Firm That Cleared Snowden Embodies Dysfunctional System

[Valin]

TAS:

Luca Gattoni-Celli

6.21.13

 

The Dodd-Frank financial reform inhabits a special dungeon in my heart because meditating on it alone is enough to inspire existential dread about the future of society. Thursday afternoons hearing on Safeguarding our Nations Secrets: Examining The Security Clearance Process inspired a similarly dim, clammy feeling. Two Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee chairpersons, Senators Jon Tester (D-Mt.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), spent most of the proceedings browbeating witnesses from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Department of Defense, and Government Accountability Office (GAO). Their incredulity was understandable.

 

Tester opened by observing that, Today, there are nearly five million individuals inside and outside of our government who have been granted security clearances and access to our nations most sensitive data. 1.4 million hold a top-secret security clearance. Edward Snowdens leaks of NSA documents came up in the hearing, though in passing. If there was a whipping boy, it was defense contractor USIS. OPM Inspector General Patrick McFarland confirmed to Tester that the company conducted a background reinvestigation in 2011 that renewed Snowdens security clearance. OPM Assistant Director of Investigations Merton Miller stated later that the company handles 45 percent of security checks. McFarland did not know who originally approved Snowden, but promised to report back.

 

(Snip)

 

Lewis, who was representing the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, confirmed that 87% of security clearance cases lack proper background documentation, highlighting employment history as the most common gap. The follow-up investigation rate is low, raising questions about how the revolving fund is being spent. Brenda Farrell, Director of Defense Capabilities and Management in the GAO, noted that there are no standards or applicable guidelines for a security clearance process. Each agency must create its own. Individuals who are under investigation for falsifying information in background check maintain their security clearance and positions because they are presumed innocent and suspending them after the great time and expense of placement would be impractical.

 

(Snip)