Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Manedwolf on October 22, 2008, 11:00:16 AM
-
Serious question.
If anyone else had a history of cocaine use, associated with known domestic terrorists and extremists and still does, associated with foreign despots and even backed one, associated with and had business dealings with a convicted felon, associated with other extremists...
...would they be granted a Top Secret clearance?
-
I've read that Obama could not get the same security clearance as the Secret Service agents who guard him.
-
Having been through the security clearance game, heck, if I were him I couldn't even get into the military without a lot of waivers, let alone get a clearance. He might be able to get a CDL but they'd whiz quiz him every other day. But play with the big nookular button, sure, no questions asked!
-
I've held a Secret and a TS. He'd likely not be able to hold either in the real world. But hey, run for president and it doesn't matter what you've done in your past!
-
Past drug use does not necessarily preclude someone from a TS. Many of the other issues you bring up may or may not preclude a TS depending on the nature of the relationship and their willingness to be open and honest about those relationships. The biggest poison pill for a simple TS is hiding things and being in a position for someone to hold leverage over you (secrets, etc).
Chris
-
Being President automatically confers access to the highest levels of classified docs, doesn't it? Huh, funny to think that you can bypass all the restrictions just by being elected....
Do Congresscritters have to get clearances? Or is that also just conferred by the job?
-
But hey, run for president and it doesn't matter what you've done in your past!
I think that's actually a big part of it. The other big part is what Chris mentioned -- they're (for the most part) way more concerned with you lying on the SF-86. That said, I think association with Ayers would put him out of the running even on a Secret clearance if he were a Regular Joe <tm>.
Edited to add: Does the President have to do the annual (or whatever) Lifestyle poly?
-
Thou shalt not question the past dealings of the anointed one!
-
come on and don't be racist. rezko was not even convicted when hussien won the nomination. ayers is a "reformed" terrorist and now teaches at a renowned institution of learning. just being a marxist is surely not reason to question the future leader of the free world is it?
hang on, it will be a rocky road!
-
bill clinton could probably not have gotten a TS clearance as a civilian either.
it is assumed the president has a need to know.
only a few members of congress are briefed on the most secret things.
-
If I can get a clearance, anyone can get a clearance. :laugh:
-
only a few members of congress are briefed on the most secret things.
And they tend to run their mouth as soon as it becomes expedient or they want to impress someone.
-
Do Congresscritters have to get clearances? Or is that also just conferred by the job?
Pretty sure they have to get clearances. Somebody (Leahy?) lost theirs after blabbing info to the media - and was kicked off a committe as well.
-
By definition, the winner of the presidential electoral college vote is the chief executive of the land. The CEO gets to make and enforce the rules. The Board of Directors can oversee his actions and even recall him. What are the chances a Pelosi/Reid congress will do that?
TC
-
Pretty sure they have to get clearances. Somebody (Leahy?) lost theirs after blabbing info to the media - and was kicked off a committe as well.
And if he'd been charged with a felony as he should have been and tossed in the joint there'd be a whole lot less of that type of behavior from our elected dirtbags.
Well - at least until they changed the law to make it legal for THEM to blab to the world secret stuff that impacts our national security.
-
The drug use itself isn't the disqualifier...but the known associations with domestic terrorists would certainly put the brakes on a TS clearance, I'd think.
Shootinstudent will be along soon to tell us how we're wrong, and to embrace the BarryGoodness.
-
I think you mean BarryGODness. :police:
-
its the hiding stuff that'll get you. the webmster for norml had a ts. and he was very open about morml gave interviews and such
-
SS doesn't need to tell you guys that you're wrong - I'll do that for him.
Folks are under some sort of misconception with respect to government access to sensitive information.
For the rank and file, including yours truly, you need a security investigation and a clearance high enough for the access you require to do your job.
However, for ELECTED OFFICIALS, there is no such process required.
George W. Bush, John McCain, Barak Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Cynthia McKinney, they're all granted access to top-level programs by virtue of their elected position. That's it. There's no security clearance granted, because there's none required.
It vexes those of us who undergo invasive background checks and polygraph tests, to no end. I asked that question of my Defense Investigative Services officer when Uncle Sam did one of my 5-year SSBI refresher investigations some years ago. She spelled out the above loophole for me, and agreed with me that it kind of made a mockery of what we were doing at that moment. We chalked it up to a thumb-in-the-dike sort of approach for preventing security leaks.
Now, if said congresscritter screws up and is found to have created a leak, then their access to such information can be removed. Typically, it's their underling staffers that we had to ferret out and penalize for the violations. I remember at one time we actually created several different versions of an official report for distribution to our DC customers, with subtle changes in phrasing and verbage, to find out which particular office was leaking sensitive information. =(
-
Gewehr98, are you old enough to remember the 1960 election? JFK was given a briefing on the situation with Russian missiles. He made the issue of Russian missiles part of his campaign, even though he was releasing classified information by doing so. Nixon, as vice president, couldn't counter him.
-
Not old enough, but yeah, I knew about that.
We in the "Community" always cringed when the politicians used their access to sensitive information in order to play games like that.
Then again, an intelligence coup properly played at a U.N. general assembly meeting often means the difference between continued belligerence and forced submission when they're faced with the facts. We watched Colin Powell do that a few years ago with positive effect. Honestly, we were upset that our hard-earned info was out in the open, but it did what it was supposed to do. We're beat about the head and shoulders on a regular basis that we should never reveal sources and methods, and there it is on the front page of [insert newspaper here]. Part of the Big Picture, as it were, I guess...
-
its the hiding stuff that'll get you. the webmster for norml had a ts. and he was very open about morml gave interviews and such
What the hell is "norml/morml?"
-
NORML is a group that works to get marijuana legalized.
http://www.norml.org
-
NORML is a group that works to get marijuana legalized.
http://www.norml.org
Smoking pot makes you lose vowels? ;)
-
SS doesn't need to tell you guys that you're wrong - I'll do that for him.
Folks are under some sort of misconception with respect to government access to sensitive information.
For the rank and file, including yours truly, you need a security investigation and a clearance high enough for the access you require to do your job.
However, for ELECTED OFFICIALS, there is no such process required.
George W. Bush, John McCain, Barak Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Cynthia McKinney, they're all granted access to top-level programs by virtue of their elected position. That's it. There's no security clearance granted, because there's none required.
For the rank and file, such associations would at least make it much more difficult to gain said clearances, and possibly knock us out of the running if the clearance was required to obtain a job.
-
Smoking pot makes you lose vowels? ;)
Pot Smoking gives you loose vowels
-
Pot Smoking gives you loose vowels
I thought that's what occured when they get the munchies, and, in a pot-addled brain fog, devour an entire bag of WOW chips?
-
Never hindered Clinton the Male. Why should it hinder the Messiah?
-
They should prosecute under the espionage statute for some of those congressional leaks.
-
They should prosecute under the espionage statute for some of those congressional leaks.
Yes, indeed.
Although, the last few years the leakiest organs of gov't have been the CIA and State Dept.
-
Do Congresscritters have to get clearances? Or is that also just conferred by the job?
Technically speaking, a clearance can be granted without any background check or time limitations. It's just extremely friggin rare, and pretty much exclusively due to political intervention. On the flip side, a clearance can be revoked without cause or warning.
The President is automatically assigned the highest possible access. It comes with winning the election. The standard "Above Presidential security clearance" is Hollywood BS. There are no secrets, military or overwise, that the President does not have automatic Need To Know. The counter weight to this is impeachment, and that's about it.
On the flip side, Congress is required by the Constitution to handle all funding. Since all government activities cost some amount of money, they also have Need To Know on any classified projects. Because the projects have some cost. Making the entire Congress aware of the black budget would be a very bad idea. So we have groups such as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence(Link (http://intelligence.senate.gov/)). I'm not 100% positive, but I do believe requiring security clearances for the SSCI and such groups is un-Constitutional as it violates the seperation of powers. You cannot have the Executive branch being able to hold security clearanes over the heads of the Legislative branch that controls the Executive budget. Ergo, we the people provide the necessary 'clearance' for the Congresscritters. In practice, Congresscritters police themselves on such things through committee membership.
However, un-elected staff members and such do require security clearances.
-
Serious question.
If anyone else had a history of cocaine use, associated with known domestic terrorists and extremists and still does, associated with foreign despots and even backed one, associated with and had business dealings with a convicted felon, associated with other extremists...
...would they be granted a Top Secret clearance?
Because you operate (rightly) on the assumption that anybody who is elected Leader of the Free World would not actually be working for a foreign power. And also, we operate (wrongly, as Obama shows) on the assumption the investigation given a candidate by his opponents and the press during the campaign period will be extremely thorough.
-
To Summarize: Upon election he has been vetted by the Uhhhmerican People.
-
To Summarize: Upon election he has been vetted by the Uhhhmerican People.
I frankly trust the American people more than I trust some random bureaucrat giving out security clearances.
-
I frankly trust the American people more than I trust some random bureaucrat giving out security clearances.
It's not exactly some random bureaucrat "giving out" security clearances. The vetting process is more thorough than anything the "American people" do when deciding on a candidate.
Chris
-
It's not exactly some random bureaucrat "giving out" security clearances. The vetting process is more thorough than anything the "American people" do when deciding on a candidate.
Chris
Fine. A group of unelected, anonymous bureaucrats.
-
Since you don't know what you're talking about, you should really stop now.
The "anonymous bureaucrats" go out into the field, interview anyone they can find who knows the subject (starting with the individuals the subject puts on their SF86), interview the subject, and make a determination based on the results of their research. Each time they talk with someone, they give full disclosure and provide official ID. If denied, the subject has a well defined process in which to dispute the denial and have it overturned if possible (including a panel of "bureaucrats" who weigh the subject's evidence against that found by their fellow "bureaucrats").
Chris
-
Since you don't know what you're talking about, you should really stop now.
Eh. I have been interviewed for clearance three times (denied each time). I can't imagine the process being much different down here ( I heard it actually imitates the US process) although to be fair they didn't need to talk to the people I put on my reference form to deny me (I did have to fill out an SF86 equivalent).
Look, I'm not saying that the process is flawed. It's a proper way to screen people for military position - weed out anybody who did drugs or did anything suspicious first, then talk to character references, weed out more people.
But we both know that you can't choose people for the Presidency based on that.