It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As Edward Snowden prepares to defend himself in a worldwide webinar Thursday, the Justice Department is accusing the private contractor that vetted him and thousands of other intelligence workers of bilking U.S. taxpayers out of tens of millions of dollars by conducting phony background checks.
USIS, the giant private contractor that conducted the background checks of both Snowden and Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis, is accused in a Justice Department lawsuit filed Wednesday night of conducting 665,000 fake background checks between 2008 and 2012.
I'm not sure what fire you're talking about but the company statement sounds somewhat like an admission of limited guilt and they claim to have already rectified the problem, from the OP link:
Wrabbit2000
No one considers finding a damn fire hose to start putting out the fires.
So we don't know if Snowden's background check was one that had a faked check or not, but it's not surprising someone asked for an investigation of the firm that did his check.
USIS, which on its website calls itself "the leader in federal background investigations," said in a statement provided to NBC News that "a small group of individuals" was responsible for the bogus checks and that their conduct was "contrary to our values and commitment to exceptional service."
"Since first learning of these allegations nearly two years ago, we have acted decisively to reinforce our processes and management to ensure the quality of our work and adherence to OPM requirements," it said. "We appointed a new leadership team, enhanced oversight procedures, and improved control protocols. From the outset, we have fully cooperated with the government’s investigation and remain focused on delivering the highest quality service under our OPM contracts.”
A company source, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, said that some employees involved in the fraud "were terminated" and that all of the individuals cited in the complaint — including top USIS executives — no longer work for the firm. The source also stressed that neither the Snowden nor the Alexis background checks were among those cited as fraudulent in the complaint. (The complaint does not identify any of the allegedly improper checks.)
how much does the company charge for a phoney background check
(Op Link)
The civil lawsuit was filed by the Justice Department under the False Claims Act. The department adopted claims previously made under seal by Blake Percival, identified as the director of Fieldwork Services at USIS between 2001 and 2011. The suit accuses the company of filing false claims, making false statements and breach of contract.
stirling
Er, how much does the company charge for a phoney background check............
Do they give a bulk rate for those or are they full price.....
I mean 650K checks at no cost to the company makes a LOT OF PROFIT!
I'm not sure what fire you're talking about but the company statement sounds somewhat like an admission of limited guilt and they claim to have already rectified the problem, from the OP link:
xuenchen
Typical incompetence.
Now they tell us.
The source also stressed that neither the Snowden nor the Alexis background checks were among those cited as fraudulent in the complaint.
To me it seems more a case of greed than incompetence. They knew what they were supposed to do and they just didn't do it, to increase profits. That's greed, not incompetence.
Snarl
There's your REAL incompetence. They DID everything they were supposed to ... and yet ... Snowmen and Alexis still got past USIS' basic scrutiny. There are certain government business practices which should never be contracted out. Security happens to be one of 'em.
As snarl mentioned, there doesn't seem to be much of a correlation between this lawsuit and the Snowden leaks, since he wasn't one of the cases cited to have an incomplete background check.
Wrabbit2000
(weakly points to the fire consuming half the national structure and world image to remain functional and effective with)
Ummm... THAT fire..? Nothing to see here tho... They have new management at the place vetting the nation's spys and sensitive workers. All is well and nothing more to be concerned with. Indeed.
(Op Link)
Between March 2008 and September 2012, "USIS released at least 665,000 background investigations" to OPM, certifying them as completed when they actually hadn’t been, the complaint charges. This amounted to 40 percent of all the background checks performed by USIS done during this period., it said. The allegedly fraudulent background checks included employees seeking security clearances at the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice Department and other federal agencies.
You would think, right?
Frankinpillow
You would of thought the FBI and the DOD would do their own work regarding background checks and not leave it to a private contractor. Maybe the cost was a factor in this?
Arbitrageur
To me it seems more a case of greed than incompetence. They knew what they were supposed to do and they just didn't do it, to increase profits. That's greed, not incompetence.
Arbitrageur
Also in the case of Snowden, I'm not convinced we can say the background check was faulty. Maybe they check to see if the candidate has some moral standards, and Snowden was found to have moral standards. Some people might argue it was his moral standards which compelled him to reveal that the constitution was being illegally violated, where he felt he had a moral obligation to uphold the constitution.
Arbitrageur
Indeed there was a whistleblower at the NSA who retired maybe a decade ago who complained about the NSA being headed in an illegal and immoral direction. That is the root cause of the fire. Even now I get the feeling the NSA feels it is above the law and can do whatever it wants and probably only regrets getting caught.
Arbitrageur
I don't know if some judges can help convince the NSA they are not above the law; a few seem to be trying. The last two white house administrations flouting the same attitude of being above the law doesn't seem to help.
Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Frankinpillow
You would think at least a few things of critical importance would be done in-house by people with a very serious interest, outside profit, of seeing it done right. Wishful thinking I suppose...
Nice Avatar, by the way! That's one I won't forget or miss spotting. lol....