Kerry's security clearance.

[zaj]

One of the "theories" that the GOP is advancing is that Berger was helping Kerry access classified information... about ports?

Anyway, I've heard repeatedly that Kerry doesn't need someone else accessing the archive records for him, because he has access to them though his committee memberships.

Which committee is it? And is there any link documenting this fact anywhere?

Thanks!

[stavka]

1. Committee seats

http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/about/committee.html

[zaj]

3. Thanks... is there any documentation of the security clearance

available to Kerry and those memebers anywhere?

[BurtWorm]

4. They have oversight responsibilities for foreign policy

It's their job to oversee how our money is spent on the nation's foreign policy. How would they be able to do that without a security clearance? Base it on news stories after the fact?

[zaj]

5. The issue is that not all security clearance is the same...

... and I'm trying to "prove" that Kerry had access to these documents.

[BurtWorm]

6. I see. Sorry if I came off snarky.

I imagined you were having a debate with some obnoxious winger twit, and all I could see was the twit in question. :hi:

(It's a worthwhile point to pursue, by the way.)

[voice of reason]

7. true - they aren't the same

it's actually a matter of 'access' and 'compartmentilization'. And it's always on a need-to-know basis.

I would suspect that Kerry and other members of Congress have a Top Secret clearance, but limited access. Meaning they have full access to summaries and reports, but probably not source data or collection techniques. But, depending on committee membership and specific functions within that committee they may have limited access to raw intel. However, despite that access they won't be able to lay eyes on the "meta-data" for that intel (collection techniques, sources, etc)

I had a TSSI (Top Secret Special Inteligence) for six years and technically I guess I still do, but I no longer have access to the tasty codeword information (like Berger was looking at in the archives), since I no longer have a specific need to know. And without that specific access all you can see is sanitized "derivative" intelligence.

I don't know enough about how the congressional comittees work to really give an authoritative answer, though.

v.o.r.

edit - fixed a small mistake

[leanings]

10. A TS and a pot leaf icon, huh?

Naughty. :)

[voice of reason]

13. well . . .

I am a private citizen now ; }

v.o.r.

[BurtWorm]

2. Foreign affairs.

[sandnsea]

8. They MADE IT UP

There is absolutely not one word from any source anywhere to support that. They MADE IT UP. It's a figment of their imagination. They talk about port security speeches in FEBRUARY when Berger was at the archives in OCTOBER. It's worse than spin, it's complete fantasy.

[Generator]

9. Here's the cliff notes version

They are full of shit.

[timdoodle]

11. All members of Congress have Code Level Top Secret Clearance upon Swearing

in...

[zaj]

15. Do you have a link on that?

There are a lot of incorrect people if that's true.

[sandnsea]

16. Link on what???

How can I link to stories that don't exist??? That's the whole damned point. All YOU have is Rush Limbaugh concocting secret meetings from thin air.

[zaj]

18. I'm on your side...

I'm looking to provide support for my argument: that Kerry had the clearance necessary without Berger's help IF he were ever to want to read those reports.

[sandnsea]

19. Why?

I didn't say that anyway. Because when people are just throwing shit around, I'm not going to catch it and throw it back. I'm going to point my finger and say, "hey everybody, look at that retard playing in his own shit."

[zaj]

20. I'm having a discussion with someone else...

...on another board. I'm looking for documentation on the matter.

[blm]

12. Berger was being investigated last October. He didn't start advising Kerry

until it was apparent Kerry was the nominee. Prior to that he was giving general advice to any Democratic contender.

No way would Berger give Kerry any information for which he was already under investigation, and by the way, already cleared. The Repubs don't like to mention that part.

[zaj]

14. Where's the "already cleared" part?

That's new.

[blm]

17. His lawyer said (in the Blitzer interview I think) that they

had been told months ago there was no problem. He said what happened was a violation of protocol but not criminal.

I think the investigation was only KEPT open for political reasons. Like Whitewater. They knew there was nothing there but they kept it open and waited for another opportunity to come up so they could use the power given to them to investigate Whitewater.