The Navy and the FBI fucked up

[Marrah_G]

Not only should this guy not have been able to get a gun, after being discharged from the navy for misconduct and having been arrested for things involving firearms THIS GUY WAS STILL GIVEN SECRET CLEARANCE.

I am pissed. Those 12 families should not be mourning tonight. He NEVER should have had that job.

My son has that job, the very same job, the very same company.

Whoever did the clearance investigation on him need to lose their fucking job.

If this had been next Monday.... my son would have been there.

If this had been last monday my brother would have been there.

THIS GUY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THERE.

THIS GUY SHOULD NEVER, EVER HAD BEEN ABLE TO BUY A GUN!!!!!!!!!!

[gopiscrap]

1. I fully agree

[riverwalker]

2. +1000000

He had Secret clearance. Terrifying that he slipped through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance

Security assessment/clearances

Individuals who require access to more sensitive information (or access to sensitive federal government sites and/or assets) because of their job will be required to sign the Security Clearance Form (TBS/SCT 330-60e). There are three basic levels of clearance:


Confidential (Level I) In addition to the RS checks, foreign employments, immediate relatives, and marriages/common-law relationships must be declared and be screened.
This level of clearance will grant the right to access designated and classified information up to Confidential level on a need-to-know basis. Department Heads have the discretion to allow for an individual to access Secret level information without higher level clearance on a case-to-case basis.

Secret (Level II) Same as Confidential.
This level of clearance will grant the right to access designated and classified information up to Secret level on a need-to-know basis. Department Heads have the discretion to allow for an individual to access Top Secret-level information without higher-level clearance on a case-to-case basis.

Top Secret (Level III) In addition to the checks at the Secret level, foreign travels, assets, and character references must be given. Field check will also be conducted prior to granting the clearance.
This level of clearance will grant the right to access all designated and classified information on a need-to-know basis.

[Recursion]

3. Clearances are mostly about contact with foreigners and foreign governments

As well as contact with sensitive information in the past.

They aren't what a lot of people think they are.

[MADem]

5. They're also about criminal records....

Kids who lie about stupid stuff like misdemeanors can lose the jobs they signed up to do when the NAC comes back in boot camp, because they lied and didn't get the waiver they needed.

I really do think the clearance process has been outsourced too much. I also think they need to bring it on home, and just pay people a decent wage to do it right. We can't trust Halliburton-esque contractors to do this kind of work....

[Recursion]

6. That's more about blackmail than the act itself

"We don't care what you did, we just want to know you did it so the Russians can't pay you to keep it secret from us", etc.

And 100% agreed about how contracting this out is a bad idea.

[MADem]

8. I know a guy who got bounced for an indecent exposure charge...!

It was nothing more than peeing behind a dumpster, but he played cute, didn't tell, got caught, and got the boot. It was an entry level/convenience separation, but he was well and truly scorched.

He was able to come back in when they got desperate--this was light years ago, and he was smart enough to tell the truth the 2nd time around. He required a couple of waivers, and he got 'em!

[Recursion]

10. Yikes. My credit score was I think 3 but that wasn't a problem

Though apparently higher outstanding debts, even with a better credit rating, could have been (in an odd way I lucked out and torched my credit early on over small amounts, so I never did the debt-based purchase thing after that).

[oldhippie]

54. ^^ This ^^

So many people seem to think that a criminal background will prevent you from getting a security clearance. It won't, as long as you disclose it and there is not much probability of blackmail. They worry a lot more about financial status and credit ratings than they do about criminal history. A secret clearance does not mean you are a good person, it means you are less likely to divulge classified info.

[Nay]

12. Uh, wrong. The first thing looked at are criminal records. The prob with this shooter is that he was

never charged or convicted of either of those weapons violations, so the investigator did not have that to hold against him. However, the shooter DID have a general discharge from the Navy, not an honorable discharge, which should have disqualified him right there because a general usually means mental issues, violence issues or quasi-criminal issues while in service. At the very least, a simple talk with his last commanding officer would have revealed the mental/anger management issues he seems to have had.

I suspect they didn't do much of an investigation, if the contracting organization is the one who certified he had had a 'background investigation' done. A real background, as done by the feds, would have turned up all this shit and he would never have been hired.

[Nevernose]

17. Well, your post certainly qualifies for "anger issues."

Relax. It's not all about you.

[jtuck004]

16. Which category would you place gay people in? Mental issues, violence or quasi criminal?

Because there are quite a few with General Discharges under Honorable Conditions, just like mine, whose narrative reason states "Homosexual Conduct".

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Point of fact, gay 'conduct' got a person OTH discharge, gay identity got

General Discharge. But of course neither thing is true after DADT was repealed.
Upgrading the discharge status is a big deal among gay veterans
"Service members who were discharged under DADT generally received an Honorable or General Under Honorable Conditions discharge based on their service records. However, a service member discharged for a “Homosexual Act” that involved a so-called “aggravating factor” might have been given an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge characterization. Most of the factors on the list (such as acts involving minors, prostitutes or coercion) constituted unacceptable behavior and should have resulted in an OTH. But there were two “aggravating factors” that did not inherently constitute misconduct and that should not necessarily have resulted in OTH discharges. These were acts committed openly in public view (e.g., holding hands at a restaurant) and acts committed on base or on post (e.g., a quick hug while being dropped off).

In addition, the Navy and Marine Corps gave those discharged for “marriage” or “attempted marriage” an OTH, while in the Army and the Air Force, members discharged for same conduct received Honorable or General Under Honorable Conditions discharges, based on their service record."
http://www.sldn.org/pages/discharge-upgrades

[atreides1]

58. General Discharge

General discharges are given to service members whose performance is satisfactory but is marked by a considerable departure in duty performance and conduct expected of military members. Reasons for such a characterization of service vary, from medical discharges to misconduct, and are utilized by the unit commander as a means to correct unacceptable behavior prior to initiating discharge action (unless the reason is drug abuse, in which case discharge is mandatory). A commander must disclose the reasons for the discharge action in writing to the service member, and must explain reasons for recommending the service be characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions). The service member is normally required to sign a statement acknowledging receipt and understanding of the notification of pending discharge memorandum. The person is also advised of the right to seek counsel and present supporting statements.

In addition, service members are required to sign documents acknowledging that "substantial prejudice in civilian life" may be encountered under a general discharge. A general discharge may preclude a veteran's participation in the GI Bill, service on veterans' commissions, and other programs for which an honorable discharge is required, but is eligible for VA disability and most other benefits.

While it isn't an Honorable Discharge, unless otherwise noted a General Discharge is usually under honorable conditions!

[MADem]

79. I heard on the TV that he petitioned to upgrade that general, as one can do after six months,

and his petition was granted, so he had an "honorable" on the books.

I think there needs to be a way to strip clearances the minute a person leaves a job, either military or civilian, even if they're going to another one--the "reset" button needs to be pushed. More expensive, but I think it would catch plenty of problems.

[Romulox]

39. Man. Is there ANY part of the status quo that you don't defend? Any part at all?

[Recursion]

40. Wow, you read that as a defense?

That's bizarre.

[Romulox]

41. You're attempting to explain away people's outrage at the system's failure.

You also started an OP to do the same thing.

[Recursion]

43. Interesting

Untrue, but interesting that you think that

[onenote]

4. Don't think he bought his gun legally

It has been reported that he started out with a sawed off shotgun -- not a legal weapon.

But I agree that there are serious questions about how he could have gotten a security clearance if, as has been reported, he was given a general (rather than honorable) discharge from his military service.

[elleng]

7. Discharge from the Reserves?

Hadn't heard that.

[DURHAM D]

21. Yes for "Misconduct Issues"

[elleng]

51. Just saw this:

Gunman Had Trouble in Navy, but Was Given Honorable Discharge.

'was given an honorable discharge from the military in January 2011 after he had applied for an early discharge under the Navy’s “early enlisted transition program,” although he had exhibited a “pattern of misbehavior,” which included insubordination and unauthorized absences.

Those issues had led the Navy to consider forcing Mr. Alexis out of the service with a less than honorable discharge. Law enforcement official said Tuesday that Mr. Alexis has been exhibiting symptoms of mental illness since his early 20s. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said Mr. Alexis has been described by people who knew him as “paranoid” and “delusional.”

Investigators said people had begun noticing Mr. Alexis’s potential mental health problems around the time of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. Mr. Alexis’s father has told the authorities that his son had been among the first responders at the World Trade Center and that he believed that Mr. Alexis suffered from post-traumatic stress and had difficulty controlling his anger.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/washington-navy-yard-shootings.html?hp

[Hoyt]

31. He did have a carry permit, didn't he?

[maddezmom]

33. Reports this am he purchased a gun in Lorton VA this past week

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Confirmed-Shooter-at-Navy-Yard-One-Person-Shot-223897891.html


Also he had contacted the VA for PTSD twice...seems like between this his arrests and record in military too many things slipped thru the cracks.

[NickB79]

99. Yes, he bought the shotgun legally

The gun shop he purchased it from has cooperated with the feds and provided all the paperwork showing as much. It was a Remington 870 pump-action 12-gauge, the same one millions of hunters take out for ducks and pheasants every fall.

No one purchases a sawed-off shotgun ready-made. You buy a hacksaw for a few bucks at Home Depot, SAW OFF the barrel and stock, and viola! Sawed-off shotgun.

So he started out with a legal weapon, ILLEGALLY modified it, and went shooting.

[Eleanors38]

112. He purchased a "legal" shotgun. If it was sawn off, he did it later.

[sarisataka]

9. There are some serious questions

if all of the info we are getting proves true, as to how he could possibly have obtained a clearance. There are several red flag dis-qualifiers.

If the gun was purchased legally, and assume he sawed it off later, there would be questions as to how he passed NCIS. A general discharge would not have had an effect but some of his legal issues should have caused a delay if not outright denial. This could become an example of the information states are supposed to be putting in the database but are seriously lagging in compliance.

[malaise]

92. No the thing is he had clearance and they never took it away

as in cancelled it. It had a ten year life. Isn't that crazy?

[sarisataka]

115. Crazy hardly begins to define it nt

[Heather MC]

11. I think he is a prime example

that we are collecting too much information ontoo many people. It becomes very easy for the not jobs to fall through the cracks

[RC]

13. BINGO!

Too many E-mails and conversations about cats and how hot a classmate is and not enough tending to what they are supposed to be about.
This was a domestic terrorist event, even though they are saying on the news it was not a terrorist attack. Oh, yes it was. It fits the definition to a T.
For all the spying the NSA and the FBI are doing on American citizens, they sure are not preventing much. Boston anyone?

ter·ror·ist ( tµr“…r-¹st) n. 1. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. adj. 1. Of, relating to, or constituting terrorism. ter ”ror·is“tic adj.

ter·ror·ism ( tµr“…-r¹z”…m) n. 1. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

If being shot at, with 13 dead, or what ever and many more people wounded, people just going about their lives, is not terrorism, then what is? This was home grown terrorism, period. Our law enforcement and spy agencies are not doing their jobs. The proof is that this keeps happening. They redefine terrorism to get off the hook for not doing what they say they are supposed to be doing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. As far as we can tell there is no political motive

Ergo not terrorism. I am a cynic, guy is dead, ergo they will not tell us. But that is another story. They did not call Ft. Hood terror, even when Hassan had very specific political goals.

[kardonb]

14. guns

this whole tragic episode also refutes the NRA's constant meme : if everyone around would have had a gun , this would not have happened . BS , this was on a military installation , therefore there were lots of troupes with guns around . Against a determined madman , there is very little defense .

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Once again, people do not walk armed

Inside a military institution. There are many good and valid reasons for that. But there were not many troops walking around armed.

[My Pet Goat]

26. Wrong

Plenty of people walk around armed. There are armed guards at the gates, armed guards at the more protected areas, armed guards on regular patrol and barracked guards. Do you really think a military base of this importance would not be well protected internally?

If you're saying everyone is not armed, that's an extreme and trivial point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Security force does not translate to all and everybody is armed

You are also aware, or perhaps not, that much of conus security is now handled by civilian security forces, right?

This further reduces the number of armed troops.



Yes, I lived in a coupe military installations and hubby retired from the navy. He even considered applying to that civilian component.

[My Pet Goat]

28. You assume I'm not familiar with Navy Yards?

Your arrogance springs from your loquaciousness.

My point doesn't rest on marines outnumbering armed security. You're shifting the argument. Is your point that, not only does everyone have to be armed, but they all have to be marines? Extreme.

Regardless, yes, I've never been to a Naval yard where there weren't a good number of marines barracked and if you really have Navy experience you know the reasons why.

[NutmegYankee]

30. Obviously you are not.

#1. There is only ONE Navy Yard. Not plural. Perhaps you were thinking of bases or naval shipyards?
#2. The WNY is a giant office complex, nearly completely staffed with civilians.

[pintobean]

32. +1

It's funny that so many people think that any military installation is like a 19th century battle ready fort.

[JPZenger]

38. Marines guarding nearby DC facility

Last month, I saw some very heavily armed Marines guarding a nearby Marines facility that is very close to the Navy Yard, on a Saturday. I didn't know that hand-held firearms could be that big. They were apparently designed to stop a truck.

[My Pet Goat]

46. What is even funnier is that no one even said that....

Are you able to respond to anything I actually wrote? Waiting............

[pintobean]

48. Keep

"Waiting............" My Pet.

Oh, the irony.

[My Pet Goat]

44. feel free to repeat NRA talking points....

but we're going to have to deal with facts here.

A naval shipyard is a type of naval yard - as in species (ship) and genus (yard). Comprehend? The Washington Navy Yard at one point was indeed an active shipYARD. Ever wonder why they call it a "yard" and not a naval base?

Even if your point was true, it would be a distinction without a difference. There is probably more armed security at this yard because of all the major commands and sensitive information located there.

Your point that "WNY is a giant office complex, nearly completely staffed with civilians" is startling as it is unlikely. "Giant office complex"..."completely staffed with civilians"....really?

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Welcome to ignore list

Good bye

[My Pet Goat]

59. Don't forget your ball.

To anyone else reading: I've seen many comments (not here) concluding this attack happened in DC because the gun laws are so restrictive (i.e., the citizens are unarmed).

When someone reasonably notes that the attack happened inside a military base, which is quite different, the unbelievable counter is made that a base is also unarmed (i.e., the military base is like DC, so the conclusion apparently stands).

[NutmegYankee]

69. Excuse me!? What NRA talking points?

I never once mentioned anything about firearms. Oh yeah, and I used to work on the Washington Navy Yard.

So please excuse me if I point out that you don't know what the hell you're talking about!

[My Pet Goat]

74. I think we can safely say after a few days have past.....

that you didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

The particular building attacked was secured, he had inside access, and an armed guard on the premises was killed defending it.

[NutmegYankee]

75. LOL. You couldn't be more wrong.

Just to remind you, here is my Post:

#1. There is only ONE Navy Yard. Not plural. Perhaps you were thinking of bases or naval shipyards?
#2. The WNY is a giant office complex, nearly completely staffed with civilians.

See this: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/what-is-the-navy-yard/463/

[My Pet Goat]

80. Not a subject to laugh about really...

Your point about WNY just being a giant office complex couldn't be more wrong, especially the secured building 197 where the attack took place. Your assertion is also a disservice to the security guard who died defending what you call an "office" complex.

It is called the Washington Navy Yard not the Navy Yard.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/16/us/site-of-the-navy-yard-shooting.html?_r=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard

The surrounding neighborhood is called the Navy Yard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_Yard,_Washington,_D.C.

The navy has more than one yard, but just one Washington Navy Yard. For example, a naval shipyard is a type of naval yard - as in species (ship) and genus (yard). The Washington Navy Yard at one point was indeed an active shipYARD. Ever wonder why they call it a "yard" and not a base?

[pinboy3niner]

88. BS

The facts are well-established that it is an ofice complex staffed mostly by civilian employees, with military security--including Bldg. 197.

It's laughable that you're trying to argue with NutmegYankee, who used to work there and likely knows the complex and those buildings intimately.

[My Pet Goat]

90. Yes....an Office Complex with Military Security

The facts are well-established that it is an ofice complex staffed mostly by civilian employees, with military security--including Bldg. 197.

Yes, an office complex staffed with MILITARY SECURITY. In other words, not like a regular office complex.

It's laughable that you're trying to argue with NutmegYankee, who used to work there and likely knows the complex and those buildings intimately.

That may be so, but the Navy Yard is NOT the Washington Navy Yard. I think that's where some people are getting confused. The Navy Yard is an industrial and office complex surrounding the WNY. The WNY proper is much more secured like any navy yard.

[NutmegYankee]

93. You lost several posts back, give up.

Once again: my post

#1. There is only ONE Navy Yard. Not plural. Perhaps you were thinking of bases or naval shipyards?
#2. The WNY is a giant office complex, nearly completely staffed with civilians.

So answer me this:


How many Navy Yards are there?
And what the hell do you think WNY is an acronym for? Though it's usually just called "The Navy Yard" by those who work there. Know why? Because you're already in Washington DC!

[My Pet Goat]

97. The Navy Yard is the Office Surrounding the Washington Navy Yard

Got any evidence to counter?

The "WASHINGTON NAVY YARD" as the letters indicate at the main gate, oh dear.

Look carefully at this picture:

http://www.10news.com/news/u-s-world/13-killed-in-washington-navy-yard-shooting-rampage-including-gunman09172013

Though it's usually just called "The Navy Yard" by those who work there. Know why? Because you're already in Washington DC!

Perhaps, but you're shifting your argument.

[NutmegYankee]

98. What you call an office, we usually call neighborhoods.

Keep digging. You'll hit China some time...


Thanks for long ago proving my point that you obviously do not know the Navy Yard. And it's called "the Navy Yard" by locals who work there. Probably didn't figure that out in Wikipedia did you?

[My Pet Goat]

101. You got nothing....

except insults. And if you really worked at the WNY, it seems you would be a little more appreciative of the guard who immediately and fatally confronted the shooter.

[NutmegYankee]

103. LOL.

Trust me. I'm no longer debating you. I'm just laughing now.

[NutmegYankee]

91. LOL. Still wrong.

I see you are one of those double down when wrong types of people.

The fact that you are trying to use Wikipedia to counter me demonstrates the title of my first post. You obviously were not familiar (and still aren't). I LOL because you are flailing trying to counter that obvious fact that you were speaking from ignorance (Ignorance: def. The state of not knowing).

The whole guns argument that you try to tie me into - you were having that with Nadin.

Which leads me back to another question. What NRA talking points did I have in my first post to you? I merely corrected your wildly wrong "appeal to authority" attempt against Nadin. Don't make the accusation if you can't back it up!

[My Pet Goat]

100. Huh?

I see you are one of those double down when wrong types of people.

Are you God's gift to someone? I'm not that impressed.

I LOL because you are flailing trying to counter that obvious fact that you were speaking from ignorance (Ignorance: def. The state of not knowing).

You're the one calling The Navy Yard the WNY. The Navy Yard is the office area surrounding the WNY. You don't have any evidence to counter except your anecdotal assertion that those inside the WNY unofficially and colloquially call it "The Navy Yard," capitalized as a proper noun?

I merely corrected your wildly wrong "appeal to authority" attempt against Nadin.

Let's go over this again. Someone made a reasonable point that this violence happened despite the area being secured, so perhaps it counters the "the more people armed that better" canard. What happens? Some counter "bunk" by asserting very few people in the WNY are armed, incredibly, the WNY is like a regular office. This despite the fact that the shooter WAS IMMEDIATELY MET WITH ARMED RESISTANCE by a security guard who works the building. The whole "WNY is not secure" argument is not only incorrect, but it is made irrelevant by the fact that in this particular case, the shooter was immediately engaged.

[NutmegYankee]

105. Double Down baby!

"The Navy Yard is the office area surrounding the WNY. "
LOL

[My Pet Goat]

106. That's a pretty thin reed you've latched onto

I don't understand what you're getting at?

Because I'm not calling it a neighborhood? Huh? I called it a neighborhood in post 80. It is office, residential, business and industrial.

[NutmegYankee]

108. You missed the point so long ago.

Your post 28: "You assume I'm not familiar with Navy Yards?" I replied "obviously you are not" (with the WNY).

And since then you have done nothing but demonstrate it. I used to work there. That you choose to argue with me is just hilarious. And the best part is the argument is moot as the guy had the credentials to carry his gun (hidden in a bag) right through security. Why? Because it was an office building full of lawyers, engineers, contract specialists, accountants, etc. A (usually civilian) guard just watches you swipe in. There are not troops carrying rifles sweeping the spaces. Who the hell would want to work in a place with armed guys walking around all the time?

That you accused me of "NRA talking point" is fucking hilarious. Never mind that that phrase is the "Nazi and Hitler" of 21st century Godwin's law. I never even mentioned anything about guns. You Godwin'd yourself right there.



Your first reply was slanderous and false. And it's gotten nothing but more ludicrous since!

[My Pet Goat]

110. "That you chose to argue with me is hilarious"?

Wow, I feel like you think I should have gotten a written permission slip before disagreeing with you.

And the best part is the argument is moot as the guy had the credentials to carry his gun (hidden in a bag) right through security.

No, that's not my point. My point was the availability of guards with guns in the building ready to respond to the attack (the building was reasonably secured). Besides, the fact that it was an inside job buttresses my point that simply having more guns at the workplace doesn't work too well.

Why? Because it was an office building full of lawyers, engineers, contract specialists, accountants

There are high ranking commanders who work there too and lots of sensitive information.

A (usually civilian) guard just watches you swipe in.

This is why I think maybe you didn't work there. It was probably this guard who was killed responding to the attack and this is how you characterize their job.

Who the hell would want to work in a place with armed guys walking around all the time?

Yeah, I didn't say that.

That you accused me of "NRA talking point" is fucking hilarious. Never mind that that phrase is the "Nazi and Hitler" of 21st century Godwin's law. I never even mentioned anything about guns. You Godwin'd yourself right there. Your first reply was slanderous and false. And it's gotten nothing but more ludicrous since!

That's vitriolic overstatement and a very inapt comparison.

[NutmegYankee]

116. Heh.

You keep trying like The Black Knight of "The Holy Grail".

[My Pet Goat]

117. You consider yourself a....

master debater no doubt, but your results are rather flaccid.

[HooptieWagon]

60. Only the people whose jobs require arms are armed.

Military Police, security, etc. Thats just a small percentage of people who work there. All the people killed were in fact civilians. This wasn't a military base per se, this is more like an office complex handling logistics and the like.

[My Pet Goat]

64. Gunman killed Police Office to Gain Entry

Aaron Alexis had a security card that allowed him access to the Washington Navy Yard, and shot his way into an office building there by killing a police officer at the base and grabbing his handgun, military officials said Tuesday.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/17/20535835-alexis-had-access-card-for-navy-yard-investigators-look-for-motive?lite

Seems a bit different than an office complex? BTW several commands (and associated sensitive information) are located at this yard.

[HooptieWagon]

68. "shot his way into an office building"

Sounds like an office complex to me.

[NickB79]

102. First, this was not an active military base per se

This was more of an office building connected to a military base, so think more cubicles, less barracks.

Second, read the reports from the Fort Hood shooting. This was an actual active military base, soldiers preparing to fly out to active war zones, etc.

That psycho killed 13 soldiers before he was shot and killed by an MP (who was also shot herself in the firefight), because NONE of the soldiers in the mess hall were armed.

[My Pet Goat]

107. What are your thoughts on how shooter was immediately confronted at WNY?

which seems to be consistent with my understanding of the more guarded buildings at navy yards. Access is controlled and there are armed guards at the entrances to check the ID, baggage, etc of visitors. This building housed commands too, correct? Aren't there more armed guards within the building posted near the command areas?

In all, the building seemed to be reasonably guarded and indeed the shooter was quickly confronted, but unsuccessfully at first. Unless someone is prepared to argue that only well protected-building is a building where everyone (including civilians) is armed, the WNY shooting seems to be a case where more guns didn't work out that well. The lesson from this incident are probably most relevant to those who argue schools should be guarded.

[JoeyT]

19. Rec.

The system is totally screwed up. Stuff that shouldn't matter does, stuff that should matter doesn't.

Time to stop outsourcing the checks.

[DURHAM D]

22. If you are under the impression that the FBI does the background checks

for private contractors and civilian employees for the military you were not paying attention during the NSA mess. For- profit private contractors do all the background checks and have for many years. They have repeatedly been caught fabricating the checks but nothing changes.

Call your congressman and tell him/her you want these corrupt private contractors who provide the security background checks fired and replaced with federal employees.

[struggle4progress]

29. +!

[elehhhhna]

35. cARLYLE gROUP owns the contract for the US office of Personnel Management

which does most of the b/g checks.

Has for years.

Clinton privatized the function.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. There are so many TS and Above TS given that

They were farmed out a while ago. Yay contactors!!!!!!

[JPZenger]

36. Many people have trouble getting security clearance becauses costs employers too much money

I've heard of many people who had trouble getting a needed security clearance because it costs too much time and money for their employers to obtain it. As a result, they are limited in the types of jobs they can get. Some people join the military to make it easier to get a security clearance they will need in the job market.

There are many college students who are fearful that a minor mischief charge could cause them to have a hard time getting a security clearance for defense industry jobs.

[Marrah_G]

42. My son is one of those

He makes sure to never do anything to jeopardize his clearance. That is why it is so infuriating that this guy was cleared.

[Boom Sound 416]

37. Don't get in a twist about secret clearance

It's not a big deal. Spouses get top secret clearance just to drop off lunch.

The vast majority of the names of clearances are classified

[Sunlei]

47. it was a private (for profit) contractor who hired him as they hire many civies, ex. military..

If they don't have a felony they can do contract work for our Fed. gov.

The rules about who a Gov. paid contractor can hire for sub-contract 'work' are probably even less strict on who they can hire.

[FarCenter]

49. Are "small and disadvantaged business" subcontractor employees given extra slack?

Besides the two gun-related arrests, he was also arrested for disorderly conduct in Georgia in August 2008.

[Sunlei]

55. oh probably, no 'felony' already cuts to much slack for all contractors.

[Marrah_G]

50. The private company did not give him the clearance

My son works for the same company, same job as the shooter. You have to have at least secret clearance to work for this company. The government does the clearance check, not the company. They hay have to be cleared by the government/military to work on these bases.

[Sunlei]

53. the clearance company is probably contracted too and a lot of slackers in those desk jobs

The shooters building people had to have a card to get in but cars, carry in bags, boxes aren't searched. I read somewhere some news story, (CNN?) he used someone elses card to get inside that building.

[Marrah_G]

57. I was under the impression that the FBI does the clearance checks

They are the ones who did my sons. The agent came out personally to do the interviews.

[oldhippie]

63. Actually, it's the Defense Security Service .....

.... that does the background investigations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Security_Service

I know several of the agents in the Fort Hood area, including my next door neighbor. We were discussing the case of the shooter last night over the back fence.

[Marrah_G]

65. Curious

Was your neighbor shocked that he was cleared? or maybe to put it differently, did your neighbor think he should have been cleared?

[oldhippie]

67. No, he wasn't shocked ....

As has been stated in several posts and threads, a criminal background does not preclude a security clearance. Mental illness issues can be handled on a case by case basis, depending on the effect on trustworthiness. Plus, in this case it appears the official "mental illness" issues were very recent. And there are a number of provisions in the law to specifically protect persons with certain mental illnesses from being discriminated against in the process.

The fact that the shooter had a number of arrests on his record would not be a big deal as long as he disclosed them to the investigator. The fact that he was never convicted on any of the arrests would also be a factor.

People need to understand that having a security clearance does not mean you are a "good person." It means that they have been judged as low risk of divulging classified info.

Now, having said that, when you get up into the TS/SCI arena, things are supposed to be a lot tighter, but Snowden showed that there are cracks in that system also.

[DURHAM D]

66. No. It is not the FBI - that stopped way last century.

It was a private for-profit corporation hired by the government to do the work previously done by government employees.

This is one contributing factor to the stat that shows a gradual reduction in federal employees.

[tammywammy]

83. The FBI still does in-person interviews for TS/SCI clearances. n/t

[pinboy3niner]

86. Thankyou for the info

Trying to understand the role of contractors in the process is confusing.

One DUer with long experence AS a contractor employee indicated that contractors only conduct the investigations and the clearance decisions are made by agency "adjudicators."

But the role of contractors remains unclear, as does the responsibility for clearance decisions.

[oldhippie]

94. That's strange, as I have been involved in many TS/SCI .....

... investigations in the last five years (at least six), including my own and as a reference for others. I've seen not one FBI agent.

[tammywammy]

95. I've personally been interviewed for three or four times in the last four years.

I've been the reference, and they've all been done by the FBI. These were for people with TS/SCI clearances.

[oldhippie]

96. I'm curious then about your general location ....

I'm in the Fort Hood area, and we do not have much of an FBI presence near here. I wonder if it is different in a metropolitan area with a large FBI Field Office?

Most of the investigations I am involved with are periodic re-investigations for TS/SCI, due to the line of work I was in. Over many years I mentored a bunch of young Captains and Majors in my field, some of whom even went on to two and three star rank. I get used as a reference a lot. The investigators around here are almost all DSS. There are three locally and a couple that come up from Austin. I know most of them. They are all DoD civilians and not contractors. There was even an ONI guy on one investigation a few years ago that was clearly from out of the area, but I couldn't get him to talk much. My next door neighbor retired as a Customs/Border Patrol agent in El Paso and recently moved here to be near his kids. Within days he was approached to go back to work for DSS as an investigator out of Fort Hood as they were so short-handed.

Anyway, just curious if you are near an area with an FBI office? I can understand if you don't wish to identify your geographic area for privacy reasons. I'm just wondering why you see FBI and I don't. Thanks.

[fredamae]

56. Part of this problem

lies within the notion (ruse) that "we" save when "government" goes with Private Contractors.

People within have historically done a better job because they were incentivized by good union wages, benefits and job security..people were screened better....
Bridges were made stronger to last longer, hiways had fewer pot holes, buildings were built using the Best innovations and most modern safety designs etc, etc, etc....

[snagglepuss]

70. Exactly however you missed the elephant in the room which is profit motive, companies cutting

corners to improve top boost the bottom line.

[fredamae]

71. I absolutely did! Thx :)

[alc]

61. what would it take to stop things like this? finding under 10 in over 300,000,000 people

Aurora, Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, the Navy Yard. Not sure what I missed over the last 2 years but we're talking about less than 10 mass killers in a country of well over 300 million (there have been many more "mass killings" by definition but these seem to be a different kind). They didn't all use guns and I'd guess that if they couldn't get guns most would have caused as much death and injury in other ways if their goal was to kill.

The fact is that with 300 million people there are many sick/evil individuals. And most of them don't cause any trouble. Many other people act in a way that will cause suspicion but they are no threat and never will be.

What can the government realistically do to identify and stop 0.0000001% of the population?

How many deserving people won't get secret clearance? Or even jobs that don't require clearance?

How many innocent people will need to be stopped or detained when entering an event or building?

How many people would would never cause trouble will need to be institutionalized since they meet a profile saying they may do something like this?

How much law enforcement effort will be needed to monitor the people who "may" do something like this? What other crimes will they not be investigating?

Would "we" be satisfied to stop 2 of the 4 killings I mentioned above? Even stopping 2 of the 4 would result in 100s of 1000s or millions of "false positives" a year (rough guess based on my marketing data mining experience). Identifying all 4 before they act is virtually impossible. Every one of those false positives would need to be investigated and a large percentage monitored continually (or locked up if that's what it takes). Look at the no-fly list if you want an idea of how "tightly" they can identify potential criminals and how many false positives result.

What "triggers" in the 4 events I mentioned would you recommend the government uses to profile - background, purchases, travel, friends, other? The location, targets, methods, motives, and weapons differed to at least some degree in all 4 as well as the killers' backgrounds. Whatever you pick to identify them, think about how many other law-abiding citizens do the exact same thing every day? It may be easy to look back and say "we should have know". But looking forward to identify the next one is very different - that requires profiling, massive tracking (not just data collection and surveillance), lots of false positives, and inconveniencing almost everyone daily. If your answer is "guns" what do you do to stop the next Boston? And why wouldn't the other 3 have used crock pots if they couldn't get guns?

I'd love to stop all of these killing. But I don't see any way without significant changes to society and unacceptable power given to the government. 0.0000001% of the population committed these crimes. And 0.000001% of the population was harmed (directly). I know it sounds cruel, but I have to ask how much time and money should the government put into "fixing" this problem? How much privacy should we give up when it's all but impossible to stop every such event? And there are so many issues that affect millions of times as many people that will not get time and money if it's transferred to stopping these acts?

[Orsino]

62. Fox defeatism.

The we'll-never-stop-all-so-why-bother is NRA Talking Point #4.

Universal background checks and a federal registry can do a lot to reduce the frequency of mass shootings. Banning certain weapons can do more.

It'll take thought and work, though, so why not just lie down and let the gun lobby have its way with the nation?

[sir pball]

72. I think a better question is why squander political capital on mass shootings

More than 12 people have died today from "random" gun violence, probably far more. And unfortunately there's barely enough capital to discuss issues let alone get the entire wish list passed; that's why I don't generally support an AWB and realize that after the debacle in Colorado, magazine limits might have to back burner for the time being. Both of those measures would make a huge difference in mass shootings, but a bare dent in overall firearms crime, all at an unacceptable political cost as opposed to mandatory FFL transfers, safe-storage laws, strict liability, enhanced reporting and other such moves that are less radioactive and even if the price were as great, would be far more worth paying it.

[Orsino]

73. Because little or no political capital exists for fighting the daily shootings.

If the mass shootings don't move the misanthropes in Congress, random individuals' deaths won't, either.

[PoliticAverse]

76. Note that the Navy gave him an Honorable discharge. n/t

[Lee-Lee]

77. Like any form of background check- it is only as good as the data

Never convicted on his crimes, Navy did not push the OTH discharge, nobody pushed him into an involuntary mental health eval... So nothing shows when you check.

A secret clearnace really doesn't go that deep- despite have to provide 10+ various references on mine they never spoke to any of them for my initial or renewal.

[Sienna86]

78. The FBI did not issue the clearance

They did not perform the background investigation nor did they issue the clearance. USIS did the background.

I wish they were in charge of doing these backgrounds.

You should edit your post.

[gopiscrap]

82. Welcome to DU

[gopiscrap]

85. Yeah you won't get any agreement from me.

I am totally against guns. Having grown up in Europe this wasn't even an issue as I attained adulthood. Also very few percentage wise of felons are violent felons. The vast majority are there because of other reasons. I worked in a Federal prison for a year and out the 148 men I dealt with, 3 were there for violent felonies and 2 for drug crimes.

[Marrah_G]

89. Off to ignore you go, right along with your nra talking points

[Eleanors38]

114. The "common sense" Inquisitors have ruled: You are one of Them. Resistance is futile.

[Agnosticsherbet]

104. The Navy and the FBI did not investigate. A Private corporation approved the security clearance.

Contractor that screened Snowden also vetted alleged Navy Yard shooter

It is clear that with more than 5 million non military civilians with a security clearance, the FBI hasn't the man power to investigate.

Clearly, the National Security State has become so bloated that getting a clearance is just a formality. They don't seem to care. But this isn't the Navy or the FBI. It is whoever contacted private corporations to do the job.

[Marrah_G]

111. The Navy did indeed fuck up- The FBI fucked up by allowing clearance to be privatized

The Navy allowed him to have clearance when they knew he was a problem. The Navy allowed a person that they knew had issues to work on their bases. The Naval officer in Newport, RI who was TOLD this person was delusional and paranoid did nothing OR his superiors did nothing. The VA knew his mental health status and was seen as recently as last month in RI for insomnia and related issues.

There were tons of red flags. Our military fucked this up. People died because they did nothing.

And let me state this also. I don't hate the Military. My son is an Airman. I don't hate the Navy. My brother is a Captain. But alot of people fucked up to put these events into motion. People died because of what they did do and what they didn't do.

This needs to be investigated so they can fix this so it doesn't fucking happen again.

Until we yell loud enough, these problems and the problems related to guns, will never be addressed and people will continue to die.

My son's clearance was done by an FBI agent not a private company. Perhaps that was due his job or something, but every single time we privatize something it gets all fucked up in the name of profits.

[Agnosticsherbet]

113. You are right. Mine was done by the FBI (USN retired)

The people actually doing the checking for civilian workers now, apparently, aren't the FBI. I did some work a few years back for a government contractor. My clearance was re approved easily, since I had one in the Navy, and not by the FBI.

I think that is the problem. This is one of the many things that should not be privitized.