Berger on the 'Wall'

Wall Street Journal ^ | July 21, 2004 | Editorial

[OESY]

...

Mr. Berger admits to having deliberately taken handwritten notes he'd made out of the Archives reading room. On the more serious charges involving the removal (and subsequent discarding) of highly classified documents -- including drafts of a key, after-action memo Mr. Berger had himself ordered on the U.S. response to al Qaeda threats in the run-up to the Millennium -- he maintains he did so "inadvertently."

There's only one way to clear away the political smoke: Release all the drafts of the review Mr. Berger took from the room.

If it's all as innocent as Mr. Berger's friends are saying, there's no reason not to make them public. But there are good reasons for questioning Mr. Berger's dog-ate-my-homework explanation. To begin with, he was not simply preparing for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. He was the point man for the Clinton Administration, reviewing and selecting the documents to be turned over to the Commission.

Written by Richard Clarke for the NSC, the key document was called the Millennium After-Action Review because it dealt with al Qaeda attacks timed for the eve of the Millennium celebrations. In his own 9/11 testimony, Mr. Berger described these al Qaeda plans as "the most serious threat spike of our time in government." He went on to say that they provoked "sustained attention and rigorous actions" from the Administration that ended up saving lives.

But Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has the advantage of having read the document in question, had a different take. In his own 9/11 testimony in April, Mr. Ashcroft recommended that the Commission "study carefully" the after-action memo. He described it as laying out vulnerabilities and calling for aggressive remedies of the type he and the Bush Administration have been criticized for. Mr. Ashcroft further noted that when he took office, this "highly classified review" was "not among" the items he was briefed on during the transition.

Maybe that is because of the potential for embarrassment at the mentality the memo reveals. Mr. Ashcroft testified that the Justice Department's "surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses." The most glaring, of course, were the restrictions on the sharing of critical information between intelligence and law enforcement -- even within the FBI itself. This was the infamous "wall of separation" that Clinton Deputy AG Jamie Gorelick instructed the FBI director should "go beyond what is legally required."

...

Mr. Berger attributes the disappearance of this classified information to the kind of "sloppiness" that comes from reviewing "thousands of pages of documents." But it strikes us as amazing that mere sloppiness could account for how Mr. Berger seized on the same memo during two different visits.

We're not interested in rehashing what the Clinton Administration or even Mr. Berger did or didn't do vis-a-vis the al Qaeda threat pre-9/11. Nor are we much interested about Mr. Berger's troubles with the law. What does interest us is what this memo might tell us about how America should respond to terror.

...

[petercooper]

Amazing! Poeple dismiss this guy as being sloppy and careless, and yet he was the National Security Advisor under Clinton. This pic says it all.

National Security? What's that?

[Beckwith]

This incident blows Watergate away.

Watergate and the subsequent coverup was a political crime that was described as a "3rd rate burglary".

The Berger Break-in was not performed by a bunch of GS-Nines, but by the National Security Adviser.

The target wasn't political information but national security information, classified Top f*ckin' Secret.

The tactics weren't covert, they were overt - in your face - I'm outta here with this stuff.

And now some of it has gone missing?

The early news is reporting there is backup. I hope so.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[syriacus]

Thanks for posting this.

[Rummyfan]

Berger's conduct is absolutely astounding. He should be indicted and prosecuted. And find out whose bidding he was doing!

[Incorrigible]

We're not interested in rehashing what the Clinton Administration or even Mr. Berger did or didn't do vis-a-vis the al Qaeda threat pre-9/11. Nor are we much interested about Mr. Berger's troubles with the law.

I am!

[devane617]

I am almost certain all these docs have backups, or at least I hope so.

[Richard Axtell]

Let's go a bit further and revive some classic conspiratorially inspired questions from the past.

1.) Did Berger "act alone?" Was he under orders to remove documents, or specific evidence?

2.) Who would benefit from the removal of this evidence?

3.) Was money involved, "hush" money paid to Berger, so that he might "take the fall?" This is not unprecedented, remember Web Hubble?

4.) Who has been feverishly trying to rewrite the history of the terrorist war against the US during the 90's?

5.) Isn't this just the latest of the Clinton Scandals?

[AFPhys]

The information that I have been able to glean is that the document he took - twice - constituted different draft copies of the same document. The document writer typically writes it, several copies are made of that first draft and distributed to others (here, the President and other cabinet members, I presume) and they annotate/ redline/ marginal notes/ etc., and then the drafts are returned to the writer for incorporation into the final document.

It seems that some of these annotated copies are what is missing, and so they are gone forever, as Berger apparently intended for some reason. It has to be particularly damning for somebody who noted these documents. However...

The real part of the story is that the "librarians" did not simply stop the theft. From the way I've read these stories, they noticed on previous occasions that Berger had taken some things, and on at least one of the later occasions they "marked" things he was given. The reason to do this is to catch a person who intended to swap legitimate copies with an illegitimate copy of an item. They had suspicions that went beyond Berger simply stealing something.

The question then becomes, what was he trying to change and hide from future historians and national security advisers.

Something is truly rotten here.

[Dr._Joseph_Warren]

The most disturbing thing about this picture is deciding just what Clinton is doing with his left hand!!

[LadyPilgrim]

I simply can not imagine they do not have back-ups.
After all...................it's the National Achives!
Micro film or something!???!

[tang-soo]

I've posted this top a few other threads. Please ignore if you've seen it before ...

I called our local Clear Channel station the night after this story broke and spoke for about 10 minutes describing the procedures used to handle classified information. The following is a basic description of what I said ...

1) A person who wishes to review classified information at a given facility must have his/her clearance on file with the security office that has legal custody of the information.

2) Once they arrive to the facility, they must show their credentials to identify themselves, sign into the facility - maybe issued a badge indicating their clearance and access and escorted to the room where the material will be reviewed.

3) Once in the room, the container (probably a safe i.e. a very heavy duty file cabinet with heavy combination locks with different combinations on each drawer) is opened. This process should be logged by security personnel.

4) The documents are taken from the container. All classified documents are stamped (each page) with items such as a control number, date of creation, level of clearance (top and bottom), program name indicating what access is required and eventual dispensation (i.e. when the material is designated to destruction if applicable).

5) If the documents are classified "top secret", each document has a log on the cover sheet. EACH time a person has access to this information, they must sign and date it.

6) The material is not to be removed (ie stuffed in underwear, socks ... etc) without approval of security personnel. If this takes place, the transfer is documented on both ends of the transaction. If the material is top secret or above, it requires at least two cleared people as an escort.

7) If you travel overnight, the material is not to be kept in your hotel/motel room but instead must be taken to an approved facility. Arrangements are usually made in advance. Security people do not like suprise visits. They like to make them but not receive them.

8) No photocopies are to be made or notes copied without the proper security personnel logging this activity and making appropriate markings (mentioned above) on the documents.

9) This material is frequently audited by internal security agents and is subject to "suprise" audits conducted by military, FBI or other external security personnel.

10) People given access to this type of information are briefed and attend classes on how to handle this material - ie. no excuses for "honest mistakes".

11) As the NSA for the clinton administration, I imagine Berger was personally responsible that this protocol was designed, implemented and enforced by his staff - at least in an appropriately managed administration. This would apply to government employees, officials, military personnel and civilians under contract and extended clearances issued by the DoD, DoE or other intel operations.

12) As such, ANYBODY who has worked in this environment and heard Mr. Berger's comments yesterday about being "sloppy" and "an honest mistake" knows beyond any doubt that he was not only lying, but this was a premeditated act.

13) I left the aerospace business(as an engineer) in 1993 so these comments are based upon the security world of that time. Only Lord knows how the clinton adm changed things during his 8 years.

That summarizes what I mentioned to Steve Cannon of WTVN 610 AM (Columbus, Oh) last night.

The latest word I have heard from this morning is that this material was classified "Code Word Access". Folks, if true, this is "Above Top Secret" ie. John Pollard type material.

So the question comes to mind, why would anybody do such a thing under conditions where he knew he stood a huge chance of being caught? The mission must have been extraordinary for such a risk. The presumption is that he wanted to alter or remove and destroy material that implicated either himself, or quite possibly mr. clinton. The fact that some of the material is "lost" implies that regardless of the consequences, the mission has been accomplished with his current situation collateral damage.

Webb Hubbell's infamous quote "I guess I'll have to roll over again for Hillary" comes to mind. Another example of the clinton whirlwind leaving a trail of destruction in its wake.

[AFPhys]

There are definitely backups of all of the final documents.

The draft documents are kept for other reasons, including fingerprinting, erasures, etc. For this reason, microfilm, etc, is insufficient copying, and may not be done on much of the stuff, since erasures and such would not be visible in any event.

I have many legal "early drafts" that consist of only a single copy, but all final documents become multiple copies.

[devane617]

I am sure every thing is now digitized in some way. I would wager that as documents are handed over for review, each document is scanned. The technology is simple, and easy to implement. That is why this whole story sounds fishy. The checks in place at the Archives would easily catch someone taking documents out of the room, not to mention out of the building. There is a lot more to this story than what we know. I want to hear from someone that has accessed the Archives just to hear the procedure. More to come I am sure...

[CyberCowboy777]

What is the back story on this photo?

I cannot imagine the Clinton WH allowing this photo into the public view.

[LadyPilgrim]

I suppose I should have said something to the effect, that
we aren't really as stupid as the dims would like to think. hummm?

[AFPhys]

Please, when you get a chance, comment on my posts #10 and #14 from your perspective. Am I being accurate, from your experience, too?

In addition, this "drafts" business has a possibility that I had not considered until now. Suppose that the "marginal notes" or "comments" someone placed on a draft consisted of "PostIt notes"? (For example: Remove this reference to OBL being offered by Sudan - WJC) ... How would this be attached permanently to that draft copy for the sake of the archives?
.

[Claire Voyant]

This picture makes me ILL! It just SHOWS how silly and IMMATURE and UN-SERIOUS this bunch was!

Does anyone know when this was taken???

[AFPhys]

Regardless of the methodology of backing this material up - digital, microfilm, etc., the originals are still important. They contain information that can not be reproduced, even if copied. I strongly suspect many are not copied. Berger knew this. He certainly did not do this "inadvertently" as post#13 makes manifestly clear. He realized there was a strong likelihood he would be caught, and something was important enough that he decided to do it anyway. The only question is WHY. I believe Clinton and Berger know. I haven't decided if I think Clarke does. I strongly suspect that the copies missing were those of WJC and Berger himself. I hope we are told soon.
.