Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
LetsPretendWeAreDoingSomething
()
Date: September 18, 2013 12:21AM
Even with a lenghty police record. Yet another example of the security 'theatre' the goverment engages in.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearance
Posted by:
fixed
()
Date: September 18, 2013 12:24AM
fixed.....
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Two Cents
()
Date: September 18, 2013 04:50AM
LetsPretendWeAreDoingSomething Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even with a lenghty police record. Yet another
> example of the security 'theatre' the goverment
> engages in.
Even getting a low level clearance involves background checks. This really surprised me considering his record and being thrown out of the Navy Reserve. Should never have gotten a clearance.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even with a lenghty police record. Yet another
> example of the security 'theatre' the goverment
> engages in.
Even getting a low level clearance involves background checks. This really surprised me considering his record and being thrown out of the Navy Reserve. Should never have gotten a clearance.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Skeptic2013
()
Date: September 18, 2013 04:51AM
Probably had his clearance before he got booted from the reserves.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
laskdjflaskjdf
()
Date: September 18, 2013 06:06AM
Secret is good for 10 years, so he was prob fine when he had it first done in the military.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Obvious
()
Date: September 18, 2013 09:13AM
It's called Equal Employment Opportunity. Hired because of his color not skills he possessed and look what happened. So many morons are hired by the Government just because of this.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Two Cents
()
Date: September 18, 2013 09:52AM
laskdjflaskjdf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Secret is good for 10 years, so he was prob fine
> when he had it first done in the military.
But they're supposed to check it every few years as part of the new regulations. Looks like that didn't happen.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Secret is good for 10 years, so he was prob fine
> when he had it first done in the military.
But they're supposed to check it every few years as part of the new regulations. Looks like that didn't happen.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
clearances = crap
()
Date: September 18, 2013 10:26AM
My sister married a guy from Afghanistan (yes, green card marriage). I got hassled by the clearance people over that.
Then, it turns out some relative of his, or at least someone with the same last name, is in Gitmo.
Long story short, no more clearance.I spent a lot of money appealing, was told, no, the fact that the married this guy was a risk. I don't see her that much and have only met him once.
No more clearance, no more job.
Yet, this shooter gets one. The system can kiss my ass.
Then, it turns out some relative of his, or at least someone with the same last name, is in Gitmo.
Long story short, no more clearance.I spent a lot of money appealing, was told, no, the fact that the married this guy was a risk. I don't see her that much and have only met him once.
No more clearance, no more job.
Yet, this shooter gets one. The system can kiss my ass.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
fwiw
()
Date: September 18, 2013 10:52AM
Two Cents Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> laskdjflaskjdf Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Secret is good for 10 years, so he was prob
> fine
> > when he had it first done in the military.
>
> But they're supposed to check it every few years
> as part of the new regulations. Looks like that
> didn't happen.
They did. It was renewed just this Summer.
-------------------------------------------------------
> laskdjflaskjdf Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Secret is good for 10 years, so he was prob
> fine
> > when he had it first done in the military.
>
> But they're supposed to check it every few years
> as part of the new regulations. Looks like that
> didn't happen.
They did. It was renewed just this Summer.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: September 18, 2013 11:44AM
He had an honorable discharge from the military (after appeal).
He had never been convicted of a crime.
There was no record of serious mental illness.
(note the two caveats: RECORD and SERIOUS)
So on what basis would one refuse a Secret clearance?
(Especially since a Secret is not hard to get)
He had never been convicted of a crime.
There was no record of serious mental illness.
(note the two caveats: RECORD and SERIOUS)
So on what basis would one refuse a Secret clearance?
(Especially since a Secret is not hard to get)
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
MOre
()
Date: September 18, 2013 11:49AM
Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He had an honorable discharge from the military
> (after appeal).
> He had never been convicted of a crime.
> There was no record of serious
> mental illness.
> (note the two caveats: RECORD and SERIOUS)
>
> So on what basis would one refuse a Secret
> clearance?
> (Especially since a Secret is not hard to get)
Yes just heard that he reported to Rhode Island police that he kept hearing voices coming thru the walls of each hotel he went to (he checked in and out of a couple because of this). Also told them that someone was pumping Microwaves at him to prevent him from sleeping. The Rhode Island police did a report and called the Naval station duty officer and faxed over a report. (Per WTOP)
-------------------------------------------------------
> He had an honorable discharge from the military
> (after appeal).
> He had never been convicted of a crime.
> There was no record of serious
> mental illness.
> (note the two caveats: RECORD and SERIOUS)
>
> So on what basis would one refuse a Secret
> clearance?
> (Especially since a Secret is not hard to get)
Yes just heard that he reported to Rhode Island police that he kept hearing voices coming thru the walls of each hotel he went to (he checked in and out of a couple because of this). Also told them that someone was pumping Microwaves at him to prevent him from sleeping. The Rhode Island police did a report and called the Naval station duty officer and faxed over a report. (Per WTOP)
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: September 18, 2013 12:02PM
We can't revoke the security clearance for everyone in that situation. It's not practical. It would also lead to anyone who has or wants a security clearance not seeking treatment.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
What???
()
Date: September 18, 2013 12:30PM
Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We can't revoke the security clearance for
> everyone in that situation. It's not practical. It
> would also lead to anyone who has or wants a
> security clearance not seeking treatment.
Even if they're hearing voices and the outcome is shooting up everyone in their office building? The guy had already shot out tires of a car that he thought was parked too close to him.
-------------------------------------------------------
> We can't revoke the security clearance for
> everyone in that situation. It's not practical. It
> would also lead to anyone who has or wants a
> security clearance not seeking treatment.
Even if they're hearing voices and the outcome is shooting up everyone in their office building? The guy had already shot out tires of a car that he thought was parked too close to him.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: September 18, 2013 12:43PM
If he was diagnosed as a danger to himself or others, yank the clearance. If he was CONVICTED of shooting out tires, don't grant it.
But an unevaluated report of hearing voices and an accusation of violence are neither actionable on matters of clearance.
Remember presumption of innocence applies to these situations as well.
But an unevaluated report of hearing voices and an accusation of violence are neither actionable on matters of clearance.
Remember presumption of innocence applies to these situations as well.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
k7wht
()
Date: September 18, 2013 12:47PM
Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We can't revoke the security clearance for
> everyone in that situation. It's not practical. It
> would also lead to anyone who has or wants a
> security clearance not seeking treatment.
That's ridiculous. I wouldn't have hired the guy as a dishwasher just based on what could be found in a 3 minute Google search prior to the incident. Not even considering what appears to be in his military records regarding actions related to disciplinary actions associated with behavioral/mental issues beyond that one.
There are so many contractors working in the government now requiring clearance that the reviews have become lax and being pushed through. I remember back when the FBI actually went out and talked to my neighbors and past employers just to get a building access clearance at the agency where I was working at the time. Secret got a lot more scrutiny and we had people rejected for far less significant stuff. Now they just look at it and see ex-military with a prior clearance and say "Yeah, he's good."
-------------------------------------------------------
> We can't revoke the security clearance for
> everyone in that situation. It's not practical. It
> would also lead to anyone who has or wants a
> security clearance not seeking treatment.
That's ridiculous. I wouldn't have hired the guy as a dishwasher just based on what could be found in a 3 minute Google search prior to the incident. Not even considering what appears to be in his military records regarding actions related to disciplinary actions associated with behavioral/mental issues beyond that one.
There are so many contractors working in the government now requiring clearance that the reviews have become lax and being pushed through. I remember back when the FBI actually went out and talked to my neighbors and past employers just to get a building access clearance at the agency where I was working at the time. Secret got a lot more scrutiny and we had people rejected for far less significant stuff. Now they just look at it and see ex-military with a prior clearance and say "Yeah, he's good."
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
lfcf
()
Date: September 18, 2013 12:54PM
k7wht Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kardinal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We can't revoke the security clearance for
> > everyone in that situation. It's not practical.
> It
> > would also lead to anyone who has or wants a
> > security clearance not seeking treatment.
>
>
> That's ridiculous. I wouldn't have hired the guy
> as a dishwasher just based on what could be found
> in a 3 minute Google search prior to the incident.
> Not even considering what appears to be in his
> military records regarding actions related to
> disciplinary actions associated with
> behavioral/mental issues beyond that one.
>
> There are so many contractors working in the
> government now requiring clearance that the
> reviews have become lax and being pushed through.
> I remember back when the FBI actually went out and
> talked to my neighbors and past employers just to
> get a building access clearance at the agency
> where I was working at the time. Secret got a lot
> more scrutiny and we had people rejected for far
> less significant stuff. Now they just look at it
> and see ex-military with a prior clearance and say
> "Yeah, he's good."
I've been complaining about the laxity of security clearances to my Senators and Congressmen for years but it just goes in one ear and out the other. There have been instances of illegal immigrants obtaining clearances too but they could care less.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kardinal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We can't revoke the security clearance for
> > everyone in that situation. It's not practical.
> It
> > would also lead to anyone who has or wants a
> > security clearance not seeking treatment.
>
>
> That's ridiculous. I wouldn't have hired the guy
> as a dishwasher just based on what could be found
> in a 3 minute Google search prior to the incident.
> Not even considering what appears to be in his
> military records regarding actions related to
> disciplinary actions associated with
> behavioral/mental issues beyond that one.
>
> There are so many contractors working in the
> government now requiring clearance that the
> reviews have become lax and being pushed through.
> I remember back when the FBI actually went out and
> talked to my neighbors and past employers just to
> get a building access clearance at the agency
> where I was working at the time. Secret got a lot
> more scrutiny and we had people rejected for far
> less significant stuff. Now they just look at it
> and see ex-military with a prior clearance and say
> "Yeah, he's good."
I've been complaining about the laxity of security clearances to my Senators and Congressmen for years but it just goes in one ear and out the other. There have been instances of illegal immigrants obtaining clearances too but they could care less.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
TheWord
()
Date: September 18, 2013 01:00PM
This is probably back when it was run internally with a smaller scope. Now it's largely outsourced to companies trying to cut corners. Also, now everything requires clearance so the work-load is massive. I've seen clearance needed for the most basic situations.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: September 18, 2013 01:10PM
k7wht Wrote:
>
> That's ridiculous. I wouldn't have hired the guy
> as a dishwasher just based on what could be found
> in a 3 minute Google search prior to the incident.
> Not even considering what appears to be in his
> military records regarding actions related to
> disciplinary actions associated with
> behavioral/mental issues beyond that one.
First of all, you can't make hiring decisions based on data you don't have. I don't think disciplinary records are public.
Second, I think he could have sued you if you had used it.
>
> That's ridiculous. I wouldn't have hired the guy
> as a dishwasher just based on what could be found
> in a 3 minute Google search prior to the incident.
> Not even considering what appears to be in his
> military records regarding actions related to
> disciplinary actions associated with
> behavioral/mental issues beyond that one.
First of all, you can't make hiring decisions based on data you don't have. I don't think disciplinary records are public.
Second, I think he could have sued you if you had used it.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: September 18, 2013 01:11PM
TheWord Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is probably back when it was run internally
> with a smaller scope. Now it's largely outsourced
> to companies trying to cut corners.
No, it's not. Contractors are used to conduct interviews. Case reviews are still done by government employees.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is probably back when it was run internally
> with a smaller scope. Now it's largely outsourced
> to companies trying to cut corners.
No, it's not. Contractors are used to conduct interviews. Case reviews are still done by government employees.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Ms EEOC
()
Date: September 18, 2013 01:53PM
"That's ridiculous. I wouldn't have hired the guy as a dishwasher just based on what could be found in a 3 minute Google search prior to the incident."
You would if you were a government agency filling a quota.
You would if you were a government agency filling a quota.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Stones.
()
Date: September 18, 2013 07:03PM
They seem to be assuming he had a "secret" clearance based on the logic that he had a CAC. One does not equal the other. It's the same screening (both use the SF-86 but a CAC only requires a "public trust" to be established). He might have had a secret, it just seems as though the media is assuming that if you have a CAC, you have a clearance and that's not entirely true.
A CAC will get you in most government buildings, especially if you still work there. Still, security screening is not to blame. For security purposes and what would deny him, there's really not much there. I hate the blame game after these things.
A CAC will get you in most government buildings, especially if you still work there. Still, security screening is not to blame. For security purposes and what would deny him, there's really not much there. I hate the blame game after these things.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
M3yWv
()
Date: September 18, 2013 11:07PM
Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He had an honorable discharge from the military
> (after appeal).
> He had never been convicted of a crime.
> There was no record of serious
> mental illness.
> (note the two caveats: RECORD and SERIOUS)
How does a guy shoot out tires of a car with a .45 pistol in an act of 'rage' and just walk away with no conviction??? That's just fucked up.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021839004_shooterseattlexml.html
-------------------------------------------------------
> He had an honorable discharge from the military
> (after appeal).
> He had never been convicted of a crime.
> There was no record of serious
> mental illness.
> (note the two caveats: RECORD and SERIOUS)
How does a guy shoot out tires of a car with a .45 pistol in an act of 'rage' and just walk away with no conviction??? That's just fucked up.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021839004_shooterseattlexml.html
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
XhmUX
()
Date: September 18, 2013 11:56PM
Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> k7wht Wrote:
> >
> > That's ridiculous. I wouldn't have hired the
> guy
> > as a dishwasher just based on what could be
> found
> > in a 3 minute Google search prior to the
> incident.
> > Not even considering what appears to be in his
> > military records regarding actions related to
> > disciplinary actions associated with
> > behavioral/mental issues beyond that one.
>
> First of all, you can't make hiring decisions
> based on data you don't have. I don't think
> disciplinary records are public.
>
> Second, I think he could have sued you if you had
> used it.
Sorry, if I can Google and find the guy's mug shot and a summary of an event from the time where he took a shot through the ceiling and at a neighbor who states she was afraid of him, accident or not, convicted or not, and a report of the tire incident from the time, both of which were available prior to, then he's not hired.
With respect to disciplinary actions I was talking in terms of clearance review not hiring. I'd hope that even the most basic review would include some visibility into any issues in their military record. The general discharge should have been an indication to at least take a look. I wouldn't expect details of actions particularly mental heath details but there should be some related indications of problems.
-------------------------------------------------------
> k7wht Wrote:
> >
> > That's ridiculous. I wouldn't have hired the
> guy
> > as a dishwasher just based on what could be
> found
> > in a 3 minute Google search prior to the
> incident.
> > Not even considering what appears to be in his
> > military records regarding actions related to
> > disciplinary actions associated with
> > behavioral/mental issues beyond that one.
>
> First of all, you can't make hiring decisions
> based on data you don't have. I don't think
> disciplinary records are public.
>
> Second, I think he could have sued you if you had
> used it.
Sorry, if I can Google and find the guy's mug shot and a summary of an event from the time where he took a shot through the ceiling and at a neighbor who states she was afraid of him, accident or not, convicted or not, and a report of the tire incident from the time, both of which were available prior to, then he's not hired.
With respect to disciplinary actions I was talking in terms of clearance review not hiring. I'd hope that even the most basic review would include some visibility into any issues in their military record. The general discharge should have been an indication to at least take a look. I wouldn't expect details of actions particularly mental heath details but there should be some related indications of problems.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Clarification
()
Date: September 19, 2013 05:03AM
Stones. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They seem to be assuming he had a "secret"
> clearance based on the logic that he had a CAC.
> One does not equal the other. It's the same
> screening (both use the SF-86 but a CAC only
> requires a "public trust" to be established). He
> might have had a secret, it just seems as though
> the media is assuming that if you have a CAC, you
> have a clearance and that's not entirely true.
>
> A CAC will get you in most government buildings,
> especially if you still work there. Still,
> security screening is not to blame. For security
> purposes and what would deny him, there's really
> not much there. I hate the blame game after these
> things.
To work in the Navy Yard, you have to have at least a "Secret" clearance.
-------------------------------------------------------
> They seem to be assuming he had a "secret"
> clearance based on the logic that he had a CAC.
> One does not equal the other. It's the same
> screening (both use the SF-86 but a CAC only
> requires a "public trust" to be established). He
> might have had a secret, it just seems as though
> the media is assuming that if you have a CAC, you
> have a clearance and that's not entirely true.
>
> A CAC will get you in most government buildings,
> especially if you still work there. Still,
> security screening is not to blame. For security
> purposes and what would deny him, there's really
> not much there. I hate the blame game after these
> things.
To work in the Navy Yard, you have to have at least a "Secret" clearance.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
FNVuM
()
Date: September 19, 2013 08:38AM
I couldn't get a secret clearance ONLY due to my credit (damn broken apartment lease with an ex- plus a credit card he ran up to over 5k, put me out since they like to see less than 4,500 in open debt).....yet this idiot can get one. (For the record-I have since paid everything off)
I have a whistle clean criminal record, tons of professional references, and this dude is shooting people/stuff and getting a clearance.
Illegals who aren't even supposed to be in the country can get a clearance. I was born here.
No wonder people can't get in to even get a chance at a government job- people like him are hoging all the spots.
I have a whistle clean criminal record, tons of professional references, and this dude is shooting people/stuff and getting a clearance.
Illegals who aren't even supposed to be in the country can get a clearance. I was born here.
No wonder people can't get in to even get a chance at a government job- people like him are hoging all the spots.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Hoger
()
Date: September 19, 2013 08:40AM
I hate it when they are hoging everything
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Greybeard
()
Date: September 19, 2013 06:38PM
Tonight they're reporting that the same firm who gave Snowden HIS clearance did this dude's...think it's time to short that stock!!!
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
denied_and_hated
()
Date: September 19, 2013 07:10PM
^ say what, that's amazingly insane......burn that firm down? I guess o_o
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: September 19, 2013 07:58PM
M3yWv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kardinal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He had an honorable discharge from the military
> > (after appeal).
> > He had never been convicted of a crime.
> > There was no record of serious
> > mental illness.
> > (note the two caveats: RECORD and SERIOUS)
>
>
> How does a guy shoot out tires of a car with a .45
> pistol in an act of 'rage' and just walk away with
> no conviction??? That's just fucked up.
>
> http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021839004_
> shooterseattlexml.html
They lost the paperwork. If he'd been convicted, he'd never have gotten the job or clearance.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kardinal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He had an honorable discharge from the military
> > (after appeal).
> > He had never been convicted of a crime.
> > There was no record of serious
> > mental illness.
> > (note the two caveats: RECORD and SERIOUS)
>
>
> How does a guy shoot out tires of a car with a .45
> pistol in an act of 'rage' and just walk away with
> no conviction??? That's just fucked up.
>
> http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021839004_
> shooterseattlexml.html
They lost the paperwork. If he'd been convicted, he'd never have gotten the job or clearance.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Kardinal
()
Date: September 19, 2013 07:59PM
XhmUX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kardinal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > k7wht Wrote:
> > >
> > > That's ridiculous. I wouldn't have hired the
> > guy
> > > as a dishwasher just based on what could be
> > found
> > > in a 3 minute Google search prior to the
> > incident.
> > > Not even considering what appears to be in
> his
> > > military records regarding actions related to
> > > disciplinary actions associated with
> > > behavioral/mental issues beyond that one.
> >
> > First of all, you can't make hiring decisions
> > based on data you don't have. I don't think
> > disciplinary records are public.
> >
> > Second, I think he could have sued you if you
> had
> > used it.
>
>
> Sorry, if I can Google and find the guy's mug shot
> and a summary of an event from the time where he
> took a shot through the ceiling and at a neighbor
> who states she was afraid of him, accident or not,
> convicted or not, and a report of the tire
> incident from the time, both of which were
> available prior to, then he's not hired.
And you could be sued for using an accusation against him which was not a conviction.
> With respect to disciplinary actions I was talking
> in terms of clearance review not hiring. I'd hope
> that even the most basic review would include some
> visibility into any issues in their military
> record. The general discharge should have been an
> indication to at least take a look. I wouldn't
> expect details of actions particularly mental
> heath details but there should be some related
> indications of problems.
He got an honorable, not general, discharge.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kardinal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > k7wht Wrote:
> > >
> > > That's ridiculous. I wouldn't have hired the
> > guy
> > > as a dishwasher just based on what could be
> > found
> > > in a 3 minute Google search prior to the
> > incident.
> > > Not even considering what appears to be in
> his
> > > military records regarding actions related to
> > > disciplinary actions associated with
> > > behavioral/mental issues beyond that one.
> >
> > First of all, you can't make hiring decisions
> > based on data you don't have. I don't think
> > disciplinary records are public.
> >
> > Second, I think he could have sued you if you
> had
> > used it.
>
>
> Sorry, if I can Google and find the guy's mug shot
> and a summary of an event from the time where he
> took a shot through the ceiling and at a neighbor
> who states she was afraid of him, accident or not,
> convicted or not, and a report of the tire
> incident from the time, both of which were
> available prior to, then he's not hired.
And you could be sued for using an accusation against him which was not a conviction.
> With respect to disciplinary actions I was talking
> in terms of clearance review not hiring. I'd hope
> that even the most basic review would include some
> visibility into any issues in their military
> record. The general discharge should have been an
> indication to at least take a look. I wouldn't
> expect details of actions particularly mental
> heath details but there should be some related
> indications of problems.
He got an honorable, not general, discharge.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
E9c7j
()
Date: September 19, 2013 08:10PM
Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> And you could be sued for using an accusation
> against him which was not a conviction.
No. I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm just not hiring him. I don't need a conviction as the basis for not hiring someone for whatever reason (as long as it's not discriminatory).
> He got an honorable, not general, discharge.
That wasn't how it was reported earlier but is correct per later reports:
"Alexis, 34, began running into trouble as a Naval reservist in 2010. ABC News has found that the Navy sought to give him a general discharge, a status that is less than an honorable discharge. But the Navy was not successful and Alexis instead sought an honorable discharge through what is called the early enlisted transition program. He was honorably discharged in January 2011."
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> And you could be sued for using an accusation
> against him which was not a conviction.
No. I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm just not hiring him. I don't need a conviction as the basis for not hiring someone for whatever reason (as long as it's not discriminatory).
> He got an honorable, not general, discharge.
That wasn't how it was reported earlier but is correct per later reports:
"Alexis, 34, began running into trouble as a Naval reservist in 2010. ABC News has found that the Navy sought to give him a general discharge, a status that is less than an honorable discharge. But the Navy was not successful and Alexis instead sought an honorable discharge through what is called the early enlisted transition program. He was honorably discharged in January 2011."
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
svennestle
()
Date: September 19, 2013 09:44PM
just out of interest...
he said voices woke him up. so what. many people complain of that.
-----------------------------------
the CDC reports near or all mental illness one is not born with, is caused by: poisoning or disease, often poisoning
Believe it or Not! food allergy. people who continually eat food they are un-awaringly allergic to can get sick and crazy.
also: toxic blood from tooth disease? blood poisoning. and etc. some people are allergic to mold.
BUT. not an excuse. people who hear voices are "psychotic" not "psychopathic" (big difference) and LESS likely than others to kill.
i still say medication is a likely it's involved with many mass murders.
in the end: he knew it was wrong. he benefitted from the crime (got what he wanted). there is still that.
----------------------------
odd. he (targeted) much older people. i thought these anti-dpressant taking crazies always went for their peers steeling their work and or people who got their x-girlfriend
the old blue true guys? sad.
he said voices woke him up. so what. many people complain of that.
-----------------------------------
the CDC reports near or all mental illness one is not born with, is caused by: poisoning or disease, often poisoning
Believe it or Not! food allergy. people who continually eat food they are un-awaringly allergic to can get sick and crazy.
also: toxic blood from tooth disease? blood poisoning. and etc. some people are allergic to mold.
BUT. not an excuse. people who hear voices are "psychotic" not "psychopathic" (big difference) and LESS likely than others to kill.
i still say medication is a likely it's involved with many mass murders.
in the end: he knew it was wrong. he benefitted from the crime (got what he wanted). there is still that.
----------------------------
odd. he (targeted) much older people. i thought these anti-dpressant taking crazies always went for their peers steeling their work and or people who got their x-girlfriend
the old blue true guys? sad.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Clarification
()
Date: September 20, 2013 08:23AM
svennestle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just out of interest...
>
> he said voices woke him up. so what. many people
> complain of that.
>
> -----------------------------------
> the CDC reports near or all mental illness one is
> not born with, is caused by: poisoning or disease,
> often poisoning
>
> Believe it or Not! food allergy. people who
> continually eat food they are un-awaringly
> allergic to can get sick and crazy.
>
> also: toxic blood from tooth disease? blood
> poisoning. and etc. some people are allergic to
> mold.
>
> BUT. not an excuse. people who hear voices are
> "psychotic" not "psychopathic" (big difference)
> and LESS likely than others to kill.
>
> i still say medication is a likely it's involved
> with many mass murders.
>
> in the end: he knew it was wrong. he benefitted
> from the crime (got what he wanted). there is
> still that.
>
> ----------------------------
> odd. he (targeted) much older people. i thought
> these anti-dpressant taking crazies always went
> for their peers steeling their work and or people
> who got their x-girlfriend
>
> the old blue true guys? sad.
Check this out...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-navy-shooting-20130918,0,6823722.story
WASHINGTON — Six weeks ago, Aaron Alexis told people someone had threatened him at an airport in Virginia. A few days later, in Rhode Island, he heard voices. He thought people were speaking to him through "the walls, floor and ceiling" of the Navy base there, where he was working.
In his hotel room, the voices used "some sort of microwave machine" to send vibrations through the ceiling and into his body, a police report shows him saying. He could not sleep.
-------------------------------------------------------
> just out of interest...
>
> he said voices woke him up. so what. many people
> complain of that.
>
> -----------------------------------
> the CDC reports near or all mental illness one is
> not born with, is caused by: poisoning or disease,
> often poisoning
>
> Believe it or Not! food allergy. people who
> continually eat food they are un-awaringly
> allergic to can get sick and crazy.
>
> also: toxic blood from tooth disease? blood
> poisoning. and etc. some people are allergic to
> mold.
>
> BUT. not an excuse. people who hear voices are
> "psychotic" not "psychopathic" (big difference)
> and LESS likely than others to kill.
>
> i still say medication is a likely it's involved
> with many mass murders.
>
> in the end: he knew it was wrong. he benefitted
> from the crime (got what he wanted). there is
> still that.
>
> ----------------------------
> odd. he (targeted) much older people. i thought
> these anti-dpressant taking crazies always went
> for their peers steeling their work and or people
> who got their x-girlfriend
>
> the old blue true guys? sad.
Check this out...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-navy-shooting-20130918,0,6823722.story
WASHINGTON — Six weeks ago, Aaron Alexis told people someone had threatened him at an airport in Virginia. A few days later, in Rhode Island, he heard voices. He thought people were speaking to him through "the walls, floor and ceiling" of the Navy base there, where he was working.
In his hotel room, the voices used "some sort of microwave machine" to send vibrations through the ceiling and into his body, a police report shows him saying. He could not sleep.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
svennestle
()
Date: September 20, 2013 07:49PM
it's true they can get zapped with waves in that job and he'd know better than anyone. ships and ground gear have dangerous waves on various parts, which can be transmitted, with more options than one might at first guess.
it's true a foreginer would used waves to take out a competitor in our gov. not true the navy is doign it to their own ensigns
it may be true he was poisoned somehow or diseased somehow became psychotic. it may be true they with held pay he was owed
it's not true he needed violence.
i still bet the medication cuased it. it's true someoen who's become ill will beleive people are "aligned against them". but especially obsessive, depressive, and suicidal when medication is used: look at the label: exactly what the medication says it will do, it does. surprised? shithead. read the label.
but that's still not an excuse for his "agenda" or violence
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2013 07:52PM by svennestle.
it's true a foreginer would used waves to take out a competitor in our gov. not true the navy is doign it to their own ensigns
it may be true he was poisoned somehow or diseased somehow became psychotic. it may be true they with held pay he was owed
it's not true he needed violence.
i still bet the medication cuased it. it's true someoen who's become ill will beleive people are "aligned against them". but especially obsessive, depressive, and suicidal when medication is used: look at the label: exactly what the medication says it will do, it does. surprised? shithead. read the label.
but that's still not an excuse for his "agenda" or violence
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2013 07:52PM by svennestle.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Under the Covers
()
Date: September 21, 2013 10:13AM
Greybeard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tonight they're reporting that the same firm who
> gave Snowden HIS clearance did this dude's...think
> it's time to short that stock!!!
That would be USIS, a shining example of private sector efficiency once owned by the Carlyle Group but now controlled by a group of shadow\y Falls Church LLCs. They rake in about $250MM per year doing nearly half the background and security checks for nearly a hundred different federal agencies. Real security people shudder when USIS is involved. Their staff are insufficient to the task in both number and competency, they do not ask the right questions, and they do not actually care what answers are given to those questions. They have been under criminal fraud investigation since 2011 and it is unlikely that the Alexis case will help their cause any more than Snowden's has.
Background and security checks were outsourced in the mid-1990's on the theory that government costs and staffing numbers could be reduced without impacting on quality. It worked for a while. What was not anticipated was the massive expansion since then in volumes of classified material. Many more staff with clearances are now required simply to get the grunt-level work done. USIS has not at all been able to keep pace with that expansion. They have instead cut costs and corners in order to keep theor profits whole. We are all now paying the price for that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tonight they're reporting that the same firm who
> gave Snowden HIS clearance did this dude's...think
> it's time to short that stock!!!
That would be USIS, a shining example of private sector efficiency once owned by the Carlyle Group but now controlled by a group of shadow\y Falls Church LLCs. They rake in about $250MM per year doing nearly half the background and security checks for nearly a hundred different federal agencies. Real security people shudder when USIS is involved. Their staff are insufficient to the task in both number and competency, they do not ask the right questions, and they do not actually care what answers are given to those questions. They have been under criminal fraud investigation since 2011 and it is unlikely that the Alexis case will help their cause any more than Snowden's has.
Background and security checks were outsourced in the mid-1990's on the theory that government costs and staffing numbers could be reduced without impacting on quality. It worked for a while. What was not anticipated was the massive expansion since then in volumes of classified material. Many more staff with clearances are now required simply to get the grunt-level work done. USIS has not at all been able to keep pace with that expansion. They have instead cut costs and corners in order to keep theor profits whole. We are all now paying the price for that.
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Award Winning!
()
Date: September 21, 2013 01:02PM
Privatization of Federal Investigations
2000 Finalist
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Award Sponsor
Innovations in American Government Awards
In December of 1994, President Bill Clinton announced that the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) investigations unit would be privatized. This unit is a crucial part of the operation of the federal government; investigations are used to determine access to classified information, as a basis for hiring or firing, and for granting access to sensitive material. Nevertheless, at the time, the program was $35 million in debt and continuing to lose money, due in large part to decreased demand for investigations caused by a shrinking federal workforce. The critical decision at the time was what form the privatization should take.
To keep the remaining employees in the investigations unit together without sacrificing performance, OPM decided that spinning off the program into a private company under an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) would be the wisest strategy, even though no such effort had been carried out at a federal government agency. In doing so, OPM created a new company called U.S. Investigations Services, Inc. to carry out the existing function of the federal investigations unit. All of the affected OPM employees were offered jobs with the new company, at the same pay and location; more than 700 (90%) of those who received offers chose to become employees and owners of USIS.
While some employees and many agency customers initially opposed the privatization, the results of the initiative have convinced all but the most stubborn of critics. Due to profit sharing and the success of the company, the average USIS employee received bonuses of more than 25% of their yearly salary, and stock equal to 43% of salary over the first three years of the new company's existence. Operating efficiencies created by the program have allowed USIS to roll back the prices it charges its customers for investigations to 1989 levels, while preserving the same quality assurance plan, timeliness, and security standards as under the OPM.
Taxpayers have saved money as well. When the Clinton Administration first announced the spin off of the program, the Office of Management and Budget projected a related savings of about $30 million over five years. The savings were expected in three areas: substantial reductions in the government's pension liabilities; contractual obligations to reduce the prices charged for federal investigations; and increased government revenue through the taxes that USIS pays on its earnings. By 1999, the total dividend to American taxpayers has been about $20 million per year, exceeding $65 million since the privatization occurred.
Through its increased efficiency and expanded customer base as a private company, USIS has received contracts for more than $36 million of investigations that could not have been carried out before the privatization, including a serious backlog of internal investigations at the Department of Defense. Since the OPM investigations privatization, several facilities of the DOD, faced with their own downsizing, have shown interest in replicating OPM's initiative.
http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/awards.html?id=49041
2000 Finalist
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Award Sponsor
Innovations in American Government Awards
In December of 1994, President Bill Clinton announced that the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) investigations unit would be privatized. This unit is a crucial part of the operation of the federal government; investigations are used to determine access to classified information, as a basis for hiring or firing, and for granting access to sensitive material. Nevertheless, at the time, the program was $35 million in debt and continuing to lose money, due in large part to decreased demand for investigations caused by a shrinking federal workforce. The critical decision at the time was what form the privatization should take.
To keep the remaining employees in the investigations unit together without sacrificing performance, OPM decided that spinning off the program into a private company under an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) would be the wisest strategy, even though no such effort had been carried out at a federal government agency. In doing so, OPM created a new company called U.S. Investigations Services, Inc. to carry out the existing function of the federal investigations unit. All of the affected OPM employees were offered jobs with the new company, at the same pay and location; more than 700 (90%) of those who received offers chose to become employees and owners of USIS.
While some employees and many agency customers initially opposed the privatization, the results of the initiative have convinced all but the most stubborn of critics. Due to profit sharing and the success of the company, the average USIS employee received bonuses of more than 25% of their yearly salary, and stock equal to 43% of salary over the first three years of the new company's existence. Operating efficiencies created by the program have allowed USIS to roll back the prices it charges its customers for investigations to 1989 levels, while preserving the same quality assurance plan, timeliness, and security standards as under the OPM.
Taxpayers have saved money as well. When the Clinton Administration first announced the spin off of the program, the Office of Management and Budget projected a related savings of about $30 million over five years. The savings were expected in three areas: substantial reductions in the government's pension liabilities; contractual obligations to reduce the prices charged for federal investigations; and increased government revenue through the taxes that USIS pays on its earnings. By 1999, the total dividend to American taxpayers has been about $20 million per year, exceeding $65 million since the privatization occurred.
Through its increased efficiency and expanded customer base as a private company, USIS has received contracts for more than $36 million of investigations that could not have been carried out before the privatization, including a serious backlog of internal investigations at the Department of Defense. Since the OPM investigations privatization, several facilities of the DOD, faced with their own downsizing, have shown interest in replicating OPM's initiative.
http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/awards.html?id=49041
Re: Navy Yard Shooter Had 'secret' security clearence
Posted by:
Under the Covers
()
Date: September 21, 2013 01:18PM
Yup. It worked well enough for a while. That was then, this is now.