of a PotUSA who’d let a fellow who’d done such a thing (or a worse) have access to classified info?
Exactly ----- ‘Honest Mistake Sandy’ stole five “copies” of the same document. Well, not really exactly the same since Burger and other Clinton officials had different notes scribbled on these “copies.” Burger then decided that three of those “copies” deserved to be cut up into little pieces and disposed of and two of the five “copies” deserve to be returned National Archives from whence Burger took them.
Why would Burger destroy three “copies” and return two? Has Sandy gone completely mad? Yes. – Well no. Applying a bit of reason to the above - it appears that Burger thought he was in possession of all “copies” of the document (each “copy” with it’s unique notes). Being in possession of all “copies” would allow Sandy to change the course of any investigation by simple alteration of the evidence. After review in his private study - Sandy decided that three of these documents, unique notes included, deserved to be destroyed, and two “copies” didn’t. So that’s what Sandy did, returning two of the five “copies” to the National Archives for their review later. An attempt by Sandy to destroy part of the historical record in this matter — thanks Sandy -
From the Boston Globe –
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/04/02/berger_pleads_guilty_to_documents_charge
Once again: We know Berger took notes while researching and removed those notes improperly, along with the copies. These were his notes, made long after the documents were produced. I cannot find a single authoritative reference to any other handwritten notes that Berger might have destroyed, wittingly or otherwise. What are you guys talking about?
Obviously, missing copies contained a few hand-scribbled notes, such as these:
“S out WMD, lift sanctions, troops home.” BC
“WTF? Sandy, keep BC happy. Overruled.” bL
So, how many US troops Sandy Berger killed? All of them.
What I wonder is, why did the Justice Department allow Berger to make this deal? Why didn’t they at least set the condition that he state, under oath, why he destroyed the documents in question and what information was contained in the notes?
Why are people so hung up about whether Berger stole originals or copies? Was it OK that he was reading things he had no business looking at and made notes? It makes no difference either way. It is the information that matters. If he had no official Need To Know, he violated security laws right there, just by looking. Taking the records and writing notes makes it worse. Stealing top secret documents is a FELONY. Destroying them is a felony. It’s a big go-to-jail. As “the big chief national security poombah” shouldn’t he have known better? He is very lucky he was allowed to “plea bargain”. He should never be allowed to work in government - anyone’s government - ever again. In my version of a perfect world, he would have been criminally charged and sent to a federal prison.
I agree. The truth is that folks of this sort are currently in positions of public trust despite their known transgressions. One of the folks surreptitiously transferred classified national security info to a foreign government yet is tructed by the current admin to access classified info.
Truth is that politicians and their virtual fellators and cheering sections don’t give much of a fuck so long as they can butter their own bread.
In the mean time, the nation as a whole and the electorate in general loses out.
Because he’s a member of the political class.
I’m with PartiotX on this – it’s not a D vs. R thing so much as it is a “he’s one of us.” If he was a high-ranking Pub he’d have gotten a similar wrist-slap (though I daresay the media would have talked about it a lot more). If it was joe Average of any political stripe, he’d be in jail. As Berger should be.
Because John Mace and others suggested it was part of a cover-up, as though he was trying to prevent others from seeing the documents. If the originals are secure, no cover-up is possible.
He had every right to view the documents.
Yes, it does. Removing the documents was wrong, but that doesn’t mean he was trying to cover anything up. That is the difference.
No he didn’t. Anyone can request to view documents from the Archives; it is up to the authorities at the Archive to determine if he has the credentials to view the documents. They were satisfied he did have the proper credentials, or they would not have allowed him to view any documents. It’s not like he snuck in without their knowledge.
Sorry, but that’s not true. The ability to view classified material is entirely determined by two things, security clearance level and the need to know the information.
If I had a clearance for a job spying on Jibjabistan, for example, I couldn’t use said clearance to request the files for the secret alien landings at Roswell.
Now, Berger had a need to know that information because he was preparing to testify before the 9/11 commission. But that doesn’t change the fact that he would have had to demonstrate that need before examining those documents.
That’s what I said. He was allowed to see the documents because the authority at the Archive determined he met the requirements. So which part is not true?
If he had the authorization to view and read the documents based on need to know, then he is allowed to. He must read them inside of a secure area. He is not authorized to take any originals, copies, photos, microfiche, microdots, or written notes or anything else out of that secure area. It all stays there, in the secure area. It is a major security breach to take anything out, unless it is properly signed out and kept secure until such time as it is returned, and all proper measures are taken to safeguard. Secure does not mean stuffing it in your pocket and not telling anyone what you are taking. Now before we start quibbling over whether he put it in his pocket or a briefcase, let me say it makes no difference. It was a major breach. He should have been fired on the spot, at the least. In certain settings, he would have been shot if he was caught removing the slightest thing.
I guess I may as well ask again: What is up with these handwritten notes (not Berger’s; the alleged damning evidence scrawled in the margins by other high-level Clinton amins)? I’ve managed to find some bloggers who reference this, but they’re of the sort to make G. Gordon Liddy look like a moderate. What is this, some kind of ultra-right conspiracy meme? Seriously, I’m curious. I find Berger’s behavior baffling. If he wasn’t trying to hide something then his actions are illogical in the extreme. But nobody outside of the foaming-at-the-mouth-right-wing blogosphere seems to have much of an idea of what truly motivated the guy, and unfortunately, they all appear to cite each other as “evidence”.
Shot? Shot! What setting is this, the Lubyanka? Just a tad dramatic, don’t you think, given the circumstances? Hell, that FBI guy sold the Soviets everything but the kitchen sink, Aldrich Ames sold them the actual codes, fer cryin’ out loud, don’t see them standing in front of a bullet pocked wall.
And what if Bobby Novak gets tagged on this Valerie Plame thing, outing a covert agent, you gonna demand the Death by Ten Thousand Cuts?
OK, I admit, you’ve got the germ of an idea there… Televised?
To be honest, I thought it was accepted fact that there were handwritten notes in the margins, because I keep seeing references to them all over the place. But for the life of me, I can’t find an official source or mainstream newspaper that says there were handwritten notes in the margins of the copies.
Likewise, I keep reading that Berger ‘cut up with scissors’ three of the original documents. But I have been unable to find a single mainstream article that mentions this. Is it just poor reporting? Or are ‘facts’ being manufactured and spread like wildfire? I don’t know.
Notes in the margins would explain everything he’s done, of course. And without some form of original commentary on the copies, his theft and destruction of three makes no sense whatsoever, because other copies of this same report exist, and he would have known that. Why would anyone risk jail to take copies of classified documents? Why would he destroy three of five identical copies and return two? It makes no sense.
You can be sure that I am not being overly dramatic. I was in the Army, the Army Security Agency to be exact. It is the Army’s counterpart to the National Security Agency. We each, when we had reached a certain rank and level of trust, would be assigned guard duty. At the start of our tour we were given a written list of the people authorized to be inside the secure area (the vault is what we called it). Our orders were that nobody except those on the list were allowed anywhere near the door (which was secure). Anyone on the list had to produce ID, even though we knew them. If someone tried to get in who didn’t belong, our orders were to tell them to halt, and then detain them. If they failed to obey our order to halt, we were to shoot them. If we observed anyone carrying anything out of the secure area, the orders were the same. Order him to halt. If he does not halt immediately, shoot him. It didn’t matter if it was Corporal Smith, the base commander, or anyone else. We were also instructed that even though we were the guards, and we had the .45, we were not to go near the door ourselves either. Yes, the government does take it that seriously. Having never been inside the vault, I could reasonably assume someone in there was armed too, just in case I should fail to follow my orders.
:dubious: Hey, waittaminit. How do you know the documents in question were not stuff Berger was supposed to be looking at in the course of his research for the 9/11 Commission? You got a cite for that? 'Cos that hasn’t come up in this thread yet nor in any news reports I’ve seen on the case.
Besides, I don’t think the criterion here is official Need To Know – if you have a certain level of official security clearance, you can lawfully look at anything not requiring a higher level of clearance.