It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sandy Berger "compromised national security much more than originally disclosed”

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
This is breaking news.

The Congressional Committee on Government Reform released its report on the Sandy Berger classified document theft regarding information surrounding 9/11.

For those who need a refresher, Sandy Berger was President Clinton's former National Security Advisor who entered the national archives and stole various classified documents relating to Clinton's knowledge of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plot.

The nature of those documents is not disclosed in the report; in fact the report states that we may never know the full extent of knowledge lost by Berger's theft and apparent destruction of said documents.

Read the report here.

Whether this adds fuel to the inside job theories remains debatable. Berger may simply have been trying to eliminate evidence that would have demonstrated his and the Clinton administration's knowledge of Osama's intent to attack the U.S. Perhaps it was something deeper, a level of government/CIA involvement that would have been damning to say the least. Unfortunately, unless those documents are just hidden and not destroyed, or we can put Berger in criminal court to extract what if anything was in those documents, we will never know what the "evidence" was.




posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
entered the national archives and stole various classified documents relating to Clinton's knowledge of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plot.


Yes .. he shoved them down his pants and walked out ... and said that he forgot they were in his pants.


I have never understood what force in DC is keeping this man out of prison. Someone has to be pulling strings for him. He should be in jail. I wish we all knew exactly what he stole ... we know WHY it was stolen ... to keep him and his boss (Clinton) out of jail and/or out of trouble .. but what exactly was it?

MAJOR coverup!



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Keep in mind that Bill Clinton was also invovled in the CIA drug smuggling operations that ran out of arkansas while he was president, and that Hilary, a presidential hopeful, was in the same law firm as another guy that was invovled in the coverups, murders, and government drug running (connected to iran-contra ultimately), that was going on there.

So, for the past couple of decades, we've had presidents that were in one way or another connected to it all, from regan, to bush 1, to clinton, bush 2, and possibly clinton 2.

These guys are GOOD at covering stuff up. Thats why they are in power.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Keep in mind that Bill Clinton was also invovled in the CIA drug smuggling operations that ran out of arkansas while he was president

Dont you mean while he was governer?
If my memory serves me correctly Clinton, as governer of Arkansas, was turning a blind eye to the CIA bringing coc aine into Mena Arkansas airport while Bush Sr. was president, and we all know about Bush Sr and his CIA connections, so he obviously knew what was going on.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
i may need to read up on this more, but i think it is a coincidence and maybe DEFLECTION to hear about this now, to trump the attention the air traffic controller from boston is getting claiming an inside job



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

I have never understood what force in DC is keeping this man out of prison. Someone has to be pulling strings for him. He should be in jail.

MAJOR coverup!


Exactly! If you got caught stealing an apple from a grocery store, you would be in more trouble than Clinton's minion Sandy Berger. And he stole classified documets from the National Archives FCS!


The part I really don't get is that with the Republicans in power, this guy should have easily been dead meat. So, who is powerful enough to save a democrat thief while the democrats have been out of power?



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   
i know it's easy to think that he stole the documents to cover his own/clintons ass but what if he didn't? theres also the possibility that he stole incriminating evidence against somebody else for the purpose of blackmail or to ensure that he stayed alive (and out of jail) because of what he knew etc.

perhaps in 30 years time someone could find out which documents he took under the freedom of information act. there must be a record of which ones were taken and found on him.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I don't know if we'll ever know what he took -- the National Archives has copies of the original documents, but reportedly there were margin notes that may have been unique to the stolen papers.

Anyway, I agree he got off way too light. If it was a member of the Bush admin who did this people would be crying bloody murder, but since he's Clinton's guy I guess that makes all OK...



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   
A good question is raised there - Who is powerful enough within Washington to keep this man out of jail when a Republican Government is in power??

There is no use speculating about what he stole, because it is clear as crystal that what ever it was holds alot of power over alot of people, or this man would of died in a 'car accident' soon after.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   
I think what was lost was lost for the benefit of both the republicans and the democrats, so I don't think the resulting events would have been any different if it had been a republican that swiped them. I was stuff that was never meant to reach the public eyes, so much so that they were willing to sacrifice one of their own...Berger...to make sure it stayed out of our eyesight. maybe it was about the IRan-contra, or maybe it was just very clear evidence that they knew all about the plan to hit us on 9/11 but chose not do do anything about it, but rather use the hit to their advantage, don't know.

the fact of the matter is, it is a important that our government have the ability to keep some matters secret....for our national security. and well, when we elect these officials into office, we are putting a great deal of trust into them to have our best interest as their top priority. to bad there is so few trustworthy people running for office now days. we will never know what berger swiped, or the full story surrounding 9/11. if we are lucky though, some of us will have learned a lesson, not to jump on their traditional political bandwagon without thinking it through first...don't support a candidate, unless you believe he is trustworthy enough to handle the really classified stuff and still keep his priorities in order so that your safety and wellbeing if first and foremost in his mind...
vote third party!



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Well folks, Here you Conspiricy of the Week!

If the Clinton Administration on the 9/11 plot, why did the government NOT act on it before 5'000+ people died?


At the Lease, this is Criminal Neglegence! At worst, we have a traitor who aided Al Quada in killing Americans. Snif, Sinf, I smell Skunk!


So which lable do we want for a guy who helped get Americans killed for private gain?

Scum Ball
Thief
TRAITOR
Al Quada sympthizer
Anti-American

Take your pick or add you own! I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone whose actions contributed to the deaths of 5'000+ Fellow Americans!


Tim



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   
the congress was predominately republican the last few years of the clinton administration, some of them knew of it also...why did they keep it secret?
the bush administration knew of it before they came into office, why did they not act on that knowledge....there seems to be lots of traitors, maybe....and they're on both sides of the political arena.

oh, and as far as why they didn't act on it??

well....they wouldn't have had such a panicked, crazed population who were so willing to go along with whatever they said!! there wouldn't have been so much support.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by dawnstar]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Ghost1 hit the nail on the head.

This is a true bona fida conspiracy to keep the facts from the people, and the machinations of power running smoothly in a direction they want it to run - NOT where the people want it to go.

After seeing the Clinton / Bush SR picture, man I just shook my head and hoped to God that these people get the rewards they deserve so richly in the next life.

Because it seems in this life they are keeping power within a very tight inner circle.

I fear for the world if hilary Clinton gets into power.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Ghost1 hit the nail on the head.

This is a true bona fida conspiracy to keep the facts from the people, and the machinations of power running smoothly in a direction they want it to run - NOT where the people want it to go.


Hey folks, we have a winner!


D4rk Kn1ght got the conspiriacy right! For you conspiacy theorists, here's the kicker:

Conspiricy is defined in the webster's dictonary as: An Agreement between 2 or more people to knowingly break the law

Now, here's where the conspiricy comes in:

1st the Clinton Administration hid the threat of a attack on the US! Attacking a country is an act of war.

Aiding an enemy in planning or executing an act of war against your own country in any way is Treason.

What we have here is an act of treason involving several key people in high positions of government.

2nd, we have an even lager circle who helped cover all of this up.

In Summery: We have a group of people working together to commit and cover up treason. That is your Conspiracy!

It passses the conspiracy test:

Illegal- YES
Involving more than 1 person- YES
Did all involved parties Know they were breaking US law- YES

Tim



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I don't know if we'll ever know what he took -- the National Archives has copies of the original documents, but reportedly there were margin notes that may have been unique to the stolen papers.


Johnsto struck home with this. The documents themselves, while probably interesting and noteworthy, were only second into what may have been scrawled in the margins by Berger, Clinton or any admin staff member. Wouldn't it be amazing that, say, the document was a memo regarding al qaeda and the liner note was a hand written statement by someone acknowledging Osama as a CIA asset? speculation, of course.

The bottom line is the Committee report is tantamount to a slap on the wrist for Berger. He committed a felony. Any other person would be in a court of law facing jail time. Not only were they government property, but taking the documents prevented the 9/11 COmmission from fully investigating the evidence to any prior knowledge of the attack. So, in short, Berger committed obstruciton of justice. That is a serious charge, if my limited knowledge of legal affairs is accurate.

And yet he gets repremanded by Congress and walks free?

I have to agree with many on here that he's being protected from on high. Congressional leaders are implying that because we don't know what the context of those documents were, we can't charge Berger with a crime. Obstruction of justice is mutually exclusive. Those documents would arguably have been needed for the investigation; stealing them impeded the commission's ability to fully investigate how the U.S. failed to stop 9/11. Hence, Berger should be charged and tried for obstruction.

But no, he's let off scott free. I may be a skeptic, but the more you watch the circus of chaos around 9/11, the more you see the machinations of a true conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by justyc
theres also the possibility that he stole incriminating evidence against somebody else for the purpose of blackmail or to ensure that he stayed alive (and out of jail) because of what he knew etc.


I would say this is a good possibility. Otherwise how does a dem steal documents and not be in jail during rep power. I'd say Sandy has something on someone.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
The most incredible thing is he's going to get his U.S. gov't top secret clearance reinstated after his short probationary (or whatever the hell it is) time period is over.

You just can't make this stuff up, I don't know whether to laugh or cry!



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The most incredible thing is he's going to get his U.S. gov't top secret clearance reinstated after his short probationary (or whatever the hell it is) time period is over.

You just can't make this stuff up, I don't know whether to laugh or cry!



WHAT? Why is he getting his Top Secret clearance back?


First off, he's not the National Security advisor anymore, why does he even need a security clearance? Second, How in hell can they give someone who's already stolen classified information once a security clearance?

This is embarassing! This guy had his clearance TAKEN AWAY because he violated security rules. How can our government be stupid enough to give him his clearance back?


Do security rules really mean nothing?

Someone, Please tell me this was a mistake and Sandy Berger isn't getting his clearance back! I'd like to know that National Security still means something here in America!


Tim



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
if the republicans don't want to go after him makes you wonder if the documents are incriminating to both parties. hmm...



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by justyc
i know it's easy to think that he stole the documents to cover his own/clintons ass but what if he didn't? theres also the possibility that he stole incriminating evidence against somebody else for the purpose of blackmail or to ensure that he stayed alive (and out of jail) because of what he knew etc.

perhaps in 30 years time someone could find out which documents he took under the freedom of information act. there must be a record of which ones were taken and found on him.


good point.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join