From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and a Security Clearance
Date: 10 Nov 92 12:55:41 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

In article <1d92jbINN9s9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bg086@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brad C. Wallet) writes:
|> 
|> I think the ironic part of the whole election is that given Gov.
|> Clinton's past record, he would not ordinarily be able to get a
|> security clearance.  That's no security clearance.  Not even a
|> Secret clearance.  Are the security checks too tight?  Well, to
|> make it so that he would have been, they would have to eliminate
|> almost all the requirements.  If anyone cares to dispute this,
|> I can state direct references to the laws.  I realize that this
|> character issue has been beat to death, but man is he scary.
|> 
|> I guess that we are doomed to repeat the errors of our past.
|> We have re-elected Carter.  Only Carter was a good and decent
|> man who was misguided.  Clinton has Carter's ideas, but not 
|> his morals.  I guess we never learn.  I don't like inflation
|> and high interest rates.  I guess the rest of the country does.
|> 
|> Being a Virginia resident (and native), I am proud to say that 
|> we voted for Bush.  If only we didn't have to suffer for the
|> folly of others.
|> 
|> Brad 

   Two people on the net who claimed to know about security
clearances stated that Brad Wallet's claim is completely false.
I saw no reply from Mr. Wallet, so I e-mailed to him both their
posts, and asked him to go ahead and cite legal references as
he offered to do above. I have seen no reply from him.

   Mr. Wallet: your silence here is inexplicable. Please cite
references, or apologize to us and to President-Elect Clinton
for your misleading accusations. Your code of honor as a Virginia
gentleman demands it! (:-)

					- Lee Campbell

In article <1992Nov4.185223.17024@NOC.Vitalink.COM>dgr@RODIN (Daniel Robinson)writes:
> In article <1d92jbINN9s9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bg086@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brad C. Wallet) writes:
> +
> +I think the ironic part of the whole election is that given Gov.
> +Clinton's past record, he would not ordinarily be able to get a
> +security clearance.
> 
> Do you have a clearance?  Have you ever had a clearance?  What is
> the difference between clearance and access?  There is nothing
> in Clinton's record that would keep him from getting a clearance.
> When I was a nuclear weapons section chief in the US Army, I had
> a man working for me who had a Secret(BI) clearance.  He had access
> to certain critical mission materials and had entered the Army while on Federal
> probation for receiving and concealing stolen bank funds.  Clinton
> didn't do anything like that.  As for travel to the East, it is
> allowed as long as the person is not on a travel restriction.
> I worked with a man who had resigned his commission in 1979, travelled
> extensively by bicycle and camping through the East European
> countries.  He listed which countries he visited and the dates he
> visited them.  His Top Secret(BI) was reinstated when he came to
> work for the contractor for which I worked.  For the record, I was
> a special weapons section chief in the Army for 2 years, and left
> the Army to work around Pershing missiles for another 4 1/2 years,
> all in Germany.  Brad doesn't know what he is talking about.
> 
> +If anyone cares to dispute this,
> +I can state direct references to the laws.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> +I realize that this
> +character issue has been beat to death, but man is he scary.
> 
> Unfortunately, it has not been beat to death since we still have
> people like this yammering about things that they know nothing
> about.
> 
> +Clinton has Carter's ideas, but not his morals.
> 
> Get a life.
> 
> +Being a Virginia resident (and native), I am proud to say that 
> +we voted for Bush.
> 
> I'm from California, and I'm proud to say that we voted for someone
> who can form complete sentences.
> 
> Dan Robinson

In arcticle <BALDWIN.92Nov5164614@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil> baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
> >I think the ironic part of the whole election is that given Gov.
> >Clinton's past record, he would not ordinarily be able to get a
> >security clearance.  That's no security clearance.  Not even a
> >Secret clearance.
> 
> Of course this is total hogwash.  I have corrected this error at least
> five times on this group.  There are certain cases in which travel by
> persons ALREADY WITH ACCESS TO SENSITIVE MATERIAL is restricted.  The
> material has to be unbelievably sensitive, though--I was allowed to
> travel to Communist China even though I had an *active* Top Secret/
> Special Compartmented Information clearance.  
> 
> However, travel to these same foreign countries *before* ever getting
> a clearance is next to irrelevant.  (You will be questioned about the
> nature of your travel in these countries, but an obvious short tourist
> trip will be irrelevant.)  There's a big difference.
> 
> Even if the worst possible scenario about Clinton were true, if he had
> carried signs that said things like "U.S. Baby-Killers Out of Vietnam"
> and "U.S. War-Criminal-Imperialists Go Home" (not unlikely signs to be
> seen during an average anti-U.S. protest in the 60's) while in Oxford
> and Moscow, it would still be irrelevant, because it falls into the
> category of political activity.  People who know nothing about this
> subject (elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) springs to
> mind) seem always to assume the opposite--that the security clearance
> process is intended to exclude "liberals" or those holding "unusual"
> political views.  This is nonsense, and is directly contradicted in my
> own experience.
> 
> Now, if you want to talk about whether Ron Dellums (the second-ranking
> Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee) could ever get a clearance,
> what with the connections he seems to have with Sr. Castro . . .
> --
>  From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
>    _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
>  _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
>  \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc