This year, we have witnessed problems with security clearances for high-ranking executive officials in our government. I cannot recall that this situation has existed before. Normally, presidential appointees are granted clearances and no one questions the process or the results. We have recently watched as clearances have been questioned for a National Security Advisor who had historically had a clearance and for a high-ranking presidential advisor.
It may be worthwhile to start at the top. It seems to me that anyone who is elected President of the United States has what I would call a “presumptive clearance.” There is little point in going through a full vetting process, since a President cannot function without access to all the classified information
that he or she and presidential advisors deem necessary. It matters not that presidential critics may hint at potential adverse information that might disqualify another individual. By reasonable extension, I assume that the same argument might apply to the Vice President.
It is true that cabinet members and other advisors require clearances in order to perform their duties. However, recent events make me nervous about performing less than thorough vetting of these officials. Many of them may have experienced a complete background investigation in connection with former offices. This is certainly true of those current advisors who have held high-ranking military office. All that they might require is an update.
However, it appears to be wise to subject those without prior Top Secret clearance to a full field investigation. It is not enough that the President vouches for them. As we have already seen, presidents can make mistakes in this arena. Such investigations are both expensive and time-consuming. However, they are routinely required of lessor mortals who are appointed to positions of responsibility requiring access to Top Secret information.
Some individuals have found it necessary to file multiple copies of the form that must be submitted by all candidates for a clearance. The reasons that have been offered I find unconvincing. “I forgot those events that should have been included.” “My administrative assistant sent it in without my knowledge.” “The SF86 is very complicated.”
Over the years, I submitted many such documents. Those of us with certain kinds of clearances were required to undergo regular updates in addition to the original investigation. Of course, I had the advantage of having an original document to work with and update. My memory didn’t have to be that long. I didn’t really find the form to be that complicated. One also should be aware of the assistance provided by modern technology. Just Google SF86 and follow the instructions provided.
In fairness, I will admit that most of us do not have as many pertinent events to remember as do the movers and shakers in the world of high finance. They have many more foreign contacts to list, but surely someone must be keeping track of their calendars and the participants in their meetings.
Finally, blaming one’s lapses on the questionnaire on an administrative assistant won’t wash at all. The AA is not requesting a clearance. The requester must sign the form and thus accepts all responsibility for its contents and omissions.
In the case in question, enough potentially adverse information has been revealed through the corrected forms to warrant, at the very least, a suspension of the individual’s clearance pending a full and complete investigation. I suspect that such information would have been sufficient for an outright denial of a clearance in my case and that of almost anyone else.
It is a sign of the times that we can no longer assume that “important people” are worthy of access to classified information. Well, perhaps that is not true. We just did know about our problems before.