Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Security clearances and wingnuts.


Am I a bad person for so thoroughly enjoying the miserable misfortune that has befallen one Maj. Stefan Cook? So be it. In any event, here are more recent developments, for those of you who are sincerely interested in, you know, facts:

There have been many claims that Maj. Cook's security clearance has been revoked. This is inaccurate, and presumably based on lack of knowledge of the distinction between a security clearance and access authorization. It is not possible that he has already had his security clearance revoked. The legal requirements of administrative due process will take several months to revoke his clearance which is under review.

OK, so what did happen?

He has had a suspension of access pending final adjudication of a personnel security clearance. The issuance of a personnel security clearance (as well as the function of determining that an individual is eligible for access to Special Access program information, or is suitable for assignment to sensitive duties or such other duties that require a trustworthiness determination) is a function distinct from that involving the granting of access to classified information. Administrative due process requires he be given written notice, have an opportunity to respond, and receive an agency response, and there just has not been time to get that done.

So was he fired or not? Oh:

The suspension of access still functions to prevent Maj. Cook from performed either his military or civilian job. DoD would not call his employer and tell them they have to fire him. They would call and tell them that his access to DoD classified information had been suspended and that the employer could no longer let him handle or have access to classified information.

Which effectively makes him worthless as an employee. Now let's skip ahead to the good part:

32 C.F.R § 154.7 Criteria for application of security standards provides:

(g) Disregard of public law, statutes, Executive Orders or regulations including violation of security regulations or practices.

(h) Criminal or dishonest conduct.

(i) Acts of omission or commission that indicate poor judgment, unreliability or untrustworthiness.

All some military official needs to say is that there were acts of omission and/or commission which, in his opinion, indicate poor judgment, unreliability or untrustworthiness.

And I believe that that, as they say, is that, because if there's one thing you can say about Major Cook, who officially joined a class-action suit against Obama in March, then volunteered for deployment a couple months after that, only to renege at the last minute in order to choreograph this idiotic stunt, it's that he's shown astonishingly poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness.

Case closed.

2 comments:

JABbering Stooge said...

if there's one thing you can say about Major Cook, [...] it's that he's shown astonishingly poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness.

Not to mention the fact that by doing this, he's engaging in "criminal or dishonest conduct."

KEvron said...

nah, i'm still going with "obama and the dod got him fired". gets the fish to turn....

KEvron