Jew who loses security clearance blames anti-Semitism in the military

Yes, I can visit France without a US Passport. France has very unique policies, and I think it has to do with their former colonialism. Many people have dual citizenship because of all the former colonies. My father is not a "true Frenchmen" because as you know he was actually born and raised in Morocco. But because it was a French colony, he was considered French.

France has a distinct category for "Dual National" -- they actually recognize this as a legitimate identity. I can and do travel with a US passport throughout Europe without problem. In fact, I have never used anything but an American passport.

Contrast with the USA, 'dual national' is really just "tolerated" by the State Department. There is no offical "dual national" status inside the USA. The State Dept theoretically could move against such a status, however, they are hamstrung by numerous Supreme Court decisions that basically affirm that foreign nationality is a legal issue beyond their complete control. The State Department could not threaten me with loss of citizenship because I am by birthright an American. Likewise, they cannot force me to renounce French citizenship, because this is out of their jurisdiction. I could renounce it, but France would not recognize the renunciation as far as I know. I have never voted in any foreign election, but that would not cause me to lose US citizenship either.

I did not click your links above, but I have thoroughly researched this issue and there are at least a dozen Supreme Court rulings pertaining to citizenship. About the only way a natural-born American can lose US citizenship is to formally renounce it in the state department or at US Embassy in writing, by serving in a foreign army that is at war against the USA, or perhaps by serving in a foreign government.

This has been discussed ad nauseum on FR. Look for a thread by Justin Raimundo (sp?) about Odigo. He wrote them and he received a reply and both of those are archived here on FR. Yes, 2 Odigo employees received notice, but they got notice through the messaging service -- practically anyone who uses this service could've sent the message because it allows you to send messages to any other user.

I think you will need to prove that 4000 or 1800 Jewish people were absent. Nobody has been able to prove this. Then, assuming you could prove it, show some kind of connection between them. It is not enough to make the assertion or repeat a rumor. How many Jews worked in the building, how many were absent? How many Christians and Moslems were not in the building who were scheduled to be there? I bet it may be possible to find as many as 1000 Jews who worked there who were not there when the attack hit, but why is the question? Maybe some were late for work, some didn't start work until 9 (the attack hit at 8:30), some were away on business, one guy was taking his kid to school.

Do some math. What is the population of New York? what is the Jewish population of New York? How many people work in the WTC? What % of them would be Jewish? How many of those were not there? I don't think this theory makes any sense either logically or mathematically.

The whole thing is a silly charade. About the only people who actually believe that Jews/Israel was behind this attack are Muslims who are in denial about what other Muslims are capable of doing, and certifiable Jew haters (and in some cases they are one in the same).

A question for you. The Ciralsky case started with a search for an agent mentioned in an intercepted Israeli cable. The CIA proceeded by profiling Jews (not dual nationals) on the basis of their religious activity. Kind of like the lists the FBI used to keep of their “Jewish” employees. The closer the ties to the American Jewish community (donations, temple membership, etc.) the greater the perceived threat. Do you think this kind of profiling is effective? Do you know of any agents caught this way? Do you think the CIA found the agent? I don't.

I'm strictly going by the information you've provided, but it sounds to me as if the CIA was acting on a tip that gave them reason believe there was a traitor among their observant Jewish agents, and not a willy-nilly decision to harrass their Jewish agents. But if you're asking me if this kind of profiling is effective, it makes sense to me only if you have reason to believe that the agent you are looking for is an observant Jew who belongs to the types of organizations that Ciralsky belonged to. You said you didn't think they found the agent they were looking for. Are you sure? And if they did, would they let you know? They may be settling the case only to avoid publicly revealing sensitive information.

There's a fine line between discrimination and legitimate profiling (I don't think 'pre-emptive' profiling is legitimate), but if my suspect walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, dagonnit, I'm not going to be looking for chickens.

I'm strictly going by the information you've provided, but it sounds to me as if the CIA was acting on a tip that gave them reason believe there was a traitor among their observant Jewish agents…

They intercepted a cable referring to an Israeli spy. I’m not aware of any more detailed info, the CIA wouldn’t release it anyway. However this wasn’t an isolated incident, and it does have some history. The FBI has acknowledged keeping separate lists of their Jewish employees up until about 1995. Ciralsky claimed there were about ten other agents reassigned or denied clearances. No way of knowing if this is true. Probably the most notorious similar case is the one of David Tenenbaum's, an engineer who lost his clearance and job under similar circumstances. From his supervisor, “…Mr. Tenenbaum had been singled out for investigation at least partly because he is Jewish, speaks Hebrew, wears a yarmulke and had an "obvious love" for Israel.” That test effectively eliminates Jews from employment in the defense industry.

You said you didn't think they found the agent they were looking for. Are you sure? And if they did, would they let you know? They may be settling the case only to avoid publicly revealing sensitive information.

I suspect the case was settled, but I don’t know. The CIA got a lot of bad publicity out of this (60 minutes, multiple news outlets) and it reemerged during the presidential campaign.

I don’t know if the found the agent. I don’t remember any information that was developed that would even point to Ciralsky as a suspect. He had ties to the Jewish community (in America), he flunked a fraudulent polygraph test (FBI agents have referred to his case in congressional testimony as an example of the unreliability of polygraphs) after passing two, and his security clearance was pulled. I think the concept that an orthodox Jew is a greater risk than a reform Jew, both much worse than a non-practicing Jew is ridiculous. Most of the people in these (dual citizenship) cases had long employment histories (and usually win their clearances back) which could have been relied on.

Pre-emptive profiling is exactly what you are dealing with here. The CIA assumed that it would be easier to recruit spies from religious Jews, and purged them. Remember, the CIA doesn’t claim Ciralsky is a spy. I think the time they spent on him was wasted.

Do you know how many intelligence officials this affects anyway? How many Jewish Americans with dual citizenship or naturalized citizens are in the CIA/FBI/Senior military? Are we talking a lot of people?

I don’t know how many are affected. Remember you are talking about defense contractors as well so I’m sure it’s significant. I think you overstate the dual-citizenship issue. The issue is really dual loyalty. Many people acquire this passively (birth, parents). Can it be renounced? In most cases. But it’s a time consuming process and does make travel to Israel difficult (impossible). And I don’t think Israel will accept it from someone of draft age. But unless we are applying a litmus test (which we haven’t in the past and it’s unclear if we are now) why would anyone loyal to this country bother? I think pursuing people over dual citizenship, rather the loyalty, is a lot of wasted effort.

I think loyalty is the larger issue, of course. After touting the loyalty of my naturalized American husband, I debated him on the issue and put the same question to him that I put to Sabramerican, and I fear I must stand corrected as to what he would do, but what he said only reinforces my take on the whole loyalty issue. If he were to come across top secret info as a private citizen that Peru was going to bomb Chile, then as a private citizen he confesses he would sing like a canary, because he says that you always feel a certain loyalty to your home country, especially if you have family there. (He also said he would take whatever punishment resulted from his revealing the information with good grace). If he were in the CIA or still in the military, or if he were in some other agency that would make him officially privy to the same information, however, he says he wouldn't talk, because it would be necessary for his job, and he would be under formal obligation to protect U.S. secrets. When I asked him what's the difference to his loyalty issues or sense of moral obligation between being a private citizen vs. a U.S. govt. official, he was vague on that, and didn't give a clear answer.

But, he says, no one should ever be put in the position to where their loyalty is tested in such a way. He would expect someone with emotional ties to another country would be sorely tested (and rightly so, if that person has any feeling or sense of family) in certain situations, and it isn't worth the risk, knowing that not all of them would pass the test. He says that no naturalized American citizen, or any native-born citizen exercising the citizenship of another country, should have top security clearances in order to avoid creating such situations. That goes much further than I would, I confess. He cited the WWII example of sending our Japanese-American soldiers to fight in Europe rather than the Pacific, not only because it would be easier for us to distinguish friend from foe, but also out of sensitivity to the feelings of our guys that would completely naturally arise in that situation. Another example is a spouse not being forced to testify against spouse.

This isn't a normal employment situation we're talking about. Any position that requires a top security clearance isn't just a guy drawing a paycheck. I think that now, more than ever, our national security interests should be paramount. That may present a conflict with current employment laws or the 14th amendment, but I'm sure there's ways to legally rectify any conflicts that may arise and still ensure our secrets remain air-tight and under lock and key and cut down to a minimum any temptations to betray our country.

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.