Can’t tell whether you believe the nation should do away with security clearance for sensitive positions involving national safety and security, or whether security clearance holds an important function and should be applied equally and fairly?
Not sure if you’re telling me that someone like this posses no security risk?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/13/politics/sam-brinton-department-of-energy/index.html
1. You have thousands of waivers, BUT ONLY for folks in top positions that are politically connected.
2. Political appointees and elected politicians do not go through the same procedures and are not looked at with the same scrutiny.
3. The so-called adjudication process is subjective.
4. ***The variables used to deny a clearance are largely based on political and social nonsense, NOT objective standards where you can show a correlation and some sort of causality between a behavior and them being a security risk.***
Concrete examples, marijuana use where the standard has shifted many times but it never made any difference in the first place. It was legal before 1969 (Controlled Substances Act), then very illegal, now it’s being relaxed and as long as it’s been more than 6 months back you’re OK today when applying. But can you show me where it ever mattered in the first place? Just one example?
College loan repayments. Can you give me one example of a spy or someone that later leaked information that was someone who didn’t pay back their federal subsidized student loan?
On the one hand you have folks losing a clearance because of “allegations” of physical abuse from an angry ex, while at the same time you have the head of the CIA that was a factual/documented member of the Communist party USA: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/09/cia-director-reveals-he-was-once-a-communist-sympathizer.html (and no, he wasn’t on some secret undercover mission)
But let me ask you this, while I can give you NUMEROUS examples of where homosexuals were caught spying, or leaking information intentionally either to the enemy or press, do you think anyone bestowing a clearance would DARE use sexual orientation as a discriminating variable in their clearance process today? https://www.cnn.com/2011/12/18/justice/bradley-manning-hearing/index.html
So you tell me, what is this entire clearance game worth?
It’s a joke that impacts peoples lives, with people that act really important, where we spend a lot of money, but it’s about as real as phrenology.
If we want a personnel security system then maybe we should start by identifying and applying those variables that historically have shown someone to be a security risk. Does that make any sense?
Likewise the entire classification system is a joke.
It is overused as a rubber stamp for CYA purposes by half the folks to put that on every email, etc.
It is abused by folks to hide wrong doing, i.e. things which would cause a public outcry, legal action, etc.
“Secret” or even “Top Secret” gets stamped on far to much, on stuff which the pubic should actually see and the decision makers should be held accountable for.
The concept of government secrecy can apply to literally (((anything))) since even payroll, number of personnel in the agency, the budget, size of various departments, contracts awarded for new systems, etc. can be argued as information someone can exploit for intelligence purposes against you. Today, in the name of secrecy and national security, we no longer explain in a Nuclear Museum (AQ) the operation of the first atomic bombs because of worries that these more simple designs could act as the basis for someone wanting to build one. Even though this is information that is 78 years old, was available before, is available on the Internet, in print, internationally... I am sure some security douche bag GS-14 felt important.
It’s really simple actually: If something reveals technical information that can be used to defeat/counter a system (current - and the information isn’t readily open source available anyhow), identify a source, pertains to future operations, then it’s a secret.
If it makes the director of the CIA look bad, it’s not necessarily a secret. If it makes the President of the US look bad and have to answer questions, that alone is not a secret: https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2012/04/secret-torture-memo-cheney-hid/
The big red and orange stamps are overused.
Bottom line: both the clearances and classification systems need revised.
They need to be made “functional” regards the clearances for personnel, and “transparent” regards the classification system and to the American public.
That doesn’t mean we have no secrets.