What is Digg?87 Comments
- monkeyshines, on 02/24/2008, -0/+34Destroyed torture tapes, deleted government e-mails, a "fire" in Cheney's document-filled office...and now we have another case of important information being destroyed by those trusted to keep it secure.... when will this stop?
- CypherXero, on 02/24/2008, -0/+34This is just like the "memory hole" from 1984.
- DarkLance, on 02/24/2008, -8/+31Burn bags are very common, and the rules for their implementation are quite strict. Once a area is deemed classified to some extent ANYTHING in or entering that room is now classified as well. Exceptions are made on a case-by-case instance. i.e. your wallet follows you in (depending on level of classification, it might not even be allowed in) that wallet, at that particular moment is allowed out "unclass". So if I was to carry a piece of paper in, it is now classified. I scribble a note on a post-it, classified I bring a screwdriver into the room, its classified until specifically declassified. At the end of the day (or shift) all material that is not logged is destroyed, so any loose papers (or other burnables) are placed in the burn bag and sealed. Next burn cycle, it goes in under arms (guard, armored truck, next Superman flight to the Sun, etc) to the burn center. Burn centers are classified to the highest level of material being submitted. (so, good luck intercepting it). On top of this, most installations have a policy to schred anything possible before it is placed into the burn bag.
The point of all this is, if all procedures were followed, its very likely that the person was just doing their job. No comment of the timely-ness of the incident though. - tomboy501, on 02/24/2008, -2/+20from Wikipedia: Burn bags are generally associated with governmental organizations like the CIA and NSA, due to the classified nature of their work. Most other governmental organizations have some form of burn bag system to destroy documents deemed of a Top Secret, Secret, Classified, or other similar nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_bag
I guess whatever evidence she destroyed was really that bad...or just the Secret Service in overkill mode again. - bradcrc, on 02/24/2008, -0/+17burning documents directly related to testimony just before you are supposed to appear is not a coincedence, doesn't matter how you try to spin that.
- MrColdheart, on 02/24/2008, -2/+14what are you smoking?
nobody said anything about burning discarded documents it says the agent destroyed original documents during a ***** trial.
get your head out of the clouds. - inactive, on 02/24/2008, -0/+12So if I am charged with a crime and I burn the evidence I am in deep do-do. But if a government official burns evidence it's policy? NICE
- inactive, on 02/24/2008, -1/+9I see a promotion in her future!
- MrColdheart, on 02/24/2008, -0/+8Its more likely she was destroying evidence
- MrColdheart, on 02/24/2008, -2/+10no, people dug him down for saying she was doing her job... cause thats why i dugg him down as well
- roflbrothel, on 02/24/2008, -0/+8In other words: Never.
- automate, on 02/24/2008, -2/+9so all someone has to do is steal a bag before it gets burnt. nice to know.
- ChristPissed, on 02/24/2008, -2/+8Burning the evidence that George Bush Don't Like Black People.
- Memitim, on 02/24/2008, -0/+6Burn bags are made out to be much more hardcore than they really are. When I was in the Navy, we put any paperwork that had personnel or logistical information into burn bags. We perform the same function in my current civilian workplace with locked bins that are collected and the contents shredded on premises. It is basically a separate trash bag used for sensitive materials that need to be destroyed rather than disposed of with the regular garbage.
Having said all of that, even throwing the indicated evidence in a regular trash can would have been worthy of prosecution. - skews13, on 02/24/2008, -0/+5it's called obstruction of justice. knowingly,and willingly destroying evidence directly related to an on going investigation.
- inactive, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4this needs to have something like the "missing witness charge" attached to it. if you can get a spouse, relative or employee to corroborate your testimony, but choose not to, then the judgement goes 100% to the opposition, or at least that's how it went against my idiot landlord once. if they deliberately shred evidence that could have exonerated or implicated them, then all charges are executed at 100%. period. this ***** is so blatant.
- jgzman, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4I am vaguely aware of the burn bag rules (having worked on the periphery of a classified area) but the idea of burn bags is not at question here. The question is improper use of them to obstruct justice.
In the same way, nobody (well, almost) objects to the idea of alcohol, but people get quite upset when it is used improperly, and someone winds up dead. - Xondar, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4"The Burn Bag certainly brought you good luck. However, it cannot accompany you for the rest of the test and must, unfortunately, be euthanized. Please escort your Burn Bag to the Aperture Science Emergency Intelligence Incinerator."
- submariner, on 02/24/2008, -3/+7I can't believe somebody dugg you down for giving the best description of the burn bag.
People, DarkLance is correct in his definition of a burn bag. In my job, burn bags are more common than trash bags. Of course I'm not condoning what happened, but for the most part, especially in government offices that routinely deal with classified information, all trash is placed into a burn bag.
And although its called a "Burn Bag" most of the time it isn't burned at all, but typically pulped and made into neat little paper pulp bales and recycled appropriately. Burning is not as common these days mainly because of the energy used to burn is not as efficient as pulping. - TheSabre, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4Yep. There's just one other problem. When there is a burn bag in a classified area, you actually have to get in there first. The people there that CAN steal it already know what it is.
- roflbrothel, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3Good luck with that.
- roflbrothel, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3What if her job entailed destroying evidence?
- notthemama, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3Destruction of evidence and tampering with evidence. This woman should be sent to jail. Forget these idiotic sanctions. Sanctions do *****.
- CypherXero, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3No, I've read the book.
- amirman, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3aren't these the same people who told security at an obama rally in dallas to stop checking people for guns upon entry? oh yeah i feel safe.
- drmangrum, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3Burn bags are usually shredded to bits THEN burned. And when i say shredded, I mean turned into a fine powder.
And a screwdriver is not classified if you bring it into the room. Only media is classified ( paper, CD's, diskettes, etc). If your ISSO is classifying non-media, he's doing it wrong. - absurdist, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4Throw her ass in jail for a VERY long time for destruction of evidence. Either that or accept this as precedent for everyone else who wants to do it.
- insllvn, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2Exactly. Wait, what?
- Jordan117, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2I hope that this alleged anti-African American bias does not affect how they protect a certain Democratic presidential candidate...
- inactive, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2I'd like to think our armed forces, especially the ones in intel are smart enough to get the point of the article.
It wasn't that the documents were destroyed, it was the fact the were evidence in an ongoing trial. - SC4RP, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3When we Kick out the bums in DC and find some decent people.
- emmeron, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Not true. If you burn something that could have been used against you, you are hindering prosecution.
- inactive, on 02/24/2008, -4/+6Keep digging the hole deeper American government, what goes around comes around.
- thanakar, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2Most poeple have no clue where the burn bags go. They are bagged and tagged and then set beside the office door for pickup or sent down a chute to whomever does the actual burning.
- Paramour, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2This man has a TS/SCI.
- bliz, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Bwahahaha but they can't classify my brain..
- JustinPM, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2That's considered an unlawful order and as such should not be followed.
- donkeydrop, on 02/24/2008, -8/+10Burning discarded documents is nothing unusual. I work for a private company and all of our discarded paper is shredded and burned. Nothing to do with any cover up, you just can't have company documents laying around in a landfill somewhere. How would you like it if that happened to your personnel file? You'd probably sue the company.
- insllvn, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2I would consider evidence of my complicity in wrong doing or vast cosmic unholy unimaginable rediculous incompetence to be "top secret," you know if I was in a position to make that call.
- LastVisibleDog, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Facts just confuse the moonbats
- LastVisibleDog, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Like I said - Does it hurt when you have ***** for brains?
- LastVisibleDog, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Hey Moonbat - what does this story have to do with Bush?
Answer: nothing
Does it hurt when you have ***** for brains? - inactive, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1I've thrown plenty of burn bags into the incinerator. They are large, brown paper bags -- about the size of 100 lbs of flour. Shredded documents are put into them and are thrown into secure furnaces for just such a purpose. It's a daily task. When I worked at the Air Force Weapons Lab, we would put classified punch cards into a blender with water and churn it till it looked like orange juice. Then, it went down the toilet.
- DarkLance, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1now I have to kill you
- whalt, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1I had burn bag once but a shot of penicillin cleared it right up.
- MrColdheart, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Bush Jr. and Sr have had privileged access to the Secret Service for 2 decades
you should probably read more - MrColdheart, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1ditto
this judge should burn - thecatcantalk, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1There's a difference: a Federal judge had not explicitly ordered you NOT to ***** with the evidence. That's a trip to prison, right there (for contempt of court, destruction of evidence, and aggravated obstruction of justice).
If your CO had given you crystal-clear orders to refrain from implementing a SOP, and you disobeyed him, with the result that your CO got into huge trouble and was publicly humiliated, what would you expect the consequences to yourself to be? That's a more accurate analogy, for what this lady did. - DiggsOnlyJew, on 02/25/2008, -1/+2Your statement exhibits ridiculous irony.
- MrColdheart, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1true
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is