Should people who have a deeply held belief against government secrecy be allowed to hold a security clearance?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 22:24:33 -0400

I went to TARP (Threat Awareness and Reporting Program) training today and it was the same set of slides as 3 years ago. It is all about "Insider Threat," but not a word about Manning or Snowden. They talked about people who express extremist religious beliefs or an allegiance to another nation as being potential threats, but why wouldn't the belief that the government shouldn't keep secrets from the public also be a threat? If you have renewed your clearance in the last two years, you will notice that there is now a whole section that asks about "unauthorized computer access" (hacking), but nothing about beliefs. In my opinion, the belief system is more of an indicator, but there is not one question about it. What do you think? Should the belief that the government should not keep secrets from the public be a reason to deny/revoke a security clearance?

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Aug 7 at 2014 5:40 AM

MSG Wade Huffman — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 05:40:37 -0400

Excellent point Ma'am! If they can (and do) deny / revoke clearances due to financial difficulty since that puts one 'at risk' of being exploited; it only seems logical that if an individuals personal philosophy is anti government secrecy he or she is at risk to divulge any classified information they may acquire.

So, while I wholeheartedly agree with your premise, the practical application would be extremely difficult short of a personal admission that the individual held these beliefs.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 5:53 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 05:53:58 -0400

Great question, CPT. What is on the line here are facts vs. beliefs. Also numbers talk. Bad credit: low number. Criminal past: numbers. Medical history I'm sure is also quantified somehow. I'm assistant manager with adjudication systems at our command, working with JPAS and EQIP quite frequently. Most of the cases that were denied or revoked dealt with numbers game. That's where we have challenges on how to quantify one's thought patterns. Following them around altogether is a tedious, time and resource consuming process. Though I'm not fully in agreeance of voting for letting people have their own opinion, I think it's least intrusive of the 4 options without threatening 1st amendment rights

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 6:56 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 06:56:01 -0400

Personal ideologies are one of the biggest indicators but as stated by many it doesn't mean they will act upon them. As an active duty member I am prohibited from speaking disparagingly against my commander in chief despite my true feelings.
I too just renewed my clearance and noticed the changes and was waiting to find a section related to external affiliations. Not that a person would willingly incriminate themselves by admitting to affiliation with a questionable group anyhow. I as a Freemason am continually ridiculed because we have "secret" meetings and I was just waiting for us to appear on the extremist group listing.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 6:56 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 06:56:40 -0400

I think the issue here is that the Government doesn't have a coherent breakdown of what to look for; sure, if someone comes out and says - per your question's title - that they don't believe the government should keep any secrets, it's a bit easier. Decoding the actual threat when such strong statements aren't available is less simple. And figuring out insider threat is a lot harder in this context than it is if, say, a SM starts espousing religiously-fueled violent rhetoric.

For example: say someone strongly believes the US Government (and military) tends to over classify material (it can be as a reflex rather than a nefarious act), up to and including wrongly classifying information that should not qualify, or inventing flimsy justifications for heightened protections. At the same time, however, their job places them in a position of public trust in which they are sworn to protect the information regardless of their own beliefs. There are very tough procedures to follow if they thought something was inappropriate.

Given that belief, do they suddenly become a heightened risk? I don't think it's clear that they do, at least without other indicators. But it's also not clear that they don't. I say that unless you have other reasons to suspect this person couldn't uphold the duty they've taken on, it's a risk that has to be taken in order to keep operations moving forward. If, however, any more information is discovered that suggests they would violate their duties in service to the ideal, by all means let their clearance be reviewed just like any other potentially concerning information.

The tough part is training people on what is suspicious. If everything is, then effectively nothing is, because it allows no meaningful investigative focus. We know from both Manning & Snowden that there were other indiators that could have been found, had we been looking. I think the training we get should be less about "report anything that you don't understand" and more about "here's how behavior X, Y and Z represent possible threats, but here's legitimate contexts - if you see X, Y or Z specifically, come to us and we'll evaluate it."

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 7:00 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 07:00:10 -0400

Another thought: Imagine that you wanted to tell me something, but you specifically didn't want me to tell your spouse. The secret is *tremendously* important to you and it is something you absolutely do not want your spouse to know (let's make it positive and say it's a surprise party). I tell you that, even though I don't personally know your spouse, I am unwilling to keep your secret and as a matter of fact, even if he/she does not directly ask me, I am probably going to tell him/her. Would you still tell me the secret?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 10:42 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:42:37 -0400

No clearance. We need to stop being PC about these idiotic views that are completely incompatible with being trusted with protecting vulnerable information. As a member of the intelligence community, I know why this information is protected. Everyone know what OPSEC is, right? What do you think "holding government secrets from the American Public" IS? You think we could just let all Americans know what we are up to and none of the enemies of the United States would find out? That is ridiculous.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Aug 7 at 2014 11:00 AM

MAJ Jim Woods — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 11:00:11 -0400

I find this discussion interesting and much needed this day and age. One of my jobs in Iraq was vetting agents of the Ministry of Interior (MOI) and Minister of Defense (MOD) through the use of a polygraph. We also trained some of their people to do vetting polygraphs and intelligence source screening. All of us who participated in the program had vetted background investigations for upper level clearances.

The vetting questions that we used on the polygraph exams were similar to those that are asked in our higher clearance security levels. The problem in Iraq was that even if they failed the polygraph, if the MOI or MOD sent them to us, they were family connected and were vetted anyway thus making a joke out of the whole process (kinda like getting a secret clearance was/is when we are involved in combat: Real Quick and In A Hurry).

One of the problems that exists is you can't screen intent or belief systems without a thorough background investigation that takes months and turns over rocks that you forgot about. Lot's of person power and money. You certainly can't tell a lot about a persons belief system by asking THEM questions. You have to go deeper than that. With Snowden and Manning, the indicators were there but never acted upon.

We need to re-vamp the system but this day and age we don't have the bucks or people to do that.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Aug 7 at 2014 1:05 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 13:05:23 -0400

Tough question! Good question also. I could see this one go both ways....but many of the questions relate to physically measureable stuff. beliefs are a tough nut to crack when measured for fit or not fit for a clearance.....I think they could be used to weigh in, but will be harder to quantify.

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Aug 7 at 2014 1:25 PM

PFC Stephen Eric Serati — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 13:25:18 -0400

Mam,in my humble opinion it's a question of morality.

Response by SSG Laureano Pabon made Aug 7 at 2014 1:27 PM

SSG Laureano Pabon — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 13:27:36 -0400

No clearance; you can't protect secrets you think shouldn't exist.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 3:28 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 15:28:16 -0400

TARP training needs to be revised to include reports of PFC Manning and Mr. Snowden. These two felt just as the question states, and a huge loss of confidential information was the result.

Response by CAPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 3:48 PM

CAPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 15:48:27 -0400

I've known quite a few people with beliefs contrary to the way the military does business, but that doesn't make them a threat. In security interviews, one the key questions is whether the person has views in favor of overthrowing the government - and that's what they need to determine. How you do that is much more complex than asking the question. Having been interviewed quite a few times for peoples' clearances, I can say the government needs to invest a lot more in the quality of those interviewers and train them much better than they do now in order to weed out those we shouldn't have in uniform.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Aug 7 at 2014 7:20 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:20:25 -0400

Simply put, NO MA'AM. If you do not believe in this Nation and what we stand for, how can you be trusted to protect it? There is no way that I would give a positive recommendation to someone's clearance if I had an inkling that they held the potential to harm us. Period.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 7:23 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:23:31 -0400

If you don't withhold clearances there is a big risk they will spread info offline thinking it's harmless to talk about in the safety of a bar.

Asking a direct question about it, however, would make it too easy for them to slime in. Their peers and coworkers should be questioned about investigatee's beliefs. And all possible flag risks should be investigated further.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 7:55 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:55:20 -0400

Don't give a rat how you see it...there are things the masses don't need to see, play with or know about. If there are no secrets, then those idiots that don't want secrets will find themselves swearing allegiance to another flag. Without secrets the bad guys know everything and we can no longer defend.

It's like I was told by an old Salt....decades ago...."you don't gotta like it Medley - you just gotta f&*(ing do it".

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Aug 7 at 2014 8:25 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:25:19 -0400

I feel this can go either way. Places where transparency is needed has fairly often been covered up in some way or another, creating distrust among the people. However, military and clandestine operations should be kept classified as well as capabilities of technology being used and the like.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 9:54 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 21:54:40 -0400

Some information needs to be protected, even if you do not agree. This information can be harmful to our nation and her service members if released. If you do not think that the government should be keeping secrets, the government should not trust you to keep them.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Aug 7 at 2014 10:32 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 22:32:29 -0400

I don't believe in eminent domain, or forcing people to buy a health insurance plan they don't want or afford but that doesn't make me antigovernment but it probably makes me pro American citizen.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Aug 7 at 2014 10:40 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 22:40:06 -0400

No clearance. Why would you hand a clearance to someone who is openly stating that they oppose keeping that information secret?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2014 10:43 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 22:43:02 -0400

As a former TS/SCI holder, no, absolutely not. Information is classified to safeguard operations, lives and assets.

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Aug 7 at 2014 11:06 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 23:06:27 -0400

I'm a conservative Christian who firmly believes in Creationism. Kinda "extremist" in some people's minds.

Does that mean I was not able to be trusted with the secrets I was privy to in the military? Of course not. Does it mean I am somehow a threat to National Security because my theological and scientific beliefs do not coincide with the secular norm? Definitely not.

Sometimes silly paranoia is simply that.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 1:29 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 01:29:31 -0400

Believing the government shouldn't keep secrets is different from believing that it keeps too many things secret (something that has been demonstrably true for at least 40 years). A belief that the government shouldn't keep secrets is diametrically opposed to the responsibilities inherent in having a clearance.

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Aug 8 at 2014 7:45 AM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 07:45:21 -0400

Does your opinion reflect a background of integrity? By who's definition does one have a "deeply held belief against government"? Is government always right? Do you buy into the notion "USA right or wrong"? Isn't the integrity of a nation established by the sense of right vs. wrong of it's citizens? Is it not the actions of individuals; as well as their collective efforts we are often judged as a nation? Our nation was built on a Biblical principles of justice, but the weak link, or chink in that armor is man's interpretation of His laws. In what order to you set your priories: God, Family, Country? Or is it the other way around. Give some serious thought before answering. Is a whistle blower treated more of a hero or a victim? Why, and by who's definition? Now, go back and rephrase the question.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 8:08 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 08:08:11 -0400

Specific beliefs or statements thereof can certainly be flags that get our attention, but in a vacuum not necessarily grounds to revoke or suspend clearance. I do believe that we need to do a better job in recognizing those tendencies in those around us. The best way to do that is to get to know our/your people on a personal level. It is part of our job as leaders.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Aug 8 at 2014 9:42 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 09:42:07 -0400

I will probably be termed a "Kool-Aid" consumer for my views, but I believe that the government should have some secrets and that us as citizens should just get over it. I also feel that if you as an individual do not support that view then, in my opinion, you should not be trusted to have a clearance that allows you to have access to or be able to view even Confidential items. But again, that is just my opinion of this subject.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Aug 8 at 2014 2:23 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:23:23 -0400

One of the problems I have with the Manning and Snowden cases is that I do not believe either conducted themselves appropriately for the altruistic ideals they espoused. I believe both were of criminal mindsets and only used the cover of transparency to justify and conceal illegal behavior after the fact.

Manning should have been flagged over a dozen times before he was caught and I believe Snowden was under investigation for illegal use of NSA databases when he decided to "out" the NSA. Their threat was not the result of idealism or closely held belief system (outside of narcissism), their threat was criminal intent.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 3:52 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:52:34 -0400

Almost every MOS is required to have a secret clearance now days due to socials going through the channels. Anything higher than that should be vetted more stringently.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 4:33 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:33:42 -0400

I think that individuals that have expressed these views should be more closely watched and placed into the category of people with family and friends outside of the country, but they should be allowed to have a clearance. Withholding a clearance for believing there should be no secrets is like withholding a driver's license for not liking the speed limit.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 6:22 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:22:22 -0400

I am currently at DLI in the Bears program. We had a 25U that we reported for her beliefs that the army screwed her family out of money due to her father's death and that she could not wait to move back to Europe due to the fact that Americas morals are wrong. Fortunately she is now in the MEB/PEB process but there is no doubt in my mind that she would have on purpose/inadvertently gave out secrets. Her security clearance should of never happened.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 6:54 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:54:13 -0400

Well...yeah. If your personal philosophy is incompatible with government secrets as a thing that exists, why should you be trusted to keep government secrets secret?

At the same time, how can you really know what someone's opinion on the subject of secrecy is? Lying is also a thing.

Response by 1LT Shawn McCarthy made Aug 8 at 2014 10:11 PM

1LT Shawn McCarthy — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 22:11:11 -0400

This is about protecting the integrity of our military and government.
I worked in intel and we talked about source recruiting. I've also worked in background investigations.
ANYTHING that makes you an easy target for FIS should preclude you getting a clearance.

ANYTHING.

A person with a clearance and a deeply held belief against their government is the perfect target. It really isn't safe for the individual to have the clearance because it subjects them to potential pressure from FIS if they ever get into a position where what they know has value - and it sure as hell isn't safe for all the people whose safety relies on those secrets being KEPT secret.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Aug 8 at 2014 10:37 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 22:37:34 -0400

If they believe there should be no secrets, then they do not deserve a clearance. However, it would be hard to know this in advance because I doubt they would admit to that during the background investigation. However, if something came up during that investigation, I would deny the clearance.

Response by SPC Shannon Szukala made Aug 9 at 2014 1:14 AM

SPC Shannon Szukala — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 01:14:57 -0400

Nope,

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2014 2:11 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 02:11:03 -0400

Federal service is not a welfare handout. Everyone is not entitled to it.

When considering a job and joining an organization I is up to each individual to decide if they agree with the ethics of the organization. If not, then it isn't the place for that individual. (We aren't forcing conscription)

And organizations should also evaluate each individual and decide if their ethics would fit them. If not, then they are not a good hire.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2014 8:34 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 08:34:36 -0400

In my humble opinion NO, someone who hold deep beliefs against our government is obviously not to be trusted. Most people have there doubts about this and that. But deep seeded beliefs against our government. That is a whole different story, That is just setting us up for another WIKILEAK incident.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2014 10:29 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 10:29:40 -0400

"Extremist," in these cases, is often just what they use to justify viewpoint discrimination. Considering more "moderate" viewpoints are often counter to the constitution to which we took an oath, I could just as easily push the idea that moderates show indifference to the core philosophy of our nation and should be barred from holding a clearance, having already proven unfaithful to their oaths.

Rather than pushing the idea that we should bar those who disagree with the government, the right action would be to stand up and call out the trainers for their political bigotry.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2014 12:04 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 12:04:02 -0400

The clearance process is simple: need to know, clearance, and NDA. If your ideology precludes a NDA, then you shouldn't have access to classified information because one of the three requirements cannot be met.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2014 3:33 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 15:33:30 -0400

Cpt,

First I have to establish that my views are from the outside looking in. Whereas I hold a basic clearance that does not establish that I'm a guru within the Intel community by a long shot.

On that note, I see it as a concern, and high profile information should definitely be kept from them, and access to SIPRNET should not be allowed. On that same though SIPRNET should be more compartmentalized. However a security clearance is required from my job, but I honestly don't see someone who does my job can do any more damage than ships movement, etc. (I'm sure I could find stuff if I looked, I just have no desire too). So in short, should it be a reason to deny, deny, deny? Not always, but it should be a cause for concern and more through research on the person.

Besides, between the FoIA and Executive Order 13526, rarely will anything remain classified. Educating people with that belief maybe possible if they simply are fed crap from the media. If they are still convinced it is not necessary, they may need to be reassigned to a different job that doesn't need a clearance at all.
Now considering all that, I ask, what are we doing in the military to provide avenues of reporting to people in that position that believe the USG has wronged its people? To say Snowden was doing the right thing is a long shot, but he believes his actions were. There should be a method to report information through classified means (if there isn't already) and positive recognition to those who are concerned.
After reading your question again, I note it says "deeply held." That being the case, I would have to consider the fact they should not get a clearance, and would further go on to say they should possibly be removed from the ranks, as their distrust for the government should not allow them to be a representative of said organization. Their position within the ranks undermines their own views, so I would have to come to the conclusion the only reason they are in their position is because they intend to do damage internally.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2014 3:38 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 15:38:07 -0400

I do not know. The problem is what is the threshold? Even people who do not have radical ideas regarding the government have the ability to compromise certain secrets. It could be argued that between President Bush and President Obama, there were people who were angry at Bush and calmed down when Obama took over and vice versa. Usually, the government is pretty good on tracking trends and observing certain personnel, but in the case with recent shootings, it's really a tough call. If enforced, personnel should be briefed about what they are looking for and at what limitations there are (but u know people will still act out)

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2014 4:04 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 16:04:04 -0400

CPT Wolfer,

As a CI guy, I would like to know who gave your TARP briefing. Apparently the briefer didn't know the slides changed recently to reflect recent events. I'm a little puzzled as to why they didn't update their briefing.

SFC N

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Aug 9 at 2014 4:09 PM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 16:09:06 -0400

Before there was Manning or Snowden, there was John Anthony Walker. I can more readily understand Walker's motivation, money, than I could ever understand betraying my country because I do not believe it should keep secrets. All of them are lowlifes and not worth my time, but since you asked, no clearance to anyone who does not believe our country should have secrets.

There are some things the average person just does not need to know. That being said, it also is necessary to keep some things from our enemies; not all countries are friendly to the interests of the USA. I know that is hard to believe.

As a person who worked in Communications and Radar Systems for Surface Ships, Submarines, and Aviation, I had a clearance. I am still amazed to see some of the systems I worked on and was in the development process on, being released for public information. It causes me some concern every time I see these systems in the news, they were so highly classified when I last worked on them. Even my wife had no idea of what I did at times; she had no need to know.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2014 6:07 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 18:07:06 -0400

Here's my 2 cents. Protecting government secrets is paramount, but having an opinion about the NSA spying on Americans (this is just my example) which DOES violate the Constitution that we swore to uphold, shouldn't influence or impact what clearance you have. As Americans, having opinions about what our government does or doesn't do is what makes this country great. As long as you understand that you have to know your limits and still remember you're a federal employee.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Response by Cpl Ken Cooper made Aug 9 at 2014 7:43 PM

Cpl Ken Cooper — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 19:43:01 -0400

Secrets violating our oath of office is criminal and should be exposed. Either change the oath, or change the Constitution, because you need harmony with each to have integrity. No integrity, and you are unfit for service to your country.

Response by MCPO Virginia Martinez made Aug 9 at 2014 8:09 PM

MCPO Virginia Martinez — Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:09:59 -0400

It's important that classified material be considered protected information. The chances that individuals who disaggree with this policy will reveal classified information, however small, should be considered and a clearance denied. In some cases information revealed would cause no serious harm, in others it certainly would. Hindsight about security risks provoke the response "why was this person cleared?"

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2014 1:01 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 01:01:23 -0400

Well, I read and re-read this and decided that if I agree that security clearances should be denied based on belief, I'm pretty sure most of us would be unable to get a clearance. Additionally, if one of the questions explicitly asks how a soldier views government secrecy, I don't figure that a slightly paranoid SM would truthfully answer the question anyway.
Honestly, the question of belief is going to vary greatly. Are we talking about keeping military secrets from the public? Or are we suspicious that the government is not transparent enough? Would I be labeled "anti-government" simply because I posted this response and did not answer with a resounding "YES!" to the question posed?
I think that belief MAY be an indicator, but it can't and shouldn't stand on it's own. Actions usually accompany belief in some fashion. Absent action, we're heading a little more into Orwellian scenario, a step at a time. And then what do we do, as the question becomes moot? These people holding a view on government disclosure would realize that their suspicions were correct...and will definitely not be shy in announcing it. "Security clearances for EVERYONE!"

Response by SSG Adrian Ducker made Aug 10 at 2014 4:25 AM

SSG Adrian Ducker — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 04:25:57 -0400

Anybody with those type of feelings should not be allowed to be granted a clearance at all. We could make the claim that they have the right to have that opinion but in today's intel world you really can't risk it and the right to an opinion doesn't automatically extend to the right to holding a sensitive job. Some of the materials Manning leaked were posted on WikiLeaks mere hours after he posted it from his computer in his CHU in Iraq, it isn't like the Pentagon Papers which had to be mailed to a news organization and was probably vetted before being published.

Secret may not have the potential to cause the same damage as Top Secret but that doesn't mean it can't cause damages. A unit's TTP for reacting to an ambush may only be Secret but that is still enough information to get troops killed. Also, if I'm not mistaken (I refuse to log onto WikiLeaks for any reason to confirm this), almost everything Manning leaked was Secret and it still caused damage. Some people may withhold it simply for self-preservation because they don't want to end up in Leavenworth but others may not. Plus, you have all of the people rallying behind Manning and Snowden and somebody may almost get a martyr mentality over going through with leaking information they don't believe will cause harm.

I would even go as far as suggesting that they don't be allowed to enlist at all. I learned from personal experience as a lower enlisted Soldier prior to the Manning/Snowden controversies that not having a clearance didn't mean I couldn't potentially view classified material. As a young Soldier with no clearance driving a captain in Iraq I can count on more than one occasion where I was sitting next to a SIPR terminal that wasn't locked and I wasn't questioned about my clearance. Looking back and having a clearance now I wouldn't let that happen on my watch but I didn't know better at the time.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Aug 10 at 2014 5:14 AM

CMC Robert Young — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 05:14:49 -0400

The cornerstone of our behavior is our core values. If our core values don't align with our organization's core values, there will be a problem. If a member doesn't believe in what they are doing, then it is highly likely that they will violate the rules of the game....no clearance.

Response by CW3 Drew B made Aug 10 at 2014 11:25 AM

CW3 Drew B — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 11:25:49 -0400

Absolutely not

Response by SSG Mannix Brooks made Aug 10 at 2014 12:46 PM

SSG Mannix Brooks — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 12:46:05 -0400

Why would you get into the business if you think the business is wrong? People of this opinion are not to be trusted. If you want to be an idealist choose another line of work because the business of keeping secrets is not always black and white for the reasons its done but many shades of gray. Why would our governments let everybody know everything we do and how we do it and how we know what people are up when no other government in the world will do the same and definitely not our enemies. The first time somebody does something evil the very same people who cry against secrecy get mad because the government didn't see it coming.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2014 8:40 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 20:40:46 -0400

Well, I'd go for no clearance, since they clearly won't keep the secrets of the government.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Aug 11 at 2014 12:25 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 00:25:49 -0400

We wouldn't have a functioning foreign policy if our government didn't maintain secrets. There are a lot of things that government does that the average American citizen simply doesn't need to know about. John Q. Public doesn't need to know how we find Russian subs. He doesn't need the timetable of troop movements or what the imaging capabilities of our spy satellites are, etc. etc.

If a person believes the government has no right to keep information secret from the public, how could they be trusted with a security clearance? Within the Intelligence Community, certain information can only be obtained on a specific need to know basis. Even with a TS clearance, you can't access it, unless you have the proper access and need to know.

With that said, there is a difference between Gov't secrecy and Gov't abuse of the Constitutional Rights of Americans.

Remember, we elected the people in Washington DC to be our representatives. They work for us! And although they make laws, they are NOT above the law. That part, they seem to have forgotten and they need a reminder.

If the government is suspected of violating the Constitutional rights of Americans [as was revealed in the information leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden], an investigation is in order. The public needs to know to what extent their rights were violated, and those responsible must be held accountable.

Our government does NOT maintain the right to withhold evidence of its wrongdoing. It may not obfuscate or delay investigation, nor may it classify to keep secret information from the hands of investigators, nor may it destroy evidence of its wrongdoing. Lack of government accountability has caused and is exacerbating the problems we are seeing now.

Response by SGT Chris Birkinbine made Aug 11 at 2014 2:50 PM

SGT Chris Birkinbine — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:50:34 -0400

Unfortunately like all things, once its starts being a question asked, it starts being a question lied about.

When filling out security stuff like clearances, I often laugh at the ridiculousness of it. I wonder if any foriegn spy has answered those questions and been like... "Damn, you caught me! Yes I do have dealings with terrorist organizations. Good catch guys!"

Response by MCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2014 2:58 PM

MCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:58:27 -0400

I truly believe that people who don't think we should have secrets should hold a clearance of any kind. That's the purpose for having a clearance. It is to keep our secrets which protect or national security.
As long as the "classifier" of the information is doing it under what the law requires (can't be to hide an embarrassment) then the it should never be divulged by those who have access. If the classifier did break the law, its to be reported to the proper channels which doesn't include places like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX or wikileaks.
If the individual believes that certain secrets shouldn't be kept secrets then he/she cannot be trusted to have access to the classified information.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Aug 11 at 2014 6:16 PM

SGT Richard H. — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:16:07 -0400

I think this has more than one facet. There's "government secrecy" and then there's operational security.
I personally am 100% all about operational security, and find it seriously disturbing when I see a news clip of Marines landing on a beach with the press flipping on the lights as they arrive due a leak somewhere in the pipeline.
On the other hand, when I think of "government secrecy", that term calls to mind a crooked congress slipping a bill with questionable constitutionality through in the dark of night...so No...that one I don't believe in.
Would that compromise my clearance if I were still carrying one? I don't know, but if it did, it would be due to someone's shortsightedness, and not because I am an operational risk.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2014 7:05 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:05:14 -0400

Let's also be careful to remember that even deeply-held beliefs are often in competition with other priorities. I can have a strong belief that the government ought not have secrets while understanding that, in the case of intelligence or military affairs, it's impossible for it NOT to. These things are secret, not to keep them from the citizens, but to keep them from foreign targets.

Would such a person be a threat? I tend not to think so. They understand their ideals don't fit the world as it exists, and subordinate them to the vital need for security.

A belief cannot be taken in isolation.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2014 11:17 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:17:52 -0400

Define state secret. Is it secret because it's breaking the law or is it secret because it gives a tactical advantage to the enemy? Would the security clearance applicant be cognizant of the differences? According to the First Amendment, we have a right to redress grievances with the government. If the government breaks the law we all have a right to know.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2014 12:14 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:14:05 -0400

Might be I'll be one of the few dissenting voices here but what the hell, here goes. While I agree that it is a concern, and one not to be taken lightly, many of the finest service members I have known have not always agreed with policy. Did they, or I for that matter, act in a way that was counter-indicative of good order or discipline? No. We did what we knew we had to do for the safety and security of those under our protection. Put simply, we did our duty. We knew that whatever our personal feelings on the matter might be we had a much larger obligation to defend our great nation. A nation that is larger than any one man or woman. But I may have veered slightly off course with that last bit. More specifically to the question that was asked, it is important to have these people in a quantity sufficient enough to disagree with policy behind closed doors to ensure that we as caretakers of the Constitution and the rights and liberties guaranteed therein don't lose our humanity along the way. In conclusion, Freedom is a fickle thing. We support and defend it with our lives, and it may, if we are overzealous in our efforts, turn on us.

Response by PO3 David Miller made Aug 12 at 2014 9:00 AM

PO3 David Miller — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:00:50 -0400

I may get some heat for my response here, but I do believe as well that this can go both ways. If we are talking about military operations, and classified information that needs to be protected that would cause great harm to the USA, then yes, no clearance should be granted to those that cannot be trusted to keep the information classified.

However, if the information is non-classified, when does it become where the government is invading the privacy of the American people, and overstepping the limits given to the government by the US Constitution? At this point, yes I think the American people has the right to know what is going on.

Response by CW3 Drew B made Aug 14 at 2014 2:28 PM

CW3 Drew B — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:28:29 -0400

If you make these statements, you cannot be reasonably expected to protect secrets. Your clearance is a covenant of trust between the US Government and you. The US is placing special trust in you and relying on your integrity to safeguard ALL secrets. The minute someone starts making statements indicating they do not believe certain information should be classified (or should be public), then the supervisor/command HAS to immediately step in. The servicemember needs to immediately be counseled per AR 381-12. Bottom line - this is an integrity and trust issue. Would you trust your PII to someone who feels it is ok to post it online and make it publically available? Of course not. Remember, classified information does not belong to the Soldier. All classified info belongs to the US Government. If you want something declassified, there are proper channels - Refer to DoD Manual 5200.01, DoD Information Security Program; Part 1045 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations; and DoD Directive 5230.09, Clearance of DoD Information for Public Release.

Response by CW3 Drew B made Aug 14 at 2014 2:33 PM

CW3 Drew B — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:33:25 -0400

Also, slides concerning Manning are now part of the standard TARP brief. The Snowden situation is an ongoing legal matter and we cannot comment or brief on this.

Response by Cpl Joshua Caldwell made Dec 29 at 2016 11:14 AM

Cpl Joshua Caldwell — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:14:28 -0500

They are pretty much telling us that they are a security risk right off the bat.