You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #165: A-way back when [View All]

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
RedLetterRev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #28
165. A-way back when
and again, saying what I can say, people with "histories" were most certainly not allowed to hold clearances. Period. That was sorted out in the BI (background investigation). If that "history" was somehow not detected at that point for preliminary clearance, then it most certainly (and I must stress most certainly) would have been detected during the SBI (special background investigation) before access was allowed to particularly sensitive materials or information.

Such would have been the case here. Or I should think.

Now, I have been a civilian for 30 years and my memory isn't the greatest, but I'm not entirely toopit, either. I have since moved on to data analysis. (The rules are much the same.) But I clearly remember people losing access over divorce, hints of affairs, being gay (OH NOES!), seeing a professional counselor for even the least of mental or emotional problems, or even excessive traffic violations (oh, yes indeedy!). Investigations where swift, quiet and thorough. If allegations were proven, the person was gone and there was someone else working by your side.

Particular circumstances weren't discussed out of respect for the person's dignity (not bandied in the papers) and a quick internal briefing may have been given as to why it was important to give our continued attention to our jobs and why it was important to uphold our oaths to the Constitution, but that was about it. It wasn't fodder for tabloids. We did our parts because of loyalty to the Constitution and for the love of our country and fellow citizens.

A good part of warfare is psychological. The reason is that you don't ever give anyone who might have reason to exploit a perceived weakness in the system, a reason to exploit that perceived weakness. It's like the rule of the jungle. Part of being strong is appearing strong. Advertising a weakness (such as in this case) gives any enemy anywhere the perception that your internal structure is entirely in disarray and that you might not be able to respond if attacked. What message is BushCo giving with this circus? To my mind, it isn't a comforting one any way I look at it, or have looked at it since this story began unfolding.

I would wish to feel that my respect and love for the Constitution is shared by those who have responsibility for and stewardship of it. I promised and still am loyal to that same oath to the Constitution.

So you can't tell me that this dude worked for years with a known history that long with sensitive, even dangerous materiel if it was even hinted anywhere at all (even by word of mouth) that he had made a threat in passing to anyone, anywhere. Don't care who y'are. I was the least of the least of the least and they would have replaced me or a full-bull colonel equally quickly for stepping across well-marked boundaries.

If one gave a casual threat in passing, that is all it took to have that one's clearance pulled way-back-when and I heartily doubt that it would be any different now. They say times change, but in responsible handling of very sensitive things, I kinda doubt it.

Unless in Bushworld, the intelligence and weapons materiel field has become sloppier than your average landfill. Sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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