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.

