“13 ADJUDICATIVE GUIDELINES The 13 adjudicative criteria are:
(1) Guideline A: Allegiance to the United States
This is rarely the cause of a clearance denial or revocation, but political dissidents beware. You can certainly participate in politics but defamatory speech against the government is not looked upon well. The next time someone talks to you about overthrowing the government, you certainly don’t want to lend them your ear.”
Hosting or financially supporting “them” likely a security clearance no no as well.
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2021/03/05/security-clearance-adjudicative-guidelines/
26 comments:
If you supported Trump, you should have your clearance removed.
Bill Richardson the guy who sold out LANL is mentioned very prominently in the released Epstein docs.
Actually about a month ago there was an internal news article regarding new security clearance reporting requirements.
Defamatory speech means it seems, a demonstrably false statement (not an opinion), that is published, and which causes actual harm to reputation, it is a crime in some circumstances when directed against a person or corporation.
One might argue for example, your opinion that Trump would be a good president is not defamatory of the government, or your support alone, since it is just an opinion.
I would assume to some extent the modern US laws which do not hold social media accountable for user-contributed content, might have an issue that anonymous comments of a defamatory nature have been de facto legalized.
There is also a higher burden for defamation, when applied to elected officials, and public figures and so on,
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20ruled%20that%20freedom%20of,with%20%22actual%20malice%22%20all%20the%20other%20defamation%20elements.
Also, as a more general concept (the tradition from Roman law rather than the specific meanings under common law, or under US law) defamation has a broader definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
Yes, there is a concern that under this broader definition any derogatory statement might be taken as defamation, for example inconvenient truths can be in fact, taken as derogatory as you know, or presented in a derogatory fashion if the intent is to disrupt the political process rather than improve its functioning.
Maybe, you would have to understand how these are adjudicated in practice, it could be arbitrary if there is no specific meaning.
Some of the alt-right beliefs are clearly defamatory by the way, for example the government being behind school shootings, claims the government is controlled entirely by Satanists or pedophiles, the belief the moon landings were faked, or the QAnon movement in general. Or claims that various examples of government dysfunction are intentional, or that the entire government consists of a malevolent "deep state" dedicated to oppressing the American people.
Trump has seemingly made a number of defamatory statements, by the way, and arguably Biden has as well.
For example, statements about political opponents being communists or fascists, the "deep state", questioning the integrity of the Supreme Court, statements about the electoral process, questioning the authority of state and local governments, a desire in some cases to persecute political opponents and members of the military, etc.
For example, statements about political opponents being communists or fascists, the "deep state", questioning the integrity of the Supreme Court, statements about the electoral process, questioning the authority of state and local governments, a desire in some cases to persecute political opponents and members of the military, etc.
1/05/2024 11:37 AM
In the words of Claudine Gay, "context matters". Which is actually true but it would the first time in the last 10 years that anyone on the left would have considered context. They argue context when it helps them and ignore it when it hurts them.
It's interesting to note that Feynman's shuttle report was quite critical of NASA, so much so that it was made an Appendix to the investigation report, since there was a concern it could affect their reputation and funding. Yet, it was not defamatory in any way:
https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm
Conclusions
If a reasonable launch schedule is to be maintained, engineering often cannot be done fast enough to keep up with the expectations of originally conservative certification criteria designed to guarantee a very safe vehicle. In these situations, subtly, and often with apparently logical arguments, the criteria are altered so that flights may still be certified in time. They therefore fly in a relatively unsafe condition, with a chance of failure of the order of a percent (it is difficult to be more accurate).
Official management, on the other hand, claims to believe the probability of failure is a thousand times less. One reason for this may be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection and success in order to ensure the supply of funds. The other may be that they sincerely believed it to be true, demonstrating an almost incredible lack of communication between themselves and their working engineers.
In any event this has had very unfortunate consequences, the most serious of which is to encourage ordinary citizens to fly in such a dangerous machine, as if it had attained the safety of an ordinary airliner. The astronauts, like test pilots, should know their risks, and we honor them for their courage. Who can doubt that McAuliffe was equally a person of great courage, who was closer to an awareness of the true risk than NASA management would have us believe?
[F5] Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate them. They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of the Shuttle to other methods of entering space. And they must be realistic in making contracts, in estimating costs, and the difficulty of the projects. Only realistic flight schedules should be proposed, schedules that have a reasonable chance of being met. If in this way the government would not support them, then so be it. NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
These are actually interesting articles as it relates to neoliberal economics, and what instead really might actually be at stake in the elections, and what type of government could hypothetically result and why:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
https://www.salon.com/2021/08/15/the-crisis-of-neoliberalism-america-arrives-at-one-of-historys-great-crossroads_partner/
1:00 yes and also a lot of so-called fake news consists of various statements taken out of their proper context, or a misunderstanding of their specific meaning in certain fields such as economics. This is very common for example, in some of the reporting about WEF, CDBC's, the Fed, reporting relating to COVID, also an improper understanding of statistics and medical literature in particular, and so on.
And the mass media pushes things too, like UFO's that are in some cases, obvious camera artifacts, you mention the left in general takes things out of context for political gain, I've noticed this even on more mainstream right-wing news such as FOX as well. In general there is a lack of journalism of course, things are not reported in a nuanced fashion, which would comprise context if it were present.
Also there is too much reporting of isolated incidents (like a vaccine death perhaps, a weather problem, home invasion, incident caused by immigrants, etc) which are then used to justify the existence of a major problem rather than putting forth statistics that would perhaps, provide context.
Here's another longwinded article on neoliberalism and post-neoliberalism in American politics:
https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-essay/2023/12/america-after-neoliberalism
Someone doesn’t like the security clearance topic and have decided to activate the off topic red herring crew. Interesting.
Those longwinded articles relating to politics, seem to be making the claim that if elected, Trump would have policies similar to those from his first presidency, and the Biden administration would continue policies such as Bidenomics, and so forth. Obviously to some extent they are both pragmatic and will continue whatever is working, and would be forced into compromises.
It might be that Bidenomics and his foreign policies, and so on, are better as they involve more long-term thinking at the cost of various short-term issues and sacrifices that make them unpopular, for example addressing industrial policy and the threats from adversaries, etc. As a populist Trump might be less willing or capable of addressing these issues.
The talk about fascism or communism is in a sense defamatory, although hypothetically our political system could reach those endpoints some day in the future, and perhaps we will have various disasters soon related to foreign adversaries or the uncontrolled developed of AI, cyber, or biotechnology. Along those lines Trump did face a serious crisis in terms of COVID, it did not lead to him asserting dictatorial powers or instituting fascism.
The “off topic” crew probably have plenty of ready-to-go red herring comments on the shelf and ready to deploy. The back and forth comments are interesting though and deserving of their own topic, so much so, that it odd they haven’t done so prior…?
The actual DOE cases seem to involve criminal behavior, drug use, financial problems, and untreated alcoholism and mental illness almost exclusively:
https://www.energy.gov/oha/listings/security-cases
However, recent polls have shown 23% support for political violence in general, 10% support for Bin Laden (30% among Gen Z), 22% approval of January 6, and so on so perhaps this consideration should be made more important.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/25/1208577427/23-of-americans-support-political-violence-ahead-of-the-2024-election-survey-sho
https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/gen-z-positive-view-osama-bin-laden/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jan-6-opinion-poll-republican-disapproval-wanes-2024-01-06/
Recent polls have also shown strong Gen Z support for Hamas,
https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-most-young-americans-back-ending-israel-many-find-jewish-genocide-calls-okay/
The survey found that 66% of respondents in the 18-24 age group think that Hamas’s October 7 massacre constituted genocide. At the same time, 60% think that the attacks were justified by Palestinian grievances, indicating that they believe that genocide of Israelis is justified
Scooby, aren’t a majority of these comments off the security clearance guidelines topic? If yes, why not delete them or simply add them to an appropriately named topic? Thanks.
It is true that some comments start on topic and then go off subject and vice versa.
My focus is on filtering out hateful, insulting, extreme views and falsehoods,among others. As you can imagine, I get my share of such comments . Would you like to help as co-moderator?
9:36 You're missing an underlying point that many of these off-topic discussions relate in some way to the trends in US society and politics, that might arguably relate to the topic under discussion.
As for the topic itself, there could be questions about what it actually refers to or how it used in practice (seemingly it is applied very little), or how one might uphold the principle in question or violate it.
There could be indeed, an overall drift towards a greater acceptance of political violence in American society, for example, as well as a greater amount of defamatory speech as noted above, including statements by major political figures.
It may not be off-topic to bring these things up if they somehow provide context to what is under discussion, in fact ironically part of the discussion above relates to how things need to be in their proper context, and so on.
Hosting or financially supporting “them” likely a security clearance no no as well.
This seems like something that would be rife for abuse -- in effect you're targeting or blacklisting people without their knowledge, and without due process, whoever this might hypothetically refer to. And limiting the rights of free association, and to petition the government, by restricting contact between government workers and programs and the general public, naturally this could restrict democratic governance.
“This seems like something that would be rife for abuse -- in effect you're targeting or blacklisting people without their knowledge, and without due process, whoever this might hypothetically refer to. And limiting the rights of free association, and to petition the government, by restricting contact between government workers and programs and the general public, naturally this could restrict democratic governance.”
An interesting perspective. Perhaps you have never went through the rather rigorous process to acquire and maintain a security clearance.
The “Questionnaire For National Security Positions”/“Section 29 - Association Record” / “29.4
Have you EVER been a member of an organization dedicated to the use of violence or force to overthrow the United States Government, and which engaged in activities to that end with an awareness of the organization's dedication to that end or with the specific intent to further such activities?”
https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/SF86-16a.pdf
3:01 that seems like a very narrow question by the way. It would not rule out hiring the gen z people who support hamas, or sympathize with bin Laden unless they actually joined those groups. And it does not rule out supporting political violence as long as it is not intentended to overthrow the federal govt
I think Manson did have some vision of the blacks killing all the whites except for himself who would become king so his followers might be one such group
I don’t think Trump is dedicated to that either by the way he was a sore loser like Hillary. Maybe the proud boys would be a better example. Many militia groups seem to believe the government will collapse first too and they need to arm themselves only for the aftermath so technically that might not count
The issue is that somehow the actual guidelines are supposedly a bit more strict or perhaps they should be
This is from an official DOE document, from 2017, referred to on the DOE website, it may be out of date. It involves much more than the answer to that one question. To be fair this could be interpreted in an overly broad fashion, but seemingly it also does now arguably pertain to a large portion of the American public to at least some degree, so uneven enforcement could perhaps single out individuals unfairly:
GUIDELINES
GUIDELINE A: ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES
3. The Concern. The willingness to safeguard classified or sensitive information is in doubt if
there is any reason to suspect an individual's allegiance to the United States. There is no positive
test for allegiance, but there are negative indicators. These include participation in or support for
acts against the United States or placing the welfare or interests of another country above those
of the United States. Finally, the failure to adhere to the laws of the United States may be
relevant if the violation of law is harmful to stated U.S. interests. An individual who engages in
acts against the United States or provides support or encouragement to those who do has already
demonstrated willingness to compromise national security.
4. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(a) involvement in, support of, training to commit, or advocacy of any act of sabotage,
espionage, treason, terrorism, or sedition against the United States;
(b) association or sympathy with persons who are attempting to commit, or who are committing,
any of the above acts; and
(c) association or sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate, threaten, or use force or
violence, or use any other illegal or unconstitutional means, in an effort to:
(1) overthrow or influence the U.S. Government or any state or local government;
(2) prevent Federal, state, or local government personnel from performing their official
duties;
(3) gain retribution for perceived wrongs caused by the Federal, state, or local government;
and
( 4) prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United
States or of any state.
5. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
(a) the individual was unaware of the unlawful aims of the individual or zation and
severed ties upon learning of these;
(b) the individual's involvement was humanitarian and permitted under U.S. law;
(c) involvement in the above activities occurred for only a short period of time and was
attributable to curiosity or academic interest; and
8
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
(d) the involvement or association with such activities occurred under such unusual
circumstances, or so much time has elapsed, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on
the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or allegiance.
This is another interesting video -- he is expressing discontent with the government (as well as expressing fears about its future) while pointing out how bad of an idea a civil war is:
https://youtu.be/kF-enCLxmKo?si=5l7ll-eF7z8Hfvap
The video also makes claims that the government may have been overzealous in some cases, of accusing certain persons and groups of disloyalty.
This is a statement made to the House Judiciary Committee relating to the FBI revoking a security clearance based on disloyalty,
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/allen-testimony.pdf
There seems to be an ongoing debate focused on some actual cases of this, with a partisan divide on what should constitute disloyalty.
This is an old NYT article on the related subject of loyalty oaths, from 1970, pointing out their problematic nature when broadly applied:
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/01/11/archives/law-the-life-and-death-of-the-loyalty-oath.html
Thus, in Mrs. Stewart's case the oath was held to impair her free speech and association be cause it broadly applied to any one who advocates overthrow of the government, and was not limited to those advocating overthrow by force and vio lence; because it applied to one who advocates overthrow in the distant future as well as the present or near future; because it applied to wholly passive members of organizations advo cating overthrow; and because it applied to all Federal em ployes regardless of whether their post was at all sensitive.
But even this battery of rea sons does not fully explain why test oaths have been stricken by the courts and are so widely detested. Their history is long and dishonorable. They were one of the chief devices used against the Huguenots in France, and against “heretics” during the Spanish Inquisition. English rulers used them to identify and outlaw Catholics, Quakers, Bap tists and Congregationalists groups then regarded as dan gerous for political as well as religious reasons.
They were used in the United States After the Civil War against a Catholic priest sus pected of sympathy with the rebels, and during the Second World War against Federal em ployes suspected of “subversive activity.” They were much in vogue during the McCarthy pe riod of the 1950's as a way of cleansing the. Government of “security risks.”
One attraction of loyalty oath programs to government has been their automatic operation; failure to take the oath usually means denial of a job despite all other qualifications without ex pensive enforcement procedures or drawn out legal proceedings characteristic of other security programs.
At the same time, this is chief reason for their insidious quality — they require prospec: tive employes to disavow that they have done or believed any thing wrong, thereby shifting the burden from the govern ment to the individual. Further, loyalty oaths penalize beliefs and associations rather than conduct, thereby inhibiting po litical activity which the First Amendment was designed to protect. Finally, test oaths run against the grain of many loyal individuals, who resent the as sumption that the government can probe the inner workings of the mind.
Post a Comment