Another letter full of bullshit...

Quote:


I didn't plead the the 5th.  I am not guilty of anything.  You are correct that this an integrity issue.  I am proud of my decision not to be sexually harassed by the government a second time.

Onesimus wrote on Mar 25^th, 2006 at 9:07am:


You did, essentially, plead the fifth because you were not CANDID and UPFRONT with the information requested. As I said, whether you are guilty of anything here is not the issue. The issue is your lack of candor and your lack of willingness to talke about the issues. WHen requeting a clearance of this level an applicant should be willing to discuss anything about himself.  That lack of willingness is,all by itself, an indication that a person's chracter may be flawed. I'll say it again. It's not that you are guilty of whatever behavior you're refusing to discuss, it's your unwillingness to discuss it that is the concern. If you are at such a point in your life where you feel that further discussion of any topic in your life is just not worth it to you, then you basically have denied your own clearance. If I go to a job intereview and refuse to discuss my work history, I'm not getting the job, period. That's my choice in that case, not the empoyer's. Just from what I've read on this forum, I can see that you do seem to have a constitutional inability to own what is yours without blaming it on something else. Perhaps its not an inability, just a strong unwillingness, I don't know. Either way, I'd say that is probably related to your troubles with the clearance rather than whatever it is that you refuse to discuss. The author of this wesbite has a worthy cause in his arguments against the reliablity of polygraphs. Unlike him, you have a political cause against being forced to discuss aspects of your private life when requesting a highly top secret clearance. Your cause is just plain bullshit and will go nowhere because you're working against the government being able to use basic indicators of integrity, namely honesty and candor. This forum is not an apporpriate host of your arguments. I agree with a previous poster when he said you make a mockery of this website.

quickfix wrote on Mar 25^th, 2006 at 5:38pm:


What are you folks on? Playing checkers online with a young girl is a red flag? Good lord, that says much more about you than it does about Onesimus. What we're seeing here is projection - you're projecting your fears and self-suspicions on someone else.

I don't play online checkers, but when I was younger (around 14), I played online chess frequently, as I had participated in and won several junior league chess competitions. I played guys and girls ranging in age from 13 - 70! Is every adult I played with suddenly a pedophile or pederast? How callous of you to assume so!

As for the legal jargon you're throwing around, it's clear none of you know what you're talking about. One does not "plead the fifth" in a bloody employment application. 

The relevant language is no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" - I assure you no court has or will ever construe this to apply to an pre-employment context. In other words, leaving stuff out of your application, or simply refusing to discuss a matter may open you up to employment bars or some statutory penalty - but the Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with it.

Finally, Onesimus' case, I suspect, is much more complicated than we - possibly he - knows. All we have are a few alarming letters (one actually conceding (!) misconduct on the part of the examiner!) and the story. Attacking Onesimus like vultures is really unjustified and unhelpful. Do not be so quick to judge.

A bit much?  Go ask that 13 year-old girl's father if HE thinks it's a bit much.

The issue has NOTHING to do with playing online checkers with a 13 year old. NOTHING......Nada........zilch. My last post explained what the issue is. It's quite simple. Even a simple-mind can understand it. Get it? Probably not, because the last several posters seem stuick on talking about online checkers.....dont ask me why. As for Antrella:   Antrella didn't make any 'points' at all....antrella attempted to divert the issue by making an implication that the applicant was refused a clearance because he played online checkers with a 13 year old. Sorry, Andrella, that's not why. He was denied because he flatly refused to discuss details of his life with security investigators. When you do this, you don't get a clearance. Period. The blame goes back to THAT behavior on the part of the applicant, because the applicant made the conscious decision to refuse to cooperate.  Let's see if you can stay on point.  And as a sidenote, I don't believe that playing online checkers with a 13 year old has any negative connotations. If that's all there is to that story. But when you refuse to discuss it, you leave the mind wondering. When you apply for a clearance, you consent to investigation of all aspects of your life....refusing to discuss details means you are not entitled to the priviledge of gaining access to classified national security information. So if you want to talk about logic, use logic and dont feed into drama. Oh and I never said he ACTUALLY plead the 5th. I said what he did ESSENTIALLY amounted to it. Again, see if you can stay on point. I know its difficult for you, but do try. You don't seem to understand how access to national security information works. It's not like filling out any old 'employment application' (in fact, this discussion is not about an employment application, it's about a top secret SCI clearance, so please try to follow along) It's agreement to a complete and detailed investigation of your life. You don't have to consent to it, but the government doesn't have to grant you access to the information. And when you sit there and tell investigators that "you're not going to discuss" certain aspects that they want to discuss, guess what antrella? You ain't gettin the clearance. Why? Lack of candor.....which is clearly spelled out in the policy. See, if you knew anything about the policy, you'd know this. But instead you come here and show your ignorance and try to give us lectures on the 5th amendment....which has nothinhg to do with this at all, other than when I used it as an ANALOGY. PS: You need a JD and a law license to teach law. Please stick to whatever it is you are trained to do, because no legal mind would ever make the stupid arguments you've made relative to this thread.

Quote:


Well, at least Antrella knows what a paragraph is.  On a serious note, Pentafed or Quickfix can you offer a guess on how accurate you feel screening polygraphs are?

Mea Culpa.  It was difficult to follow your post in the manner you presented it. I do agree with you on the lack of cooperation issue regarding Onesimus.  

In all sincerity I did read through your old posts before posting my statement.  I had to read through it again before I found the references to supporting Mr. Maschke.  It really wasn't clear to a casual observer.

Ever since Retcopper on another thread posted his thoughts on screening polygraphs, I've been curious on what supporters of polygraphs feel about its utility and accuracy.  Since I now know how you feel about screening polygraphs this question really isn't directed to you.