Posted on 07/22/2004 1:34:39 PM PDT by tang-soo
"15) 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."
Without a doubt.
The dims are hopeful the media can succeed. The media and talking heads are trying to make it sound innocent and inadvertent. They are playing on the fact that most people don't know what is required to handle Top Secret code word documents. They are trying to trivialize things and put actions into common word terms. It is not that way at all. Nothing is simple about top secret.
The toon ex-President laughing about it says all you need to know about his view of national security. And we wonder what caused the attacks on 9/11.
I mention this because Berger's lawyer yesterday made statements which seem to imply that it is only the original document and not information gleaned from it which is classified and non-discloseable. Of course, the press played happily along.
What Berger did would get any sailor 30 years to life in Leavenworth. Let's see what happens to another teflon Clintonite.
Great post. But I have yet to get an answer to my question, "why does Berger still have a TS clearance?". My experience in Classified Printing and Pub. for USAREUR in the early 70's is that upon leaving one's position, he is debriefed and further access is prohibited, despite personal authorship or involvement.
I think the most Berger will get is three years, unless treason can be shown.
I think this is the applicable code:
I believe that this is the applicable US criminal Code:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode18&STEMMER=en&WORDS=2071+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/18/2071.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match
Sec. 2071. - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a)
Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b)
Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term ''office'' does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States
Absolutely dead-on correct. The brazenness of of the lie, and the stupifying complicity of the Beltway press, is breathtaking.
Thanks for you detailed procedural explanations, here's some more general material:
Executive Order 12958, As Amended, Classified National Security Information
BTW, Berger would most likely have been in the Archives not under clearance, but under the waiver of clearance provided for in XO 12958, above.
Yes, it's hard to believe a National Security Advisor doesn't know stuff any junior employee with a Confidential Clearance has to know.
Some more statutes to chew on (found in an old post about John Deutch):
109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering,
transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any
document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ...
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper
place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than ten years, or both.
110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information"
specifies in part:
Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the
safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ...
obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the
communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been
obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than ten years, or both.
111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of
classified documents or material" specifies:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant of the United
States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position or contract,
becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified
information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or
materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or
materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000,
or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Once the document is stolen - they would know the number, etc - but what about the content of the document?
Thank you for sharing your great insight. Good information.
He doesn't.
Check XO 12958 (link in my post #8).
About halfway through the XO, you will note the access provisions for historians and former presidential appointees, which of course Berger is.
He was in the Archives under a clearance waiver (again, the XO explains it).
I'm certain this is why Bruce Lindsey was involved, as the middleman between Berger and the Archives security staff and the guy who assisted in preparing the formal docs for the waiver.
BTW, Bill Clinton has ultimate adminstrative authority over the classified docs from his administration, and has clearly delegated the legal paperwork to Lindsey, at least in this case.
Good. 10 years is better.
I'm not sure. I do know that the National Archives has procedures for "Emergency Destruction" of sensitive material, so I would guess that there is only one authorized copy of certain top secrets in the archives.
Thanks for this valuable post.
This is a great post, one I've quoted on other threads when you posted it before. Personally, I wish someone would send a copy to all the talking heads--perhaps starting with Bill O'Reilly, who can't seem to get a grip on the reason Berger was criminally wrong!
Just a thought (and perhaps someone else has mentioned it):
The dems have questioned the timing of the leak, the inference being to draw attention away from the 9/11 report or to damage Kerry prior to the convention.
Maybe they are telling a 1/2 truth.
I do believe the dems are the source of the leak. And the timing is very, very important.
re:".....The latest word I have heard 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....."
The question of the day has been WHY? Why would Berger risk all? Who is he protecting? What leverage does someone have to do such a stupid, stupid thing...so obvious and blatant?
And this is where the timing comes in. If you were involved,, knew of the investigation, Berger was cooperating and the story could grow very, very long legs if the press had a slow week, what would you do?
Leak the story right before the release of the 9/11 report which just happens to be prior to the convention and pray to God the other events knock it out of the spotlight until our short attention span turns to another issue.
A strong possibility may be the source of the leak may lead to the answers of the questions we have been asking.
In this spin I see another instance in which the world's sad today, it's gone bad today, black's white today and day's night today. Sandy Berger walks out of the National Archives with classified documents in his briefcase, pants, and socks. Who's the leaker? Bush!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.