Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Executive Order 12958 Section 5.1

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Rex_Goodheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 04:33 PM
Original message
Executive Order 12958 Section 5.1
Write your congressmen, as I'm doing, to DEMAND that they in turn PUBLICLY DEMAND George Bush to comply.

If Bush fails to do so he must either rescind that Executive Order or defy it. In either case, he will be forced to make a very embarrassing excuse that would not go over very well at this juncture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks for explaining what that order is!
:hi:
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. heehee!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Sec. 5.1. Determinations of Need for Access.
Edited on Thu Nov-03-05 04:41 PM by acmejack
fwiw, here it is:
ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
PART 5 REVIEW OF ACCESS DETERMINATIONS
Sec. 5.1. Determinations of Need for Access.
A determination under section 2.1(b)(4) of this order that an employee does not have, or no longer has, a need for access is a discretionary determination and shall be conclusive.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12968.html

edit to add act title
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. See reply #8 - it's about Rove's security clearance, which must be revoked
Media and Congress need to push for enforcement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. Here's what he's talking about
Sec. 5.1. Determinations of Need for Access.
A determination under section 2.1(b)(4) of this order that an employee does not have, or no longer has, a need for access is a discretionary determination and shall be conclusive.

As mentioned in Section 5.1:

PART 2 ACCESS ELIGIBILITY POLICY AND PROCEDURE
Sec. 2.1. Eligibility Determinations.

(b) The number of employees that each agency determines are eligible for access to classified information shall be kept to the minimum required for the conduct of agency functions.


(1) Eligibility for access to classified information shall not be requested or granted solely to permit entry to, or ease of movement within, controlled areas when the employee has no need for access and access to classified information may reasonably be prevented. Where circumstances indicate employees may be inadvertently exposed to classified information in the course of their duties, agencies are authorized to grant or deny, in their discretion, facility access approvals to such employees based on an appropriate level of investigation as determined by each agency.
(2) Except in agencies where eligibility for access is a mandatory condition of employment, eligibility for access to classified information shall only be requested or granted based on a demonstrated, foreseeable need for access. Requesting or approving eligibility in excess of actual requirements is prohibited.

(3) Eligibility for access to classified information may be granted where there is a temporary need for access, such as one-time participation in a classified project, provided the investigative standards established under this order have been satisfied. In such cases, a fixed date or event for expiration shall be identified and access to classified information shall be limited to information related to the particular project or assignment.

(4) Access to classified information shall be terminated when an employee no longer has a need for access.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. So what do you think Walt? About the suggestion to write? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I worked for a defense contractor long ago
and I am waiting to see if they address this as severely as they would have back then. There were constant reminders, briefings, acknowledgments, etc. They threatened one with really dire consequences for divulging or compromising it.

Top Secret is/was defined as causing "Grave" damage to the security of the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. What point are you trying to make about "Sec. 5.1. Definitions"? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is re Rove's security clearance - the law says it must be revoked:
The language of this Executive Order, signed by Clinton, is very clear and is discussed in this online-only Newsweek article, currently on the DU Home Page:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
thread title (11/2-HP): Newsweek: Is Rove a Security Risk?

By law, Rove cannot have a security clearance. 'Course, Bush wants everyone to let him keep Uncle Karl around - it's a special needs case:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. The Bush, Cheney perpetual crime machine: ~ 843 days and counting
Details on SF312, EO 12958 and other relevant documentation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 20th 2014, 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC