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.

[Eva]

Some of the documents were clearly marked "classified". O'Neil never reviewed the documents before turning them over to the author. He just gave him the cd. My thought is that the author and the clerk who prepared the cd were in cahoots and were using O'Neil as an angry dupe.

[CatoRenasci]

By the way, my favorite classification marking were ones we ginned up when I was working at a defense contractor:

Company Private-No Gov -- Not realeasable to any government agency or employee.

and

Secret - Not Releaseable to Aviation Week and Space Techonology.

[gov_bean_ counter]

sorry,

given to Suskind

[AlbionGirl]

Even if he did something wrong in disclosing this, it's meaningless. And what's supposed to happen to him; is he en route to prison once they successfully prosecute him?

Attacking him because of perceived or real ethical lapse(s) does not nullify the impact his 'disclosure' had. Let the issue die for goodness sake, instead of breathing life back into it, and giving it and him the power to strike again. Twits!!!

[claptrap]

Didnt some laptops from the state department get legs whilst The Clintons were in there?
Didnt laptops and some other really cool W-88 plans get dissappeared for a while from Los Alamos Laboratory?
Didnt F.B.I. supervisors specifically tell suspicous field agents not to investigate failed pilot M.Atta and his buddies?
This sounds like SOP to me just different people running the show!

[PLMerite]

Where I work, they remind us that just because it might get leaked and appear in the press, that doesn't mean it's been declassified. We are still under obligation not to discuss it.

[jungleboy]

Most documents are physically noted as classified.

[cyncooper]

Thank you for your insight.

[Phsstpok]

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 know Paul O'Neill. I worked for Paul O'Neill. I like Paul O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill is a "big boy" who has gone through at least two stints in high governement office and even more time in the top level of corporate America. He had the responsibility to safeguard EVERY document in his posession, officially classified or not. This is not the kind of thing you can claim "well they gave it to me!" about. Give this excuse to the SEC over confidential documents that lead to insider trading and you do serious time. Do it with officially classified documents in time of war and you can find yourself in front of a firing squad.

There is NO ARGUMENT on this type of situation. "I'm an idiot" is not an excuse.

[PhiKapMom]

I am with you 100%.

When you work for the Government and leave you are required to sign a statement saying you will divulge no information you received on your job. What part of Need to Know did O'Neill not realize?

If the documents were classified, they would have had to have markings on them -- O'Neill is guilty for handing documents over from the Government over to a reporter IMHO. No excuses!

It was his job to know what was on those disc's before giving them to a writer. Not to mention the person who handed everything over to O'Neill should be fired and charges brought. There is NO excuse for classified documents to be given to a private citizen and O'Neill should be brought up on charges for divulging classified information. I would throw the book at him if it were me!

[hoosiermama]

That's what a friend told me who worked with classified papers.....Papers are marked...He would know he had classified material.

[Ichneumon]

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.

On the radio news a couple of weeks ago they quoted "an administration official" who said something along the lines of, "we didn't listen to O'Neil when he was here, why should we start now?"

[lainde]

19.000 is what I heard. How on earth could they have been properly reviewed if he took them in a snit.

[CatoRenasci]

Well, I'm no big macher and I don't know Paul O'Neill. But, I have had responsibility for classified documents in the military, and in the defense industry. I understand the distinction between offical documents (most of which are public records and subject to public disclosure) and the various levels of classified information, from 'confidential' on up through levels of compartmentalization that boggle the mind. I also have practiced securities law for more than 20 years, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of the law of insider trading.

It is simply not true that evey public document in one's possession must be safeguarded from disclosure. Only that information which bears some level of classification must not be disclosed. I reiterate, unless the law has changed drastically, if you are given a document that does not bear any classification, are not informed that it is classified, and do not have any other reasonable grounds to believe the information is classified, you will not have any legal liability for disclosing it.

As to you securities law comment, it is not public disclosure of material non-public information that creates legal liabilty, rather it is the use of that information by one or more persons in order to trade ahead of the public disclosure of that information.

[CalKat]

He didn't take the documents with him. After he had been gone for awhile, he made a request for documents pertaining to his tenure. The Treasury Dept. scrubbed their files and gave him documents on a CD. O'Neill says he didn't even look at the CD, just gave it to the writer.

[CatoRenasci]

IIRC, the statement you sign says you won't divulge any classified information.

I agree with you that classified information is almost always clearly marked, unless someone screws up. I can recall instances of that, however. For example, there was an unclassified, widely disseminated Army Field Manual that was hurriedly recalled after it was discovered to contain classified information. And, as you know, a document bears the classification of the most sensitve item in it: hence a document that has one Top Secret fact, but is otherwise merely "Secret" or "Confidential" would be classified as "Top Secret" and handled as Top Secret. More than once, I have seen mistakes made in that some documents that were mostly at one level, but had a very few items at a higher level, were only marked at the lower level. The most blatant example I can recall was finding a couple of "Top Secret" pages (clearly so marked) in the middle of a "Secret" document I had just received. Huge brouhaha over that one, and we had to go to incredible lengths to safeguard it until the DoD people came and retrieved it. I couldn't go to the bathroom without checking it back into a TS safe, and we had additional cypher-locks placed on the door. Major pain.

In the O'Neill case, it seems to me that the key questions are 1) was the information clearly marked as clssified?, 2) if so, did O'Neill disclose it? If the information wasn't marked, no foul. The more interesting question relates to the sort of "embeded" classified information similary to what I described. If there was such embedded classified information, 1) was O'Neill informed of the fact, and 2) if not, did he exercise reasonable care in inspecting the documents for classified information. If he didn't, and it was their, fry him and the guy who gave it to him. If he did exercise care and looked at the documents and found no classification, he's done no crime.

[Howlin]

It was O'Neil's responsibility for the security of classified documents in his possession.

That's really all that needs to be said.

[Phsstpok]

documents contained in the files were labeled "Top Secret."

Fini. Done. Tau Ceti. His responsibility.

His defense is that he didn't look because he ASSUMED that they wouldn't have sent him anything classified. In the time when you say you had a responsibility for secret documents would "I assumed" have been a defense?

the SEC comment assumed disclosure and action. Duh!

[whadizit]

Man, don't you know, W wishes he hadn't wasted an appointment on that goofball!!

[CatoRenasci]

If in fact documents in the files given to O'Neill were labedled "Top Secret", I agree with you. It was his rsesponsibility to review what he received and, if anything classified (and properly so marked) was contained in the pile, he should have immediately notified the appropriate authority (who then should have come and collected them). I agree that a defense that he assumed it wasn't classified because they didn't tell him so is weak. Whether O'Neill was merely an idiot or a felon, however, depends on the actual facts of the transmission documents and the markings on the classified documents.

Where we seem to be talking past each other is on the SEC point. In SEC-speak, "disclosure" typically means making information publically available, whether by a filing or publication. From the SEC's perspective "disclosure" is a good thing, as it puts all investors (or at least all of those who look for the available information) on a level playing field. What gets you in trouble is (1) having material nonpublic information about a publically traded security and (2) acting on it, personally or in concert with others. The opposite of disclosure, really.