LOL! Snowden's background check? Outsourced! Company that did it now under investigation.

[Poll_Blind]

Watchdog says contractor that performed background check of NSA leaker under investigation

Dramatic John Lovitz Voice:
OUTSOURCING!!!



PB

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. lol

[leveymg]

55. Note to Snowden debunkers: Gen. Alexander confirms the docs are genuine and Snowden was given access

to them. According to the NSA, Snowden was the one who leaked the Verizon warrant:

One question many had been asking since Edward Snowden came forward as the source of recently leaked National Security Agency documents was just how someone in Snowden’s position got access to an order issued by the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The order, requiring a Verizon subsidiary, Verizon Business Network Services, to turn over the metadata about calls made by all its subscribers over a three-month period, was top secret, and had no relevance to Snowden’s job as an IT system’s administrator working for an NSA contractor.

Well, we now have an answer. He had access to the order when he was being trained.

After a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday, National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander told reporters that Snowden had access to the document during an orientation he attended at NSA headquarters in Maryland.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/snowden_verizon_nsa.php

[aquart]

80. So Snowden was sticky-fingered from the getgo.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

2. "USIS was formed through the privatization of the Office of Personnel Management’s...

Federal Investigation Service in July 1996, so it is not surprising that the majority of our services and solutions are provided to government clients."

http://www.usis.com/Customers.aspx

Another privatization success story...

[NightWatcher]

6. As soon as it was privatized it was bought by Carlyle Group

They sold it in 2007.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

8. The plot thickens...

[DURHAM D]

10. I am confused.

Does the Carlyle Group currently own USIS?

[NightWatcher]

11. Sold their interest in 07 or 08 I believe

But yes, you had contractors giving clearances for employees of their other companies. Carlyle controlled Booz Allen and USIS.

Convenient?
Coincidence?

[DURHAM D]

13. LOL Earlier tonight when I typed this -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=513861

I had included a comment that the only thing that could make this worse is if the Carlyle Group owns USIS because that would mean the Carlyle Group employees are clearing themselves to work at Booz. I decided that made me sound paranoid so I removed it. Silly me... first instinct is best instinct.

[NightWatcher]

14. Winner winner chicken dinner

I hope this story has legs. I'd love nothing more.

[DURHAM D]

15. Me too but I am afraid it is just not sexy enough for DU

or the media.

[MADem]

21. If it's not, it should be. This IS the problem.

I'm reminded of that noxious program, where that scolding lady would say

"You are the weakest link--goodbye. "


This crew of contractors IS the weakest link. Wonder how many of the gundeckers working there could use a respectable BC?

[HardTimes99]

32. Fuck that. This is the real deal! You are to be complimented - nt

[HardTimes99]

26. Life imitates art, eh? I remember saying in 2002 that Bush and Cheney

would use torture. Little did I know . . .

[leveymg]

49. Carlyle Group buys defense and intel contractors for the same reason Murdoch buys newspapers -

control the flow of information to the takeover target. The United States is the target, and those who in turn control Carlyle and NewsCorp -- the Saudis -- are not our friends.

We invaded the wrong country in 2003.

[elehhhhna]

81. The co Snowden worked for is also owned by Carlyle

[DevonRex]

19. But it looks like they only did the last one. We need the FIRST one.

With CIA. They don't outsource. That is where the problem is. Who did it or who changed it? Who hired him?

BECAUSE without CIA hiring him he NEVER would have worked for contractors who work with NSA. NEVER. They hired him because he had a clearance already. I was in SIGINT so i know how to find this stuff really easily. I'll show you a job listing so you understand:
Russian
Experience with NUCLEON and/or ONEROOF and related SIGINT language tools and repositories is highly desirable.
"Senior Language Analyst
Location: Fort Meade, MD
Clearance Level: TS/SCI - w/Polygraph
Schedule: Full-Time
Sector: Mission Services
Responsibilities
The Senior Language Analyst shall have, at minimum, ten (10) years of SIGINT experience as well as transcription, translation, interpreting, and other language-related experience. Personnel in this category shall, at a minimum, have extensive experience in language, literature, linguistics, related humanistic fields, and have accumulated seven (7) years cryptologic experience. Senior Language Analyst shall have an excellent command of the foreign language and the specific knowledge, talent and skill necessary to function independently. Individual must perform as final Quality Control level for some voice graphic tasks.
Requirements
To be considered for this position, you must be a US citizen and be able to meet the full eligibility requirements for access to classified information in an intelligence community setting.
Snip
Russian
Experience with NUCLEON and/or ONEROOF and related SIGINT language tools and repositories is highly desirable."

[MADem]

25. His VERY first job was with NSA as a janitor/guard. Then he slid into IT work at the same place.

Then, later, he went to Europe on that CIA - attache gig. Then he went to NSA again, to Japan.

At least that's how I understand his resume--I could be mistaken about the timeline, though.

Might CIA have taken his bona fides from his very first outing at NSA without running their own check, since he was already "in the system?"


But it gets better--the rocket scientists at BHA hired him even though he had "problems" with his resume....AND...he had only been on the job in Hawaii for FOUR weeks, not three months:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-usa-security-snowden-idUSBRE95K01J20130621

(Reuters) - Hiring screeners at Booz Allen Hamilton, a contractor for the National Security Agency, found possible discrepancies in a resume submitted by Edward Snowden, but the company still employed him, a source with detailed knowledge of the matter said on Thursday.

Snowden, who disclosed top secret documents about U.S. surveillance of telephone and Internet data after leaving his job as a systems administrator at an NSA facility in Hawaii, was hired this spring after he convinced his screeners that his description of his education was truthful, said the source, who is not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

It is unclear precisely which element of Snowden's resume caused personnel officials at Booz Allen Hamilton to raise questions about his background. Also unclear is how he satisfied their concerns.....According to sources familiar with the matter, Snowden, a high school dropout who later passed the high school equivalency test known as the GED, stated on his resume earlier this year he attended computer-related classes at Johns Hopkins University, a Tokyo campus of the University of Maryland and the University of Liverpool in Britain.

According to the sources, the resume stated that Snowden "estimated" he would receive a master's degree in computer security from Liverpool sometime this year.

Some of the educational information listed on the resume did not check out precisely, said the sources...Despite that, Booz Allen Hamilton hired him at an annual salary of $122,000 to work as a contractor for the NSA in Hawaii. Snowden had been on the job there for about four weeks when he traveled to Hong Kong last month and leaked the U.S. government secrets that made him known around the world.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-usa-security-snowden-idUSBRE95K01J20130621

[randome]

39. Snowden fine-tuned the delicate dance of bullshitting his way past problems.

And every company that had a hand in letting him get away with it should suffer for it.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[leveymg]

53. Not surprising someone would raise an issue with his academic record, considering the GED and

non-linear educational path. But, this is a very different thing from concluding that he faked his resume, and it certainly doesn't prove anything about his being a spy or a send-up, as some seem to be implying.

It's good to take a close look at the individual, and you're free to speculate about his motives, but if the documents he's leaked were fakes, we all would have heard about that. Loud and strong.

[MADem]

59. He DID fake his resume. He said he was getting a Master's degree from a UK university.

The university said "Oh no he di-int!"

Education is a key part of one's resume. It suggests that the applicant has the training and background to do the job.

Also, when people lie on their resumes, they are regarded as untrustworthy.

As for the documents he stole and released, who knows? If he stole the old brief, or the draft brief, or the "wish it were like this" brief, and it's not accurate, it might not be in America's interest to reveal that.

People actually believed the crap Reagan was shopping about the capabilities of Star Wars, too--it encouraged Gorbachev to toss his cards on the table and fold.

[leveymg]

61. He was hired, anyway. An MS wasn't a job requirement.

The FISA court documents he released were stamped, and dated. Not drafts.

If he were substantially a fake, don't you think the WH or one of a dozen interested federal agencies would have alerted the US public to that, by now?

[MADem]

67. Hell no--if he were fake as all get-out, and telling lies a-plenty--particularly lies that

exaggerated our abilities--I'd leave him to spout bullshit awhile more.

STAR WARS, baby! Better to let people think you have more capability than you actually do. Let people spend all their energies on DEFENSE--then you can observe them, get some ideas that you can steal from them, but most importantly, if they're working defense, they're not spending as much time working offense.

Those FISA documents don't tell us much. They can be interpreted as more or less nefarious, depending on what you want to believe.

This guy only worked at BHA for four weeks--not "three months" as he claimed. Likely he was hired "three months" back, but his start date was "four weeks" before he bailed out.

He was told by BHA personnel that there were problems with his resume. He knew the clock was ticking.

If I were a bettor, I'd bet that he did the runner because he knew he'd be fired for faking all of his educational qualifications.

[Jarla]

83. I don't think Snowden ever stated how long he'd worked at BAH

It was Booz Allen Hamilton who stated in their press release that he'd worked for them "for less than three months"

[MADem]

85. You're right--if you read the initial Guardian report, it sounds like he is suggesting that he

was working for NSA without interruption for three or four years. I don't think he said anything about being a contractor or sub-contractor, either.

Three years is a bit more than three months, and a bigger 'sin of omission,' if you want to call it that.

[Jarla]

93. He said right at the beginning of his video interview that he worked for BAH

And that was recorded on June 6th.

[MADem]

99. Did he say how long he'd worked there? nt

[Jarla]

100. No nt

[uponit7771]

43. +1

[NightWatcher]

3. I giggled so much I peed a little. I used to work there

I left there a long time ago because I saw what mattered to them. Not doing good work, but outputting volume.

Damn it feels good to be proven right time and time again.

[Poll_Blind]

40. Another good reason to trust one's instincts in certain situations...

PB

[flamingdem]

4. good one

sheeesh

[kentuck]

5. Scapegoat? n/t

??

[DURHAM D]

7. No. It is the real issue.

Everything else is just noise.

[struggle4progress]

9. +

[Blasphemer]

12. So.... to recap

We are subject to government surveillance for national security reasons but the companies to whom* the job of checking the backgrounds of people who have access to highly classified information is outsourced are not routinely subject to similarly rigorous surveillance. I see.

*Yes, this is intentional because corporations are people!

[Coccydynia]

24. I'm sorry, but I don't understand ...

are we saying that because he chose to be a whistle blower he somehow would not have passed any background checks and thus not received his clearance other than through incompetent vetting?

[MADem]

30. He was told by BHA--where he worked for only four weeks, not three months--that there were PROBLEMS

with his resume.

That could have influenced his decision to take a runner.

He most certainly would NOT have received a clearance if he was shown to have lied about his educational qualifications--and he told BHA he was just shy of a Master's Degree.

See http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-usa-security-snowden-idUSBRE95K01J20130621

[Coccydynia]

33. Thank you for that additional info.

It would seem that BHA's incompetence was our gain. Even if what has been revealed was "already known", it was also "already forgotten". And now we get to have the debate.

[MADem]

34. It's hard to know where this guy's lies end, though. And it might be in the best interest of USA

to not counter all or even most of the guy's inaccuracies, particularly if he is asserting that our capabilities are much better and more far-reaching than they actually are.

Kinda like Star Wars. We threw a whole lot of money at a load of crap, but no one knew it was crap at the time...

Every day reveals a new twist, it would seem.

[DevonRex]

16. NO. This isn't the right background check. We need the first one.

For CIA. Whoever did that one (doubt it was outsourced) fucked up royally or on purpose OR it was changed to approved after the fact. The USIS one looks like the periodic update that we all have to do. Piece of cake.

But thanks for looking. This is what I'm most interested in. The original clearance and who the fuck hired him at CIA. Forget NSA. They are incidental almost. CIA got him in to begin with. Without them, no contractor would have thought he was hot stuff. See, he already had his clearance so it saved them MONEY to hire him instead of some other person.

[MADem]

18. There was only one check, I think--these guys did it. Snowden took it with him.

These guys did clearances for both government employees and contractors.

Snowden worked previously at the CIA and probably obtained his security clearance there. But like others who leave the government to join private contractors, he was able to keep his clearance after he left and began working for outside firms.

Of the 4.9 million people with clearance to access “confidential and secret” government information, 1.1 million, or 21 percent, work for outside contractors, according to a January report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Of the 1.4 million who have the higher “top secret” access, 483,000, or 34 percent, work for contractors.

OPM’s Federal Investigative Services division performs almost all the background investigations for federal agencies and nearly 75 percent of the investigators who perform background checks are contractors, according to information on the agency’s website.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/watchdog-says-contractor-that-performed-background-check-of-nsa-leaker-under-investigation/2013/06/20/b91c9322-da10-11e2-b418-9dfa095e125d_story_1.html

[DevonRex]

23. That's what I mean. CIA did the full original one. We need to know WHO

did it, as in the person. And if it was changed. Or if the recommendation was changed. Or just WTF happened with it. I've done background checks myself. He never would have been cleared by me. 5 months in the military? I'd be finding out exactly what happened. Plus checking that all the information was consistent each time he filled out paperwork. The military paperwork would have totally screwed him.

[MADem]

27. Maybe they didn't, though--maybe his first check was done when he was a guard/janitor at NSA.

And these contractors did it.

He slid from NSA to CIA, and maybe CIA didn't start at ground zero, but instead took him at his word.

I found some more info about this guy via Reuters--he had only been on the job for FOUR weeks, and BHA had "problems" with his resume and asked him about it. (See post 25).

Now, knowing that you're about to be busted could be an impetus for taking a powder to Hong Kong, I'm thinking....

[DevonRex]

28. No. He lied about that. It was a college security guard position.

A commercial language school that claimed an association with NSA. on the U. Of Maryland Campus. Come to find out they didn't have any official relationship with NSA at all. Then U. Of M. Cut ties with them altogether. So that part was utter bullshit.

[MADem]

31. Sweet Jesus--what didn't this guy lie about? nt

[randome]

38. You found it! Greenwald's next 'blockbuster' story!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Monkie]

54. and maybe you and the others are just making this up as you go along

none of you geniuses work at the CIA or the NSA, you are all clueless, know nothing about his vetting, but are all suddenly experts, what a joke....

[MADem]

56. Touchie, touchie!!!! I don't have a problem if my speculations are proven to be incorrect.

I will say, though, having gone through the process myself -- not once, but twice, thanks to the "Walker Scandal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker when everyone got their clearance pulled and had to begin again at ground zero--that this guy was poorly vetted.

In the extreme.

I've also been on the other end of the equation, where I've been asked to submit to interviews regarding others who worked for me who were being vetted for clearances.

So yeah, I am an "expert" in the sense that I've had to fill out the paperwork, not once, but twice (and it is a long-ass application and I needed addendum sheets because I moved around--a lot--even as a youngster, and that continued through my adult years) AND I've heard from my family members and friends, close and distant, and acquaintances, old and new, who were visited by "two guys in suits" asking if I was a bum or not, and if I could be trusted.

AND I've had to respond to queries about others from the "two guys (occasionally ladies) in suits."

Back then, though, I don't think they were outsourcing the job of determining who was a good bet for government service. The people doing the job were a bit more professional, they certainly were not gundeckers.

This guy should never have gotten a clearance. It's yet ANOTHER issue in his stack of them.

And when will he stop lying about small things? People who lie about small stuff will lie about anything...

[Monkie]

57. but what HAS he actually lied about, you seem intelligent

this is reports about reports, second and third hand speculation, you know its meaningless.
you cant really believe that if he was completely untrustworthy the CIA would not have realised.
all these companies hired him over and over.
there is no way someone would keep getting a IT job if they could not actually do the work.
it may not mean much, but he was a "nerd", a card carying one, a fully paid up member of the nerd army. his nerdy internet history is available if you know where to look.

[MADem]

58. He lied about his work history and his salary to Greenwald. He lied about his time in the Army...to

Greenwald. He lied about how long he'd been working for BHA...to Greenwald.

He lied about his educational background. He lied to his girlfriend about where he was going.

He lied on his background check application form.

After awhile, you start--unless you're so desperate to believe a scenario, and are so invested in an individual in a cult-of-personality sort of way, that you toss common sense out the window--to wonder, "WTF is UP with this guy? Why is he lying about EVERYTHING?"

That much lying--about pissant little things--makes no sense unless there's something else going on. How hard is it to tell the simple truth?

The more the guy lies about little things, the less believable he is about big things.

I still wonder about that epilepsy diagnosis...unless he was lying about THAT, too...?

[Monkie]

60. maybe you convince yourself with this bullshit, still all 3rd hand information at best

but not me.
show me where snowden lied about how long he worked for BHA, his words, not 3rd hand or 4th hand, and proof documentary proof.
show me the lie about his salary, real proof, because if you had seen his Q&A for the guardian then the answer is there.
and to add to that again, where is the documentary proof he did not earn the salary he said he did. there are no documents from BHA or other employers?
and the same goes for the army, he was in the army, the army does not deny it, we have NO documents from the army to prove anything, and a freedom of information request has been sent to the army by the guardian, but no reply yet.
and what proof he lied about his education or his background check, where are the documents, you have NONE, none have been published.
that leaves one thing, he lied to his GF when he was about to leak/whistleblow on a $80 billion a year industry, possibly to protect her.
if anything YOU claim is true then you MUST acknowledge that you know what happens to whistleblowers, there is every attempt to smear them and destroy them, and this is the best they can do???

its pathetic, it makes you and the others look stupid.
have you even looked at what he has leaked, and compare it to even the most charitable view of his detractors about his record.
you and they have NOTHING, plain as day, and the only people you convince are those that are so afraid to think for themselves.

[MADem]

62. What makes the Third Hand Assertions of the US Army, the CIA, the NSA, the University of Maryland,

some rinky dink community college, a university in the UK, and personnel sources at BHA less valid than the Third Hand Assertions of a guy in Hong Kong with a power point presentation?

You do know he ADMITTED he lied about his salary? He did so in that "web chat." He tried to toss it off as "the highest salary he ever earned" for doing similar work, and he acknowledged his pay was a third less than what he claimed, and what Greenwald reported. If you're going to champion the guy, don't waste time carping about the stuff he's already copped to.

The Army released a FOIA request regarding his dates of service. They don't match up with what he claimed.

I'm not the one looking stupid, here--you're defending the initial false statement of a guy who has "corrected" his account; I suspect he'll be doing more "correcting" as more of his statements are scrutinized. I'm not the one with "nothing"--I'm looking at all this information, from multiple sources, and telling myself how amazing it is that the CIA got to some registrar at a university in UK and got him/her to "smear" poor little Eddie Snowden. This same crackerjack group of spies that can get all these sources from "Ed's" past marching in lockstep can't even run a decent background check on a bullshitter and faker. So...what are they? Malevolent geniuses...or fuckups?


He has a powerpoint presentation....and isn't that grand.

Did you know a bunch of Canadians were going to make a movie in Iran called ARGO? It's true, because they said so.

Just saying.

I don't mind "knowing NOTHING." You, apparently, do. I take everything with a grain of salt--I've seen more than once how one sure thing can suddenly be something else entirely. Things are not always what they seem--and that doesn't just apply to government entities, it also includes "instant heroes" who can't keep their stories straight.

I can wait. In the meantime, I can most certainly wonder.

[Monkie]

66. please show me the FOIA info?

the army just threw out a statement, thats not FOIA data.
he was asked a question about his salary its true, he said he earned 200K its true, when BHA said he earned 120K, and just said mind, no actual proof, he did clarify that.
now if that 80K is make or break on his credibility, when weighed up against the documents released, which if you had paid attention, they are NOT just powerpoint slides, then i pity you, because you have your priorities wrong.
and yes, all those people making claims in the press, they are 3rd hand info until they back it up with FULL documentation.
because lets be clear here, this is the NSA, and BHA, ie the CIA and ex-CIA, their job is to lie, their job is to fake docs, so its all very well making grand claims based on what they say, but they are PROVEN LIERS by definition.
and you are waving this 3rd hand info as if its gospel, while knowing their job is to lie. on top of that they are protecting $80 billion dollar a year profiteering, or their slice of that, now you, as a democrat, are telling me you trust a organisation like BHA when it has its grubby paws in the till, money that should be spent on creating real jobs, ensuring healthcare, fixing bridges etc.

im sorry, its pathetic.

and the thing is i dont care about snowden, do i think he has huge balls for leaking this, yes, but i dont care, he is just a guy who leaked/blew the whistle, i only care about the data.

[MADem]

69. A FOIA was submitted. The info was withheld because they need the permission of the

individual to release it (among other reasons). You really don't know as much about this case as I thought....!

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/edward-snowden-army-file-foia/66480/

Given that Snowden's military service lasted from May to September of 2004, according to the Army spokesman Ackerman spoke with, it's highly unlikely that it is conducting any enforcement action. Alex Abdo, staff attorney at the ACLU's National Security Project, told The Atlantic Wire by phone that the exemptionwas "not inconsistent with our experience" — but generally for those facing enforcement action by the military. The ACLU has seen information withheld under a 7(a) exemption, specifically in a case being investigated by the Army Criminal Investigation Division. Whether or not the Army withheld the information at the behest of the Department of Justice is unclear; a Justice spokesperson declined to comment.

That we know Snowden's period of service raises a question of its own. Under FOIA, the government is supposed to release any information that it possibly can. Clearly, the length of Snowden's enlistment is information that would be included in his personnel file and, therefore, should have been released under our request. "It's not supposed to withhold whole batches of documents just because some of it is withholdable," Abdo told us. "It's suprising that they're withholding everything."

Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, agreed. "If they denied access to the entire record, en masse, I think that's problematic," Fidell told us by phone. He, too, had seen the exemption used in the past, but "not simply for personnel records." Fidell suggested that detailed records, which, for example, might explore a psychiatric condition or stigmatizing discharge, could be withheld under FOIA's sixth exemption. Even Snowden had a right to privacy, Fidell pointed out, ironic though it might be.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/edward-snowden-army-file-foia/66480/

If I had to guess--or place a bet--I'd bet that the bottom right hand corner of his DD214 says something that isn't just your run of the mill discharge code. I'll bet he's RE-4, for starters.

Perhaps the next time Snowden pops his head up, someone could ask him if he authorizes the Army to release his personnel file. Since I'm in a betting mood, I'll bet he'd hem and haw.

[randome]

70. What about the 'broke both my legs' claim. Hasn't that been refuted, too?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MADem]

72. The only one who is saying he broke both his legs is Ed, near as I can tell.

I hope a reporter asks him if he authorizes release of his Army records, and what his discharge code was.

I think we'll learn something from that code.

[Jarla]

86. Someone at the Special Warfare Center & School also said so

A blogger, Jim Hanson, received an email from Deputy Janice Burton in their Office of Strategic Communications stating the following:

Snowden was never a student at SWCS. He broke his legs while at Fort Benning. His intent was to enter the X-ray program – but that never happened and would not have happened because he only had a GED. Hope this helps.

Now this is actually kind of interesting because US army's chief civilian spokesman, George Wright, told the Guardian that Snowden was part of the 18X program.

[MADem]

96. How could someone at the Special Warfare School say he broke his legs if he never attended the

Special Warfare School?

There's an assumption being made that he broke them at Fort Benning...but I don't believe that Deputy was speaking with Snowden's records in front of her. She was speaking to matters of policy. If she's the same Janice Burton as this one http://www.linkedin.com/pub/janice-burton/9/153/19a her portfolio is Public Affairs, and her response could only be characterized as a generic RTQ (response to queries/questions) as opposed to a specific response about a specific recruit, I suspect.

He didn't qualify for the school, so he didn't break his legs there, is how I'm reading it--not that anyone is "certain" that he broke his legs in basic training.

That said, he probably DID break his legs in basic (though I'm at the "Question Everything" point with this story)--what would be interesting is to find out how that happened. Did a bunkbed fall on him, or did he jump off the barracks roof?

And, to ice the cake and further confuse the matter, it could well be the Army let him in without a HS diploma--or his recruiter forged one for him (and he got caught out while in boot camp). Every once in a blue moon, the military changes their standards, particularly if they are having a hard time making quota. And recruiters who are under the gun to put a butt on the bus have been known to forge documents--it happens more often than most realize. So, the young Snowden could have been accepted to the program with 'bad' documentation, and let go (and the recruiter, not the recruit, blamed) from it when it was determined he was ineligible.

[Jarla]

97. True, she may have just been making the assumption about him breaking his legs

That said, he probably DID break his legs in basic (though I'm at the "Question Everything" point with this story)--what would be interesting is to find out how that happened. Did a bunkbed fall on him, or did he jump off the barracks roof?

Maybe during parachute training?

[Monkie]

74. its like birther hot air wack-a-mole with you is it not, you have no actual evidence

this is what the birthers tried to do with obama, those same tactics?
you ask a question, you know there is no evidence or you would actually have lead with the evidence, but you keep popping up with your insinuations and smears, its pathetic.

[Monkie]

73. so just weasel words and might of been's but again nothing concrete

all of this is completely meaningless, but you sure dont mind smearing him with it.

[MADem]

75. The Army wouldn't withhold the information if there weren't "privacy" issues.

You can call that weasel words and might-of-been's, but I call it a REASON. And it's not meaningless--if this guy did have a separation and RE code that suggested he wasn't fit for Army service, that would be a big deal and it would be salient, important, significant.

About the only reason that makes sense in this story, too.

Look at how angry you're getting, trying to deflect the significance of this tidbit of information. Surely you aren't suggesting that if Snowden had a 261 separation code (psychiatric) that you would WANT the Army to release that private information without his permission?

I guess they're damned if they do, damned if they don't--but it's "OK" to "smear" them for respecting the guy's privacy. And it's also OK to "smear" anyone else, for simply discussing the topic. The only one who deserves the Kid Gloves Approach is your Ed.

Gotcha.

[Monkie]

79. as i have said to you and others, i dont care about the man, i hate the birther style tactics

because thats all it is, nothing more.
even if i play your game, and he got discharged because he is fruitier than a fruitloop looped around a loop a million times.
he was hired by the CIA and then by a bunch of contractors to work for the NSA.
so immaterial, because all that matters is
the data he leaked, the order he leaked it in, and the lies told by officials in between the leaks.
clappers lies
muellers lies
obama's lies

this is what you have no answer for, they all lied, they have all backtracked except obama.
and the leaks keep coming.
and each new leak has shown up the offical lie made to excuse the previous lie, thats all that counts.
frame it however you want. but you cant deny the lies.

[MADem]

82. It's not birther style tactics, though--and your crass insinuations that they are is what is wrong

with your argument.

Aside from being personally insulting, your logic is poor.

We know the Army isn't going to charge him for any kind of misconduct. He was given an entry level discharge.

We also know that the Army has withheld his record.

There are only two reasons that the Army would withhold his record.

The first reason is that he's under investigation for misconduct while in the Army. He's been out of the Army on an entry level discharge for nearly ten years--so that ain't it.

The other reason is a "privacy" matter--a separation code and a discharge code that can't be made public without the permission of the individual, because releasing that information will violate the person's privacy.

That's using reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. Now, you can scroll through the separation codes if you'd like, and pick one and make a guess. Knock yourself out. There's no option for "Man of the Year" though.

[Monkie]

87. how does why he was discharged change the lies of obama and clapper and mueller?

well?
even if everything snowden has said, from start to finish, was a lie, we still have the documents he leaked, the lies of those in charge, and a out of control security apparatus that needs to be stopped NOW.
this is exactly what birthers tried to do, attack the man obama for ridicules reasons because they feared arguing policy with him.

[randome]

88. The only thing Snowden has shown evidence of is the collection of phone metadata.

It's a legal warrant and most people don't seem to think of it as a big deal.

Everything else Snowden has said is not backed up by anything. Now if it turns out that he's been lying for most of life about other things, those claims of his won't be believed, either.

He has hurt his own cause.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Monkie]

92. you are lying, you posted yesterday on the threads with the leaks, so its a willful lie

you are the one making a fool of yourself and your cause.
yesterday you posted and quoted from leaked documents that showed much much more

yesterday you posted in the thread, and quoted from the first ever published documents to come from inside the fisa court.
historical, unprecedented, and now you turn around and lie, who are you convincing?
i am losing my patience with you, due to this lie.
please do better, its like arguing with muppets, its a insult to my intelligence and a waste of my time, i said earlier, im trying to have intelligent conversations with people about this, i dont mind that you have a different opinion, but im sick of the lack of quality.

[randome]

94. Maybe you could find better 'quality' debaters at a Tourette's Syndrome Recovery organization?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Monkie]

101. its good to agree with you on something n/t

[MADem]

91. We don't know if what Snowden said is the "truth." We know he believes it is the truth--ardently.

When people in government touted all the great things that the Strategic Defense Initiative was going to do, a lot of them believed--ardently--that they were telling the truth.

But they weren't.

So .... truth is a funny thing. What you believe isn't always what's really happening.

And calling people names doesn't help the situation, so you really need to just stop doing that. You are constantly combative, dismissive, rude, and crude to people, and you seem incapable of having a civil discussion. For this reason, it's very easy to just dismiss what you have to say.

Maybe if you tried speaking like a normal human being, instead of a keyboard warrior on a mouse for a horse, you'd improve your reputation. And people might want to speak with you instead of just tolerating your angry rants and personal insults.

[Monkie]

95. you have the first ever document from inside the FISA process to be leaked

and you go on and on and on with the same stuff, day in day out, never ever actually addressing what its about, constantly smearing the man, and you wonder that i lose my patience with you and some of the other people?
you may not like my tone, but i am very careful in being technically correct with my language, i dont swear.

just look at this latest "missive" of yours, you bring up SDI, a program from what, 30 years ago, when we have a historic leak from within the FISA court system that directly proves obama is a lier, this is not about what snowden said in his little interview, it never has been, we have slides, we have the court opinions, we have program names.

and none of that information has been denied by anyone.
you dont address any of my arguments, what do you expect from me?

you seem perfectly happy to attack snowden and greenwald behind their back with ridicules smears, but cant take it when someone tells you to your face how pathetic that is?

[MADem]

98. You're like a broken record. Anytime you hear anything that causes you cognitive dissonance,

you trot out the "smear" word. Hint--overuse will dull the drama of it all. And you don't have to swear to personally insult people--name calling is disruptive, uncivil and nasty. Stop characterizing people with slurs when you don't agree with them--it's not cool.

Again, this guy believes he's telling the truth. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Maybe his documents are solid, and maybe they aren't.

Just because people don't "deny" things doesn't make it the truth. No one denied that the Canadians were making a movie called Argo in Iran after the revolution. That didn't make it the truth, though. There was no Canadian film company, even though there was a script, and story boards, and articles in the newspaper.

I think for myself -- I don't need you nor Greenwald to tell me what to believe, but you certainly get piqued when I refuse to follow your preferred script. And refusing to take what stinks like crap at face value isn't "attacking" (another tiresome, schoolyard word, used by people who are on the losing end of a discussion) -- it's applying, and even withholding--judgment for the time being. So just get over yourself, and ease back on the throttle. You're doing the opposite of Making a Sale with your attitude and "ridiculous, pathetic" (your whining, loaded words) snark.

[davidpdx]

35. I'm glad this is being talk about

It is going to be hard to get very much information with what is going on right now. This is going to take weeks or months to finally get the full story. We clearly only got part of the story when this saga started. The other end of the candle is burning now.

[NightWatcher]

36. The CIA often had USIS do their SSBI's (orig inv)

I even saw NASA send a few for their background checks to the contractor.

The thing is, it didn't appear to be outsourced. I carried creds that said I was OPM. All the other contractors carried agency creds. It's really quite a mess.

[MADem]

17. Who signed off on that, I wonder? I'll bet they're packing up cardboard boxes and taking their

mug out of the coffee mess already....key paragraphs (these guys have been "trouble" for a year and a half, at least)...

McFarland declined to say what triggered the inquiry of USIS or whether the probe is related to Snowden. But when asked by Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., if there were any concerns about the USIS background check on Snowden, McFarland answered: “Yes, we do believe that there may be some problems.”....USIS, based in Falls Church, Va., said in a statement that it has never been informed that it is under criminal investigation. USIS received a subpoena from the inspector general’s office in January 2012 for records, the statement said. “USIS complied with that subpoena and has cooperated fully with the government’s civil investigative efforts,” according to the company.

USIS declined to comment on whether it conducted a background investigation of Snowden. The company said it performs thousands of background investigations each year for OPM and other government agencies. “These investigations are confidential and USIS does not comment on them,” the USIS statement said.

The background check USIS performed on Snowden was done in 2011 and was part of periodic reinvestigations that are required for employees who hold security clearances, according to McFarland and Michelle Schmitz, the assistant inspector general for investigations at OPM.


....At the hearing, McFarland called for much closer oversight of the investigators who conduct background checks. He said that 18 background investigators and record searchers have been criminally convicted since 2006 for fabricating information in background reports.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/watchdog-says-contractor-that-performed-background-check-of-nsa-leaker-under-investigation/2013/06/20/b91c9322-da10-11e2-b418-9dfa095e125d_story_1.html


So, the people who were supposed to do the checking "gundecked" the reports! PRICELESS...

[randome]

37. Why would they fabricate information? Payoffs?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MADem]

64. Laziness. Prejudice.

Rather than do the work, which is dull, boring, grinding, consisting of interviews and phone calls and a lot of farting around, instead, go to the bar, slam down drinks and watch TV, have a look at the guy's paperwork, tell yourself it sounds plausible...plus, he's white, from America, with a name like "Ed Snowden" AND his parents work for the gubmint!

Why, he MUST be "OK." Nothing to see here! Check that block, get credit for another "quota."

NEXT!

I think we're going to have another Walker scandal blowback after this. Hell, everyone I worked with had their clearances stripped and had to start the process anew. It was a pain in the ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker

[randome]

65. I guess that's more likely. When the work gets too dull and routine, they take shortcuts.

The personnel involved and their supervisors should be held to account for this. And you're right, I bet the entire process from top to bottom will be reviewed and re-reviewed.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MADem]

76. If I were still working, I'd be pre-emptively updating my SF 86.

At least now you can do that by computer. First time I did it, it was with a black pen.

What a pain!

[randome]

77. When I worked for SSA back in '81, we filled out SSN request cards by pencil.

Ran them through the card reader. I had 40 bulky manuals of rules and regulations to adhere to.

Those were interesting days.

It's somewhat odd to see posters thinking they've found a 'gotcha' moment in the maze of regulations that are part of any federal agency and most corporations.

"Obviously the NSA is breaking the law because here is the regulation that allows it!"

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[JI7]

20. this is the real scandal

[uponit7771]

44. +1

[railsback]

22. Since the DU has tin-foiled itself, here's my 2 cents:

Snowden was a plant meant to embarrass Obama, and he's probably packing a lot of sensitive material to bargain with. Wiki has the Hero jet waiting on the tarmac, ready to fly the libertarian to Iceland… who seem to be getting more hesitant as more info comes to light. Will he do the Von Ryan Express futile chase after the jet as it speeds away? Stay tuned!

[Egalitarian Thug]

90. Price Gouging! n/t

[kitt6]

29. If you don't arrest scoundrels;

they'll just come back.

[Scurrilous]

41. Thanks!

[WillyT]

42. K & R !!!

[DallasNE]

45. How Did Snowden Land A Job At CIA?

I wouldn't think someone with a GED could do more than scrub the floors at CIA. So I think we need to see how corners got cut at CIA in order from them to hire Snowden. Did his dad pull strings, for instance. Snowden only worked his current job for 3 months so it makes one wonder if he was some kind of mole all along. Who, then, was his sponsor?

[DevonRex]

46. That is the BIG QUESTION. And CIA cleared Snowden for TS/SCI material.

USIS just did the periodic updates that all cleared personnel have to have done. Those are nothing much. Just what's happened in the last 2 years. The initial ones by the agencies themselves are the devil.

[NightWatcher]

47. How do you know USIS never did the initial?

I worked for them and did mostly new investigations, even for some big deal agencies.

[DevonRex]

50. It's what I have seen happen. And from the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/watchdog-says-contractor-that-performed-background-check-of-nsa-leaker-under-investigation/2013/06/20/b91c9322-da10-11e2-b418-9dfa095e125d_story_1.html

"The background check USIS performed on Snowden was done in 2011 and was part of periodic reinvestigations that are required for employees who hold security clearances, according to McFarland and Michelle Schmitz, the assistant inspector general for investigations at OPM.

Snowden worked previously at the CIA and probably obtained his security clearance there. But like others who leave the government to join private contractors, he was able to keep his clearance after he left and began working for outside firms."


http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20120401/PERSONNEL01/204010303/Agencies-balk-costly-OPM-background-checks
"Some agencies — including the CIA, FBI and State Department — already have authority to do their own background checks. Officials at some of those agencies told GAO they can save as much as $1,500 on OPM's price for a top-secret clearance inquiry by hiring a contractor directly. OPM's price has risen by one-third since 2005, according to the report."

[DallasNE]

63. I Read An Article That Said

Snowden was only employed at Booz Allen for 3 months so a 2011 date would be with a prior employer, perhaps the CIA.

But why would Snowden not pass a background check. There was nothing in his prior record that I see that would disqualify him. Giving money to Ron Paul sure wouldn't. I'm more concerned about his lack of standing to even be considered for a job at CIA and whether he had a sponsor that allowed corners to be cut.

[MADem]

71. You flunk background checks if you lie, of course.

I went to this college (when you didn't) will get you in trouble. I made this much money (when you didn't)--same deal. I worked at this place from this date to that date (when it's not true) -- big problem. Forgetting to mention countries you visited...OOOPS! That's a huge bozo no-no!

You have to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the excruciating truth when filling out the paperwork.

Of course, if no one actually verifies the information on the paperwork, you're home free!

Next time old Ed pops his head up for another web chat, someone should ask him if he had a sponsor at CIA, and if that sponsor trained him in deep cover, double agent and false flag activities!

[DallasNE]

84. ??????????

I can see where an employer would check out the details on the resume', even before starting the security clearance process. Even more so with an organization like the CIA. Material mistakes there would doom the application. When it comes to the actual background check I would think they would check with the State Department for Passport data, making it a big problem for an omission if that is the case (I've seen nothing on this either way). What I had in mind for passing the background check was criminal background, activities involved with, background of associates, bankruptcy filings and so forth and nothing has been reported yet would indicate a problem there. Since there is now an investigation open it is likely that he has fudged something and it was not caught (my cutting corners due to having a sponsor -- which would be a corruption issue). Let this play out.

As far as I can tell your last paragraph is just some kind of cheap shot. Allow me to not respond in kind.

[MADem]

89. Excuse me, you just aren't talking from a place of knowledge, here.

The background check is run AGAINST the material provided on the SF-86. That material isn't just criminal record and travel background, it's foreign friends and relatives, it's what your education was, it's "Were you in the military, for how long, and what was the characterization of your discharge," and a host of other stuff. Go look at the form--everything on it is subject to exhaustive scrutiny. You have to name all your family members, a "friend" at every place you've lived, three more friends who know you well but who aren't "spouse or spouse-like"--it is a hair-tearing exercise. It also includes a medical release--and with electronic record keeping, it's easy to find which doctor a person visited...no more relying on "self-reporting" for that stuff.

However, if his first iteration of his SF-86 wasn't ever checked, and a discrepancy came up in his next investigation, they'd very possibly go back and have a look and start a house of cards tumbling.

If this guy managed to slide by--and have a sponsor at CIA, as YOU, not me--YOU--suggested, my last paragraph is entirely apropos to YOUR supposition.

Your words: I'm more concerned about his lack of standing to even be considered for a job at CIA and whether he had a sponsor that allowed corners to be cut.

[DallasNE]

103. You Just Like To Argue, Don't You

And talking down to people. I was providing a flavor for things that would be checked with no attempt for it to be a full laundry list when I said "criminal background, activities involved with, background of associates, bankruptcy filings and so forth". That would obviously include references (family and otherwise), military service and such. (How is that different than your "host of other stuff)? The only real surprise on the SF-86 was the Selective Service registration number since the question is somewhat moot following the end of the draft. If this was 11 years ago there were two questions I would have needed clarification on. One, I would have been very freshly divorced so I would have needed clarification on whether it was necessary to list data on mother/father-in-law. Two, a former employer in the 7 year window went bankrupt about 18 months after I left and was dissolved with everybody going their own separate way so I could not have provided very much in the way of data on that employer at that time. (Indeed, it was anticipation of this that motivated me and others to leave).

I still say the SF-86 process shouldn't even begin until the perspective employer had verified all prior employment, education attained, level of security and whether there had been any issues related to security because it would be a waste of money if anything on the resume' caused the employer not to move forward with a hiring. Yes, the security people would then want to talk to associates at recent employers and schools. That goes without saying.

By the way, the friend at every place you've lived has a 3 year window so it is not really "every place" as you state.

And, yes, the problems with Snowden pre-dates his employment at Booz Allen. How could someone with a GED and a couple of technical classes even have made it in the front door of the CIA. That still needs to be explained because it smells of corners being cut in some manner. Since an official investigation is now under way I may not be as far off base as you seem to think. Now argue away and tell me how dumb I am again.

[MADem]

104. Look, the doggone SF-86 is the basis for the BC.

I'm not "talking down" and I don't especially like to argue, I've just been through this stuff before and those are just the facts. We aren't talking about his first dance with this document, this is the renewal--the 2nd go-round after the seven year period is up.

See, if you have a valid (within seven years) SF-86 on file, there's no NEED to check your old bona fides, because your last employer, a government agency, has already done that. All the new employer needs to do is get the hand-off from the last employer, and then start working up their own shit, assuming the employment is reasonably continuous. At least, that's the way it's always been done in the past.

Mister Snowden tripped a wire at personnel--maybe they paid people with Master's degrees more, so he thought he could fib about that, or maybe he forgot a lie he tossed on his old SF-86.

I think they need to go all the way back to the beginning, and find the documents that would have accompanied his enlistment packet. Remember, that enlistment would have triggered an ENTNAC (entrance National Agency Check--very cursory) and when he shipped off to boot camp, given his supposed trajectory, they would have started in on the NAC. Maybe, because he left boot camp, the NAC was never completed, or maybe it was, sloppily, and no one bagged him for any discrepancies in his record or even noticed them. Why bother? He was out the door, no longer an issue. But again-- he would have been IN THE SYSTEM.

As for those supporting documents, these should be on file in either St Louis or Overland, MO, depending on where USA keeps their shit for entry level separations. They're probably stored in digital format as well as a paper archive, but if it was done right, there should be supporting documents in there that accompanied him throughout his journey through Army recruiting, to MEPS, to boot camp. There very well might be a fake high school diploma in that packet, and / or a faked college transcript giving him that GED.

This happens all too often--every year, dozens of recruiters do this, and they try to sneak these people with faked paperwork in on the busiest shipping/physical days at the MEPS, because everyone is overworked and they hope that no one will examine the paperwork too closely. If he joined the Army on the 29th, 30th, or 31st of the month, I can almost guarantee he's got some squirrelly shit in his record, particularly if he was an all in the same month ASVAB, physical and ship.

I know more about this shit than I should, because many years ago, I had to serve as a PIO in a courts martial case that involved dozens of recruiters in a single command, shipping dozens of unqualified recruits over more than a year using phony documents--including faked green cards. I saw some quality forgeries--impressive stuff.

If you fail to register for the draft, it's a crime. It has nothing to do with there being a draft, it's more about having a record of people to call up. Three quarters of the draft-age population is too unfit to serve, anyway, but if we went to World War Three, they'd take 'em and whip 'em into shape.

I can answer your questions about your in-laws. If you have children, I would definitely list them--they are the grandparents, and you'd be welded to them for life through that connection unless they hated the kids. If it was a painless divorce and you barely knew them, you could leave them off. If you didn't like the spouse, but liked the in-laws and wanted to stay in touch with them, you list them. As for the employer, you just do the best you can with his last known address. That's all you can do.

[Rex]

48. Wow we really are out of control

How is that unregulated capitalism working out for ya bra!? I am sure this will mean nothing to the Wall Street worshipers.

Might as well outsource our brains.

[DevonRex]

51. No, it's much more scary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058698#post50

That's just my post above yours. I hate it when people say go look at post #whatever.

Anyway, unless USIS lost their original background check, all they did was the 2011 update. He'd had TS/SI clearance for a number of years before then. This is still a CIA problem and we'd better figure it out now.

ETA: check out the costs in my second article above. USIS is expensive too.

[Rex]

52. I agree with what you said last week

I think there is a mole in the CIA helping out the Chinese. I just have a hard time believing this was a mess up via paper work...ie...an honest mistake.

Yeah in all seriousness, this is very SCARY...people need to realize it ain't even the CIA anymore! It is faceless contractors with private firms, that really have no business or training in the field. Or it sure seems that way after the revelation of how easy it is to be a spy in America.

Have a GED and no experience in the intel community!? NO PROB...have we got a job for you!

[sabrina 1]

68. Lol, and they want us to trust these Mega Corporations with our privacy?? I am not in the least

bit surprised. I even asked the question as to whether or not our Intelligence is being outsourced by these Corporations and that this is why they are so upset over the leaks and calls for hearings. It sure blows the idea that they are worried about our 'security' and 'terrorists'. Any run of the mill terrorist could probably get the job if they are willing to take little enough money for it.

Now, is it time to stop the privatization of our Government? Or does anyone care? Maybe we all should stop bucking the system and just get in on all that money the government pays these Private Security Corporations??
'

[malaise]

78. Was it deliberate?

How many others - for profit national security - WTF????

[bowens43]

102. So?

[flt rsk]

105. background

I worked for Defense Security Service (DSS) the agency that was taken over by OPM. Most of the trained investigators left as soon as they could. From the first day, it was obvious that OPM did not care about national security. They opened an all hands meeting by telling the investigators that they were the cash cow. OPM does not get a budget from congress for investigations. They charge a fee for service from the agencies that need some cleared. During the “best ways” meeting with the agents from DSS they pretty much said it’s our way or the highway.

DSS agents were highly trained in interview techniques, verbal and body language signs to look for that might indicator issues. Agents were trained to investigate cases involving military, economic, and computer espionage, alcohol and drug abuse, physical and sexual abuse, and falsification…in general, any issue that might cause an applicant to work against the best interest of the United States. The General and the Private, the CEO and the janitor were asked the same questions about alcohol, sex, drugs, and finances. No matter what your background was, you attended a three-week school where you learned how to deal with all types of people that you might have to interview. Between school, learning the rules and regulations, and on the job training with several different senior agents, it was six months to a year before a new agent was allowed to work alone. OPM put agents on the street after two weeks of DOS computer training. I understand that has changed since I left.

Someone from USIS performed my last background investigation. Afterwards, he reported to my boss that I had called him an idiot. The boss agreed.

This is my first post. Sorry for the rant. I loved my job and I was good at it.