Snow: O'Neill Given Classified Documents

AP ^ | 2/6/04

[truthandlife]

Documents given to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (search) for a book contained classified information, according to a letter his successor John Snow (search) sent to Congress on Friday.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press, said that a preliminary investigation conducted by the Treasury Department's inspector general found that sensitive information was released in the documents given to O'Neill when he left the department.

[Mike Darancette]

It was O'Neil's responsibility for the security of classified documents in his possession. If you are given a security clearance for your job and you leave that job you still cannot divulge secrets.

[CatoRenasci]

If O'Neill was given the information by government officials who did not identify it as classified, and he had no other reason to believe the information was classified, he has done nothing wrong disclosing it.

[Henchster]

Sounds like the administration cut a deal with O'Numbnuts:

Shut your pie hole, or we'll prosecute your dumb-@$$.

[jimtorr]

That's right. He signed a security agreement to never divulge classified info to persons not properly cleared.

Of course, O'Neil is shilling for the Democrats now, so I don't expect there will be any consequences.

[ConservativeMan55]

Man!

I have bad eyes, and at first I thought it said Shaquille O'Neal given classified documents!

He couldn't read them if he got em!

[jimtorr]

...he had no other reason to believe the information was classified, he has done nothing wrong disclosing it.

That is not correct.

Anyone with access to classified has a legal obligation to protect that classified material from unauthorized access.

If he doesn't know it's classified, he is to ignorant to be trusted with it in the first place. His position as secretary doesn't matter, he has people to take care of it for him.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

What the hell is a govt. agency doing letting O'Knucklehead take documents with him anyway? That's crazy if that's SOP. When I left the military, I wasn't allowed to take any job-related documents or computer disks with me, classified or not. That's the way it should be. I'm not against a guy taking his personal pens, textbooks, and notebooks (minus any paper that has writing or printing), but documents of any kind shouldn't be leaving with him.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

He signed a security agreement to never divulge classified info to persons not properly cleared.

There's more to it than that. Anybody receiving that data also has to have a need-to-know.

And, this guy shouldn't be taking documents with him anyway, classified or not.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

That's not necessarily true. There's all kinds of information that may not necessarily be classified but still shouldn't be disclosed. Examples: contracting documents that show dollar figures or are competition-sensitive, source-selection documents, proprietary data, mishap-sensitive information, documents that fall under the Privacy Act of 1974, just to name a few. I would have expected more from a government employee of O'Neill's rank and position.

[prairiebreeze]

And, this guy shouldn't be taking documents with him anyway, classified or not.

Wasn't it something like 10,000 documents? I mean, reams and reams of the stuff. He intended to write a book all along out of revenge.

What a small, petty man.

Prairie

[PLMerite]

IIRC, didn't some of the documents he flashed in his interview still have classification markings?

[DoctorMichael]

Arrest him.

Schmuck.

[gaspar]

The only time I have seen Rumsfeld befuddled was when he was asked questions about O'Neill and his book. More in sorrow than anger, Rumsfeld indicated that he thought he had known the man well. Rumsfeld was shocked by -- and actually denied the substance of -- the headline grabbing claims.

Rumsfeld knows, as does everyone in high Government service, that there is a sense of propriety that limits ones actions after leaving government. It is called the principle of the decent interval.

I doubt that O'Neill has many friends left, in or out of government.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Exactly. I'll bet he used a personal relationship as leverage to get them. Just because he obtained them does NOT give him permission to use the information in them.

[gov_bean_ counter]

The only thing one really needs to know about O'Neill is during the 90s Clinton worked with Marc Rich to make aluminum available to ALCOA when ALCOA was on the ropes (like every other aluminum company). Clinton saved O'Neill's career, but expected payback. Sorta like Vito and the undertaker. I don't think O'Neill wanted to write the book, but was made an offer he couldn't refuse.

[cyncooper]

If O'Neill was given the information by government officials who did not identify it as classified, and he had no other reason to believe the information was classified, he has done nothing wrong disclosing it.

I believe you. What do you make of his story out of his own mouth? He says he called up his old office and asked them to send him any documents he was entitled to. He says about 3 weeks later he received several CDs and (here's the part I want your opinion on:) handed them over to the reporter who wrote the book, Suskind, without first reviewing the CDs himself.

I don't expect any action taken against the old fool, just wondering about the propriety of that.

[cyncooper]

19,000...

[CatoRenasci]

Well, this is a bit gray: If you ask for documents, and you no longer have a "need to know", even if you have a clearance, you shouldn't be given classified information.

If you're given information with no indication that it's classified, how are you supposed to know? It's possible you saw it earlier and knew it was classified, but otherwise, it's hard to see how you would know.

Nonetheless, a reasonably prudent man in these circumstances ought at least to have looked through the documents before giving them to a third party.

In my experience, if a document is classified, it says so right on it. And, typically, it has a cover sheet that indicates the level of classification. And, if it is more than merely "confidential", you have to specifically sign for the document in a document log. If none of these procedures were followed, i.e. there were no classification markings on documents, no cover sheets and no log of classified documents for which Mr. O'Neill signed, it's hard to see where he is legally at fault. Though, again, ideally, he'd have checked himself before giving them to a third party whose clearance and "need to know" were uncertain.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Do we have any confirmation that the CDs Suskind was the "only" data transferred by O'Neill?