At State, Some Employees Languish in Security Limbo (Meanwhile, in Foggy Bottom)

The Washington Post ^ | August 14, 2005 | Stephen Barr

[Diplomom]

There are about 40 of them -- ghost employees of the State Department. They have had their security clearances suspended and are under investigation until officials decide whether to revoke or restore them.

Some of the employees are Foreign Service officers with decades of experience. They say they have been waiting for as long as two and three years for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, which investigates possible security risks, to make decisions in their cases.

Daniel Hirsch, one of the diplomats with a suspended clearance, was recalled to Washington from a Central Asian nation after his wife sought marital counseling. He has been in limbo, as he called it in an interview, for more than two years.

Another diplomat, a 21-year veteran recognized for heroism in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, was accused in 2003 of making a sexual pass at a guard. He denied the allegation but was recalled and has worked in nonsensitive jobs since ...

As in most personnel cases, sorting out allegation from fact is messy and time-consuming and requires subjective judgments.

But the diplomats in limbo contend that the department is allowing their cases to drag on too long. They say the department should overhaul how it handles cases and move more quickly to either revoke or reinstate clearances.

Hirsch and others argue that suspending clearances has increasingly become a "backdoor" way for ballooning cases that ordinarily would have been viewed as cause for disciplinary action or reprimands into matters of national security.

Because of renewed focus on security after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Hirsch said, "there is no room for gray areas, no real room for things that in the past would have been shrugged off or become the topic of a minor disciplinary action."

[Diplomom]

Much as MSM would have you believe that the Foggy Bottom Forty are victims of the heightened security climate and Family Values, the truth is that these guys (and gals) are more victims of bureaucracy and political correctness gone wild than anything else. Some of these folks have been "under investigation" for three and four years, plenty of time to build a case for dismissal if the charges warrant. If they're guilty of bad judgment, punish them already and quit wasting my tax money. But since some of them are winners of awards for things like heroism in the Nairobi bombings or rebuiling embassy operations in Belgrade after the war, I'm guessing that they'd still be of more use to us in Iraq and Kabul than getting salaries for nothing in Washington or collecting unemployment.

[MaryFromMichigan]

First post?
Welcome to FR!

[hombre_sincero]

"there is no room for gray areas, no real room for things that in the past would have been shrugged off or become the topic of a minor disciplinary action."


Simple fix - run ALL government clearances the same as they are applied in the Marine Corps - one serious mistake and GOOD-BYE! You can no longer be trusted. (unsubstantiated complaint of a pass should never have been an issue).

Yes it's harsh but war and death are harsher.

We could go back to where a spy or traitor simply "had an accident" - it was neater and much faster and the message was LOUD & CLEAR to all the other spies and traitors. We probably should.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Strange. I don't recall seeing any WP articles about all the White House staff working without final security clearances for years... under Clinton.

[NathanBookman]

Boy, summer really is a slow news period.

[Diplomom]

It may be that they're trying to institute a military code of conduct for foreign service officers, only they haven't bothered to tell us. The standards of personal conduct for foreign service officers haven't been updated since god knows when. They only recently made it a rule that FSOs aren't allowed to boink subordinates or superiors in their chain of command, to give you an example of how little the rules in the Foreign Affairs Manual look like the standards for military officers. The flip side is, FSOs in the field don't generally have access to the level of classified info military officers have. The potential for damage to the USG when someone slips up on personal conduct is less.

[hombre_sincero]

"They only recently made it a rule that FSOs aren't allowed to boink subordinates "

I think that somebody hasn't bothered to read the "rule book"?

Just because the impeached, disbarred, convicted rapist in chief broke every rule of law which deals with security and classified information, did not mean that all of a sudden all of the US Codes simply vanished for a decade!

Maybe a complete trash removal of the entire "diplomatic" corps is called for - beginning with you?

[dixie sass]

That happens under every incoming President and change of administration.

[dsc]

"Maybe a complete trash removal of the entire "diplomatic" corps is called for"

Where I've had a close-up look, in Japan, with one exception they were all more concerned with their careers and maintaining good relations with their "Japanese counterparts" than they were with protecting the interests of the United States.

Aside from which, they seemed to regard themselves as an aristocracy and the military as contemptible peasants who rated no consideration.

[dsc]

"That happens under every incoming President and change of administration."

Yeah, but Butch and Bubba hired lots of people who weren't eligible for security clearances, then let them keep working anyway.

[dixie sass]

I know. It happens everywhere security clearances are required. DOD is a good example.

[benjaminjjones]

I could post something here, but it might get the firm I used to work for in trouble (if they even exist anymore).

Let me just say that I've been in the Foggy Bottom State Dept. bldg., and I think the State Dept. is riddled with homos.

Period. End of sentence.

Not unlike that silly movie "Spies Like Us".

Imagine the two idiots like Chevy Chase and Dan Akroyd.

Except instead of idiots, they were homos. That's what I had to deal with.

Made me wanna puke.

DC needs an enema.

[dsc]

"I know. It happens everywhere security clearances are required. DOD is a good example."

My experience is limited to the military, so I don't know what goes on elsewhere.

In the military, you don't get the job if you can't get the clearance.

[Enchante]

It's impossible to know the real facts of any of these cases from the WaPo article, but it sounds to me like these are people that could easily be termed "security risks" in sensitive positions -- lacking good judgment and discretion and/or easily subject to blackmail from unfriendly powers. It may be that their cases should have been resolved expeditiously, but I would not assume that any of them have been wronged without knowing a lot more. It may be that some of them should have resigned from the foreign service to save our government the expense of a lengthy and difficult investigation, but for some people it's all about "my rights" and not "my responsibilities."

[tarawa]

It sounds as if they might be doing a complete reprocess of the SSBI. If State is unwilling to accept interim clearances, then you can legitimately expect a 1-2 year wait.

[balch3]

Maybe I'm way too paranoid, but it seems to me the unspoken implication is that the reader is supposed to contrast these eople having their clearances pulled for "trivial" (in the reporter's view) reasons, but that Karl Rove still has his clearance, while under investigation. Like I said, maybe I'm paranoid, but it IS the MSM.

[Diplomom]

Sorry to hear that, though I can't say I'm surprised. FSOs deserve some of the bad rap for being snotty, that's undeniable. As for this diplo, my father's a combat-wounded Marine vet and my uncle's a retired Air Force officer -- I have nothing but respect for the folks defending my country. The way I figure it is, we're all serving the same cause, and if I do my work right, they might not have to die doing theirs.

Here's the thing, though. There are lots of people who are really good at diplowork who wouldn't make decent officers or soldiers, and the opposite is also true. The standards of conduct are different because the stakes are different and the kinds of people you need doing the jobs are different. A military or intel linguist whose job is listening is not the same as a civilian language specialist whose job it is to explain US policy in a foreign language to public audiences overseas. You have to have direct, personal contact with a lot more foreigners to maintain that kind of skill than you do when your job is listening to conversations and broadcasts and identifying threats to the nation. What you don't need is a bureaucracy that decides to take a one size fits all approach to the problem and refuses to define for its employees what "close and continuing relationship" means.

For the record, hombre_sincero, I committed an error of judgment once in my career along the lines of my earlier post, and the Department recalled me from the embassy where I was serving and put a reprimand in my file. That was all it took for me to stay on the paths of righteousness. That is what I want for the Foggy Bottom Forty: punish them in accordance with whatever they did, and then get them back to work or fire them.