Posted on 07/23/2004 9:37:06 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
Ah yes, I forgot about that little dispute.
Actually this is a blackmark on GWB's record, because its the result of his 2001 Executive Order which gives the sitting President the right to assert executive privelege and prohibit the Archives from releasing basically anything it deems unsuitable for release, for any reason, even the records of former Presidents.
The first time GWB tried to use to prevent the release of Reagan records, the WH was threatened with a lawsuit and immediately gave up (and according to the XO, the only way to resolve such a dispute is in court).
The XO itself is dubious, though it's not yet been formally challenged in court to my knowledge.
It should be.
This entire discussion I've forgotten about GWB's Executive Order 13233, which asserts Presidential control (via the Archives) over a former President's records.
I wasn't thinking about it mainly because it's so far opposed to 200 years of precedent, and because it's bound to be quashed at some point in the future.
I can't imagine what I was (not) thinking.
Your posts (particularly #80) were very interesting. Obviously, Bush and his staff have been aware of this for some time - I wonder if one of the reasons for not releasing some of the Clinton documents is that these documents had been so compromised. This is particularly true now that it appears that Berger took all sorts of documents, not only the ones relating to the Millenium after-action report.
I must say they're getting very blatant about this. I believe it was "1984" that gave us the the slogan, "he who controls the present controls the future, and he who controls the past controls the present." I think Clinton is trying really hard to work his magic on the past.
Someone needs to pass the "sandy burger act"!! No Clinton's or friends of Clinton's should come within 25 feet of a government building.
DITTO!!
Logic would support that except that he is too prominent these days with his comments. If he had struck a deal already, i would think he would be saying "no comment".
This is a good point. I've been wondering to what extent Archives staff was willingly complicit (or at least some of them), but perhaps, as you say, they were simply intimidated by Berger's association with Clinton.
I wonder if Berger could have added documents to the archive? He was obviously able to take them without detection (he returned documents they didn't know he had for example).
It's still speculation. But most seem pretty sure these are TOP SECRET, with a further CODE WORD access.
used by Berger would also conform to security guidelines.
He was there to view TOP SECRET documents in the National Archives. There were no cameras. The guards bugged out. He went back and forth to the bathroom, unobserved. He made phone calls out. And he may not even have signed for everything appropriately. That's no sort of "security guidelines". It sounds, rather, like a bad joke.
has a clearance waiver approved by Bruce Lindsey and Bill Clinton.
Who the HECK is Bill Clinton? He's been out of office four years. It's citizen Clinton. He went back to Hope, or wherever he went. And if you have someone they consider an authority obviously breaking the law, then that's precisely what all the regulations are for. That's exactly when they kick in; when someone attempts to abuse authority in an archive containing TOP SECRET documents. We probably agree on this.
Archives would deliver to Berger a "stack" (or file)
As just explained to me by someone else, here, every paper, every note is catalogued and identified. He doesn't pour through billions of pieces of paper in some comic fashion. He requests a few specific documents, signs for them, and is constantly under observation of the guard until he is finished.
former NSA with a presidential clearance waiver.
Explain this to me. Bill Clinton hasn't been President for four years. There's nothing presidential about him. So where does Sammy B get a "presidential waiver" for this heist? There's only one President. His name is George Bush. Anything less and Sammy B clearly shouldn't have been admitted to the NA. I think the authorization, however, didn't come from citizen Clinton. I think it came from the 9/11 commission. And they may have really mucked things up if they attempted to 'end-run' security protocols, and may have enabled Sammy Pants to pull the heist. Of course, I admit I'm only guessing. I just don't know.
Personally I believe the Archives staff was shocked by the filching, slightly intimidated by who had done it, and inexperienced with how to proceed.
You're describing incompetence, and incompetents, easily intimidated by the least thing, utterly unprepared to defend the archives against tampering and invasion. You may be right. But it makes everyone on the staff of the NA look like little kids let into the 'war room', or something, who are then instructed to watch the place until Daddy gets back. It's inconceivable that the guard would be made aware of the man stealing TOP SECRET files and not immediately jump in the 4WD, issue an APB to local police, and hunt the guy down - and arrest him. I don't know if we agree on that. But maybe we could agree that there is a lot of speculation, now, and a lot of questions. And I personally believe that a lot of these specifics will be made known at the appropriate time following completion of various investigations.
And it won't stop those from speculating, and attempting to pose those questions which everyone investigating, and everyone on the House committee looking into this, already know to ask.
Personally I'm familiar with the classification standards and procedures from former exposure, and if you want to go right to the source, most of formal standards are freely available on the Internet.
Pertinent docs include DCID 1/7 (and others in DCID series); Executive Order 12958, As Amended, Classified National Security Information; Executive Order 13233; and you can poke around on the National Archives Web site to get a sense of document handling procedures there.
The handling of inactive classified documents within the Archives is very different than the handling of classified materials in their active usage environment. The Archives Web site clearly states that documents are to be requested and delivered in stacks, not as individual documents. And this would make sense, since researchers and historians would not necessarily know which specific documents to request. The NA is a research institution and by definition has a different mission, standards, and procedures that an operating intelligence environment. The information you've gotten from your friend is accurate but would not be sensible as procedure at the Archives.
If you think the standards are static across these two very different contexts, that would be wrong, and it would not make sense.
Aside from that, the news reporting makes clear that Bergler was accompanied within the reading room, but made repeated requests to be alone to take "pribate phone calls" or some other ruse. As for the phone itself, we do not know what the standard is for phones within the NA. Yes, it is normal to prohibit phones within a secured facility (a SCIF), but we do not know what level of security is applied within the NA reading rooms (again, it's not as static as you may think). And since Bergler was permitted to make calls it is possible that the phone prohibition doesn't exist. Again, different SCIFs handle this issue differently, according to the judgement of the Security Officer and the guidelines of DCID and other published guidance.
You seem very perturbed that Bill Clinton might be involved in granting access to the documents. I'm sorry, he is. Very much so. You need to read Executive Order 12958, As Amended, Classified National Security Information and Executive Order 13233. There's also an excellent history of Presidential libraries (including authorities and access) at http://www.ekt.gr/links/egov_docs/egov_papers_ft/GovInfQua_article4.pdf.
Executive Order 12958 actually includes very specific provisions for access by "former presidential appointees" such as Berler to archived classified materials (IIRC, it's Section 4.2). So, yes, Sandy Berger does have stautory access to the materials. But he needs a clearance waiver to get at them, and that comes through the Clinton Presidential Materials Project Services which is part of the NA but based in Little Rock, and which is currently the formally designated administrator of the materials. Clinton Presidential Materials Project Services would work closely with Bill Clinton and Bruce Lindsey on a variety of issues (including access).
I do stand by the notion that the NA staff was shocked by Bergler's behavior, and handled it more-or-less appropriately under the circumstances. You seem to have the impression that the NA staff is/was loaded for bear, and ready to jump on Bergler the very moment they suspected his filching. No, they're librarians with an oversight job, and Bergler apparently tricked them into leaving the room. Once their suspicions arose (which appears to have occurred only after Bergler left the premises), they would have contacted their own Chief Security Officer, and reportedly did in fact contact Bruce Lindsey (who again is the legal interface between NA and Bill Clinton). These people are not armed LEOs, they're career librarians with clearance. Again, I believe they'd not ever before encountered the bizarre ruses and wanton theft that Bergler pulled-off, and did the best they could to follow procedure and get (some) of the documents back.
That they ran a sting against Bergler on his next visit makes it clear that they were doing their jobs (it takes a lot of gonads for librarians to run a sting against one of the most powerful men in Washington).
So yes, I'm partially speculating about some of this, but its reasoned and pragmatic speculation. The newspapers (except Susan Schmidt of the Wash Post) have done a very, very sloppy job of trying to understand and explain what happened.
I forgot to cover this, though it's trivial in the larger scheme.
Yes, it is speculation.
Go to the Bush Library, there are lots of declassifed National Security Directives and National Security Reviews.
Note that many of these (if not most) are SECRET CODEWORD, not TOP SECRET CODEWORD.
It might be instructive for you to take a glance, because it shows how classified documents are actually marked in practice, and in this case how classified national security documents from the White House are marked.
Hey, PD -
Don't keep your mouth shut. And if you decide it's just not worth the hassle dealing with naysayers, would you at least freepmail me with your news of the week/day?
I always enjoy reading your posts and I agree with you completely about the videotaping of the Archive rooms. It is absolute folly to presume that secretive monitoring is NOT going on in that room. We can't go anywhere in this country without being taped.
IMO, there is no way we'd let the nation's most secretive documents, about the worst attack on our nations soil, be reviewed by someone who already proved he was willing to steal.
As well, in early reporting, many freepers including me heard distinctly that Berger was caught on tape. Several freepers who have gone to the archive rooms have said that the rooms are taped which is in direct contrast with mainstream press reports.
I'll take freeper reporting over the NYT anyday.
Just that the President ordered all previous papers placed under control of the Fed.
Executive Order 12958
Which just goes classification schemes.
But section 4.4 does seem to make some bizarre waiver for anyone appointed to a policy making position by a former administration (?), under certain code. That shoots all security considerations in the . . . whatever. If it applies to former administrations, who the heck knows what such people have 'gotten into' in the meanwhile?
There is a proviso, however:
(b) Waivers under this section may be granted only if the agency head or senior agency official of the originating agency:
(2) takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is safeguarded in a manner consistent with this order;
Now that seems to place responsibility for Sammy's heist not on the 9/11 commission, as I might have believed, but on whichever agency head in the Bush Administration authorized Sammy's escapade without taking the necessary precautions, which clearly were not taken. Is there another way to read that section? Do you think they held Clinton to be that officer?
I couldn't find anything on 'stacks', btw, except that certain 'stacks' are used as repository for various documents. But it gives the sense that these are physical areas or logical designations, not that people in the 'reading rooms' are delivered stacks identified only by stack. After all, the people at the Archives, apparently knew what was missing, and even that some of what Sammy returned had supposedly not been reported missing (which is strange enough). It would seem likely that every paper was catalogued and recorded, in some way.
But this should eventually come out, one way or another. More than anyone ever wanted to know about procedures or abuse of same at the National Archives.
it's not as static as you may think).
You don't mean, static. You mean, consistent. And if security is inconsistent for the very same documents, of the highest classification, then I would have to disagree here, that it doesn't make sense. If you have a custody chain, then the weakest link is where the chain is likely to break.
that comes through the Clinton Presidential Materials Project
But does it really read that way? As I read that section, above, it refers to the administration, that in office, not that of FDR, or Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton doesn't have an agency or administration at this point.
I don't see how it could be read that way. Of course, I'm not saying it isn't. But I don't see how they could.
If it were true that provision 2, guaranteeing the integrity of the documents is the responsibility of authorizing officer, then what sense would it make if the officer, himself, is not really an officer, but a former officer out of government for four years? Or is that what you're getting to - that Bill Clinton, by this statute, for his negligence is himself in violation of the law?
But I just find it difficult to believe that the wording of such would make Clinton that responsible officer. It just doesn't seem to read like that.
Again, I know this is speculation.
have the impression that the NA staff is/was loaded for bear
Yes, that's what the guards were paid to do. Surely you allow that he was under guard the whole time? The question is, why did the guards leave and allow him to pinch the documents? particularly since the WAS no video surveillance. This may be one of the reasons that the House was moved to conduct its own parallel investigation. It's a stunning dereliction of duty.
But, yes. You wouldn't expect the staff to just mutter among themselves that they saw him stealing, and then with eyes downcast reluctantly hold the door for him as he walked out. You expect them to go over and say, please wait, for a minute. There might be a problem. Or - did I just see you . . . etc? You never find such a reluctance in a doctor's office, at the DMV, at the receptionist's desk in the corporate lobby - why here? Why at the NA of all places. I'm afraid I do have to disagree with you, here. They have to know they are safeguarding classified documents for the entire nation. They have to be aware of what it is they are doing there. If they weren't, it's a serious problem, and may still be.
ran a sting against Bergler on his next visit
Well, it's like allowing 'Fingers' to break into the safe, steal the diamonds, hold the door as he walks out, tips his hat the guard, and then says he'll be back on more 'business' tomorrow. They discover the safe has been ransaked. What do they do? Call the cops? Arrest 'Fingers'? No, they put more diamonds in the safe, leave 'Fingers' alone, yet again, and see if any of the diamonds are missing this time, after he leaves.
I just don't get it. If they saw him stealing, the first time, have the guard get in the 4WD, or whatever, run every stop light, alert the local police to put out an APB on the guy, and get him. Period. What's the point of trying to 'trap him' into stealing again?
I'm going back to lurking. I've had enough of reading from people who claim to hate the liberal media, but they never miss their shows, giving them the life blood to continue pissing them off. I've had fun on this board, but the negativity is just over the top. I read that I can just have my profile removed, so that is what I'm going to do. Hey Admin, if you are reading, I'm asking.
I hope you change your mind, PD.
You have set some of us straight re polls, the shows, and several other matters.
If you change your mind, freepmail me any interesting information you come across.
For instance, today there is a report that Berger is being investigated for putting documents INTO the record as well as removing them. Something I've been suggesting he was doing since Tuesday. Also, investigators have evidence that Berger's two phone calls inside that secure room were monitored by unauthorized people.
I'll miss reading your posts and hope you at least freepmail a few of us while in lurker mode!
Admin, Pukin Dog's Fan Club asks that you pay no attention to his request. We love him. Block the door! :o)
LOL!
Ditto. If you stop posting the truth then have not the terrorist already won? Seriesly PD, I have your "user posts" page bookmarked for a reason. You have a unique insight to the world of politics that I don't possess. You must teach me more. Please.
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.