Security Clearances for politicians

[hardeeboy]

I have a question for everyone on the board. I work as a Gov't contractor for the DOD, I as many in the industry have to have a security clearance. What I don't like and don't understand is members of congress and senators that don't have to go through the same intense background investigations I and thousands of others had to go through. I think it is a hugh double standard and things should be changed.

All politicians have to do is take a oath of secrecy, another words just promise they won't say anything. I have had discussions about this with my co-workers and most feel as I do. I think if your going to represent my country as an elected official and also have access to classified information that could do serious harm to national security, then you should be investigated and go through the same procedures as others have. There should be no exception to the rule...sadly there is though.

It makes me feel like the politicians are saying they are above everyone and don't have to answer to anyone. Am I wrong in thinking like that?

I have been told however that some politicians do have authentic security clearances and have filled out all the paperwork as others have...BUT I heard that only and it does not mean it's correct information. I actually called the senate security office and got the same old response about disclosure of personal information to others, I also filled out a FOI request and got turned down citing privacy issues.

Does anyone know how I could possibly find out the who has one and who does not? Theres actually something going on right now in congress about changing the policy on this but from what I have seen on the web it will be shot down. Gee, no surprise there. If you can shed any light on this topic please do.
Thanks in advance.

[GarbagemanLB]

1. lol

[w4rma]

2. Presumably politicians get vetted in their campaigns. (nt)

[billyoc]

3. What are the security services going to do, tell the voters to send someone else?

:rofl:

[karynnj]

6. Exactly - and how decides if an official passes

Under those rules I bet many 1984/1985 Reagan people would have rejected a freshman Senator from Massachusetts - who ended up proving they were violating the Boland Act and illegally funding the Contras.

[karynnj]

4. There is a major difference - they are elected by and represent their part of the country

The danger in what you suggest can be seen by picturing the President or his top aides scanning the information as part of future opposition research. Imagine Nixon, either Bush or Reagan's Iran Contra people having the files of all promising up and coming Democrats. (Republicans can ask themselves the same of Bill Clinton, who was accused of having some FBI files by the Republicans - which could well have been accusing your opponent of what you yourself did.

Elected officials earned the trust of the people until they abuse it.

[last1standing]

5. How long before you mention the birth certificate? Second post...third?

Personally, I think that would be a "hugh" mistake.

[salin]

8. good call....

I'm series!!1!

[last1standing]

10. I've missed seeing you around, Salin.

Have you been posting in different forums or taking a break?

[salin]

73. Just working 70 hour weeks

to make it through this economy! For the first time in many months I had a few hours off this weekend to post.

On the one hand it warms my heart that you noticed both that I hadn't been posting much (but I do try to read in the late hours or very early hours each day), and comment on my presence (thank you, it is very nice to be noticed). On the other hand - it saddens my heart - and moves me - how deeply hurt (and rightly so) you have been by recent events. My heart cries out for my brothers and sisters who are being slapped in the face and worse.

It might only be a small solace - but here in "red" Indiana, I recently heard a report that the idiot who keeps proposing an anti gay marraige piece of legislation has decided not to pursue it in this legislative session. I think the oombination of an economy that is especially hard hit, along with only the second vote for a democrat as president in the past 70 years or so (LBJ got the voe after the Kennedy assassination, prior to that I am not sure that FDR ever got an Indiana vote) - I guess it seemed like a less than 'politic' move for even rabid social conservatives in this season. That is a BIG change here in this state that is oft called the south-in-the-north state. It may not mean much in light of current events, but to me it harkens of a shift in the general public that I find hopeful for the future.

Please accept my deepest respect for your pain and anger. I tried many times to try to answer your thread question per how to "respectfully disagree" - because as civil as I try to be, I could find NO response. I tried (as that is who I try to be per civility) but I could not find a response.

As for me, personally - moving onto a different front, I live and work in a community of deep poverty. The trials here are to keep on the heat/electricity, to not be kicked out of one's rental because the owner can not keep up on the mortgage. While for now I am personally insulated (the daugher of a depression era economist - has been a saver... and has a small nest egg - but may have to use it in the near future instead of having retirement savings), the downward spiraling economy and its effects on the families that I work with - draw my greatest minute to minute attention. I am not trying to compare miseries - all are tragic. But within my daily sphere - the realities of expanding extreme poverty suck up most of my attention. These are terribly troubling times.

That sad post aside - thanks for responding. :hug:

[hardeeboy]

9. last1standing

Yeah, your right. Should have looked at that. Sorry for the bad english.

[jberryhill]

33. "your" - you're

Steeerike two!

[hardeeboy]

11. last1standing

Sorry, about the spelling. Posted to fast with out checking first.

[jberryhill]

34. "to fast" - too fast "with out" - without

You're a DoD contractor?

Really?

Steeeerike three!

[jberryhill]

13. Awww... you ruined the fun

The "Obama can't get a security clearance" thing is all the rage in Freepertown.

[WeDidIt]

18. Your casting asparagus. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

7. Run for office.

[jberryhill]

12. Senators and representatives on relevant committees

...will get a background investigation appropriate to the classification of material handled in closed session oversight responsibilities of the committee.

The president - no. The president has been elected to that position by the people, and no agency has veto power to "second guess" that choice.

A perfect recipe for a runaway security apparatus would be for the intelligence services themselves decide what elected representatives can and cannot exercise oversight authority, thus removing their own operations from democratic control mechanisms and becoming a "shadow government" of their own - removed from any accountability. That prospect does not disturb right wing authoritarian types, who are generally comfortable with systems having "secret police" and the like.

Of course as you know, this question of yours is a source of much hysteria over at freeperville because they believe that Kenyan sperm has the amazing ability to make people "loyal" to the United Kingdom after 48 years.

[Posteritatis]

75. Some senators/reps are "in the know" nearly without exception, no?

I might be hallucinating facts, but I seem to remember stuff to the effect of, say, the majority/minority leaders in the senate having to be notified in the event of one thing or another of a military nature if the president's about to order certain actions. I'm not sure of the specifics, but I seem to remember that there's some positions within the legislative branch that get need-to-knowed about things as a result of the position.

Obviously the president's in that position as head of state and in-chief-commandering guy and so on, so it's kind of a "well, duh" sort of situation as far as Obama getting 'clearance.' If I'm remembering correctly and some of the senior legislators are required to be told some things due to their positions, is it a similar sort of deal ("you're the chair of the armed services committee, we've got to tell you about X, Y and Z, it would be best if you don't go on CNN about this"), or would they end up going through a similar process of making sure the clearance is warranted that a junior representative or an Air Force captain or Skinner or someone else would go through?

I remember giggling a bit during the campaign about Palin technically not qualifying for a security clearance because of her husband's seperatist politics, but also knew that concern would vanish if she was elected pres - er, I mean, vice-president. That got me curious about how security clearances work for people below the senior executive and military ranks, in both of which automatic knowledge of a lot of things would be pretty much a given.

Do you know what happens in the case of senior legislators, assuming I'm not utterly off base here?



(Also, fear the Commonwealth's magical treason gametes! Every sperm may not be sacred, but by order of Her Majesty the Queen they are all loyal in perpetuity!

..maybe I should go to bed.)

[firedupdem]

14. Hilarious!

I received this same information in a RW email during election time.

Get over it. Obama is President of the United States of America!!!

Go back to the birth certificate stuff...it's more fun to laugh at.

[Starry Messenger]

15. I love Sundays here.

It's better than a trip to the zoo.

:fistbump:

[hardeeboy]

16. Firedupdem

I'm not a RW, I'm a lib and I really was not referring to Obama. If I offended anyone I apologize,I should have specified better. I am just saying that there are certain politicians that have betrayed the public trust, they only took an oath. There have been countless politicians over the years of all political parties that have been dishonest and I just think it is time something should be done to change it like filling out a ESQ86 form and passing the test just like thousands of others have had to do.


According to two Washington insiders, Washington’s double standard regarding security clearance for Congress and staff is unacceptable. When it comes to getting access to sensitive government information, Congress and other top-ranking political officials are not held to the same standards as employees who seek security clearance.

This security clearance double standard was exemplified by the recent bribery case involving former Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham. This Congressman had access to sensitive information while under federal investigation for the crime of bribery. Had a federal investigation been conducted over a congressional employee’s illegal activity, access to sensitive information would have surely been denied. According to Keith Ashdown of the Taxpayers for Common Sense, “Lawmakers should absolutely have to go through the same security clearance process as employees do.”


Under the current system of gaining security clearance, congressional staff and other federal employees are subject to scrupulous background checks and an intensive interview process before obtaining access to sensitive information. If an investigation reveals that a security clearance applicant might pose a threat to national security, they can be denied security clearance. “Risks” such as associating with people who have a criminal background, a history of alcohol abuse, financial problems, and other issues can be used to justify security clearance denial.


Meanwhile, members of congress are not subject to any type of background check. They are merely asked to promise not to reveal any of the nation’s secrets. That’s it. According to a seasoned professional, Winslow Wheeler, with 31 years experience on Capitol Hill, members of Congress are granted security clearance simply by being elected. Winslow worked for the Senate Budget Committee for six years as a security official. He recently published a book about Congress and national security.

Ashdown and Wheeler have a different focus on what this lack of screening means for national security. Ashdown, for example, points out that a history of alcoholism would preclude congressional staff from gaining security clearance. He points out that, “there are more alcoholics than anywhere in the country.” He stresses that Congress needs to be held to the same standards as any other person seeking security clearance.
Wheeler, on the other hand, says that if the system is working, there is no need to fix it. His biggest concern concentrates on cases like the Cunningham bribery investigation.

Five months went by between the start of federal investigations into Cunningham’s illegal activity and the day he pled guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractor MZM, Inc. During these five months, Cunningham had full access to our nation’s sensitive information. Wheeler argues that investigations should have immediately assessed his ethical violations to determine his fitness for security clearance.

The Cunningham case is just one example of how politics unfairly influence the security clearance process of the United States government. In so many cases, employees are denied security clearance for ambiguous reasons, while dubious officials proceed without question.
Some experts believe situations like the Cunningham scandal turn the spotlight on a security clearance system that is broken and needs to be fixed.

[jberryhill]

19. So, your point is..

That the intelligence and security services should have the final say, no matter whom the people elect, as to who gets to oversee their activities.

Is that it?

Ummm.... I'll live with the hazard of democracy over that alternative, thank you.

[Sebastian Doyle]

25. "I'm a lib"

Well if you are, you're the first Democrat I've ever heard of who used the truncated form of that word.

Oh sorry.... "truncated" means.... ah fuck it. Learn how to use a dictionary on your own. :rofl:

[jberryhill]

26. Not just a "lib"

But do you notice how he thinks he needs to put the name of the person to whom he is responding in the subject line?

Reminds me of some other forum... I can't quite put my finger on it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

28. Maybe one where the software is so crappy

That you would never know who was replying to whom otherwise?

Some board based in a trailer park in Fresno CA, I think?

[jberryhill]

29. His entire post was copied from here

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.retirement/2008-11/msg05576.html


Did the ObaMESSiah ever get a security clearance? Source tells us that 'elected' officials are exempt

[PBS Poll-435]

36. Wow real detective work!!! Like these folks...

[jberryhill]

39. More like these folks...

William Joseph Hardee was born on October 12, 1815 in Camden County, Georgia. William Hardee attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and graduated in 1838. In March of 1861 Hardee was a Colonel in the Cavalry of the Confederacy, and was promoted to Brigadier-General three months later.

[AllentownJake]

44. You would think with all the ones that come on here

They'd ask their leader for some better software for their own site :rofl:

Hillaryclintonforum.net had a better software system than the site which shall not be named.

[Sebastian Doyle]

58. I heard a rumor that poor RimJob went into debt to the porta-potty company

Having a whole row of portable shitcans at rallies with only 6 people in attendance is a losing financial strategy :evilfrown:

[boppers]

30. Copypasta!

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ashdown+and+Wheeler+have+a+different+focus+on+what+this+lack+of+screening+means+for+national+security%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=o0u&filter=0

[jberryhill]

31. Betcha he got it from another copypasta....

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.retirement/2008-11/msg05576.html

These guys think nobody else knows how to use The Google.

[No Elephants]

17. Google is your best friend on this one.

[hardeeboy]

20. To no elephants

You may be right because no one here wants to do anything but talk BS, be funny and also mean spirited. I ask a simple question and get a flood gate of cynics. For some reason some of these posters must think I am a right winger which I am not. They keep saying something about Obamas clearance issues, talk about paranoid people. Thats okay, theres hundreds of other forums on the web. Good luck to you, I'm outta here.

[jberryhill]

21. Not only that

But there are forums that don't show a threaded view of conversations. This one does, so you don't need to put the name of the person to whom you are responding in the subject line.

Your question was answered above. Congressfolks on relevant committees do get background checks. The president does not need one, since the decision to entrust the office to him or her is made by the people of the United States - no security agency gets a veto on that decision.

What part of your question wasn't answered seriously?

You claim to have filed a FOIA request. Perhaps you might tell us about the specifics of that request - i.e. what in particular were you seeking, to whom you directed the request, and what the specific response was.

But, I'll bet you won't do that, eh?

[undeterred]

22. When I worked for a DOD contractor I had to apply

for a security clearance, even though I only worked there for 5 weeks. They couldn't have finished the investigation while I worked there, but they got my information and fingerprints anyway. At the time I wondered about the very question you are asking.

Yes, politicians are "vetted" by the campaign process and sometimes by the media, but its not the same as a security clearance. It does seem reasonable that they would have to be screened in this way- I'd be in favor of it for members of Congress.

Having said that, I don't know if they are or not, or at what point it happens.

[boppers]

23. Yeahbutno.

Clearances are mostly a formality left over from the Red Scare. SCI procedures pretty much cover making sure we have minimal exposure to info that shouldn't be shared, and as you say: "promise you won't say anything" means nothing, regardless of someone having clearance(s) and bg checks or not.

So, what keeps everyone from the top politicians to the lowest floor sweeper from divulging/leaking information? Force of law. In case you missed it, people have been (and continue to be) convicted for this, be they politician, military chaplain, etc.

[Sebastian Doyle]

24. Do you need a security clearance to deliver a pizza to the Pentagon?

Because I have a feeling there's one on the way.....

Here ya go. It's Hawaiian......



just like the President's birth certificate. :)

[PeaceNikki]

27. I hate hugh double standards

[jberryhill]

32. Are you series? Or just preaching to the quier?

[McFadden]

35. Is Hugh a Mavrick?

[PBS Poll-435]

37. I love this song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVS3WNt7yRU

[jberryhill]

38. Oh those lyrics are perfect!

[WeDidIt]

40. LIAF

[McFadden]

41. ti ekiL I

[AllentownJake]

42. You know if you were looking to cause trouble and be disruptive

there are so many easier ways to do that on here right now :rofl:

Next time ask your friends for the manual.

[PBS Poll-435]

43. QUICK...TO THE PINGLIST!

:rofl:

[AllentownJake]

45. PING

:rofl:

What the hell does that even mean. When I see the BC threads posted on there I see PING all the time

[PBS Poll-435]

48. I believe it is a primitive form of a buddy list & PM. I will have to check the manual.

[AllentownJake]

52. Poor thing

Probably had about a three thread plan where we would admit Barack was not qualified to be President. Probably spent a few days thinking it up to. So sad he could have spent that time thinking of more advanced BC conspiracies to be a hero over there. :rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

50. I think it sends an IM out to freeps on certain lists who are interested in certain topics.

Though that seems too advanced for their software.

[AllentownJake]

53. So everytime a new BC conspiracy is dreamed up

100,000 pagers go off

:rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

56. Yes!

FEEL the Miteey Fury!!11

[jberryhill]

66. Only if they have their beebers stuned

...which is some sort of in-joke over there.

[jberryhill]

69. He fearz the ZOT! /nt

[Starry Messenger]

47. Snarf!

I just spit my wine out.

[PBS Poll-435]

51. I hope it wasn't expensive.

[Starry Messenger]

55. Dysfunctional Family Size:

:)

[PBS Poll-435]

57. Palin/Johnston-sized

And for dessert?

[Starry Messenger]

62. I eat dessert first. Life is short.

But this looks yummy:

[PBS Poll-435]

64. NOW YOU HAVE DONE IT!!!!

:grr:

Why do they call places/products different things depending on the market/region?

Hardee's is CLEARLY Carl's Jr.

Hellmanns Mayonaise is CLEARLY Best Foods Mayonaise.

:grr:




:rant:

[Starry Messenger]

65. It must be that "Real America" that Palin was going on about.

Clearly some of us must live in "Fake America"...hence the confusion.

[McFadden]

46. If many ways Tyson was more subtle in that Holyfield ear-biting bout than hardeeboy was in his OP.

[cali]

49. We need a security clearance at DU to keep out

moran freepers.

[AllentownJake]

54. This one was really bad

didn't even take time to observe our system of posting to realize it was not like its home.

[Sebastian Doyle]

59. Thing is, the pizza hasn't been delivered yet, he just went away.

Probably hoping to try again tomorrow with another thread, thinking he'll find a different crowd here and somebody might take his bait.

Or maybe he really does work at DOD and the guard at the gate ate his pizza? :evilgrin:

[McFadden]

60. And that's a hugh relief.

[PBS Poll-435]

61. I can't help myself

SOLIDARITY!!!

DAMN THOSE INFILTRATORS!!! IN OUR HOUSE?


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Ikonoklast]

71. 'DoD Contractor' = Rent-a-Cop Service.

He probably IS the guard at the gate.

[jberryhill]

67. He originally posted his OP in the middle of a Lounge thread

He's a cute one.

[Danger Mouse]

63. Who's that trip-trapping on my bridge?

[Hippo_Tron]

68. I actually want to know what the process for politicial apppointees is

I would imagine that, for example, Karl Rove didn't have to go through the same amount of scrutiny to get his clearance than the typical new recruit for the CIA. But it's not like these guys aren't totally trustworthy or anything. They totally wouldn't reveal the identity of covert agents or anything like that.

[jberryhill]

70. Sigh....

Why... it's almost as if there might be someone who has some sort of, oh, I don't know... really high authority over executive agencies or something. Like some sort of "Chief Commander" or something, who could appoint people on his own authority.

But, yes, even the appointees get background checks.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. Yea I suppose that the President orders that the background check process be sped up

[ddeclue]

74. I'm sorry but NO - We the People are the ultimate vetters of our Representatives.

What you suggest is the road to dictatorship - do you think the Kennedies would have had anything to do with government if they had to be vetted by J. Edgar Hoover?

Thanks but no thanks.

I have far more faith in a free press, our Constitution and the collective judgement of "We the People" than I do in FBI background checks.

What a terrible terrible rotten idea!

I personally think that government has no business making things "classified" in the first place. A secret government is by definition an unaccountable government. You need to read the book by the author of the Pentagon Papers on this subject that came out a few years ago.

:eyes:

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[MilesColtrane]

76. The exalted Muslim President Obama has done a thorough background check on you.

Expect his secret police force at your door at midnight.

[jberryhill]

77. I have informed his neighborhood and block captain /nt

[AllentownJake]

78. Woo HOO!

I was a Team Leader during the Election does this mean I get to take Freepers to the re-education camps?

[jberryhill]

80. I thought you were on the soap making detail?

[Orsino]

79. Real security clearances adhere to the "need to know" principle...

...and so are awarded not only for passing background checks but also according to the job one is applying to do. Failure of the former can disqualify one from the latter, but the relevant point here is that if a clearance holder quits his job, say to run for office, his security clearance is pulled.

So you're talking apples and oranges here. Another poster has already highlighted for you the importance of freely-elected oversight of the government. Once a candidate wins an election and is sworn in, a background check can't then be allowed to undo that--would you want the Bush Administration, for example, to be able to veto our choices for their successors? Besides, our media are presumed to be able to do nearly as much as government investigators can, and to do so before the election. Are you really at once so trusting and so mistrustful of your government?

Relax. Obama's already been investigated mostly beyond what your government could do, up to and (for all I know) including the proctological.