Gov't quietly changes rules on sexual orientation and security clearances

[PageOneQ]

Government quietly changes rules on sexual orientation and security clearances
http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/rules_031306.html

Newly revised guidelines issued by President Bush's National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley (right) once again allow consideration of sexual orientation when issuing security clearances. This information was first reported today by the news site Raw Story (Full Story: U.S. quietly tightens access to classified information). The language change between the 1997 version and the 2005 guidelines is seemingly minor:

1997: Rules stated that sexual orientation “may not be used” as a basis for disqualifying applicants.

2005: The revision states that clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual."Text

Full Story:
http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/rules_031306.html

[formercia]

1. Looks like the 'Big Tent' shrinks in the wash. n/t

[Hobarticus]

35. The Log Cabin is a house of twigs....n/t

[MadMaddie]

2. Homophobia from the top....

[cantstandbush]

42. But there are so many gays at the top, i don't understand this.

I guess they mean admitted gays. These Republicans are so hypocritical along with their Christian RWingers. They use gay-bashing to garner votes from the homophobes,yet they keep secrect their homosexual lovers. They make me sick.

[Maraya1969]

3. Well here is a new use for illegal wire tapping.

And some more about Hadley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hadley

In 2002, Hadley was a member of the White House Iraq Group. He admitted fault in allowing a disputed claim about Iraq's quest for nuclear weapons material to be included in Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address (see Yellowcake forgery). On July 22, 2003, Hadley offered his resignation to Bush because he had "failed in that responsibility" and that "the high standards the president set were not met." Bush denied Hadley's request. Amid this, The Times reports<1> that Hadley was Bob Woodward's source for Valerie Plame's name in the CIA leak scandal, a leak Woodward says occurred mid-June 2003.

[rodeodance]

4. lots of rules changes that subvert Congress--yet they do not care

[rodeodance]

5. nominate

[truthisfreedom]

6. gannon/guckert/gosch

?

[SpiralHawk]

8. Must you bring up the male prostitutes who visited Bush's

White House 200 times?

It is so embarassing.

Can't we just ignore the male prostitutes who, according to the official secret service records, visited George Bush's White House 200 times?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon

[SpiralHawk]

7. What about shoplifters?

That's a real security concern, but Republican shoplifters have populated Bush's "White" House

[aden_nak]

9. Apparently, al Queda isn't as big a threat as al Gayda.

[MADem]

10. I understand they've infiltrated the Gay Old Party in a big way

I suppose the reason for this change is this:

Closeted, GOP Gay=Pass go, you get your clearance!!!

Democrat, Green, Independent Gay=Security alert!!! No clearance for YOU!!!!!

BushCo parties on.....

[megatherium]

11. I have read that the NSA will consider sexual orientation

for applicants to that intelligence agency, but only if there is a possibility of extortion, i.e., if the candidate is closeted. In fact, the NSA has a gay and lesbian employee association ("GLOBE," gay, lesbian or bisexual employees).

(The NSA is of critical importance to our nation's security: they are in charge of signals intelligence -- listening to things, breaking codes, making codes, protecting computer systems. Their budget exceeds that of the CIA. It is unfortunate that the political leadership of this country has abused the agency by ordering it to conduct warrentless monitoring of Americans' communications.)

[gratuitous]

15. Although, if gays were openly allowed to work at NSA

One wonders how an out and proud gay man or woman could be the target of extortion. Everyone knows so-and-so is gay; there's nothing to blackmail that person with. But by keeping the closet door padlocked, NSA virtually assures that some of its operatives will be compromised by their sexual orientation. It's a self-defeating policy designed to subvert the nation's security.

Courtesy of the corrupt Bush administration.

[megatherium]

16. Well, that's my point; out gay people are fine at the NSA.

And their policy dates to well before the Bush adminstration. I think the NSA is relatively friendly to gay people because unlike other intelligence agencies, they have trouble recruiting the talent they need. They like to hire people with specialized language skills, and people with doctoral-level mathematical talent. (They're the largest employer of mathematicians in the country.) I also think they're more tolerant because they tend to have come from university graduate departments, which tend to be very tolerant culturally. (Even in red states, universities tend to be progressive on this issue; e.g., Indiana University has had a non-discrimination policy for more than a decade, and recently they've added partner benefits.)

[VegasWolf]

12. What would be the stupidest person on earth ...

a Gay Republican.

[superconnected]

13. Ann Coulter.

[tonekat]

14. Lots of those here in DC...

Talk about self-hate....

[ToolTex]

17. Oh, like Andrew Sullivan?

n/t

[Zhade]

25. He's such an Aunt Tom.

NT!

[MadMaddie]

45. Black Republicans!!!

[Rex]

18. So if you're gay it takes two forms of ID to be discriminated against.

As opposed to just being gay in the old days. I guess you could call this troglodyte progress. A true original of the GOP thought process! And we said they could never evolve!

[Sgent]

19. Personally I think orientation shouldn't come into play at all

OTHO... deception and lack of honesty should.

Being in the closet, or an adulter, for purposes of security clearance brings up the same issue -- the potential to be blackmailed.

Edited -- by being in the closet, I mean not "out", but still having ongoing gay relationships.

[cboy4]

20. Are you really trying to compare being in the closet to

adultery? :wtf:

And what's this "by being in he closet, I mean not "out" but still having ongoing gay relationships?"

What the hell do you mean by that and what the F is wrong with having ongoing gay relationships??

The reason some people are in the closet is these idiotic arguments that gay people can't be in the military or CIA or FBI is because they are susceptible to blackmail.

Straight people who cheat on their spouses or accept bribes can be blackmailed just as easily as gay people, so your argument while you may not intended it to be is insulting and ridiculous.

[Sgent]

21. If they are leading a secret life

which they are hiding from friends, family or coworkers, they are a security risk. Doesn't matter why they are leading that life, but it subjects them to blackmail and makes them a security life.

It could be because they are having an affair, are gay but leading two lives, etc.

[cboy4]

24. Your argument doesn't wash unless you also believe

covert CIA agents, spies, etc. are also security risks because they are also living secret lives, right?

The problem I have with what you said is that you believe gay people are security risks.

I would argue that closeted gay people who hold high security jobs and were threatened blackmail by someone that they would be outed unless......the gay person would say, fine, out me, but I'm not going to be subjected to your blackmail.

It's not the end of the world to be outed. It's not right, but It's not the root of blackmail, that's for sure.

[Sgent]

26. Part of security

is not giving people the choice to breach it.

Anyone subject to being blackmailed is a security risk.

[cboy4]

27. It's disappointing you refuse to address any of my points

Instead, all of your responses are blanket statements about nonsense.

[northzax]

61. From the perspective of the people who wrote these rules

being gay is something to be ashamed of, and hidden from respectable society. Ergo, it's something that could be used against someone. Blackmail doesn't need to be a threat to you, it matters if it is a threat to ME. (which this wouldn't be, since a: I'm not gay, and b: if I were, I wouldn't hide it, I would hope)

it's all a matter of perspective.

[sutz12]

29. But....they wouldn't be subject to blackmail

if they weren't forced to by homophobia. If society accepted gays as real people and not sub humans with limited rights, they wouldn't have to live in the closet.

Conservative Catch-22. :puke:

[Sgent]

30. I agree with you

Which is why I don't think that a gay person who is "out" is any different than a happily married person when it comes to security risk. Conversely, a gay person who is "in" is subject to blackmail -- as are a host of other people who hide parts of their personal lives.

[Inland]

34. Right. It's just an evil policy. nt

[cboy4]

40. BRAVO!!

;) :applause:

[DBoon]

32. Sadly, post 21 is right about this

With a high level clearance, the government basically owns you. They must know every fact about your life so as to assess your potential for blackmail. You life becomes an open book.

Higher clearances require polygraph tests. I'm told that folks are specifically asked about membership in Greenpeace, for example.

Not that this is a good thing - it's just how the government does it.

[cboy4]

39. If you're cheating on your spouse, how does the government

know about that through a background check?

Therefore, you are a security risk because if someone found out. They could blackmail you.

I'm not arguing that some gay people cannot be blackmailed....but to just broadly paint a picture that gay people are more of a risk than the straight population is just not fair or the case.

[DBoon]

43. They strap you into a polygraph and intimidate you

into either telling about the affair or producing a result that says "liar".

They also extensively interview your neighbors and associates for any strange comings and goings and other "unusual" activites and interests

I'm not defending this practice - but it is what they do

One thing people lose clearances for is a DUI, obviously a matter of public record but you get the idea

[northzax]

62. and being a member of greenpeace,

for instance, isn't a disqualification, they just want to know if you will tell them the truth.

[Inland]

33. Well, of course. The question is, whether there's something to blackmail

them on. The concept of an out gay being more of a security risk than a hetero, all other things being equal, is ludricrous. Clearly the adminstration thinks that closeted homosexuals are a security risk and out homosexuals are just to be denied jobs because they had the nerve to be out.

[cboy4]

38. It's nice to see you understand! Thanks.

:applause:

[mom cat]

22. Hello Log Cabin Republicans. ... Do you get it yet?

[Doctor_J]

37. I posted this below, should have been here

Like Harvey Fierstein says, "There are gay Republicans, who must be, like mentally retarded or something"

[HuffleClaw]

23. they are THAT scared of gays?

disgusting, government-sanctioned discrimination.

[Vogon_Glory]

28. War On Terror, Danger Increased, So Of Course It's Time For...

The US has fallen further behind in the war against al Qaeda, the danger of terrorist attacks are growing even greater, so of course the panjundrums of Team Shrub have decided that US counter-intelligence should be on the lookout for gays and lesbians in their ranks.

Somewhere in the Waziristan part of Pakistan and somewhere else in Iraq, al Qaeda is celebrating Team Shrub's handicapping US efforts to stop them.

[rodeodance]

31. these rule changes bypass Congress (not that most of them care).

[Doctor_J]

36. How are the LCR taking this news?

Like Harvey Fierstein says, "There are gay Republicans, who must be, like mentally retarded or something"

[Orsino]

41. Yes, as soon as they're through with abortion...

...they'll be coming for the gays.

http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/rules_031306.html

[cally]

44. Can I please have my country back?

I'm sick of the whackos that are running the country. :argh: And here's a :grouphug: for all us who mourn another loss of rights for our fellow Americans.

[Placebo]

46. Absolutely ridiculous.

I hate these people

[progressivebydesign]

47. Paging Jeff Gannon/Guckert Military Stud to the Stars! n/t

[Bassic]

48. I heard they do that here in Canada as well.

If a person is gay, but not out of the closet, they are considered vulnerable to blackmail and refused their security clearance.

If they're out of the closet, it's no problem.

[flamingyouth]

49. kick

[sabra]

50. Bush administration security clearance changes may impede gays

http://www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=5602

Bush administration security clearance changes may impede gays
Can sexual orientation now be 'disqualifying factor'?

The Bush administration last year quietly rewrote the rules for allowing gay men and lesbians to receive national-security clearances, drawing complaints from civil rights activists.

The White House is insisted that changes to national security clearances approved in December by President Bush do not allow sexual orientation be a 'disqualifying factor.'
The administration said security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual." But it removed language saying sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for a security clearance."

The White House sought to play down the changes, approved by President Bush in December, as an effort to ensure the security clearance rules are consistent with a 1995 executive order about access to classified information.

"The minor language change did not and was not intended to alter the way sexual orientation is treated," National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said Tuesday. "The U.S. government policy has not changed in any way."

[MadMaddie]

51. Just another way to deny gays equal rights under this

administration....

They won't stop until gays are not allowed to work anywhere, no health insurance, no equal rights.

I really despise this administration!!

[BOSSHOG]

52. Its ludicrous to deny a security clearance to a homosexual

Back in the bad old gop days of mccarthy, a person's sex life could be used against them and might be the subject of blackmail. No more. If the subject meets all the other wickets required of a background check, sex life is irrelevant.

[northzax]

56. ah, unless...

that person is a republican, and therefore hidden in the closet behind that sweater your great aunt maude made you for christmas three years ago. Then you have a potential weapon. If you are ashamed of being gay, then someone can use it against you. They can't imagine why someone wouldn't be ashamed of being gay, or having a gay son, to them it's a source of ridicule, and therefore good blackmail stuff.

[BOSSHOG]

60. Saturday Night Live Material

We know you are gay. Give us all the secret information you know or we'll tell ken mehlman.

[DBoon]

53. Next will come political and religious criteria for denying clearances

That way, only loyal republicans will have access to state secrets (no more closet liberals leaking embarassing information to the press). Gays are just the first high-visibility "liberal" population to be excluded.

I've seen stories of clearances being yanked in the 1960's just for participating in an anti-Vietnam war rally.

BTW, a security clearance is essential for many high-tech jobs (the civilian ones having been outsourced).

Being denied a clearance can make you effectively unemployable. I've seen civilian employers (big CPA firm) that include this in their background check for hiring, even though the job did not entail handling classified data. They seem to regard a denied clearance as a hiring risk, in the same category as being fired for cause by a prior employer.

[Demeter]

54. Shades of J.Edgar Hoover!

Are these GOP idiots stuck in the 50's, or what?

[Lerkfish]

55. except for Jimmy/Jeff Gannon, right?

[trixie]

57. Can anyone please explain Log Cabin Republicans?

Must run over to their site and see if they are reacting. I have never in my life understood them. :shrug:

[arwalden]

58. A Heterosexual Man With A Mistress Would Be A Greater Security Risk...

... than an a homosexual who's out of the closet. I wonder how many secrets the heterosexual man with a mistress might be blackmailed into revealing.

Or is the government suggesting that homosexuals are--by their very nature--less trustworthy?

Who's next, atheists?

[rawstory]

59. RAW breaks story; Gay groups claim credit

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/US_quietly_tightens_access_to_classified_0314.html

I can't believe even our own side is stealing our shit... Just unacceptable.

The 2005 guidelines also allow the government greater ability to use sexual orientation against applicants.

Whereas the 1997 revision declared that sexual orientation “may not be used” as a basis for disqualifying applicants, Hadley’s revisions declare that clearances cannot be denied “solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.”

The 2005 guidelines also add a curious revision under the “Sexual Behavior” section. While the 1995 version said adverse sexual behavior could be eliminated from consideration if it were “not recent,” the 2005 version expands this, saying “the sexual behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, and under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur.”