David Martosko from the Daily Caller-
The Defense Security Service (DSS) wrote in a Nov. 16 bulletin to government contractors that ”erroneous statements have been made to the effect that DSS is directing contractors to treat the signing of such petitions as reportable adverse information.”
By “adverse information,” the agency means personal information that could lead the federal government to cancel — or to not renew — a “secret,” “top secret,” “Sensitive Compartmented Information” or other clearance level.
The Pentagon agency did, however, leave its options open regarding petition signers.
“Please note,” the agency cautioned, ”that DSS has not provided any approved direction or guidance. … This issue is under review and DSS will provide information to contractors when that review is complete.”
Full article HERE.
Now “I” am betting as soon as DHS gets their hands on the list of signatories, it WILL be bounced against those with clearances, and we WILL NOT like the results of the ‘reviewed’ guidance…
YMMV…
“Government is force”, George Washington said. He was right, and those who have it come to love its application.
You have to be foolish to sign a petition like that. It won’t make a dammned bit of difference in the end, (no changes to anything), is only symbolic, and draws attention to you.
Why do so? All you do is bring the eye of the DHS (and maybe others) onto you.
If yer gonna do something which makes you (to them, at least) an “enemy of the state” then you should do something which has a real effect.
Arthur: “…Oh Knights, who until recently said: ‘NEE !’… “
Foe: example of Special Compartmented Information…. Port = ‘LEFT’ /// Starboard = ‘RIGHT.’
thank you, 21412.
So for five minutes of work “Person A” can possible create problems with the clearance level of “Person B”.
1.Set up a new email address with gmail using “Person B” name.
2.Create an account at the white house website using this new email address and “Person B” name.
3.Sign the secession petition with “Person B” name.
Yes, any person who signs a petition for secession should be denied a security clearance — BUT — only if every elected official who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for security clearance is also denied a clearance, to include the Commander-in-Chief:
*Parents were Communists
*All of his friends were Communists
*His best friend was a terrorist (Ayers) who ghost wrote his “autobiography”
*Published allegations that he sold cocaine (never disputed)
*Suspicious Foreign Travel
*Multiple SSN’s
*Attends a Church that advocates the overthrow of the United States on racial grounds. (thus a racist)
*Receives funds from people in nations hostile to the United States.
*Suspicious financial dealings by his spouse.
*Close friendship (Bloggo) with convicted corrupt politicians.
Need I go on?
LL —
Elected officals do not fall under normal security clearance rules. Nor do federal judges.
They automatically are considered to have whatever clearance is necessary to do their jobs. Otherwise, the Executive Branch could shut down any oversight by the Legislative and Judicial Branches by classifying anything they wanted to, and denying clearances to legislators and judges.
Hell, we had a legislator on the intelligence committee who had been IMPEACHED as a federal judge for malfeasance in office. . .
The best guidance on that sort of thing is the document (available online as a PDF) created by CIA on clearance processes — the document itself is unclassified, but it thoroughly discusses the legalities of the US security classification system. I cannot recall the name off the top of my head and I am too lazy to hop over to the SharePoint site to pull it up for you, but I think even Wikipedia links to it. . .
To reiterate — being elected by the American people, or being a judge confirmed by the US Senate, grants an automatic effective Top Secret clearance — the only thing missing is “need to know”, which is job based, not clearance based.
Legally, there are only FOUR security clearance levels in the United States federal system:
Uncleared
Confidential
Secret
Top Secret
Everything else is simply a way to designate what particular “need to know” compartment something is in. Even “clearances” like “Yankee White”, “Q” (yes, it exists), and “SCI” aren’t actually security clearances — they are compartments.
Of course, the background check for employees and contractors (again, not federal elected officials and federal judges, they get “read in” if they need to, without necessarily requiring formal background checks) to normally gain compartmentalized access — called “Special Compartmentalized Information”, or “SCI”, you have already surpassed the background requirements for Top Secret anyway, so an SCI designator almost always comes bundled with a TS clearance. Of course, if Confidentially cleared PFC Assmunch at 8th & I has an actual need to know for Yankee White (Presidential security info) stuff right friggin’ now (think Tom Clancy’s fictional kamikaze attack on DC), he gets read in as a C/SCI/YANKEE WHITE. Once he no longer needs the Yankee White compartment, he’ll get read out, just like everyone else with SCI access. . .
@Mr.B – I agree with what you said, but…
…it may be only symbolic, but at this point that’s about all we’ve got left. Civil liberties are being eroded, Big Brother is growing, and as the election proved, there’s not much we can do that has a real effect (other than perhaps outright rebellion).
To quote H.L. Mencken, “Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”
I’m not advocating throat-slitting, but I have spit on my hands and, by signing one of those petitions, metaphorically hoisted the black flag.
DHS and others be damned…
Rev- Concur!
MR.B-Ageed, good point!
Anon- LOL…
LL- Yeah, too bad it doesn’t actually WORK that way for them… Geodk is correct…
Geody- Thanks, you’re correct… dammit…
Tim- I don’t think ‘you’ have anything to worry about… 🙂 Some of us on the other paw….
What does it say about the “ones” when the feel the need to stifle criticism? Tells me they know in their hearts what they are doing is wrong.
GEODKYT – I’m intimately aware of rules regarding clearance levels, need to know and the status of elected officials. Anyone can be granted a TS Genser (General Service) clearance with a National Agency Check. The devil is in the details of SCI.
However, my point was that in my opinion, if you want to brand people signing a petition as “disloyal and ineligible”, perhaps it’s also time to revisit the status of ELECTED OFFICIALS.
I’m not so ignorant as to warrant your response, but then again, you don’t know me and I don’t know you.
Centex:
metaphorically hoisting the flag does nothing but bring you to the attention of the authorities. NOTHING ELSE.
Intent means nothing.
Better to stay “gray” and be effective if/when real action is useful/needed.
When you sign such a petition,all you do is wave a flag and bring attention to yourself, for no useful effect. THe result may be harmless, if the government chooses not to bother you, or it could be devastating if they wish.
Symbolic gestures are worth nothing, really. Just symbols. They affect nothing in the end, and are, therefore, useless.
Damn I want to jump in on this, especially the clearance and access review process. However…
Tin foil hat is getting tighter and tighter.
Facts in evidence.
That WILL occur.
BZ
WSF- Point…
LL-Understood
Mr. B- Good point also!
AZ- Yep… And need duct tape too!
This is why I signed with the names of several of my bosses. Hopefully the G is as vindictive as we think it is.
NFO, you’ve been saying for years you wanted to quit and take it easy. Perhaps I’ll sign for you. After all, shipmates help each other. 😉
LL,
There’s a reasons we don’t hold federal judges and federal elected officials to the same standards for clearances.
It isn’t a bug, it’s a feature designed to defend the Constitution.
However badly it works out from time to time, the simple fact is that an Executive Branch that could shut out the other two branches of government altogether by simply directing DSS not to issue them clearances, is simply unacceptable.
I’d rather have unworthy politicians than the risk of an administration LEGALLY stonewalling any oversight by playing games with clearances. And the courts have agreed — which is why it would be unConstitutional to require legislators and judges to be able to do their jobs only at the unilateral discretion of the Executive.
It’s like the argument about free speech versus offensive, hateful, disgusting (but ultimatelly not advocating violence or treason) speech. As damaging as it is to allow it, the alternative is even worse.
Since that point runs exactly counter to your stated ideal, it appeared you didn’t understand that the balance and seperation of powers demands that the system work that way.
Murph- LOL, ‘hope’ it works…
Don- Oh “THANK” you…
Geodk- You’re not quite correct, Politicans, etc. CAN be denied clearances, and especially in the need to know area, they STILL have to have a BG check… Those are not freely granted, regardless of what people say (and yes, I DO know that for a fact).