Security clearances approved: perverts & child molesters

I came across this government site that basically details cases involving requests for security clearances for Department of Defence contractors. Every organization has their dirty laundry but some of these cases are disturbing in that they involved incidents such as child molestation. The cases range from 1996-2009 with a great amount of detail. Obviously names are excluded but the details are there. In addition there is no information, nor would there be, in terms of security clearance specifics. The question is....should people, especially with clearly problematic histories, have access to national security secrets ? Yes people can rehabilitate but child molesters ?


Here are a few examples with granted clearances:


source

brill

reply to post by brill

---

I figure this might be something like the thought processes that contributed to the granting of clearances to these individuals:

The First man in question was cleared because he stopped the behavior, and told his wife. Investigators deemed it a potential threat due to its socially unapproved nature; threat of exposure could be used against the cleared individual to force disclosure of sensitive information. It stopped. It couldn't be used against him in regards to his wife, and if it were, he sought counseling so he could be seen as having done the right thing. Situation neutralized.

With the second man, the threat is neutralized as well. The fact that the community is aware of his status as a child molester "mitigated the security concerns" that this could be used to manipulate the applicant into exposing secrets. Further support for granting clearance lies in the favorable medical prognosis. Any moral argument based on violation of the incest taboo is debatable; that the victim was a step-child partially"mitigates" the crime, and the recognition of wrong doing completes the transformation into a worthy risk.

thanks for your reply.

I'd agree somewhat with your assessment on the first case. Like I said people rehabilitate and move forward with their lives no problem. I do take strong exception with the sampled second case in that 4 years seems like an awfully short time considering the offence. I just get the impression that the individuals military history and success trumps and somewhat clouds the issue. I find that a re-occurring theme with the military and in some cases with organized religion whereby people of that ilk can do no wrong. It sets the bar lower in terms of acceptable standards and sends a poor message.

These were only a few samples there were lots of others many involving rampant drug/physical abuse and even foreign nationals. Again are these the types of people who should even be remotely considered to guard national secrets. I would think that there would be many more capable and trustworthy persons available or who may have applied.

brill

No surprise for the government.
Here is another very recent and glaring example of govt. incompetence in regards to the hiring process.

Census Bureau Hires Criminals





www.judicialwatch.org...

I've found that a lot of people misunderstand the process for obtaining clearance.

Usually people are granted clearance not because of what they do, but because of what they have access to.

A person who hires prostitutes is more dangerous in this respect than a person who has committed murder, it's true.

Leverage is the main key.... Do you have a secret that someone could use as leverage to get you to divulge information, pass on secrets, etc.

If you've committed murder, but it's not a secret, there's no leverage. If you are a pedophile and nobody knows about it, then someone could use that as leverage.

It's a weird process, and has little to do with your record, and much more to do with what's NOT on record.

This may veer a little away from the original post but it pertains to security clearances in general. I'm currently awaiting my security clearance for a job in Afghanistan. I have a solid background, prior law enforcement, solid private sector etc...However, I have almost $90K in unpaid medical bills due to getting shot in Iraq...I'm still concerned that I may get denied a clearance dut to this and it frustrates me to see some of the idiots that get clearances...Anyone have any knowledge of how they look at credit issues such as this?

Actually judging from several of the cases a large percentage seem to deal with people who have very high debt. I found it a bit odd to see details like that exposed. I wouldn't think you have to worry but then who knows.

brill

reply to post by Rhetoric

---

This is what I was trying to get at with my post. I agree, a lot of people misunderstand the process, even military personnel.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by John_Brown]