Snow: O'Neill Given Classified Documents

AP ^ | 2/6/04

[truthandlife]

Documents given to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (search) for a book contained classified information, according to a letter his successor John Snow (search) sent to Congress on Friday.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press, said that a preliminary investigation conducted by the Treasury Department's inspector general found that sensitive information was released in the documents given to O'Neill when he left the department.

[Mike Darancette]

It was O'Neil's responsibility for the security of classified documents in his possession. If you are given a security clearance for your job and you leave that job you still cannot divulge secrets.

[CatoRenasci]

If O'Neill was given the information by government officials who did not identify it as classified, and he had no other reason to believe the information was classified, he has done nothing wrong disclosing it.

[Henchster]

Sounds like the administration cut a deal with O'Numbnuts:

Shut your pie hole, or we'll prosecute your dumb-@$$.

[jimtorr]

That's right. He signed a security agreement to never divulge classified info to persons not properly cleared.

Of course, O'Neil is shilling for the Democrats now, so I don't expect there will be any consequences.

[ConservativeMan55]

Man!

I have bad eyes, and at first I thought it said Shaquille O'Neal given classified documents!

He couldn't read them if he got em!

[jimtorr]

...he had no other reason to believe the information was classified, he has done nothing wrong disclosing it.

That is not correct.

Anyone with access to classified has a legal obligation to protect that classified material from unauthorized access.

If he doesn't know it's classified, he is to ignorant to be trusted with it in the first place. His position as secretary doesn't matter, he has people to take care of it for him.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

What the hell is a govt. agency doing letting O'Knucklehead take documents with him anyway? That's crazy if that's SOP. When I left the military, I wasn't allowed to take any job-related documents or computer disks with me, classified or not. That's the way it should be. I'm not against a guy taking his personal pens, textbooks, and notebooks (minus any paper that has writing or printing), but documents of any kind shouldn't be leaving with him.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

He signed a security agreement to never divulge classified info to persons not properly cleared.

There's more to it than that. Anybody receiving that data also has to have a need-to-know.

And, this guy shouldn't be taking documents with him anyway, classified or not.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

That's not necessarily true. There's all kinds of information that may not necessarily be classified but still shouldn't be disclosed. Examples: contracting documents that show dollar figures or are competition-sensitive, source-selection documents, proprietary data, mishap-sensitive information, documents that fall under the Privacy Act of 1974, just to name a few. I would have expected more from a government employee of O'Neill's rank and position.

[prairiebreeze]

And, this guy shouldn't be taking documents with him anyway, classified or not.

Wasn't it something like 10,000 documents? I mean, reams and reams of the stuff. He intended to write a book all along out of revenge.

What a small, petty man.

Prairie

[PLMerite]

IIRC, didn't some of the documents he flashed in his interview still have classification markings?

[DoctorMichael]

Arrest him.

Schmuck.

[gaspar]

The only time I have seen Rumsfeld befuddled was when he was asked questions about O'Neill and his book. More in sorrow than anger, Rumsfeld indicated that he thought he had known the man well. Rumsfeld was shocked by -- and actually denied the substance of -- the headline grabbing claims.

Rumsfeld knows, as does everyone in high Government service, that there is a sense of propriety that limits ones actions after leaving government. It is called the principle of the decent interval.

I doubt that O'Neill has many friends left, in or out of government.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Exactly. I'll bet he used a personal relationship as leverage to get them. Just because he obtained them does NOT give him permission to use the information in them.

[gov_bean_ counter]

The only thing one really needs to know about O'Neill is during the 90s Clinton worked with Marc Rich to make aluminum available to ALCOA when ALCOA was on the ropes (like every other aluminum company). Clinton saved O'Neill's career, but expected payback. Sorta like Vito and the undertaker. I don't think O'Neill wanted to write the book, but was made an offer he couldn't refuse.

[cyncooper]

If O'Neill was given the information by government officials who did not identify it as classified, and he had no other reason to believe the information was classified, he has done nothing wrong disclosing it.

I believe you. What do you make of his story out of his own mouth? He says he called up his old office and asked them to send him any documents he was entitled to. He says about 3 weeks later he received several CDs and (here's the part I want your opinion on:) handed them over to the reporter who wrote the book, Suskind, without first reviewing the CDs himself.

I don't expect any action taken against the old fool, just wondering about the propriety of that.

[cyncooper]

19,000...

[CatoRenasci]

Well, this is a bit gray: If you ask for documents, and you no longer have a "need to know", even if you have a clearance, you shouldn't be given classified information.

If you're given information with no indication that it's classified, how are you supposed to know? It's possible you saw it earlier and knew it was classified, but otherwise, it's hard to see how you would know.

Nonetheless, a reasonably prudent man in these circumstances ought at least to have looked through the documents before giving them to a third party.

In my experience, if a document is classified, it says so right on it. And, typically, it has a cover sheet that indicates the level of classification. And, if it is more than merely "confidential", you have to specifically sign for the document in a document log. If none of these procedures were followed, i.e. there were no classification markings on documents, no cover sheets and no log of classified documents for which Mr. O'Neill signed, it's hard to see where he is legally at fault. Though, again, ideally, he'd have checked himself before giving them to a third party whose clearance and "need to know" were uncertain.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Do we have any confirmation that the CDs Suskind was the "only" data transferred by O'Neill?

[Eva]

Some of the documents were clearly marked "classified". O'Neil never reviewed the documents before turning them over to the author. He just gave him the cd. My thought is that the author and the clerk who prepared the cd were in cahoots and were using O'Neil as an angry dupe.

[CatoRenasci]

By the way, my favorite classification marking were ones we ginned up when I was working at a defense contractor:

Company Private-No Gov -- Not realeasable to any government agency or employee.

and

Secret - Not Releaseable to Aviation Week and Space Techonology.

[gov_bean_ counter]

sorry,

given to Suskind

[AlbionGirl]

Even if he did something wrong in disclosing this, it's meaningless. And what's supposed to happen to him; is he en route to prison once they successfully prosecute him?

Attacking him because of perceived or real ethical lapse(s) does not nullify the impact his 'disclosure' had. Let the issue die for goodness sake, instead of breathing life back into it, and giving it and him the power to strike again. Twits!!!

[claptrap]

Didnt some laptops from the state department get legs whilst The Clintons were in there?
Didnt laptops and some other really cool W-88 plans get dissappeared for a while from Los Alamos Laboratory?
Didnt F.B.I. supervisors specifically tell suspicous field agents not to investigate failed pilot M.Atta and his buddies?
This sounds like SOP to me just different people running the show!

[PLMerite]

Where I work, they remind us that just because it might get leaked and appear in the press, that doesn't mean it's been declassified. We are still under obligation not to discuss it.

[jungleboy]

Most documents are physically noted as classified.

[cyncooper]

Thank you for your insight.

[Phsstpok]

If O'Neill was given the information by government officials who did not identify it as classified, and he had no other reason to believe the information was classified, he has done nothing wrong disclosing it.

I know Paul O'Neill. I worked for Paul O'Neill. I like Paul O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill is a "big boy" who has gone through at least two stints in high governement office and even more time in the top level of corporate America. He had the responsibility to safeguard EVERY document in his posession, officially classified or not. This is not the kind of thing you can claim "well they gave it to me!" about. Give this excuse to the SEC over confidential documents that lead to insider trading and you do serious time. Do it with officially classified documents in time of war and you can find yourself in front of a firing squad.

There is NO ARGUMENT on this type of situation. "I'm an idiot" is not an excuse.

[PhiKapMom]

I am with you 100%.

When you work for the Government and leave you are required to sign a statement saying you will divulge no information you received on your job. What part of Need to Know did O'Neill not realize?

If the documents were classified, they would have had to have markings on them -- O'Neill is guilty for handing documents over from the Government over to a reporter IMHO. No excuses!

It was his job to know what was on those disc's before giving them to a writer. Not to mention the person who handed everything over to O'Neill should be fired and charges brought. There is NO excuse for classified documents to be given to a private citizen and O'Neill should be brought up on charges for divulging classified information. I would throw the book at him if it were me!

[hoosiermama]

That's what a friend told me who worked with classified papers.....Papers are marked...He would know he had classified material.

[Ichneumon]

The only time I have seen Rumsfeld befuddled was when he was asked questions about O'Neill and his book. More in sorrow than anger, Rumsfeld indicated that he thought he had known the man well. Rumsfeld was shocked by -- and actually denied the substance of -- the headline grabbing claims.

On the radio news a couple of weeks ago they quoted "an administration official" who said something along the lines of, "we didn't listen to O'Neil when he was here, why should we start now?"

[lainde]

19.000 is what I heard. How on earth could they have been properly reviewed if he took them in a snit.

[CatoRenasci]

Well, I'm no big macher and I don't know Paul O'Neill. But, I have had responsibility for classified documents in the military, and in the defense industry. I understand the distinction between offical documents (most of which are public records and subject to public disclosure) and the various levels of classified information, from 'confidential' on up through levels of compartmentalization that boggle the mind. I also have practiced securities law for more than 20 years, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of the law of insider trading.

It is simply not true that evey public document in one's possession must be safeguarded from disclosure. Only that information which bears some level of classification must not be disclosed. I reiterate, unless the law has changed drastically, if you are given a document that does not bear any classification, are not informed that it is classified, and do not have any other reasonable grounds to believe the information is classified, you will not have any legal liability for disclosing it.

As to you securities law comment, it is not public disclosure of material non-public information that creates legal liabilty, rather it is the use of that information by one or more persons in order to trade ahead of the public disclosure of that information.

[CalKat]

He didn't take the documents with him. After he had been gone for awhile, he made a request for documents pertaining to his tenure. The Treasury Dept. scrubbed their files and gave him documents on a CD. O'Neill says he didn't even look at the CD, just gave it to the writer.

[CatoRenasci]

IIRC, the statement you sign says you won't divulge any classified information.

I agree with you that classified information is almost always clearly marked, unless someone screws up. I can recall instances of that, however. For example, there was an unclassified, widely disseminated Army Field Manual that was hurriedly recalled after it was discovered to contain classified information. And, as you know, a document bears the classification of the most sensitve item in it: hence a document that has one Top Secret fact, but is otherwise merely "Secret" or "Confidential" would be classified as "Top Secret" and handled as Top Secret. More than once, I have seen mistakes made in that some documents that were mostly at one level, but had a very few items at a higher level, were only marked at the lower level. The most blatant example I can recall was finding a couple of "Top Secret" pages (clearly so marked) in the middle of a "Secret" document I had just received. Huge brouhaha over that one, and we had to go to incredible lengths to safeguard it until the DoD people came and retrieved it. I couldn't go to the bathroom without checking it back into a TS safe, and we had additional cypher-locks placed on the door. Major pain.

In the O'Neill case, it seems to me that the key questions are 1) was the information clearly marked as clssified?, 2) if so, did O'Neill disclose it? If the information wasn't marked, no foul. The more interesting question relates to the sort of "embeded" classified information similary to what I described. If there was such embedded classified information, 1) was O'Neill informed of the fact, and 2) if not, did he exercise reasonable care in inspecting the documents for classified information. If he didn't, and it was their, fry him and the guy who gave it to him. If he did exercise care and looked at the documents and found no classification, he's done no crime.

[Howlin]

It was O'Neil's responsibility for the security of classified documents in his possession.

That's really all that needs to be said.

[Phsstpok]

documents contained in the files were labeled "Top Secret."

Fini. Done. Tau Ceti. His responsibility.

His defense is that he didn't look because he ASSUMED that they wouldn't have sent him anything classified. In the time when you say you had a responsibility for secret documents would "I assumed" have been a defense?

the SEC comment assumed disclosure and action. Duh!

[whadizit]

Man, don't you know, W wishes he hadn't wasted an appointment on that goofball!!

[CatoRenasci]

If in fact documents in the files given to O'Neill were labedled "Top Secret", I agree with you. It was his rsesponsibility to review what he received and, if anything classified (and properly so marked) was contained in the pile, he should have immediately notified the appropriate authority (who then should have come and collected them). I agree that a defense that he assumed it wasn't classified because they didn't tell him so is weak. Whether O'Neill was merely an idiot or a felon, however, depends on the actual facts of the transmission documents and the markings on the classified documents.

Where we seem to be talking past each other is on the SEC point. In SEC-speak, "disclosure" typically means making information publically available, whether by a filing or publication. From the SEC's perspective "disclosure" is a good thing, as it puts all investors (or at least all of those who look for the available information) on a level playing field. What gets you in trouble is (1) having material nonpublic information about a publically traded security and (2) acting on it, personally or in concert with others. The opposite of disclosure, really.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

O'Neill says he didn't even look at the CD, just gave it to the writer.

That tells me all I need to know. It is un-effin-believable. He is fired by the President, asks for the documents to which he is entitled, & hands them over without review?

Bitter, stupid, or senile or giving a devil his due?

[Cicero]

Of course. I was a Hawk Missile Acquisition Radar repairman when I was in the army, but I also spent some time as our company's Classified Document Clerk. Among other things, that meant burning classified documents that were no longer needed, which I did in a 55-gallon oil drum out back. Documents were clearly marked "CLASSIFIED" or "SECRET" on every page in large letters.

[TankerKC]

Anyone with access to classified has a legal obligation to protect that classified material from unauthorized access.

If, and only if, the documents are properly marked. If they were given to him without proper markings, then there is no way for him to know the classification level.

[jimtorr]

If, and only if, the documents are properly marked. If they were given to him without proper markings, then there is no way for him to know the classification level.

That is true in only a very limited sense, if O'Neill was not at all familiar with the material in question.

It is incumbent on anyone with a security access to know the proper classification of any material that he has access to.

Furthermore, apparently at least some of the material in question was marked. Therefore, O'Neill knowingly published material that he knew to be classified.

It really grates on me when I see time and time again government officials and politicians get away with the most blatant of offenses in releasing classified material.

Remember when the CIA Director hooked up his classified computer at home to the internet? His children used it to surf and play computer games. He escaped nearly scot free. If I had done the same, I would today be in prison.

[Archangelsk]

He couldn't read them if he got em!

And yet, in spite of this, he makes more money in a day, placing a round ball in a basket, than 99% of this forum make in a year and more money in a year than the latter make in a lifetime.

Ain't market value grand?

[ConservativeMan55]

It SHO is! LOL!