No secret clearance should last longer than a year without a review. Human beings don't remain static for long periods of time, and life changes can easily be the catalyst for violating clearances that one could before have been trusted not to violate.cb1000rider wrote:You'd get the clearance if you had the same record at the time it was issued.
I assume you're asking for a policy of a standard review period ?
There are thousands and thousands of jobs out there. If you want one that requires a clearance you'd better bend over and drop trou. If you don't want to do that, you don't get the job. Don't tell me about your rights, because when it comes to getting a job that requires a clearance, it's not an issue of rights at all. It's an issue of the requirements to get the job. If you don't like it, apply at McDonalds. Or Boeing. Or Starbucks. Or any other place that doesn't require the hoops that a clearance requires.cb1000rider wrote:That would make sense to me, but any such policy would have to involve *private* medical records. In the military, you can probably force people to disclose those records. Civilians, it's kinda hard to get them to voluntarily hand that information over and their rights are well protected.
It's not a question of talking about your ability to make a living. It's a question of being able to trust you with a secret clearance. I would expect the powers that be to read the police reports and make sound judgments about their meaning. If they don't feel comfortable making a decision, seek more information until they are comfortable. Call the guy in and ask him to explain the incident. Call the witnesses and question them.cb1000rider wrote:Remember, on the criminal side he hadn't been convicted of a crime. Should we really pull clearances of people who were potentially wrongfully arrested? This is a bad example, but I don't want to give the PD the power to terminate my ability to make a living just by slipping on the cuffs. They've got enough power already.
His clearance should have been yanked when he told police he was hearing voices. And he shouldn't have gotten it back until and unless he cleared a psych exam.
I don't understand that at all. It's their job to remain hyper vigilant 24/7. If not, they're just placeholders, not security guards. Go work at McDonalds. We'll find someone who understands what it means to stand a watch. I wouldn't cross the street to spit on a military man on fire who doesn't understand and respect what it means to stand a watch and to protect your brothers in arms. There are no excuses, and if they make them, I'd kick their butts into the middle of next week. You darn sure had better be awake and alert and at the ready if you're standing watch where I am. I'd bring a man up on charges of negligence for that.chasfm11 wrote: 2. Isn't the idea to control access not guns? This Naval yard is supposed to be one of the most secure facilities in the country. Yet a man, armed with a shotgun is able to take out the guards to it and take at least one of their weapons? I completely understand that it is not possible for the security teams to remain hyper-vigiliant 24/7
Several things are clear. Decision makers were criminally negligent. The man should never have had access to the base at all. Security on the base was sub par. Otherwise he never would have made it past the first guard he shot, because the second one would have taken him out.cb1000rider wrote:but the ease with which the shooter apparently took out security suggests that the base is far more vulnerable than it should be. If the gun fight had started when security was attacked, it is not a likely that there were have been such a huge loss of life. I admit that there is a lot of conjecture in my approach.
That's a false characterization. I have a secret clearance. I don't expect anyone to assume I'm safe. It's their job to ensure that I am. Their failure to do their job cost them their lives and the lives of several others. I'd not be surprised for the first man in a firefight to go down, but the second one had better be gaining the advantage and holding off the enemy while calling for help. They're supposed to be trained to do that.cb1000rider wrote:We're talking about ex-military with an active security clearance. They're probably characterized as lower risk. Want to change that and suddenly you're searching everyone almost everywhere in the government and military.
None of these issues have anything to do with the insanity of disarming military personnel on their bases or the outrageous attitude that people should not be able to defend their lives against criminally insane individuals.
