Should ex-convicts and drug addicts be allowed to receive DOD (Department of Defense) clearance? To be allowed included in 2008 defense authorization bill. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/ex--convicts-and-addicts-may-get-dod-clearance-2007-07-10.html
Interesting. Security Clearances are intended to protect sensitive and secret information from improper disclosure. Historically, those not trusted are those who have loyalties outside our nation or government, those who are in (real or imagined) financial straights - or likely to become so, those who can be coerced by real or imagined deeds to protect their pride, ego or status by divulging information and those mentally unstable sorts (psychotics) who do not follow normal lines of thought in terms of loyalty or fealty. Traditionally, and with good reason, convicted felons and drug addicts fall among those who cannot be trusted to 'do the right thing'. The article claims this standard is not uniform throughout the U. S. Government. It is different for the Pentagon than for the Dept of Justice, for instance. I find that odd. At a beginning, I would think uniform standards for access to sensitive or secret material in all parts of government would be reasonable. Also note there are different levels of secrecy. The minimum level is 'Confidential' which deals with employee addresses and information. It's not critical, but it is private. Up the ladder are 'Secret' and 'Top Secret'; these deal progressively with information vital to the nation's physical defense and interests. Used to be, a felon was considered unreliable. However, in the last twenty to thirty years, there have been a multitude of laws passed making certain actions felonies that didn't use to be. Also, the concept of 'addict' has changed. In the '50s, an addict lived on the fringes of society, used heroin, morphine or cocaine - sometimes demon marijuana - and was pretty easily identified by his or her unkempt appearance and anti-social mannerisms. Today, that appearance is a 'fashion statement'. The 'drug culture' has changed. Oxycodin and Valium are now abused drugs. Addicts no longer are easily recognised. Changed also are the techniques and methods used to end dependency on illicit drugs or chemicals. A third factor of change in all this is the motivation for divulging secrets. Not all security breaches are caused by a person who is 'selling secrets to the enemy' for personal gain. Other motivations include a desire to expose illegal or immoral actions by governmental agencies or agents - to include managers and decision makers - or a desire to use information for political gain or position. So, the purpose of a clearance is to provide a reasonable means of determining who will keep secrets and who will divulge them. It is only reasonable to concede every nation has a basic right to protect itself and its people and lands. The question then becomes, how is this purpose best served? I'd opt for a case by case basis analysis to decide. I don't think all felonies of all sorts should be a blanket reason to deny a clearance. On the other hand, a felon should have the burden of proof that he or she is not a security risk. Drug addicts are in a similar position, except the drives of drug abuse are far greater and far more difficult to analyse and predict than simple criminal behavior. My problem with the current pending legislation is I don't know just exactly what position it promotes. Are there adequate safeguards for national security while not overly disqualifying otherwise sound applicants? I don't know. I suppose I'll have to trust Congress. A process that gets harder and harder every day.
Enmos, I believe the only qualifications to have a drug overdose is to have more money than brains. (Drugs aren't free.)
I'm pretty sure it's not ALL ex-cons that get clearence, I think there'd be a different consideration for an ex-bank robber than for a guy who gets too many speeding tickets, ya know?
If you have a drug or felony conviction, you aren't even eligible for a Secret (which is the lowest of the classified) clearance. You can also have it taken from you if you get into certain kinds of trouble while you are active duty. One of the Marines in my unit had a Secret clearance and was stripped from him when he failed a drug test for cocaine.
The term “felon” has lost most of its meaning. It used to be that a person had to commit some sort of very serious crime in order for it to qualify as a felony. Now it includes all sorts of trivial things. Have you ever copied a DVD? Congratulations, you just committed a felony!
That was the intelligence briefing you just smoked .... We have to consider that, at some point, it's kind of like finding a proper jury for the OJ Simpson or Oliver North trials. As Nasor points out, there are some pretty trivial felonies; the first thing I thought of when reading through the bit about illicit substance users is that they could probably use a few pot smokers over at DOD. With the trials of Simpson and North, a common joke was, "What twelve people are you going to find in this country who don't know who ______ is, and hasn't heard the sensational story?" The implication, of course, was, "Do you really want these people deciding justice?" Similarly, DOD, perhaps even more than the rest of Washington-insider culture, is removed from reality. This is largely by design, but the result is that the vast majority of people considering how to make our lives secure without disrupting the daily experiences of the average American have no idea how the average American lives. These are people paid to go about their lives with a stick up their asses. And to a certain degree, that's the way it ought to be. After all, they play with some really sensitive equipment. The problem that presents itself is one of proper discrimination: Flip a coin, roll dice, draw straws. Throw darts while blindfolded if you want. It seems a practical tangle to sort out who gets in and who doesn't. Part of me says this is a good idea, and part of me recoils. On the one hand, its worth reminding that this isn't supposed to be a blanket clearance for convicts; to the other, perhaps most worrisome aspect comes via three Democratic senators: In the first place, government efforts to "streamline" anything tend toward disaster. Secondly, we have every reason to question the assessment of DoD and the SASC that national security can be protected, regardless of whether we're talking about one DoD-specific statute or the whole damn schmoo. A woman at a flight school in the middle of nowhere who sleeps poorly these days because she didn't call the police about a suspicious man who wanted to learn to fly but didn't care about landing is one thing. But the folks at DoD? The Senate Armed Services Committee? This is the sort of thing that gives me a headache. In my social circles, we have an exclamation for this sort of conundrum: "God damn it!" And then you shrug and just let it go. Because either way they go, we're just as screwed tomorrow as we were yesterday. I mean, it's not even like there was some advocacy group out there shouting for this change. DoD wants it. Is this another case where they're neck-deep in a shitty situation and they're suddenly having trouble finding people to fill the posts? Supervisor: What about this one? Good Arabic, and look at this: he minored in cartography? Who the hell minors in cartography? Human Resources: Apparently a gay, Lebanese-American architecture student? Supervisor: Damn it! Okay, what about this one? Human Resources: You should see what FBI sent over on him. Pothead. Mushrooms, LSD. Ever hear about that dude that fell out of the window at that Oklahoma junior college because he was trying to fly from Florida to British Columbia? Supervisor: Really? That's him? Always imagined him ... uh .... Human Resources: Less white? Supervisor: Yeah, that's it. I mean, look at him. He looks a lot like Jesus. In that one movie. Human Resources: Passion? Last Temptation? Supervisor: No, no. The good one. Human Resources: (shrugs) Supervisor: (snaps fingers) Nazareth! That's it. Jesus of Nazareth! Human Resources: No he doesn't. Supervisor: Uh-huh! Human Resources: Nuh-uh! He does not look like freakin' Zeferelli Christ! Supervisor: Whatever. Don't get your panties in a knot. Anyway, he speak Arabic? Human Resources: Actually, the phone message he left earlier sounded like a drug-induced episode. Speaking in tongues. Supervisor: Tongues? What, you mean like holy rollers and snake handlers and all that? Human Resources: Bob Tilton was always my favorite. Baya-lo-shema-lo .... Supervisor: Who the hell was Bob Tilton? Human Resources: Back in the '80s. Looked like Satan. Drove out stomach demons and kidney demons over the tube. You know, "Place your hand on the screen. Stomach demons! I have dominion over you! In Jesus' name I command thee, come out!" Supervisor: Hey, yeah. I remember him. That was pretty good. Human Resources: Thanks. I always thought you had pretty lips. Supervisor: What?! Human Resources: (coughs) Ahem. Uh, er ... anyway, pot dude. Speaks in tongues. Supervisor: Hmm ... aw, hell. Put him over in translation. Nobody'll know the difference, anyway.____________________ Notes: Schor, Elana and Roxana Tiron. "Ex-convicts and addicts may get DoD clearance". TheHill.com. July 10, 2007. See http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/ex--convicts-and-addicts-may-get-dod-clearance-2007-07-10.html
It seems useless to debate without specifying the level of security clearance. For all I know this could be security clearance to come in someone's office and be interviewed or something.
I would think that it would depend upon the position in which the person was being placed. If that person was going to be a front line soldier then I wouldn't think it would matter as much if say they were going into some type of highly sensitive areas. It depends upon the job basically.
We could always start, then, with the lowest relevant level and work up from there. Or we could sit around pointing out the uselessly obvious. Consider that one of the problems in preventing the September, 2001 attack against the United States was that, while certain information existed within various agencies and bureaus of the government, said agencies and bureaus were very bad at sharing the information, and therefore no composite could be made from the component ideas. At one level, it's easy enough to say, "Okay, guys, share and get along and be nice for a change." At another, though, it's a problematic proposition if one agency is allowed to hire people who are disqualified by another agency from receiving information. If, in theory ... oh, hell. The theory is obviously too far-fetched, but if, in theory, Congress can strike the proper balance, then it's time to reconsider certain standards. In this case, we have at least one person who has faithfully served his agency for twenty years, and who should have been drummed out after thirteen if the relevant legislation had been applied? Even by the cheap solution, they ought to be able to grandfather in some of these people.
Some of the top CIA operatives have been ex-Nazis war criminals. The trick is to be smart enough to be able to avoid the conviction. Dumb and unlucky people need not apply.
