| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Wretchard: Sandy "Burglar" and the signal-to-noise ratio |
| 2004-07-22 |
| It would be wrong to speculate on Sandy Berger's ultimate motive for removing classified documents from the National Archives. Working with insufficient information is the best way to mislead one's self. However, there might be some value to adopting a preliminary framework for understanding new information as it comes to light. The model that comes readily to mind is to regard Berger's escapade as a kind of information countermeasure. The most common ways to conceal information are to 1) create a decoy signal; 2) generate enough noise to blot out the underlying information; and 3) to reduce the signal of the original information which you want to conceal. Most readers are broadly familiar with the countermeasures used on military aircraft. They can release decoys, like flares or drones. They can emit signals from jamming pods to white out the enemy radar screens. They can employ a variety of measures to reduce their reflection so that they remain unseen, the so-called stealth technology. Each of these corresponds to one type of countermeasure described above. As an exercise one can hypothetically regard the Plame-Wilson affair, the Richard Clarke book and Sandy Berger's bungled theft as representatives of these three kinds of information countermeasures. The first establishes a false "blip" -- the Bush Lied meme -- which misled intelligent bloggers like Oxblog's Patrick Belton for weeks as he followed this phantom echo. The Richard Clarke book can be considered a noise barrager type of countermeasure. It was for the most part a big sound and light show laced with ominous drumrolls with nothing behind it. When the time came to set Clarke's book against Condoleeza Rice's testimony at the 9/11 hearings there was curious lack of collision, as might be expected once you got past the boundary generated by a noise jammer. Berger's attempt to stuff codeword classified documents into his pants and socks looks like signature-reduction exercise on its face. It was an attempt to excise information; to create a stealth object which could pass through unnoticed. The presence of countermeasures almost always indicates the presence of real information which the jamming is intended to protect. One of the reasons that coverups are so dangerous is they create the danger of "home-on-jam", where the source of jamming signal is itself targeted. The significance of catching Sandy Berger in the act of purloining classified couments is that it enables investigators to "home-on-jam", to find the beneficiary of the coverup. Where will it lead? Stay tuned. Remember that jamming needs to work just long enough for the real bandit to accomplish its mission. Wonder what he means by that? |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #18 Same where I was OldSpook. Also no briefcases, portfolios, floppy disks (though there weren't any floppy drives even if you had a disk) or other electronic media, etc. We were even told that receive-only portable AM/FM radios & portable playback-only CD players were verboten. This really stinks and it's insane the way it's being whitewashed. But then again the average person would have no idea just how outrageous Berger & Clinton's assertions are on their face. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-07-22 11:48:49 PM |
| #17 Old Spook, as I remember, the three most cautious officers on a USN ship were the Disbo, the MPA - when he had the main reduction gear open - and a CMS Custodian. Levenworth is full of "sloppy" Disbo's and CMS Custodians. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-07-22 11:32:33 PM |
| #16 Cell phones, cameras, PDAs, MP3 Players, voice recroders (note taker recorders), Ipods, laptops, etc - all forbidden in any place I've worked that had certain compartments and/or classifications. It was a DELIBERATE act -if you routinely work with that stuff you never "just put it in a pocket". I've handled (and created) sensitive compartmented information over the years, and were I to stroll out with documents like Berger did, I'd not be here to type - I'd be sitting in a jail cell. This whole thing stinks of coverup. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-07-22 11:26:12 PM |
| #15 That's my assumption as well Robert. I was just pointing out how absolutely outrageous Berger's actions really were for those who might not have worked under this sort of security. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-07-22 9:36:43 PM |
| #14 "Why was he allowed to carry one into the archive in the first place?" He was a former NSA, and likely his being from a Democrat administration made the staff a little more cooperative. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-07-22 8:35:40 PM |
| #13 While it seems to be the archive staff indicating that Berger was making cell phone calls, this doesn't make any sense at all to me. When I worked in a secure area where classified material was present, cell phones were strictly forbidden. Why was he allowed to carry one into the archive in the first place? |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-07-22 5:51:12 PM |
| #12 At the same time, if they think Bergler's purloining some/all of the copies of the file, in addition to marking them, how about making a couple of backups and putting them somewhere else? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-07-22 5:43:14 PM |
| #11 CF--The Archive may have some backups, but they are likely of limited number (it's not very secure to have top secret docs lying around in vast quantities). Also, as I understand, several of these docs had hand-written notes or addendums on them (put there by various advisers or experts, I assume) which made them unique. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-07-22 4:29:46 PM |
| #10 One of the excuses given to get NA employees out of the room with Berger was that he need to make a phone call. Should be pretty simple to request his cell phone records. This story has legs. |
| Posted by: danking70 2004-07-22 4:28:56 PM |
| #9 given the fact that Clinton knew about that Sandy was under investigation and Kerry didn't I think the reason Sandy took the documents was to pre position a Clinton spin in case the 911 Commission was critical of the Clinton administration |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-07-22 4:02:40 PM |
| #8 The only someone else I can imagine in this scenario is William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, on whose "administration's" behalf Berger went in. Why would he do this? As has been pointed out a lot, he would know fully well what the procedures are to handle these docs. It was no accident. What would he possibly gain if he did it? What would Berger stand to lose if he didn't do it? Fun to speculate, but it isn't likely to get anyone far. Concentrate on: what did he take? Who else was in the meetings where the document drafts were generated? Can the information be recovered by any means. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-07-22 3:41:43 PM |
| #7 Sen. Mitch McConnell had the best description: Sandy put the CCD (coded confidential documents) in his BVDs. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-07-22 3:03:52 PM |
| #6 Wonder what he means by that? Perhaps that Mr. Bergler was working on behalf of someone else, and knowingly sacrificed as a "pawn" to keep other stuff from coming out, or it being revealed that other documents are missing... |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-07-22 2:54:05 PM |
| #5 "There is no excuse for a man who was the NSA to POTUS to "NOT KNOW HOW" to handle classified material. It is utter BS." -exactly. Any young servicemen who deal w/classified material know this. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-07-22 2:38:16 PM |
| #4 There is no excuse for a man who was the NSA to POTUS to "NOT KNOW HOW" to handle classified material. It is utter BS. If you or I were to be caught inadvertently removing or replacing even 1 classified document, we would be behind bars. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2004-07-22 2:35:44 PM |
| #3 According to what I've read, Bergler made several trips to make sure he had all copies of a particular followup report to the attempted Millenium bombings and re: countering attacks on our sea ports. The staff at the National Archives marked these papers to set up a sting and catch him in the act. The theft of the papers occurred over several occasions, with him being questioned and reminded about procedures on each occasion. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-07-22 2:24:48 PM |
| #2 Doesn't the national archive have backups? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-07-22 2:15:22 PM |
| #1 I just wonder how difficult it is to "replace" documents at the National Archives? Is it possible on the first visit he took what he wanted to hide and then replaced it with want they wanted everyone to see? |
| Posted by: plainslow 2004-07-22 12:45:38 PM |