U.S. brings fraud charges against firm that vetted Snowden

[DonViejo]

Source: Reuters

BY SAKTHI PRASAD
Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:45am EST

(Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department accused United States Investigations Services (USIS), the largest private provider of security checks for the government, of bilking millions of dollars through improper background verifications.

USIS, which also vetted Edward Snowden before he leaked documents about U.S. spying efforts, has a contract with the U.S. government since 1996 to vet individuals seeking employment with federal agencies. Such background checks include investigative fieldwork on each application.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a court filing on Wednesday that between March 2008 and September 2012, USIS filed at least 665,000 flawed background checks, which was about 40 percent of the total submissions.

A former employee of USIS filed a whistleblower lawsuit in July 2011 under the False Claims Act, which lets people collect rewards for blowing the whistle on fraud against the government.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-usa-usis-idUSBREA0M0BD20140123

[Little Star]

1. The US should brings fraud charges against itself for out sourcing government...

security checks to private corporations.

[hrmjustin]

5. +1

[SamKnause]

2. USIS

.............between March 2008 and September 2012..................................

Was it anyone's job to periodically keep a check on United States Investigations Services ?????

The government is not keeping an eye on corporations.

They have been given free reign and the government pretends to be shocked, as they continue to siphon billions of tax dollars out of the budget.

Our "esteemed job creators" routinely turn out to be crooks and cons.

Our "esteemed politicians" routinely pass legislation aiding and abetting our "esteemed job creators".

What a farce.

I have seen this dog and pony show over and over.

Today's difference is how blatant and in your face it is.

Pay a fine and off to the next unsuspecting mark.

Why a way to govern.

[loudsue]

4. That was well said. And so true.

It is a farce, and I'm sick of it.

[Amonester]

9. It should be well known by all "true" Academics out there before they earn their Grades....

Why don't they "seem" to know anything about the long History of "bribery" after they graduate is beyond comprehension...

It's not like it's anything "new" to mankind, is it not?

[SamKnause]

10. I never attended

college.

I did graduate high school.

I educated myself watching documentaries, listening to speeches, listening to lectures, listening to debates, reading papers from around the globe, reading books, and doing research.

The internet is an awesome tool !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Independent media has also opened my eyes.

[Amonester]

12. I went to college and earned a degree in electronics/HW-programming, but...

that said, I was thinking of the "true" Academics who get hired or elected to positions in governments.

I mean, if most of them (the elected ones) have to take most of their time fundraising, while they don't have enough left to actually READ the bills.... don't they just at least "feel" something is very wrong here?

I mean, don't they have maybe just a beginning of a clue that they might be swimming in a sea of bribes??

[SamKnause]

13. Reply

I think the majority of them are corrupt.

I think the majority of them are only interested in power and wealth.

They really are despicable people and not to be admired.

They change parties, they get caught in lies, and they say hypocritical things over and over.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Funny ...

the suit has nothing to do with Snowden ... the period covered in the complaint is well before snowden was hired on by Booz Allen Hamilton and cites to specific defects in USIS' screening practices.

But that said ... the title does guarantee (on DU) that people will read the story!

[okaawhatever]

7. It only says they vetted Snowden, they don't claim when. That being said, Snowden was

vetted more than one time. I believe there was an earlier background check that had Snowden as questionable and a newer one that had him as okay. I was reading something a few weeks ago about someone who had disclosed secrets and they had a similar situation. One of their background checks (one performed by the gov't) had the person as no hire and then a few years later passed with a different firm. Seriously questionable vetting.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Maybe ...

the Government will take this as a cautionary tale and bring the vetting back in-house ... it would be more "trust-worthy" and cheaper, to boot.

[Nye Bevan]

6. Will Russia give asylum to this firm's executives? (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Kick (nt)