Rejection letter

[Onesimus]

There's a lot that I could comment on since my last post, but I'll just make this quick with a couple points of clarification.

on checkers --  I don't believe they are accusing me of not being candid on this issue.  Again, it was said in the context of things that are not serious crimes, not crimes at all, but things that someone could possibly view in a bad light.  There were 0 questions I didn't answer regarding my checkers game.  I believe the only thing I was really asked was whether or not sex was involved.  I truthfully denied that sex was involved, and the interrogator moved on.

on my work with the Junior High youth group at my previous Church --  You can read the apology letter for yourself -- the questions asked to me were not appropriate.  Furthermore, one of the parents of the Junior High kids is on my SF86.  Furthermore, my polygrapher claimed to have read the account I posted on this website of what happened to me back in 2003 with the previous agency.  Furthermore, when I went above and beyond and mentioned some of the inappropriate questions that were asked to me, my polygrapher agreed with me that they were not appropriate.

The case for my lack of candor is almost non-existent.  I wouldn't be surprised if the adjudicator went after me harder than the NSA polygraph division's technical director would have expected.

[George W. Maschke]

PentaFed,

You wrote to Onesimus, among other things, the following:

...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.

For the record I strongly disagree. I do not believe that Onesimus has made a mockery of this website, nor do I believe that his posting here has in any way been inappropriate.

You also seem to suggest that there is no such thing as an inappropriate question when it comes to background investigations, arguing that "When requesting a clearance of this level an applicant should be willing to discuss anything about himself." However, in an apology letter to Onesimus, Stephen J. MacKellar, the Clearance Division chief of a major intelligence agency, conceded in writing that Onesimus had in fact been asked inappropriate questions.

It appears to me that you may have made a snap judgment about Onesimus without being fully aware of what he has posted previously on this website. Having read all his posts from the beginning (almost three years ago), it seems evident to me that the NSA's denial of his security clearance was retaliatory in nature (at least in part for his exercise of his First Amendment rights on this message board and candor regarding his skepticism about polygraphy) and not based on genuine national security concerns.

[PentaFed]

I read the apology letter. However, it doesn't go into any details at all regarding which inappropriate questions were asked. But I do stand firm in my opinion that the person sealed his own fate to a large degree when he simply refused to any questions about the time period in question. From reading that letter, one can only conclude that the reviewing authority didn't think the inappaoripriate questions were enough to invalidate the entire clearance process. I'm not commenting here on anything in the pplicants background, except to comment on his decision to not cooperate. If he had issues with what was being requested he should have complied and THEN made his complaints. He wasn't asked to jump off a bridge at high noon. He was asked to discuss certain aspects of his life. While I respect you and your efforts, I don't think you're expecting everyone to simply read this website and accept everything that people post here without being challenged at all, do you? In the unlikely event that you are, your desire is for nothing more than a propaganda board. We all have things in our background that we would "rather not discuss" and depending on the age of the person the more they may not want to discuss. That's reality. But in a security investigation of this level a person must be expected to answer just about anything. That's not to say that those answers should be held against an invidivual. Quite the contrary, it's the honesty and candor that are being sought in most cases. But when the candor is lacking, the baseline of a person's character is at issue.

[PentaFed]

The case for my lack of candor is almost non-existent.  I wouldn't be surprised if the adjudicator went after me harder than the NSA polygraph division's technical director would have expected.

Did you not say you didn't want to discuss things in your interview? Are you saying that the letter you posted is filled with lies? What did you tell them you wouldn't discuss? Are you here to dispute the validty of polygraphs (an issue worthy of dispute) or are you here to indict the integrity of the officials conducting the clearance prcoess? I'm trying to focus on the actual point you're trying to make, but it's difficult. The validity of polygraphs is questionable. But there are still people who shouldn't be qualified to access national security information. Based on what I've read, I'm not convinced you aren't one of those people. I'm not saying you are one of those people. However, your behavior during the security processing doesn't bolster your case. And that's the ONLY aspect of your tale that I'm questioning here. I'm basing my opinion on what i've read here and not on speculation about a conspiracy to deny a clearance based on a bias. (ie retaliation for exercising your First Amendment rights)  I don't see enough evidence to reach that conclusion. I do see enough evidence to question the applicants judgement in refusing to discuss certain issues. (according to what the letter says) I mean, you weakend your case dramatically when you didn't follow-through with what was requested before being denied.

[PentaFed]

Onesimus,

I want to pose two questions to you, as a sidenote to this dicusswion:

1) Do you believe you used good judgement in engaging in any type of interactive internet activity with a 13 year old girl?  Notice that I'm not saying or implying you did anything wrong or illegal. The question speaks only to your judgement. I want to reiterate that I don't believe this to be valid reason to deny a clearance, if that's all it was limited to. However, I don't believe, personally, that it's good judgment to do this, given what we know about the ways child predators operate today.

2) Do you think you used good judgement in telling investigators that you don't wish to discuss the issues they were inquiring about?

These questions are posed at face-value. There is no hidden implication in this questions except to ask you if you believe your 'judgement' may have been off in certain situations.

[Onesimus]

1) Yes.  However, the question should probably have been worded, "Do you feel you exercised good judgment in not immediately abandoning your game upon finding out your opponent was 13 years old."

2) Yes.  


There appear to be some semantic issues here.  You suggest that it is not wrong to interact with a 13 year old girl, but it is an exercise of bad judgment.  I am not sure what difference you are trying to highlight with these statements.  For the purposes of the questions I pose below, "inappropriate" basically means something for which a government agency could, at least in part, deny someone's clearance based on.


Questions for you:

1)      Is all interaction between someone >= 18 with someone < 18 inappropriate?

2)      Is all interaction on the internet between someone >= 18 with someone < 18 inappropriate?

3)      During a polygraph exam, if someone admits to interacting with someone <= 18, is it fair for the government to assume the interaction was inappropriate even when the examinee denies any wrongdoing?

4)      Are you sure that no one <= 18 visits/posts on this website or any other website you have been to?

5)      Do you believe there is a significant number of technically savvy recent college graduates who have never had any contact on the internet with anyone <= 18 after they turned 18?

6)      How is our national security dependent on the government knowing the bra sizes of the Junior High students at my last Church?

7)      How is our national security dependent on whether or not "I like shaved tail"?

8 )       How is our national security dependent upon an adjudicator trying to convince me that the youth group girls were sluts trying to have sex with older men?

[Onesimus]

I read the apology letter. However, it doesn't go into any details at all regarding which inappropriate questions were asked.

Nevertheless it appears the government does realize there are limits to how it can treat its citizens.

But I do stand firm in my opinion that the person sealed his own fate to a large degree when he simply refused to any questions about the time period in question.

I agree, but that doesn't mean what I did was wrong.  Standing up for oneself is a good thing.

From reading that letter, one can only conclude that the reviewing authority didn't think the inappaoripriate questions were enough to invalidate the entire clearance process.

This letter was from an earlier agency, which did grant my clearance.

I'm not commenting here on anything in the pplicants background, except to comment on his decision to not cooperate. If he had issues with what was being requested he should have complied and THEN made his complaints. He wasn't asked to jump off a bridge at high noon.  He was asked to discuss certain aspects of his life.

How many times do I need to repeat this -- The only questions I didn't answer were ones which the government agreed were not appropriate to ask.

While I respect you and your efforts, I don't think you're expecting everyone to simply read this website and accept everything that people post here without being challenged at all, do you?  In the unlikely event that you are, your desire is for nothing more than a propaganda board.

Nope

We all have things in our background that we would "rather not discuss" and depending on the age of the person the more they may not want to discuss. That's reality. But in a security investigation of this level a person must be expected to answer just about anything.

Again, the posted apology letter shows that our government does not agree with you on this point.

That's not to say that those answers should be held against an invidivual. Quite the contrary, it's the honesty and candor that are being sought in most cases. But when the candor is lacking, the baseline of a person's character is at issue.

I am proud that I refused to discuss certain issues a second time, and wish I was strong enough to have not discussed them the first time.

[Onesimus]

Are you here to dispute the validty of polygraphs (an issue worthy of dispute)

If by "valid" you mean "detects lies", there is little room for dispute.  Even NSA polygraph division's technical director agrees it does not detect lies.

or are you here to indict the integrity of the officials conducting the clearance prcoess?

There are definitely serious issues with the integrity of many officialls conducting the clearance process.

I'm trying to focus on the actual point you're trying to make, but it's difficult.

I'm not trying to make just one point.  Unfortunately, there are many problems with our intelligence agencies.

The validity of polygraphs is questionable. But there are still people who shouldn't be qualified to access national security information. Based on what I've read, I'm not convinced you aren't one of those people.

It's doubtfull anyone on this message board can definitively know whether or not I deserve a clearance, but, as the letter states, I've already received two of them.

I'm not saying you are one of those people. However, your behavior during the security processing doesn't bolster your case.

I just hope there are plenty of others who disagree with you and will join me in speaking out against government sponsored sexual harassment of  applicants.

And that's the ONLY aspect of your tale that I'm questioning here. I'm basing my opinion on what i've read here and not on speculation about a conspiracy to deny a clearance based on a bias. (ie retaliation for exercising your First Amendment rights)  I don't see enough evidence to reach that conclusion. I do see enough evidence to question the applicants judgement in refusing to discuss certain issues. (according to what the letter says) I mean, you weakend your case dramatically when you didn't follow-through with what was requested before being denied.

[Onesimus]

And drivel seems typical of yours.  Onesimus calls it playing checkers;  LE calls it trolling for naive underage girls.  That's why he refused to discuss it.  How gullible you are.

Quickfix,

This may come as a shock to you, but a significant portion of cleared technical workers are avid gamers.  They brag about the computer they built for themselves and how many frames per second they get on game XXX.  And then they talk about playing games online.  You know who else likes to play games online?  -- kids!!  I guess, in your world view, a significant portion of cleared technical workers go home at night and troll for naive underage girls/boys.

[Twoblock]

Onesimus

The polygrapher asked you the bra sizes of early teen girls in your church??? What a pervert. That was certainly inappropriate and he should be held accountable in a court of law. He's a sicko. I would have told him to get his jollies elsewhere. I am suspect of any who upholds his tactics.

When I was kid in a small farm country community, the old timers played checkers and dominos in the back of the general store. They could see my interest in learning the games and quite often, after the game ended, would take time to teach me. They were heros in my book for taking an interest in me. And, yes, there were times when there was just me and an old gentleman in the back room together. (I finally reached the age when I could chew Brown Mule with them and not get sick). Anyone wanting to read anything but checkers and doninos into this are IDIOTS.

I am sure the girl appreciates you taking time to play checkers with her. Neither one of you read anything into it but a game of checkers.

Sick minds should dwell other places.

[PentaFed]

There appear to be some semantic issues here.  You suggest that it is not wrong to interact with a 13 year old girl, but it is an exercise of bad judgment.  I am not sure what difference you are trying to highlight with these statements.  For the purposes of the questions I pose below, "inappropriate" basically means something for which a government agency could, at least in part, deny someone's clearance based on.

Well, here's the deal. Judgement is about making the best choices in given circumstances. You can do things that are legal and not technically 'wrong', and still use bad judgement.  Do you understand that concept? Or is your opinion that if it's legal then it must be okay to do? There are lots and lots of things that are legal, but doing them may not be using good judgement given the conditions and circumstances. Would you agree, or not?

[PentaFed]

Questions for you:

1)      Is all interaction between someone >= 18 with someone < 18 inappropriate?

2)      Is all interaction on the internet between someone >= 18 with someone < 18 inappropriate?

3)      During a polygraph exam, if someone admits to interacting with someone <= 18, is it fair for the government to assume the interaction was inappropriate even when the examinee denies any wrongdoing?

4)      Are you sure that no one <= 18 visits/posts on this website or any other website you have been to?

5)      Do you believe there is a significant number of technically savvy recent college graduates who have never had any contact on the internet with anyone <= 18 after they turned 18?

6)      How is our national security dependent on the government knowing the bra sizes of the Junior High students at my last Church?

7)      How is our national security dependent on whether or not "I like shaved tail"?

8 )       How is our national security dependent upon an adjudicator trying to convince me that the youth group girls were sluts trying to have sex with older men?

1) No, I never implied that. However, I will say this: Fact: internet child predators are at epidemic levels. The internet is basically the primary means by which child predators are going after children.  Fact: playing games and other things that interest children are one of the primary means by which these same predators get their foot in the door to eventually meet these children. Fact: During my 16 years of wqorking within the criminal justice system, I've spoken with dozens of accused and convicted molesters. During those conversations I can't recall one who didn't defend whatever behavior he used to gain the trust of his victim. It's ALWAYS oh-so-innocent and they ALWAYS have more than one activity in their background in which they have dealt with other people's children. Given this, I don't think it's unreasonable for background investigators to want to delve into the issue just a wee bit to see if there is anything there. I also don't understand why anyone who is completely agenda-free would not want to cooperate. Just my opinion. I will also add that given all of the above, I believe it is bad judgement (there's that awful J word again) to be engaging in those types of activities online with 13 year old girls, given the thousands of adults who would love to play checkers with you online.

2) See above
3)No, lacking any other facts. But I don't know if this assumption was made.
4) No I'm not, But I'm not interacting with any of them in a dynamic way. It's a bulletin board that is open to the public. No instant messages used here.
5) What's that got to do with this conversation?
6) Have no idea, wasn't there. Whomever posed the question should be terminated. Not related to the issue I addressed.
7) see above
8)see above.

[antrella]

Almost without a doubt, if asked such straight-up lewd and ridiculous questions by my polygrapher I would have ripped the cables/doodads off my body and/or clocked him.

Good judgment is knowing when to stand up for yourself - on that front, I applaud Onesumus. His only fault was not humoring all the govt's Qs - which I would have done without hesitation - assuming punching out the polygrapher didn't discontinue the application process .

I said it before, and I'll say it again: stop projecting your insecurities and self-suspicions onto someone else. Normal, well-balanced folks don't think twice when interacting with younger people, teens and so on. My instinct if/when I come upon a 13-year-old in any setting is not "It would be wise of me to avert my gaze and keep my distance, lest I lead others to suspect I am a pedophile." Good lord. Who thinks that way?

[PentaFed]

Almost without a doubt, if asked such straight-up lewd and ridiculous questions by my polygrapher I would have ripped the cables/doodads off my body and/or clocked him.

Good judgment is knowing when to stand up for yourself - on that front, I applaud Onesumus. His only fault was not humoring all the govt's Qs - which I would have done without hesitation - assuming punching out the polygrapher didn't discontinue the application process .

I said it before, and I'll say it again: stop projecting your insecurities and self-suspicions onto someone else. Normal, well-balanced folks don't think twice when interacting with younger people, teens and so on. My instinct if/when I come upon a 13-year-old in any setting is not "It would be wise of me to avert my gaze and keep my distance, lest I lead others to suspect I am a pedophile." Good lord. Who thinks that way?

What a shame you can't speak to any of the points raised on the site, and continue to talk about things that were never even discussed. Nobody said anything about the drivel you posted above (ie averting gazes etc). That's just pure hyperbole to mask your ignorance around the issue. Of course, anyone who gets so upset at any 'question' posed to him that he would actually assult the questioner, is someone who doesn't deserve any kind of position of trust. So you've proven to be irrelvant here anyway. You just keep sputtering about what's convenient for you to sputter about, and ignore the salient points, demonstrating  you to be nothing more than a propaganda machine that neither knows nor cares about security. Next.

[antrella]

What a shame you can't speak to any of the points raised on the site, and continue to talk about things that were never even discussed. Nobody said anything about the drivel you posted above (ie averting gazes etc). That's just pure hyperbole to mask your ignorance around the issue. Of course, anyone who gets so upset at any 'question' posed to him that he would actually assult the questioner, is someone who doesn't deserve any kind of position of trust. So you've proven to be irrelvant here anyway. Next.

Pity this response isn't longer, as I was looking forward to another 100-line mega-paragraph rife with such gems as "You need a JD and a law license to teach law" and "stick to whatever it is you are trained to do." They say brevity is the soul of wit - you are case in point for the inverse.

My points in the first instance were that some of the folks here were overly fixated on the substance of the issue, which you correctly point out isn't the most important factor in Onesimus's story. I agree (and said) what it comes down to is a matter of apparent honesty/candor.

My aside on the law - which is wholly valid - was precisely that, an aside to address your laughable remark that Onesimus "did, essentially, plead the fifth because you were not CANDID and UPFRONT with the information requested." That is not the Fifth Amendment. I won't launch into a personal attack here, but let's just say this struck me as patently absurd.

Note that I did say, and still believe that the case is "much more complicated than we - possibly he - knows." Security clearances - which I ***assure you*** I know a great deal about - are complicated matters. The "whole person" idea is about considering everything and reaching a fair disposition. That's why certain bars can be overridden in time (some people are told to apply in 5 years, 10, etc).

"Pure hyperbole to mask your ignorance around the issue." Not even sure that makes sense, but I see what you're driving at. Again, it isn't the issue - but you and your ilk keep coming back to it and making it the issue, using different covers. Poor judgment, lack of candor, etc.

As for "positions of trust" and popping someone who calls young girls at my place of worship sluts or anything to that effect, please don't be daft. The most important suitability criteria for "positions of trust" is - you guessed it, trustworthiness. Can this person be turned? Does he have a character flaw that can be exploited (drugs, sexual deviancy, etc). Not, "does he have a temper."

I'm purposefully vague about who I am and what I do, and I intend to keep it that way. But I will say this: many of the best folks I know (who are also ***not*** strangers to "positions of trust") would have reacted the same way. It's almost a virtue in some way - after all, they're not diplomats - but executors of the law and protectors of the state.