Security clearances approved: perverts & child molesters, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 11-10-2009 @ 10:51 PM by brill
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 ?

These decisions pertain to the adjudication of security clearance cases for contractor personnel under DoD Directive 5220.6, which implements Executive Order 10865]

Here are a few examples with granted clearances:

Sexual Behavior; Personal Conduct
07/23/2009

From approximately 1995 to February 2005, Applicant engaged in exhibitionistic fantasies that cause security concerns under the guidelines for sexual behavior and personal conduct. He stopped his questionable behavior in February 2005, attended counseling, and disclosed his behavior to his wife. He has lost interest in his exhibitionistic fantasies because of physiological and cognitive reasons. He has learned his lesson, and the likelihood of recurrence is remote. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

CASE NUMBER: 07-17559.h1
Personal Conduct; Criminal Conduct; Sexual Behavior
09/25/2008

Applicant mitigated the security concerns raised by his January 2004 molestation of his minor step-child by the passage of time, the public knowledge of the offense, the favorable prognoses from his psychotherapist and the psychiatrist who performed his pre-sentencing evaluation. Clearnce granted


source

brill


reply posted on 11-10-2009 @ 11:58 PM by John_Brown
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.


reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 07:31 AM by brill
Originally posted by John_Brown
reply to post by brill

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



reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 04:32 PM by John_Brown
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]

Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week.
  Posted 1 days ago with 111 member flags
Blue Spheres Fall from the Sky in the UK
  Posted 14 days ago with 81 member flags
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
  Posted 1 days ago with 63 member flags
Strange Sounds in Sky Explained by Scientists
  Posted 10 days ago with 59 member flags
She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.
  Posted 4 days ago with 49 member flags
Anonymous: Revealing The Arcane Legal Trick Behind ACTA
  Posted 11 days ago with 42 member flags
Anonymous reveals Haditha massacre emails | RT
  Posted 6 days ago with 33 member flags