GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Foreign Service officers clamor for security clearance reform

• 65105
  

  MAK's comment that an extra month to do the vetting is interesting, as s/he correctly focuses on the issue of proper vetting -- I am retired from the State Department and remember well the 3 years that my security clearance took. It was only by coincidence that I was again interested in working for State when I was cleared.

  And the clearance for the "continuing relationship" with a foreign national that I reported was not granted for almost two years. By that time, we were engaged, married, returned to the US, and she had obtained expeditious naturalization so that she could accompany me in status as an American citizen to my next post.

  The problem is not that it takes 3 months, or 6 months, or a year, or whatever to get a good clearance. It's that the clearance process is arbitrary and slow -- people who shouldn't get clearances sometimes get them, people who should sometimes don't, and people lose clearances for no particular reason or -- worse -- because an influential person calls Diplomatic Security and suggests that a difficult personnel problem might be solved by so-and-so losing his clearance.

  nurtz kid Posted December 16, 2008 11:54 PM
• 62896
  

  Like everything else, these decisions require judgment. There are many foreign born Americans, who are loyal citizens because they appreciate how much better off they are in the US. There are always exceptions and a thorough investigation should be able to discover that.

  Erich Darr Posted November 12, 2008 12:30 PM
• 62848
  

  I have to disagree with Mr. Hirsch. All you have to do in the DC area is look at all the cars with flags from other nations hanging from the rear view mirrors. I think of Pollard and his spying. In the end, I do believe that their are children of immigrants and others who put their ancestral country or religion first and the U.S. second. I fear that there is decreasing loyalty to the U.S. (I blame Republican administrations for destroying people's faith in our federal government.) These people should not be given high clearances. If there are particular needs in the foreign service, provide better pay and incentives to encourage those who can get the needed clearances to move to those areas.

  Concerned about easy clearances Posted November 12, 2008 8:25 AM
• 62829
  

  Staffing has been increased by 70% since Bush took office. The better question would be what are we getting for the money. Right now it appears to be a big goose egg

  dan m ketter Posted November 11, 2008 6:05 PM
• 62821
  

  There is clearly substantial reason for concern about both the process of obtaining an initial clearance as well as the adjudication and investigation processess applied to cases against those with clearances. Among the problems is that many appeals are decided by political appointees with sometimes little or no training or experience in matters of law or investigation.

  On the other side of this, however, is the lot of those who conduct these investigations. Just as with every profession, the work of a reletively few bad actors can be used to cast aspersions on the efforts of all involved. This can lead to "reverse abuse": there are many valid reasons to suspend or revoke clearances, yet some of the material published on this subject appears to treat all such actions as unjust, unprofessional, and mean-spirited. Ask any cop: no one they question or arrest has every done wrong, and the cop clearly has an ax to grind with the (fill in the blank) group to which that person belongs.

  Both groups involved in this issue to strive to lessen the rhetoric and (sometimes) mud-slinging. Their efforts should be toward a solution instead, and that is especially true of a group of professional diplomats.

  Equally Concerned Civil Servant Posted November 11, 2008 2:30 PM
• 62808
  

  I agree with much of what Mr. Hirsch states that the vetting process needs to be reviewed as there are many examples throughout our short history of foreign born people benefiting the causes of America. I believe the vetting process that all citizens of the U.S. applying for a security clearance or even public trust are the same. The distinction comes with what is on the application. However, one must not forget if we cannot trust our own countrymen such as Ames, Hanson, Longtree, Keyser, etc., in protecting of most sensitive classified information, one cannot ignore the number of U.S. or foreign born, or those with foreign ties who have benefitted the cause of other countries, because they had something to exploit by that government. How many lives were lost, how much extra money did the U.S. government have to spend to change plans for buildings, equipment, etc., because information was exploited? I believe however that the background checks are required and if it takes a month longer to get those personnel (regardless of their country of birth), properly vetted then so be it.

  M.A.K. Posted November 11, 2008 7:23 AM