Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Bridget Johnson


September 18, 2013 - 7:33 am

In what’s likely going to be the most bipartisan legislative fallout from Monday’s Navy Yard shooting, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Congress is going to investigate who’s cutting what corners on background checks for security clearances.

Shooter Aaron Alexis had a security clearance from his time in the Navy reserves that he took into the private sector as an IT contractor. The Hewlett-Packard subcontractor Alexis worked for, The Experts, said a background check by another contractor turned up just a traffic violation — not any of Alexis’ gun-related arrests.

“It appears that there was insufficient vetting by the contractor, but if it had been done would have revealed many of the red flags — the arrests, the trouble with police, the trouble in the Navy — that should have led to this individual being denied a security clearance altogether,” Collins said on CNN this morning.

She noted that for many year the Office of Personnel Management conducted background checks for security clearances.

“It’s contracted out primarily because OPM had a huge backlog that it was not working through, but I think we need to ask some very serious questions about whether contractors are taking shortcuts that have led to people with criminal records, with serious mental illness, or who are otherwise unsuited for security clearances, nevertheless being granted them, and being granted them for a period as long as five to 10 years,” the senator said.

The Navy’s apparent inaction on an Aug. 7 Newport, R.I., police report about Alexis’ paranoid delusions is “truly inexplicable,” she added.

“For the Navy to have received a call that indicates that an individual with unfettered access to a Navy base clearly is suffering from a serious mental illness and not immediately revoke his security clearance until they can assure that he does not pose a threat to others and himself, is simply inexcusable,” Collins said.

“I’m confident that Congress is going to put the security of those individuals who work at military installations and our national security first. I don’t think that private contractors are going to be able to stop necessary reforms. And, indeed, I think that most private companies want to ensure that the employees they are hiring are suitable and do not pose a threat to our national security or to other employees of the firm.”

The first step, Collins said, is a “thorough congressional investigation.”

“I’m hopeful that the Intelligence Committee will expand the work that we’re already doing to learn how Edward Snowden was able to get such a high security clearance, and I’ve also talked to the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Office of Personnel Management, and encouraged that committee to take a look at whether too much of this work is being contracted out,” she said.

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (2)
All Comments   (2)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Based on the track records of the NSA, EPA, DHS and IRS, I don't think that government bureaucrats would do any better of a job and would likely do a worse job.

Maybe the answer is to take a more critical look at what situations really require a "super secret decoder ring" and what is just a government agency that likes to feel cool and important. These guys just seem to adore mission creep with all it's bells and whistles including their own armed SWAT teams and MiB's.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why do people keep conflating security clearance with base access. A security clearance gives a person access to a level of classified information based on their need to know. Base clearance is generally governed simply by need for access, i.e., being employed on the base, legitimate visitor, etc. One can have base access without any security clearance and one can have the highest security clearance but no base access. Although the latter would probably be rare since possession of the clearance would indicate employment that most likely justifies base access.

This guy had a 'secret" clearance, which is nothing in classified info world. It is little more than running the person's name through the databases. It won't turn up anything that isn't in those databases, unlike a "top secret" where they actually go out an interview neighbors, etc.

In any case, the information is collected and then a government employee who is authorized to adjudicate clearance requests makes the determination. So if the contractors aren't doing all the work, it is a contract issue. Namely, some Congressperson or Senator's buddy is going to have to call on them to quietly quash the contracting officer's move to cancel their contract for investigative services.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All