Posted on 09/18/2013 5:22:58 AM PDT by COBOL2Java
The government system that provided Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis a “secret” security clearance has been beset by problems.
A “secret” clearance requires a far less intrusive investigation into a person’s background than that for a “top secret” or higher security designation. The Government Accountability Office notes that it costs the government $4,000 to conduct a background check for a top-secret clearance, but only $260 for a secret clearance.
In 2012, the GAO reported that the Defense Department and other agencies “will continue to risk making security clearance determinations that are inconsistent or at improper levels” because of there is no single set of guidelines to determine who gets or doesn’t get a clearance.
The office of the director of national intelligence (DNI) was supposed to set up unified standards, but had not when the GAO report was issued.
“The process has not been completed yet,” DNI spokesman Gene Barlow said Tuesday, adding that the agency is working on one guideline.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
When my schoolmate was getting TSC the FBI tracked me down 20 miles into the woods, no roads, on a mountain to ask me everything about him. When I got mine, the govt gave me a free pass coz they evidently checked me out too same time...
There is also the DBIDs card and long and short term visitor passes.
There is a misconception that a contractor needs a security clearance to enter a military installation. The possession of a Common Access Card (CAC) has nothing has nothing to do with whether a person has a security clearance or not.
My point is that even without a clearance he might have been able to perpetrate this act, depending on what the access requirements were for building 197. My guess is that a whole bunch of folks without security clearance work in that building.
Seperately though, it is eye-popping that this dude could receive a security clearance.
I don’t think they are that thorough anymore. They just check your Facebook posts now days. Maybe check with the NSA.
If we can’t (WON’T) properly vet a Presidential candidate, what difference do other security protocols make?
Yeah, there’s that, which does appear to be explained by his trail of employment but then there’s the shotgun.
I’ve seen pics of the shop he bought the shotgun from but it wasn’t clear what state it was in. I’m guessing the shop is in big trouble. The buyer must be a permanent resident in the state of the purchase, or in the case of a long gun , in a contiguous state. AA was living in a motel so he could not have had proof of residency. His base pass would not have had his home address and having been there only three weeks probably didn’t have a drivers license. In my state you can’t get a drivers license without showing evidence of residency-—power bill phone bill, water, etc.
When the dealer called in for the NIX check he had to give a permanent address which had to match the local data base.
Smells a little like a strawman purchase to me but we haven’t heard from BATF. I didn’t hear the FBI chick say that the purchase was all cool. I expect that dealer will be lawyering up because this sale is probably going to break him unless he’s got some helluva insurance.
He was driving a rental car, which the guards know are insured, so he would have been waved thru the outer gate or he could have gotten a temporary pass for the car easily. It is quick and easy to break the barrel off of a Remington 870 so the shotgun could have been in a package no longer than a foot and a half and that, in turn, could have fit in a brief case, etc. It was mentioned that he came out of a wash room firing so he could have been in a stall getting his gear working. Remember that this is partially an industrial area so people carry all sorts of stuff pretty much un-noticed or un-cared about.
See my post #26——The NIX check to buy the shotgun should have revealed he wasn’t a resident yet-—living in a motel-— same data base. The base pass seems to have been a carryover from previous job(s) but he wasn’t a resident so he shouldn’t have been able to buy the shotgun.
This policy (Department of Defense directive 5210.56) was enacted on 2/25/1992, before the election. Say what you like about Clinton, but this wasn’t his doing.
I stand corrected, thanks!
And he drove a rented Prius, which has a “tonneau” cover in the hatchback. They should have made him unroll it to get on base. But I thought the gates were handled by Marines?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.