Berger Is Fined For Smuggling Classified Papers (in vest pocket of suit)

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090801711.html

Berger Is Fined For Smuggling Classified Papers

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 9, 2005; A07



A federal judge yesterday ordered former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger to pay a $50,000 fine and give up his security clearance for three years as the penalty for smuggling classified terrorism documents out of the National Archives in 2003.

The sentence was much more severe than the $10,000 fine that Justice Department prosecutors and Berger's attorneys had jointly proposed after Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge. But Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson said the punishment, which also included two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, would more "sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the offense."
<snip>

Berger, who had classified documents hand-delivered to his desk when he advised President Bill Clinton, pleaded guilty in April to unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents. He admitted to stuffing copies of documents in his coat jacket as he left the National Archives and then destroying some at his office and pretending he had never possessed them. Berger had been reviewing the records about the Clinton administration's response to reports of terrorist threats in 2000 as he was preparing to respond to questions from the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"My actions . . . were wrong. They were foolish. I deeply regret them, and I have every day since," Berger told Robinson yesterday. "I let considerations of personal convenience override clear rules of handling classified material."<snip>

[Inland]

1. Seems like a lot of dough, but gotta smack him around some.

The guy screwed up.

[HardWorkingDem]

2. This crap pisses me off and I want to know the truth...

See, this is why we can't get ahead. I want to know the truth about this insead of Berger's idiotic mea culpa please forgive me excuses.

There is no excuse for what he did and he needs to come clean what he was up to. When he did that crap he was acting like a Rethuglican.

Anyone know the true story?

[KittyWampus]

7. he was studying COPIES of his own after action reports on his SUCCESSFUL

anti-terrorism stratgies for millenium.

9/11 Commission saw those papers and didn't find anything sinister.

[MildyRules]

8. That doesn't mean he can TAKE them

out of a SECURE area. He screwed up, he needs to pay the price.

[DBoon]

10. I think the punishment was appropriate

mis-handling classified documents is a big deal. Losing your clearance is appropriate. The fine and community service is for the high publicity value of this case. A lesser person would have "just" lost their clearance (meaning they would be unemployed and unemployable for a similar job). Part of being a visible public official is that when you screw up, you expect to be made an example of (ask Martha Stewart).

Now if he had published the names of covert CIA operatives in a national newspaper, the penalty would be.....

(sound of crickets chirping).

[MildyRules]

12. This was not mis-handling

this was wanton disregard for security practices. Mis-handling is not checking your briefcase and missing the SI document that you had under the rest of the unclassified paperwork you were bringing home to read.

That said, the second offense you alluded to is 100x more serious and REQUIRES jail time IMHO.

[K-W]

19. Actually this is mishandling.

Even if it was wonton disregard. Words have definitions you know.

[Roland99]

24. How do you mishandle something into your socks/pants/pockets?

[K-W]

25. One example would be what Berger did.

Handling classified materials improperly would be mishandling them.

Im really not sure what socks, pants or pockets have to do with anything.

[papau]

35. Say what ?? socks/pants/pockets - only vest pocket is alleged and

indeed it was confessed to. The socks were Rush and Fox Cable bull shit lies and quickly found to be without any basis.

These were copies of the orginals - the orginals never left storage.

So nothing was hid - he just bypassed the rule that any copies - or note taking pages - be authorized before removal from the area.

[MildyRules]

38. By-passed the rule??

He broke the law! One CANNOT take SI documents from a SCIF without proper authorization. To do so inadvertently is a security violation; to do so KNOWINGLY is a crime.

[papau]

51. We agree n/t

n/t

[Justitia]

54. Why does this only apply to Democrats? -eom

[MildyRules]

57. It shouldn't!

That's for sure.

[Roland99]

41. Ergo, he knowingly took something out. That's not mishandling

Mishandling is being inept and losing something.

[papau]

56. Mishandling - what was taken had to go back to SCIF - but he destroyed

some of his notes -

hence the Mishandling

still a crime

but why did the judge feel the need to up the agreed upon sentence?

[MildyRules]

59. Mishandling means

implies inadvertent. One gets a slap on the wrist for that. Purposely removing documents from a SCIF is much more serious. That said, you're right. The fine may be excessive. He should just lose his clearance for 2-3 years.

[K-W]

62. Im still waiting for a link

that shows that the word mishandling has a special definition in regards to classified documents.

Because the word in general usage does not imply inadvertent.

[MildyRules]

65. See post 63

[seriousstan]

75. Placing items in his jacket and pants, and socks. CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/

Law enforcement sources said archive staff members told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks.

Or should we take the word of the person who admitted to lying about never having the papers to begin with?

[MildyRules]

26. Actually it's not

Mishandling of classified means "inadvertant." What SB did is called stealing.

[K-W]

29. Can you give me a link.

I can find no reference to a special definition of the word mishandling in relation to classified materials on google.

[MildyRules]

33. Taking something which does not belong to you

is called STEALING. You need a link for that?

[K-W]

60. Did you even read my post?

I wrote:
I can find no reference to a special definition of the word mishandling in relation to classified materials on google.


I asked for a link to the definition of the word mishandling that you are referring to.

[MildyRules]

63. Sorry DCID 6/8 which covers

6/8 - "Unauthorized Disclosures, Security Violations, and Other Compromises of Intelligence Information (SCI) <9 December 2002>"

is classified. If you have access to a JWICS then send me your JWICS account and I'll send it to you.

[K-W]

66. Hmm, no I have no such access.

I am confused however by this:

Deputy Attorney General James Comey told reporters Tuesday he could not comment on the Berger investigation but did address the general issue of mishandling classified documents.

"As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously," Comey said in response to a reporter's question about the Berger bind, adding that the department has prosecuted and sought administrative sanctions against people for mishandling classified information.

"It's our lifeblood, those secrets," Comey continued. "It's against the law for anyone to intentionally mishandle classified documents either by taking it to give to somebody else or by mishandling it in a way that is outside the government regulations."

A deputy attorney general seems to think it is possible for one to intentionally mishandle classified documents.

Edit: link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126249,00.html

[MildyRules]

68. You or the DAG

can call it "intentionally mishandling" all you want. In the SCI world "mishandling" means accidental. Berger did not "mishandle" anything. He improperly removed documents from a SCI. He committed a crime.

Sorry you can not see the difference.

[K-W]

72. I dont know why you are being rude to me.

Berger did not "mishandle" anything. He improperly removed documents from a SCI. He committed a crime.

Sorry you can not see the difference.

Of course I can see the difference, please tell me where I indicated I didnt? Im getting a bit tired of your attacking me for things I didnt say.

Whether or not he committed a crime has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing. You keep repeating that statement as if someone was arguing with you, NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT HE DIDNT COMMITT A CRIME.

Nobody is arguing that he didnt improperly remove documents either, since he has admitted to doing it.

Is this clear now? Can you stop bringing up these points, because we agree and have always agreed on them?

You or the DAG can call it "intentionally mishandling" all you want.

Actually you just spent several posts telling me that I cant call it mishandling. That is the only issue at stake in our discussion right now.

You are claiming the word mishandling is defined as unintentional mishandling. And that the proof of this is itself not public information. Which I can understand.

I assumed the Deputy Attorney General would be using legally correct terminoligy. Thus my confusion over the quote.

But to be honest, if your definition of mishandling is so secret, I really dont see why you are making such a big fuss about correcting people who use it in the way that the Deputy Attorney General did since obviously nobody but you and others in the know would use the other definition.

[MildyRules]

74. I'm sorry

I did not mean to be rude.

I really am very sorry.

[papau]

37. Originals never left area - so what was stolen? - sounds like "inadvertant

At least to me.

Stolen was the Ollie North event - and of course he really got punished for that.

[MildyRules]

39. He knowingly

removed SI material from a SCIF without approval. That's a crime. Period.

[papau]

44. true it is a crime - but still "inadvertent" sounds reasonable

:-)

Indeed standard procedure would be for a kid to follow and hang near so as to report any theft. So I suspect everyone thought rules were obeyed - and SB, who knew he was breaking the rules - justified it on the basis they were his notes of his own notes, they expected him to remove same - and the lack of declaring the vest pocket photocopies avoided a wait for proper authority.

Sorry - I say hang Ollie - not SB.

[MildyRules]

46. They didn't expect him to remove anything

You're not grasping this--you CANNOT take SI material form a SCIF UNLESS you follow the rules and then deliver it to ANOTHER SCIF. You CANNOT knowingly bring it home and destroy it. PERIOD. To do so is a CRIME.

ON's was a crime, too. :-)

[papau]

49. Why did he think he could take pencil notes - or did he know better?

The only deep write-up I have seen said "not without permission" - implying the return to the SCIF was not reason for the charge - granted his destroying a few pages did mean they could not be returned.

I concede the crime - I just doubt the need to hang him that the judge felt.

[leveymg]

18. 9/11 Commiss. didn't see anything sinister.

Did they ever? That would violate their mandate not to find fault with anyone in particular.

[Supersedeas]

20. same here...Democrats need to repudiate these type of stuff

EMPHATICALLY!!!

[nookiemonster]

3. If he fucked up, he should pay.

Now it's time to apply that precedent to the entire Republican party.

[marshall]

4. At least he's not in jail

Go Sandy, Go Sandy, it's your birthday......

[Doctor Panacea]

5. It's always something ...

The really bad thing about this is that it is just another red herring that the shitbags of rightwing media will be able to use every time some important issue is raised.

I can hear Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity screaming about it.

[louis-t]

13. Hannity was screaming about it the other day.

In the 15 seconds I can stand to listen to that awful voice, I heard it.

[RageFist]

43. Why aren't you screaming about it? This pisses me off, too!

[Rose Siding]

6. Mark that- sentences in classified info cases will be quintupled.

Ya hear that, Karl?

[DBoon]

11. And you too, Mr. Novak

nt

[Maccagirl]

9. Congrats Sandy

Your stupidity will be held up by the neocons for the rest of your life. I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.

[marshall]

16. It's sad

It's always sad when somebody on the waning side of their career makes a foolish mistake that overshadows all the good they did. And we'll never know why or what it was all about. Maybe he thought he was acting in the best interest of the country, but who knows? Because he also accidentally destroyed the documents it is an albatross that will hang on his neck forever.

[hugo_from_TN]

17. Accidently?

He cut the documents up with scissors. That's quite an accident.

[marshall]

22. The word he used was "inadvertantly"

Maybe he was trying to recycle paper and got the classified documents mixed in with some trash. His desk and office have been described by colleagues and friends as messy and unorganized.

[MildyRules]

27. That's what they have

shredders and burn-bags for. One doesn't use scissors.

[hugo_from_TN]

32. The court found otherwise

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was sentenced Thursday to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them.

....

According to the charges, Berger -- between September 2 and October 2, 2003 -- "knowingly removed classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration and stored and retained such documents at places," such as his private Washington office.

Berger's associates admit he took five copies of an after-action report detailing the 2000 millennium terror plot from the Archives. The aides say Berger returned to his office, discovered that three of the copies appeared to be duplicates and cut them up with scissors.

The revelations were a dramatic change from Berger's claim last year that he had made an "honest mistake" and either misplaced or unintentionally threw the documents away.

[gratuitous]

14. So the precedent is set . . .

Will the "goose and gander" principle apply to cases involving Republican operatives, or will the mitigating circumstance of being a member of the politically correct party absolve future miscreants of all culpability?

[Zynx]

15. What a bonehead

[TankLV]

21. This guy took copies of PROOF of bushco CRIMINALITY and wrongdoing.

This is EXACTLY what we need MORE of - we need people in the know to copy and smuggle out PROOF of all the crimes we KNOW these criminals have commmitted!

This guy is a SAINT!

I read what he "took" - it was PROOF of bushco CRIMINALITY!

Or do you all forget what was exactly contained in those papers?

THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED IN THE FIRST PLACE!

[MildyRules]

28. Maybe

"THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED IN THE FIRST PLACE!"

But they were, and he broke the law.

Now, time to punish the Plame leakers as well.

[RageFist]

45. Yes, but isn't there legal recourse for obtaining docs? n/t

[MildyRules]

47. Not unless

you're cleared for them AND you have a SCIF in which to store them.

[whopis01]

73. Don't be ridiculous

The documents he took were an after-action report about Clinton's preparations regarding a terror plot during the millenium celebrations. They were written before Bush took office.

[Roland99]

23. He knowingly broke the law. He deserves what he gets.

[bunny planet]

30. That's nice. When will Karl Rove be indicted for leaking the name of

an undercover CIA agent, and revealing classified information to the press?

[MildyRules]

34. The sooner, the better

[Justitia]

31. What was Ollie North & Fawn Hall's punishment for stealing/shredding docs?

[MildyRules]

36. The difference

is they didn't remove them from the SCIF like SB did. :-)

[papau]

40. But they removed orginals with as high a security clearance -and SB

removed a few photocopies -

I do not see the get out of jail logic for Ollie.

[MildyRules]

42. While ON is scum

he didn't remove them from a SCIF.

SB took SI material from a SCIF -- that's a crime. ON's crime was JUST as bad (probably worse), but different.

[papau]

48. OK - the SCIF rules indeed caught SB - but I have a hard time on the

"intent" issue - and the level of de-minimus is beyond me as pencil notes must be approved - and they apparently were not reviewed and nor such lack of review thought of as a crime - just the photocopying was the straw that made Court involvement mandatory.

[MildyRules]

53. He did have intent

He knew it was wrong to remove classified documents and he knowingly did so. How is that not intentional? It doesn't matter if they were copies or notes. He knew the legal requirements and he ignored them.

[papau]

58. true as to "knew the legal requirements and he ignored them."n/t

n/t

[Justitia]

50. Definitely worse - obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, etc

[Justitia]

52. distinction without a difference -eom

[MildyRules]

55. Big difference!

[Justitia]

61. If they are both "stealing docs", then what's the difference?

I mean besides the fact that SB took copies of his own work, unrelated to any criminal conduct;

and ON & FH stole whole libraries of classified docs that implicated themselves in crimes against the nation?

[MildyRules]

64. ON didn't steal

docs. He shredded them in a SCIF. He obstructed justice, but he didn't commit an illegal security violation.

SB KNOWINGLY removed SCI material from a SCIF. It doesn't matter if they are COPIES of documents which he produced (or more, likely someone produced for him). They were SCI and he removed them. That's a crime.

North's was a DIFFERENT crime.

[Justitia]

67. North was convicted of shredding & altering official documents

Also convicted of aiding and abetting obstruction of Congress, and accepting an illegal gratuity.

Of course, he was originally indicted on 16 felonies.

Part of the documents charge was related to the fact that Fawn Hall removed (at his direction) classified documents from the premises - in her underwear.

And, as we know, neither he nor she faced any punishment or justice whatsoever for their crimes.

Oh yes, they were certainly different crimes, alright.

[MildyRules]

69. I agree that North's alleged were WORSE

He was never accused of removing documents from a SCIF was he?

[Justitia]

71. North freely admitted removing / destroying highly classified info

North blamed his decision to remove classified NSC documents from his office on November 25, 1986, on Washington, D.C., attorney Thomas C. Green. According to North, Green asked him in the wake of his public firing, ``Do you have anybody or anything to protect yourself?'' As a result, North said, ``I gathered up a number of documents that I believed would indicate or show that I had had the authority to do what I had done over the course of those two operations. I put them in my briefcase, along with my notebooks, and left the Executive Office Building with him .''

North had difficulty on cross-examination explaining why he destroyed some NSC records, as he claimed, to protect the lives of individuals involved in the Iran and contra operations, but had taken with him from the White House more than a dozen notebooks containing 2,000 pages of names and details on operations, including some highly classified information.

[marshall]

70. Who knows?

I do think it's probably a different crime to steal/destroy documents in your possession (as North did) and to do the same for documents that are not in your possession (as Berger did). Probably should result in the same punishment but the security concerns seem different.

And we found out North was covering his own ass--don't remember how it came out but it did. We'll never know what Berger was doing--was he getting info for a book he's writing, was he destroying documents that could threaten national security, or was he covering his own or somebody else's ass? Unless he spills the beans we'll never know.