Georgia.... Something in the Water...?

[Keith&Co.]

So, i saw this


I kind of agee with the sentiment, but worry about the details. If that makes sense?

See, I am old enough to remember someone losing their security ckearance because they were gay. Hadn't actually done anything. Wasn't being blackmailed. Just...gay. which was a disqualifying condition for a long time.

Also, i can easily imagine someone like, oh, this fucking administration, adding something to the criteria like, "No one who has held the position of Vice President to any president having the name 'Obama' shall be afforded access to materials classified at the level of 'For Official Use Only' or higher." Then just announcing that Biden failed his background check. No further details. Or, maybe suggesting that since Obama sent him to the Ukraine, announce "Due to issues involving his time in the Ukraine, he fails..."

What i might support, though, is if a candidate fails a security background check, they publish that fact AND the concerning details.
Let the voters
1) Decide if the item of concern is a deal breaker
2) Also get a chance to input on the issue.

"The candidate failed our BCI, because he is gay."
"Yeah, he's been out fo thirty years, no one cares. Wait, is that still on the list? Why is that on the list?"

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wait, what the fuck?
How did the subject line change to that of a post i never submitted?
Thread title was supposed to be "Careful What You Ask For."

Weird.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Must be something in the water.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Vote hell. I never got a vote. And the only thing in the water was me, in a punt, painting the waterline of the ship.
I say if you can’t pass the security clearance, you’re enlisted in to the navy and sent to Deck Dept.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wait, what the fuck?
How did the subject line change to that of a post i never submitted?
Thread title was supposed to be "Careful What You Ask For."

Weird.

Mods and admins can change a thread title by a simple double click on it. I've almost screwed up a thread's title that way several times. Do you want me to change it back for you? [MENTION=93]Keith&Co.[/MENTION];

 

[LoAmmo]

I kinda like it the way it is; it may even represent a perfect microcosm of 2020 itself-- you think it's going to be one thing, and then all of a sudden, up is down, dogs and cats are living together, and you're left wondering, "how the fuck did we get here?"

 

[Deepak]

What i might support, though, is if a candidate fails a security background check, they publish that fact AND the concerning details.
Let the voters
1) Decide if the item of concern is a deal breaker
2) Also get a chance to input on the issue.

"The candidate failed our BCI, because he is gay."
"Yeah, he's been out fo thirty years, no one cares. Wait, is that still on the list? Why is that on the list?"

I'd agree that it should be a disclosure based thing rather than a strict requirement. Anything else would seem to subvert the civilian control of the executive, and ultimately the military.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wait, what the fuck?
How did the subject line change to that of a post i never submitted?
Thread title was supposed to be "Careful What You Ask For."

Weird.

Mods and admins can change a thread title by a simple double click on it. I've almost screwed up a thread's title that way several times. Do you want me to change it back for you? [MENTION=93]Keith&Co.[/MENTION];

No, thank you. As Loammo says, it's in keeping with this fucking year

 

[Keith&Co.]

What i might support, though, is if a candidate fails a security background check, they publish that fact AND the concerning details.
Let the voters
1) Decide if the item of concern is a deal breaker
2) Also get a chance to input on the issue.

"The candidate failed our BCI, because he is gay."
"Yeah, he's been out fo thirty years, no one cares. Wait, is that still on the list? Why is that on the list?"

I'd agree that it should be a disclosure based thing rather than a strict requirement. Anything else would seem to subvert the civilian control of the executive, and ultimately the military.

Yeah. I mean, the Trumpanzees may not care that Himself is $1 billion in debt, but all of us should at keast know if the candidate is comptomised. Let him explain how his plan to pay it back won't affectify his leading the nation.

 

[Jarhyn]

What i might support, though, is if a candidate fails a security background check, they publish that fact AND the concerning details.
Let the voters
1) Decide if the item of concern is a deal breaker
2) Also get a chance to input on the issue.

"The candidate failed our BCI, because he is gay."
"Yeah, he's been out fo thirty years, no one cares. Wait, is that still on the list? Why is that on the list?"

I'd agree that it should be a disclosure based thing rather than a strict requirement. Anything else would seem to subvert the civilian control of the executive, and ultimately the military.

Yeah. I mean, the Trumpanzees may not care that Himself is $1 billion in debt, but all of us should at keast know if the candidate is comptomised. Let him explain how his plan to pay it back won't affectify his leading the nation.

This would be an interesting aspect to presidential election cycles, where all candidates entering primaries would then be expected to be pre-cleared and have their clearance investigation results made public. Let the people decide! Don't even require them to pass. Just put all that info out there. Let the people who judge 'pass or fail' be the American people.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Don't even require them to pass. Just put all that info out there. Let the people who judge 'pass or fail' be the American people.

No. There's a lot of info in a BCI, and it affects other people.

"Mr. Smith, you were one of John Doe's five listed contacts for his background check. Why do you suppose the Republican candidate listed a Democrat as a vcharacter reference?"
We don't need all five years of, say, the management of his cattle ranch, or loans to his daughter's heavy-metal-my-little-pony band to make a demo.
But if the intelligence services would not trust them with information whose unauthorized disclosure could result in exceptionally grave danger to the nation, i would want to know that fact, and why.

Also, the background check is only good for five years. They would need to do one for every election, even reelection. So, if Trump had, say, not violated the Hatch Act his entire life, but then did it eleventy-two times upon entering govt. service, that would come up.

 

[Jarhyn]

Don't even require them to pass. Just put all that info out there. Let the people who judge 'pass or fail' be the American people.

No. There's a lot of info in a BCI, and it affects other people.

"Mr. Smith, you were one of John Doe's five listed contacts for his background check. Why do you suppose the Republican candidate listed a Democrat as a vcharacter reference?"
We don't need all five years of, say, the management of his cattle ranch, or loans to his daughter's heavy-metal-my-little-pony band to make a demo.
But if the intelligence services would not trust them with information whose unauthorized disclosure could result in exceptionally grave danger to the nation, i would want to know that fact, and why.

Also, the background check is only good for five years. They would need to do one for every election, even reelection. So, if Trump had, say, not violated the Hatch Act his entire life, but then did it eleventy-two times upon entering govt. service, that would come up.

Actually, I think it IS important for them to have their donations to the HMMLP band, the management of their cattle ranch, and their character references.

If someone wants our trust, our gnostic consent to be led, they must actually give us the knowledge.

Yes, it affects other people. But those bonds to other people absolutely matter. I expect a president above impeachment rather than a president expecting impeachment.

 

[Deepak]

Don't even require them to pass. Just put all that info out there. Let the people who judge 'pass or fail' be the American people.

No. There's a lot of info in a BCI, and it affects other people.

"Mr. Smith, you were one of John Doe's five listed contacts for his background check. Why do you suppose the Republican candidate listed a Democrat as a vcharacter reference?"
We don't need all five years of, say, the management of his cattle ranch, or loans to his daughter's heavy-metal-my-little-pony band to make a demo.
But if the intelligence services would not trust them with information whose unauthorized disclosure could result in exceptionally grave danger to the nation, i would want to know that fact, and why.

Also, the background check is only good for five years. They would need to do one for every election, even reelection. So, if Trump had, say, not violated the Hatch Act his entire life, but then did it eleventy-two times upon entering govt. service, that would come up.

Actually, I think it IS important for them to have their donations to the HMMLP band, the management of their cattle ranch, and their character references.

If someone wants our trust, our gnostic consent to be led, they must actually give us the knowledge.

Yes, it affects other people. But those bonds to other people absolutely matter. I expect a president above impeachment rather than a president expecting impeachment.

I think the idea is that the raw documents contain material about people who are neither running nor complicit in any nefarious doings.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think the idea is that the raw documents contain material about people who are neither running nor complicit in any nefarious doings.

Yes. I mean, it might be interesting to know that Trump put Epstein down as a character reference, but as a matter of policy, applying to every candidate, every election, just publish the negative hits.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While I can understand the point I disagree--it gives the security clearance people absolute power to reject candidates they don't like.

However, I have proposed something similar:

You throw your hat in the ring for high office (and the cutoff dates would be pushed considerably farther out other than for special elections) and you must undergo a security clearance, failure to cooperate will get you kicked off the ballot. Before early voting begins they release either the result, or an interim report if it's not complete. Before anything is released the candidate can review it and choose to drop out rather than have it released. Incumbents are required to have a completed security clearance before running for reelection.

The clearance does not decide whether you're eligible to run (although it can decide whether you can see classified info if you're in the House or Senate), it simply informs the public of any issues of importance.