How did the Navy Yard shooter keep his id and clearance?

J

johnelmore

New member
When I was in the military in the 90s getting a security clearance was a long process involving many steps. There were stories of guys waiting in a holding pattern kept out of certain training for months until the process was complete. Once you had a clearance it was easy to lose it...in fact it wasnt too difficult to get booted out of the military.

Have things changed that much where anyone can get and keep a clearance? Has the military changed that much where a Corporal Klinger can remain in the military despite exhibiting outrageous behavior?

My belief too little is being done to keep people who are obviously not well away from firearms and even sensitive national security areas. After seeing the various personalities on the news get access to the most sensitive national security areas Wayne Lapierre is right. Too little is being done to enforce the various laws already on the books.
 
I think this is really two separate questions. As to how he got it, the vetting is now done largely by civilian contractor. There will have to be some questions about whether or not the contractor did proper due dilligence.

As to how he kept it, this is a giant black hole in our security system that the gov't needs to take a look at. As far as I can tell, there is still no "flagging" mechanism to let a law enforcement officer know that a person he has just arrested or is investigating has either a security clearance or some kind of critical position job. And vice versa, there is no flagging mechanism to instantly let the security clearance issuing authority know that one of their people has gotten into trouble. They eventually get word of convictions but that is apparently a slow process.
 
The mental health system in this country is broken.

It also seems to me that having a security clearance is primarily about loyalty and inability to be blackmailed, and not so much about mental stability (I'm sure whoever conducts background checks would care if they notice that someone is clearly schizophrenic, but I doubt it's something that they specifically try to diagnose).

You could also point to when he was investigated for his security clearance. It probably wasn't recent enough to pick up things like the alleged sugar in the gas tank incident or the early August 911 call in which he complained about imaginary stalkers with microwave weapons.

When he visited the VA for help, did they do a thorough evaluation? Did they know he called the police complaining about imaginary assailants? Did they know about the voices or his long-term suffering from PTSD after helping during 9/11? If the VA did know, would it have been possible for them to do something, or were they constrained by medical confidentiality? Did they even know he had a security clearance or that he worked at the Navy Yard?
 
....Wayne Lapierre is right. Too little is being done to enforce the various laws already on the books.
Click to expand...
Wayne is also right when he says the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. This was a naval yard with plenty of man power for guards with guns. I am sure the men there are savvy about defending a place & shooting back.

Unfortunately, detecting mental health problems is pretty tough these days. Privacy issues, broken communications between departments & various entities causes warning signs to go unnoticed. Perhaps someone with a security clearance much less suspect(?) People can be right one day & then snap the next. Sad but true. But being prepared for an active shooter seems only logical.

:confused:

...bug
 
Last edited:
Have things changed that much where anyone can get and keep a clearance? Has the military changed that much where a Corporal Klinger can remain in the military despite exhibiting outrageous behavior?
Click to expand...

1. Security clearances are good for 10 years. As long as there is no break in its "use", of more than 2 years, you don't have to go through the background checks / investigations again within that 10 year period.

2. In the '90s and early 2000s, the American People decided that the problem with discharged military members becoming criminals, members of hate groups, and/or homeless people, was entirely the military's fault. So, Congress put pressure on the military to "do more" to 'help' them before they were discharged. As a result, there are thousands (tens of thousands?) of service members that are retained in their branch of service, only so they can receive psychiatric help. Unfortunately, that often means that they are allowed to continue performing their duties (or some kind of non-critical light duty), since the military doesn't want them to just sit around in the down time between appointments. When they are finally discharged, the transition to VA care doesn't go smoothly, or is not pursued by the patient.

Often times, the service member is able to ride out the psychiatric care, until the end of their enlistment. So, they are able to get an honorable discharge, rather than a coded medical discharge.

That was what I saw, when I was in, anyway... :rolleyes:
 
As to how he kept it, this is a giant black hole in our security system that the gov't needs to take a look at. As far as I can tell, there is still no "flagging" mechanism to let a law enforcement officer know that a person he has just arrested or is investigating has either a security clearance or some kind of critical position job. And vice versa, there is no flagging mechanism to instantly let the security clearance issuing authority know that one of their people has gotten into trouble. They eventually get word of convictions but that is apparently a slow process.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also clearing is now mostly private in both investigation and in private contraction in employ of cleared persons. The incentive is to grant it and keep it. The FBI is only marginally involved in the great majority of clearances. I get interviewed for neighbors and colleagues getting clearance about twice per year. 20 years ago it was always FBI or DIA interviewing me. In the last few years it has more often been private investigators from companies that specialize inn facilitating clearances.


The source of the recent unprecedented loss of NSA methods, probably a larger loss than the Rosenbergs, also had some serious ignored flags as well. That person also was employed privately by a contractor.

On top of that mental issues often go to medical privacy. The keeping of such data private has a lot of benefit. If any of us were having some symptoms of anything we might well be reticent to seek counseling or care knowing it would be entered on a database that could affect our constitutional rights, employment, rights in a custody case, or with increasing collection of data, even may impact our kids' privacy if there is genetic component. The economies of scale and privatization of databases is a major trend.
 
considering the warning signs and outright warnings given, one can fairly draw the conclusion that the incompetence was systemic.
 
TDL said:
Also clearing is now mostly private in both investigation and in private contraction in employ of cleared persons. The incentive is to grant it and keep it. The FBI is only marginally involved in the great majority of clearances. I get interviewed for neighbors and colleagues getting clearance about twice per year. 20 years ago it was always FBI or DIA interviewing me. In the last few years it has more often been private investigators from companies that specialize inn facilitating clearances.
Click to expand...
Yes.

And another factor may be that far more material is classified now than 20 years ago. Once every piddly little thing is classified, the comparatively low-grade people who handle it need security clearances. More people need clearances, so more people have to be investigated, so that's outsourced "to save money." I seriously doubt that there's much accountability for the private contractors who now do much of the investigating, and the increase in the sheer number of people being investigated means that the number of people who are mistakenly cleared must also go up.
 
Last edited:
Many years ago when I was in the Navy there were two levels of secret clearance. one was done with just an NCIC. the other required a full background check. As I understand it for a BI on secret they only go back 15 years.
 
Vanya said:
And Another factor may be that far more material is classified now than was 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
That's a good point.

One of our computer networks was completely unclassified, but the type of computers we were using, and the operating system installed on them, was classified (confidential). Anyone in the world could do a quick internet search to find out what the military used as their primary OS, but I couldn't even tell the communications guys what I was using, without verifying their clearance.

When everything is classified, and everyone needs a clearance, it dilutes the importance.
 
Could be wrong on this, but it's my understanding, if a clearance holder is in trouble with the law, or seeks treatment for alcohol or substance abuse, or psychiatric help, he is supposed to inform his superiors.

So it seems there is no reporting requirement by the police or medical profession.
 
A quick google search shows that between 4.5 and 5 million Americans hold security clearances.

That's over 3% of the civilian workforce. I don't care how impressive the screening process is, you're going to get some unstable people in there, as well as a fair number of psychopaths who might be inclined to sell or disseminate classified material but are good at hiding their intentions and ideologies.

TDL, did you really just compare Snowden to the Rosenbergs?
 
NASA space shuttle program...

I read a article a few years ago that stated how nearly 90% of everything involved in the NASA space shuttle program was "classified" :rolleyes:.

As for the recent DC/Navy Yard attack, to my knowledge, the subject killed or over-powered a armed officer(unknown if he was a 083 police or a PSC/security contractor) & used his issue sidearm(brand-caliber unknown).
More guns & more good guys are not the issue here.
As noted in other posts, the DSS(Defense Security Service) & OPM(Office of Personnel Mgmt) are a mess. There are long backlogs, over-sights, problems, etc. OPM often contracts out to private firms to ease the backlog but errors/conflicts still occur.

I had a detailed OPM background check for a federal level LE job in the late 1990s. The federal agency supervisor told me it cost the agency approx $3000.00 USD per applicant. I was interviewed for about an hour & a half by a retired federal agent working for a contractor. I passed but decided to work for another federal agency closer to where I lived.
These events & shootings will keep going on. It's tragic but it also shows that the mental health/prevention systems need improvement not a stack of gun laws that only stable, law-abiding people follow.
 
I read a article a few years ago that stated how nearly 90% of everything involved in the NASA space shuttle program was "classified" .
Click to expand...

Space tech is one of the few areas where it makes a little bit of sense. ICBMs and satellite weapons, deployed by countries that are not on the United States' Christmas card list, are a major long-term problem. We don't want Iran or North Korea making faster progress in those areas.

"We have essentially no patents in SpaceX," Musk told Wired. "Our primary long-term competition is in China-if we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book."
Click to expand...

Even countries like China that already have ICBMs and can launch working satellites can be slowed down by keeping information secret. They get most of the information anyway through espionage, but classifying it makes it a little bit harder.
 
Too much data is classified, and too many individuals seek and hold clearances. Both situations need to be addressed.
 
I read a article a few years ago that stated how nearly 90% of everything involved in the NASA space shuttle program was "classified
Click to expand...
"
90 percent of Shuttle data might be restricted but it is not classified secret or top secret. There are lots of other types of restricted data, such as International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which includes most space flight technology.
 
Just read some more about Aaron Alexis and he seems like the poster child for why we need a mental health registry. Not only should he have not been permitted to buy a firearm...he should have been placed in an institution and never been allowed near any publicly owned building.
 
How did this happen?


IMO, the sheer size of the Fed.gov is so immense that it can not possibly manage itself, let alone regulate itself.

It is the immense Bolotumus, doomed to collapse, because it is generating it's own Snits ......
 
Not only should he have not been permitted to buy a firearm...he should have been placed in an institution and never been allowed near any publicly owned building.
Click to expand...
Had the Seattle PD done their jobs and arrested him for the 2004 shooting, he would have been barred from buying firearms. If I shoot the tires out of someone's car, I should be arrested and charged. If I subsequently tell the judge that I get so angry I "black out" and resort to violence, I should be declared mentally defective.

We don't need a registry so much as we need the police and courts to do their jobs in cases like this.
 
IMO, the sheer size of the Fed.gov is so immense that it can not possibly manage itself, let alone regulate itself.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it, the size of the government today is staggering.

Just read some more about Aaron Alexis and he seems like the poster child for why we need a mental health registry. Not only should he have not been permitted to buy a firearm...he should have been placed in an institution and never been allowed near any publicly owned building.
Click to expand...

If you are suggesting that someone be denied purchase of a firearm or incarcerated/institutionalized because anyone other than a fully legitimate court proceeding says so, we have a real problem.

You are talking about a system that we have in place already, you cannot take someones rights away with anything short of legal adjudication! If we are unwilling to use the system we have in place now, why should I support a new one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top