DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on January 09, 2007, 01:13:53 PM
-
How Sandy Berger Stole State Secrets, Destroyed Evidence & Got Off
By Joel Mowbray
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
With the release of an internal investigation last week, we now know that former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger not only knowingly flouted laws for handling classified documents, but he also went to incredible lengths to cover his tracks and thwart investigators.
While Berger's "punishment" was a pittance of a fine, former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin has been financially ruined and sentenced to 12 and a half years for passing along far less-classified information to unauthorized third parties.
Unfortunately, disproportionate justice is inherent to the legal system. The written playbook might be the same for various cases, but different judges and different dynamics can lead to dramatically disparate results.
But what excuse is there for the wildly different media coverage of the two cases, both of which came to public attention in the summer of 2004?
Given the nature of each man's actions and the starkly different status each enjoyed in the public eye, the media actually was justified in providing dissimilar coverage. Only the press got it exactly wrong.
One man verbally disclosed classified information devoid of sources or methods. The other snuck five different versions of a top-secret document out of a secure facility.
One was a low-level career bureaucrat, while the other was just a few years removed from being the president's national security advisor. One man cooperated with authorities and didn't even retain a lawyer before being interrogated, while the other lied to investigators and then intentionally destroyed evidence.
While conservative news outlets reveled in the Berger story, the mainstream media was at best blasé. Of all the articles about Berger's case -- from the revelation that he was the subject of an inquiry through the recent release of the National Archives inspector general's report -- only one made it to the front page of either The Washington Post or the New York Times. Coverage of Franklin's case, however, earned that distinction more than a half-dozen times.
The Franklin affair started out with a bang. Over seven days, starting in late August 2004, The Washington Post published six distinct articles, three of which landed on the front page. It was a sizzling story. Someone who worked in the Pentagon seen by the media as too pro-Israel was suspected of passing national-security secrets to the Jewish state. The Post even implied that five others -- all Jews with "strong ties to Israel" -- might also be spies.
In the end, the FBI's full-court press only netted one conviction of a government official. Franklin plea-bargained to three counts, including passing classified information to an Israeli government official and two men at pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. (The trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman is slated to begin by the spring.)
According to someone with intimate knowledge of the leaked draft presidential directive, the document contained no sources and no methods. It had no sensitive material of any kind. It was nothing more than a policy paper -- just a few pages that resembled an opinion-editorial -- advocating tougher diplomacy, not war, in dealing with Iran.
Reporters at The Post and the New York Times worked overtime to find new angles in the Franklin case, and that effort yielded considerable ink. On the Berger case, though, the mega newspapers simply reported stories as information came out. There was no digging, no investigative passion. Even the disclosure of the inspector general's report only happened because of a freedom of information request filed by the Associated Press.
The mainstream media's palpable disinterest in the Berger case is hardly justified. Many questions remain unanswered. Of the few explanations Berger and his defenders have actually provided, none passes the laugh test.
Berger claimed in court last year that smuggling classified documents out of the National Archives was about "personal convenience," but the inspector general report states that he walked out of the building and down the street, found a construction site, looked to see if the coast was clear, then slid behind a fence and hid the documents under a trailer.
Which part of that elaborate procedure was "convenient"?
According to the New York Times story last April following Berger's guilty plea, "Associates attributed the episode to fatigue and poor judgment." While lying to authorities is poor judgment, it is also illegal. And how exactly did fatigue drive Berger to use his scissors to shred three versions of the top-secret document?
Despite the report's devastating blow to Berger's excuse machine, it was buried. The Post dumped it on page 7, and the New York Times exiled it to page 36.
Reflecting -- or perhaps because of -- the respective media attention is the justice meted out to each man. President Clinton's national security adviser will not see the inside of a jail cell. His $50,000 fine sounds big, but it's roughly equivalent to a few weeks out of his princely salary. Meanwhile, Franklin has lost half his pension and was given a stiffer sentence than several Islamic terrorists convicted in the very same courthouse.
Just don't expect the Post or the Times to point that out.
http://townhall.com/columnists/JoelMowbray/2007/01/09/how_sandy_berger_stole_state_secrets,_destroyed_evidence__got_off
-
I reminded of a wonderful old song by one Ms Janis Joplin out of Texas.
And when you walk around the world, babe,
You said you’d try to look for the end of the road,
You might find out later that the road’ll end in Detroit,
Honey, the road’ll even end in Kathmandu.
You can go all around the world
Trying to find something to do with your life, baby,
When you only gotta do one thing well,
You only gotta do one thing well to make it in this world, babe.
You got a woman waiting for you there,
All you ever gotta do is be a good man one time to one woman
And that’ll be the end of the road, babe,
I know you got more tears to share, babe,
So come on, come on, come on, come on, come on,
And cry, cry baby, cry baby, cry baby.
-
I reminded of a wonderful old song by one Ms Janis Joplin out of Texas.
....So come on, come on, come on, come on, come on, And cry, cry baby, cry baby, cry baby.[/color]
Brass, try showing a little intellectual honesty. You and the left, and the mainscream media, would be going completely ape-snot if this were the actions of Condi Rice within the Bush administration. And you think a lame response like yours above would be "acceptable" in addressing the issue?
Should we copy this response of yours, for any of the supposed widespread cover-ups that investigations of Bush & co are to supposedly going to uncover, as an acceptable response? We won't get any "you hypocritical Bush-loving enablers" accusations when your response is used time and time again, right. No biggie as long as Bush got away with whatever it is he got away with, right?
Or is this going to fall into the rationalized realm of since Dems don't "preach high standards, like the repugnant GOP does", what Dems pull is really no biggie, compared to when those evil Republicans & Bush do it?
-
The guy was convicted and paid his debt to society in the form of a fine. All this hue and cry over the media's not covering it is hogwash.
How many times has someone on either side posted something about inequitable punishments only to have it either ignored or been met with a shoulder shrug?
I would be outraged if Sandy Berger had gotten away with it and I think I've said as much. This whole thing comes down to a statement in the vein of "I"m sure the prosecutor will conduct a thorough investigation."
They did and its over. Anything past it is whining. If I've learned anything in this gladiator school with you it is that whining is the last refuge of losers.
-
The guy was convicted and paid his debt to society in the form of a fine.
Good gravy Brass, listen to yourself. Again, if this were Condi Rice who simply had to "pay a fine", And Bush getting off scot free, with what we now KNOW FACTUALLY to what Berger did (read; no conspiracy or accusatory innuendo here, but actual FACTS/PROOF of crime & cover-up), again, you wouldn't be able to control yourself. Your anger at what Bush got away with again would have reached epic proportions. But because this fella worked for your buddy Clinton, hey no biggie, "he payed a fine, nothing to see here, let's move on."
Breath-taking double standard you've got going there, big guy :(
-
The guy was convicted and paid his debt to society in the form of a fine. All this hue and cry over the media's not covering it is hogwash.
You have a valid point. If we can't believe in the justice system what can we believe in.
Berger should lose whatever security clearances he has, but i don't think we need a court to decide that.
-
You have a valid point.
Awesome!
If we can't believe in the justice system what can we believe in.
Love?
Berger should lose whatever security clearances he has, but i don't think we need a court to decide that.
Perhaps he should. I don't know. I'm sure other people in government have done lots worse and not lost their clearances. (Getting caught may be a factor.) And should he be stripped off them, he can always sue to get them back. Perhaps even successfully.
The issue would be finding that person who says he must be stripped if there is no protocol on who gets stripped.
-
Perhaps he should.
Of course he should. He abused a position of trust, for whatever reason. And he should not be given the oppostunity to do it again.
The National Archives are there for a reason. What he did was in effect censor and obstruct the ability of researchers and historians to locate documentation that leads them to a better understanding of the truth.
That should not be allowed to stand.
-
I said, "Perhaps he should." If you want a forceful. He's a criminal and he should be stripped of his clearances, then fine.
He's a criminal and he should be stripped of his clearances.
There. This is all after-the-fact and not really in our hands.
-
There. This is all after-the-fact and not really in our hands.
Thank you.
-
I said, "Perhaps he should." If you want a forceful. He's a criminal and he should be stripped of his clearances, then fine. He's a criminal and he should be stripped of his clearances. There. This is all after-the-fact and not really in our hands.
Your overt & substantive condemnation of criminal wrongdoing and cover-up is duely noted ::)
-
I am still courious.
Clinton is years after being president , what was worth this cover up effort?
-
Clinton is years after being president , what was worth this cover up effort?
That's a good question but it starts a little too specific. You're assuming that Berger was there on a Clinton-protecting venture. He may have been protecting himself, the current "administration" or someone or some group we don't know about.
-
Clinton is years after being president , what was worth this cover up effort?
That's a good question but it starts a little too specific. You're assuming that Berger was there on a Clinton-protecting venture. He may have been protecting himself, the current "administration" or someone or some group we don't know about.
Ok , without being specific as to my assumptions of puropse and client.
Do be specific about what he was actually covering up and why.
To have what he most desprately wanted covered , exposed and advertised instead , is the best part of his punishment.
-
Ok , without being specific as to my assumptions of puropse and client.
Do be specific about what he was actually covering up and why.
To have what he most desprately wanted covered , exposed and advertised instead , is the best part of his punishment.
Hey, I'm an inquiring mind just like you.
-
I am still courious.
Clinton is years after being president , what was worth this cover up effort?
It is quite possibly not a coverup of Clinton , but an expose of Bush that he took. He cant use it now because he would be killed like Litvinenko & Saddam were. This would explain why the Bush Atty Gen office was relatively easy on him.
-
I am still courious.
Clinton is years after being president , what was worth this cover up effort?
It is quite possibly not a coverup of Clinton , but an expose of Bush that he took. He cant use it now because he would be killed like Litvinenko & Saddam were. This would explain why the Bush Atty Gen office was relatively easy on him.
Please turn your brain on .
You do not have to stuff documents from your own tenure into your pants , nor destroy documents , to expose truth about a following administration.
-
I am still courious.
Clinton is years after being president , what was worth this cover up effort?
It is quite possibly not a coverup of Clinton , but an expose of Bush that he took. He cant use it now because he would be killed like Litvinenko & Saddam were. This would explain why the Bush Atty Gen office was relatively easy on him.
Please turn your brain on .
You do not have to stuff documents from your own tenure into your pants , nor destroy documents , to expose truth about a following administration.
You might want to have the evidence of their incompetence in hand. Which would explain him hiding them. And , there is no evidence that he destroyed anything. There is only RW speculation about it. It almost identical to your saying that since there is no evidence of WMDS's in Iraq, that it absolutely proves that there were WMD's . Only the most twisted of minds work that way.
-
I am still courious.
Clinton is years after being president , what was worth this cover up effort?
It is quite possibly not a coverup of Clinton , but an expose of Bush that he took. He cant use it now because he would be killed like Litvinenko & Saddam were. This would explain why the Bush Atty Gen office was relatively easy on him.
Please turn your brain on .
You do not have to stuff documents from your own tenure into your pants , nor destroy documents , to expose truth about a following administration.
You might want to have the evidence of their incompetence in hand. Which would explain him hiding them. And , there is no evidence that he destroyed anything. There is only RW speculation about it. It almost identical to your saying that since there is no evidence of WMDS's in Iraq, that it absolutely proves that there were WMD's . Only the most twisted of minds work that way.
I don't understand how removeing a document from an arcive would make it more usefull, woldn't you rather have a copy made?
-
http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2005abc/april2005ab/berger.cfm
A former national security adviser to President Clinton pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court April 1 to a misdemeanor charge of removing classified material from a government archive. Samuel R. “Sandy†Berger acknowledged taking five copies of a 2000 assessment of antiterrorism efforts on two separate visits to the National Archives in 2003 and destroying three of them.
-
http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2005abc/april2005ab/berger.cfm
A former national security adviser to President Clinton pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court April 1 to a misdemeanor charge of removing classified material from a government archive. Samuel R. “Sandy†Berger acknowledged taking five copies of a 2000 assessment of antiterrorism efforts on two separate visits to the National Archives in 2003 and destroying three of them.
Are any of these documents public now?
I still dont get the point of doing this.
-
And , there is no evidence that he destroyed anything. There is only RW speculation about it.
I guess you could call Berger's admitting it in court, under oath "RW speculation" - I, however, call it evidence.
-
Are any of these documents public now?
I still dont get the point of doing this.
Don't know why he would destroy them, unless he was going for plausible deniability that he didn't take them.
-
Are any of these documents public now?
I still dont get the point of doing this.
Don't know why he would destroy them, unless he was going for plausible deniability that he didn't take them.
There is no evidence, nor could there be, that he destroyed anything that wasnt duplicated somewhere else. Once again, y'all are fantasizing. You fantasized WMD's & ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq & you are fantasizing this. I wouldnt even care if it didnt once again prove what paranoid nutcases you are.
-
Are any of these documents public now?
I still dont get the point of doing this.
Don't know why he would destroy them, unless he was going for plausible deniability that he didn't take them.
There is no evidence, nor could there be, that he destroyed anything that wasnt duplicated somewhere else. Once again, y'all are fantasizing. You fantasized WMD's & ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq & you are fantasizing this. I wouldnt even care if it didnt once again prove what paranoid nutcases you are.
So what was he bothering with it ?
-
Are any of these documents public now?
I still dont get the point of doing this.
Don't know why he would destroy them, unless he was going for plausible deniability that he didn't take them.
There is no evidence, nor could there be, that he destroyed anything that wasnt duplicated somewhere else. Once again, y'all are fantasizing. You fantasized WMD's & ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq & you are fantasizing this. I wouldnt even care if it didnt once again prove what paranoid nutcases you are.
So what was he bothering with it ?
He said because he wanted to refresh his memory, but I dont completely buy that. I think he stumbled on evidence of incompetence in the Bushidiot Admin ( Now THAT would be easy enough) and he then wanted to keep it and perhaps expose it, but when he was caught, and his life threatened, he became a Repub and chickened out.
-
I think he stumbled on evidence of incompetence in the Bushidiot Admin
The documents that he claimed to have destroyed - indeed all of the documents that he removed - were from 2000. The Bush adminisration didn't come into the White House until 2001.
The problem is with your first two words up there. "I think", when you're talking about yourself, is obviously false.
-
Are any of these documents public now?
I still dont get the point of doing this.
Don't know why he would destroy them, unless he was going for plausible deniability that he didn't take them.
There is no evidence, nor could there be, that he destroyed anything that wasnt duplicated somewhere else. Once again, y'all are fantasizing. You fantasized WMD's & ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq & you are fantasizing this. I wouldnt even care if it didnt once again prove what paranoid nutcases you are.
So what was he bothering with it ?
He said because he wanted to refresh his memory, but I dont completely buy that. I think he stumbled on evidence of incompetence in the Bushidiot Admin ( Now THAT would be easy enough) and he then wanted to keep it and perhaps expose it, but when he was caught, and his life threatened, he became a Repub and chickened out.
Why would a purpose like that require placeing a document in your socks?
Or destroying it?
Yes the reason that I think he destroyed documents is that he confessed to it .
When was hs life threatened?
-
The problem is with your first two words up there. "I think", when you're talking about yourself, is obviously false.
ROFL
-
Are any of these documents public now?
I still dont get the point of doing this.
Don't know why he would destroy them, unless he was going for plausible deniability that he didn't take them.
There is no evidence, nor could there be, that he destroyed anything that wasnt duplicated somewhere else. Once again, y'all are fantasizing. You fantasized WMD's & ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq & you are fantasizing this. I wouldnt even care if it didnt once again prove what paranoid nutcases you are.
So what was he bothering with it ?
He said because he wanted to refresh his memory, but I dont completely buy that. I think he stumbled on evidence of incompetence in the Bushidiot Admin ( Now THAT would be easy enough) and he then wanted to keep it and perhaps expose it, but when he was caught, and his life threatened, he became a Repub and chickened out.
Why would a purpose like that require placeing a document in your socks?
Or destroying it?
Yes the reason that I think he destroyed documents is that he confessed to it .
When was hs life threatened?
I must remember to type reeaaalll ssslloooww when in here. He did not admit destroying original documents http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/12/berger-investigation/ which would have been the only kind that would mean he was hiding something and only then if he knew there were no other copies. This whole thing is the dead frog's last twitch for Repub scum that wallow in lies & trash. (which is nearly all of you, unfortunately)
-
Why would Berger admit to destroying documents if he didn't destroy them?
-
Perhaps they incriminate the Bush "administration" in some manner and he wants to hold them to use at the right moment.
Perhaps he leaked them and wanted people to think he destroyed his and wasn't the leaker.
Perhaps he knew they vindicated the Clinton administration and wanted the public to think that he destroyed them but secretly told the Bush "administration" that he didn't and used them as some kind of leverage.
Perhaps they incriminated the Clinton administration and he wanted to keep Hillary out of the race.
The real question is "What did the documents say?"
-
Perhaps they incriminate the Bush "administration" in some manner and he wants to hold them to use at the right moment.
Hahhahhahhahahhahhahahaa!
The real question is "What did the documents say?"
The real question is "What did the documents say?"
Yes! I am very courious!
-
Perhaps they incriminate the Bush "administration" in some manner and he wants to hold them to use at the right moment.
Hahhahhahhahahhahhahahaa!
The real question is "What did the documents say?"
The real question is "What did the documents say?"
Yes! I am very courious!
Whatever they said, they still say it because no originals were destroyed. I know you still want there to have been WMD's & ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq as well, but there werent. Please try to live in the world of reality once in a while.