Sandy Berger "inadvertantly" took home classified materials relating to terrorism, and most of the focus seems to be on the actual reports that somehow ended up in his briefcase. More interesting to me are the handwritten notes "he knowingly removed [] by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks".
His lawyer says:
Breuer said Berger was allowed to take handwritten notes but also knew that taking his own notes out of the secure reading room was a "technical violation of Archive procedures, but it is not all clear to us this represents a violation of the law."I'm not a classified-information-handling lawyer, but I've been instructed in the procedures for handling classified equipment and data, and what Mr. Berger did is absolutely indefensible. Not only is notetaking not allowed, but just about everything that comes into contact with classified information becomes classified itself until and unless it is declassified.
For instance, if you put a floppy disk into a classified computer system the floppy disk is immediately classified. It must either go through a detailed inspection and declassificiation procedure or it must be destroyed. It's not hard to bring data into a classified perimeter, but it's designed to be hard to take it out, and a lot of disks are destroyed after use to save time and money. Likewise, bringing a notebook into a classified area will instantly classify the entire notebook at the highest level of classification the notebook may have come into contact with. The same goes for digital cameras and cell phones with cameras -- you quickly learn not to bring those things into classified areas because you generally won't get them back.
Unless you stick them in your socks.
Sandy Berger knew all this far better than I do -- he was the national security advisor for four years. He purposefully sought to circumvent the rules for handling classified information for his own benefit and to give advantage to whomever he was sharing the information with.
Berger served as Clinton's national security adviser for all of the president's second term and most recently has been informally advising Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Clinton asked Berger last year to review and select the administration documents that would be turned over to the Sept. 11 commission.Ah.
Update:
Sandy Berger has disgraced himself.
I wonder how far out of the realm of possibility it would be for you to post some commentary that maybe.. just maybe.. would make a conservative or Republican look bad when the facts support such a conclusion.
No sensible person would believe that it's only liberals and Democrats who make or are involved with blunders and mistakes.. although it is a concept that some readers of your website may come away with.
He "mistakenly" put classified documents down his pants? In his socks?
Come on, Mark. Get serious. Have you ever accidentally put something down your pants? Accidentally put something in your socks?
The right-left comparisons here are mind-boggling: Bush relays British intel about yellowcake, and the press screams for weeks that he "lied." Berger puts classified documents down his pants, and it's a mistake?
The press will try hard to bury this, but it'll be hard for them. "He put classified documents down his pants" is just too funny a sentence to ignore.
I agree... this is a significant story that definitely does not help Kerry.
Perhaps I should've said "does something wrong or bad" instead of "mistakes and blunders".
I'm not the press. I think they blew the yellowcake thing out of proportion... and that the press is far from being bias-free.
All that is irrelevant, though, because I'm talking about this website... not the mainstream press.
This story will at least make an appearance in the press... whereas any story that casts a negative light on Republicans or conservatives would probably never get posted here.
Nice try Mark. Most of us are more than fair when our guys do bad. Many conservative blogs hammered Riordan when he made his stupid comment a few weeks back, but there is no need to even go there right now.
Berger did something indefensibly wrong and the only response I have seen from the left is either emphasising that he just made a mistake or complaining about the timing of this news.
Now your complaint is not about Berger and his actions but that we really shouldn't be talking about this because conservatives aren't fair.
Take a dose of your own advice and agree that this is a very damning development. It taints the 9/11 Commission's report; it taints Berger and it taints Kerry by association - as Berger is a major player in Kerry's policy group.
I never said we shouldn't talk about it. I also never said anything about other conservative blogs. In fact, I applaud those who are fair when their guys, so to speak, do bad.
The timing is interesting, but I don't think it's a conspiracy. It is an election year, however, and all the plays in the strategy playbook get at least considered... on the Bush team as well as on the Kerry team.
I never said it wasn't a significantly damaging development.. and you're right.. it does play into all of the things you mentioned.
Mark: Hm, I've been pretty hard on the Bush Administration when the situation warrants it. I think he spends way too much of my money and doesn't fight very hard to appoint conservative judges or oppose abortion.
I've also criticised decisions in Iraq (such as not using much force in Fallujah) that, in hindsight, the BA was right about and I was wrong about. I think the TSA is a joke, however.
Anyway, there are a few points. First, I criticize those on the right when I feel inclined to do so, but secondly, I don't always feel so inclined. Why should I? I only have so much time to blog, and I'd rather concentrate on things that help "my side" of the debate. Sometimes that means denouncing an ally who does something bad, but often I leave that to the left.