Betsy's Page
HOME
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.
The truth about Avesil
Cheap Hosting
Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney
Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Online Bachelors Degree
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Friday, April 01, 2005
It really is a scandal that Sandy Berger is getting away with what seems like just an expensive slap on the wrist for this behavior.The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.This is his proposed penalty.
The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.
Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.Under terms negotiated by Berger's attorneys and the Justice Department, he has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. These terms must be accepted by a judge before they are final, but Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003.In the middle of an important investigation into intelligence failures leading to 9/11, this guy is sitting around cutting up classified documents that he stole from the Archives. Then he tries to put out some cock and bull story about "inadvertently" stuffing papers into his clothes. Give me a break. It was a deliberate attempt to mislead the investigators for some reason that has not been made clear.Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.Can we all guess as to why he wanted to remove this document? Perhaps our guesses might be "unfair" to the Clinton administration, but what are we to think when a man with Berger's background knowingly breaks the law in order to destroy the documents and lie about it to the public?
If someone went into a jewelry store and stole five necklaces, and then destroyed them because they were all the same, wouldn't that still be robbery?
0 comments
Comments:
It really is a scandal that Sandy Berger is getting away with what seems like just an expensive slap on the wrist for this behavior.
If someone went into a jewelry store and stole five necklaces, and then destroyed them because they were all the same, wouldn't that still be robbery?
0 comments
It really is a scandal that Sandy Berger is getting away with what seems like just an expensive slap on the wrist for this behavior.
The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.This is his proposed penalty.
The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.
Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.
Under terms negotiated by Berger's attorneys and the Justice Department, he has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. These terms must be accepted by a judge before they are final, but Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003.In the middle of an important investigation into intelligence failures leading to 9/11, this guy is sitting around cutting up classified documents that he stole from the Archives. Then he tries to put out some cock and bull story about "inadvertently" stuffing papers into his clothes. Give me a break. It was a deliberate attempt to mislead the investigators for some reason that has not been made clear.
Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.Can we all guess as to why he wanted to remove this document? Perhaps our guesses might be "unfair" to the Clinton administration, but what are we to think when a man with Berger's background knowingly breaks the law in order to destroy the documents and lie about it to the public?
If someone went into a jewelry store and stole five necklaces, and then destroyed them because they were all the same, wouldn't that still be robbery?
Comments:
Post a Comment
