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.

 

DOJ accuses firm that vetted Snowden of faking 665,000 background checks

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


What am I supposed to be surprised? After the revelations that the emergency launch code for nuclear weapons was 0000000000 ... for 20 years .... or Operation Northwoods

The fraud and waste in government by government billed by the corporate sector ....... and we ask where the money went ....

America home of the largest successful crime spree in the world .....
edit on 25-1-2014 by fnpmitchreturns because: add




posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that's necessarily all an employee might see charged, for what I linked. That seems to be the actual cost though...before a bunch of other junk may well get figured into it for the sticker shock involved.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Advantage
I dont care if you dont believe it.. but its obvious you dont know what you are talking about in any case.

That's certainly possible.


They absolutely DID reinvestigate.. and its common.

It is, unfortunately, common for agencies to violate national reciprocity policy. The subjects of investigations often don't know any better and go along with it because they want to start working. NCIX is supposed to have a web form up soon to report such violations (here), but "soon" has no specific meaning in government time. Until then, I would suggest your husband report any violations of reciprocity to his agency's OIG. He could save himself a great deal of time and save the government thousands of dollars.


There is an R clearance regardless of what you think.. its within the DOE..

The DOE clearances are L and Q. While it's impossible to prove a negative, I can show that the authoritative policies do not recognize the existence of an "R" clearance. There is no "R" clearance in DOE Order 472.2, Personnel Security. The DOE clearance request form does not have an "R" clearance. There is no "R" clearance on the DOE clearance access matrix. There is no way to enter an "R" clearance in CVS. There is no "R" clearance in the national investigative standards.


just like the Q because thats what he was working with in NM with nuclear. I suggest you look it up before calling someone a liar.

I did look it up, and you're wrong. I didn't call you a liar, and apologize if you got that from my tone.


By the way.. a source?? Seriously? I guess thats where you got your faulty info. Mine comes from actually LIVING it for over 2 decades.

Congratulations on being married for over 20 years. But that doesn't give you any insight into personnel security.

By the way, isn't it a bit silly to mock me for asking for a source, when just a moment before you were telling me to look something up?



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Advantage
 


I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that's necessarily all an employee might see charged, for what I linked. That seems to be the actual cost though...before a bunch of other junk may well get figured into it for the sticker shock involved.


IMO it shouldnt cost NEAR that much for a simple secret clearance and they are charging WAAAAY too much. Its just a background check.. a real surface level check. Your biggest red flag is a divorce, believe it or not. Financial issues are a biggie that will trigger a deeper investigation and divorce is one huge financial issue in some cases.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 



Better look again for that R clearance.



Here you go... googlefu. It references the R clearance. Been around since the 80's. Page 3 and 4. It shows there are the clearances as Q, L, U, and R.

www.gao.gov...
edit on 25-1-2014 by Advantage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Advantage
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 



Better look again for that R clearance.


No, I'm done with this game. Show us a source. Put up or, you know.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

FurvusRexCaeli

Advantage
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 



Better look again for that R clearance.


No, I'm done with this game. Show us a source. Put up or, you know.


Youre the expert calling people out and you cant find a simple reference to an R ?? Look up, I edited my post right above yours all about the R clearance.

Only one of us is playing a game here.. and its not me.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Snowden is a cray cray boy.

Free J Bizzle!



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Advantage
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 



Better look again for that R clearance.



Here you go... googlefu. It references the R clearance. Been around since the 80's. Page 3 and 4. It shows there are the clearances as Q, L, U, and R.

www.gao.gov...
edit on 25-1-2014 by Advantage because: (no reason given)

Fantastic. You found a reference to an R clearance in the 1980s. However, your claim was that "there is an R clearance." That's present tense. You still do not have a source for that claim. Unless you want to go back and edit that, too.
edit on 25-1-2014 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 



No, it was started in the 80's. Its still in use nowand you should probably read a link rather than flailing around. I dont have to worry about time stamps.
You should probably stop while you can.Youre all upset over nothing. Realize that some people HAVE real lives and talk about them on here... and others pretend they have a certain life, know certain things, and google like mad. When they are proven to not know anything, they get upset and flail around. Youre starting to flail. Probably should leave it alone right about.... now.


In total compassion for the mod here...hehe.. I will leave it alone now. Youve been proven not to have any idea what you are talking about, only here to bicker and bitch over things you have no idea about, and I really dont have to say much else. You did it all for me



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I guess it could have been worse. They could have outsourced the background checks to a foreign country, like Russia or china.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join