Debunking Obama Security Clearance Myths

Last week, I wrote that the Todd Palin's ties to Alaskan secessionists could raise security concerns.

A common negative response to my posting asserts, "Oh, yeah? Obama would NEVER be allowed to have a clearance. He was associated with Bill Ayers and/or Reverend Wright and/or Frank Marshall Davis and/or communists and/or Chicago real estate crooks." Apparently, this meme was given life by a chain email in circulation over the past month or so, supposedly originating from an FBI veteran. Yeah, the FBI--you know, the guys who gave a clearance to Robert Hanssen, the most damaging, traitorous spy in US history.

Like most chain emails--it's wrong.

I'm not even sure how Barack Obama's Ayers or Wright connections would even be reported to security clearance investigators--there's not a blank space on the SF 86 security form for "tenuous or fleeting connections to people that are disliked by conservatives." There's not even a place on the form for religion or congregation. Investigators who might develop information about Obama's connection to Ayers or Wright would be focused on whether or not they were ever roommates or if they ever jointly filed bankruptcy. Investigators would have no trouble figuring out that Obama merely was acquainted with Ayers (Wright wouldn't even be interesting enough for investigative follow up), and not a fellow member of the Weather Underground.

Don't take my word for it. Expert sources--specifically, attorneys specializing in national security law--explained in the St. Petersburg Times that the Obamas' acquaintance and association with Ayers, Wright, and Davis simply are not relevant or substantive enough to impact Barack Obama's security suitability.

Obama's detractors don't understand how the security clearance process works if they think that merely knowing or doing business with a felon, former terrorist, or conservative boogeyman renders all who do so as ineligible for a clearance. Similar ignorance of the clearance process is evidenced by claims that membership in the cranky Rev. Wright's "anti-American" congregation is or should be a problem from a security perspective. This is America, after all--intelligence and military security investigators do not screen or vet churches, synagogues, or bowling leagues to ensure that they are "pro-American" enough for their security clearance-holding members.

Even the conservative characterization of Bill Ayers vastly inflates the relevance and impact of the once-violent Ayers and the Weather Underground terrorist group. The more breathless accounts posit Ayers as some kind of terrorist mastermind with an uncanny ability to transform anybody he meets or shares committee assignments with into a subversive American-hating militant, and who very nearly toppled American civilization as we know it.

In reality, Ayers and his WU pals had little effect on American society and policy. As a terrorist group, WU was singularly ineffective--the FBI easily penetrated and disrupted WU, and most of the group's leadership were killed when a bomb they were making inadvertently detonated and destroyed their New York City hideout. Indeed, the terror part of homebrewed US left wing terrorism has always lagged behind the comparatively bloody effectiveness of homebrewed right wing terrorism. Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and Olympics/Women's Clinic bomber Eric Robert Rudolph probably killed more of their fellow citizens in the 1990s than Ayers and all of his 20th century lefty fellow travelers combined.

That's the McVeigh and Rudolph who, by the way, trace their violent politics back to the same ideological swamp of anti-government sentiment, gun rights zealotry, and extreme social conservatism that the militia movement comes from. You know, the militia movement that has so much in common with that Alaska Independence Party that loves Sarah and Todd Palin so much.

Comments

[milman]

I don't go either way on Obama or McCain.

One thing I do know for sure that may or may not cause problems for Obama is the security clearance issue. As a 20+ year military man and a former recruiter who has a clearance and has helped many obtain a clearance I can say if Obama was an average American his clearance would be denied. Without even getting into his associations he admitted drug use (cocaine in particular) which is an automatic dis-approval for a clearance or to even be allowed to join the military. He also has to list all associations to include the former Hamas professor he went to dinner with, Ayers who he served on a board with and others. At that point and investigator has to interview all these people then an adjudicator determines if the person should get a clearance based on information. In normal circumstances this would take well over a year to complete, but in the meantime the person could be given an interam clearance. With all that being said the suppose the President can over ride all decisions.

[DreamCatcher50]

Well...no surprise to me. People I know that don't "get" Obama I would have to say are less intelligent than those that do. They "buy" all the lies by McCain's campaign without question. In Washington State, there is a Senator that thinks by place GOP after his name on campaign signs will confuse people to not understand that means Republican.

[Michale32086]

@LeftRight

}}}}
I never said that Keating was a terrorist, but the argument could be made that he was an economic terrorist
}}}}

Please make such an argument, keeping in mind the definition of terrorism..

"Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda."

Don't get me wrong.. I have made the argument that boycotts such as those proposed by the NAACP against southern cities constitutes economic terrorism. But I readily admit that it's a stretch.. I really can't see how you could call Keatings actions "terrorism", but I would be very interested to hear your viewpoint..

}}}}}
Either way, by the time that Obama met Ayers, he hadn't been a terrorist for several DECADES!
{{{{{

While I concede that Obama didn't know Ayers when Ayers was actually committing acts of terrorism (I misread your post), you know that I believe that Ayers IS still a terrorist, despite the alleged "good" he has done.. HAMAS does very good things every day for the Palestinians.. They are still terrorists..

But that is simply a point we will have to agree to disagree on.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@LeftRight

}}}}}
HuffPo admin, PLEASE stop deleting my innocent posts trying to answer this question, I've tried *5* times now to answer him, and they've ALL been deleted for NO FREAKING REASON!!!!
{{{{{

I share your frustration.. :D And I have 771 reasons (deletions) why... :D

But the mods have a job to do and I am sure they are doing what they think is best..

I have found that, if you rephrase what you are trying to say in more diplomatic terms, the moderators are usually more forgiving..

Michale.....

[tuttlemsm]

Here's some more frustration for you, Michale:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/todays-polls-1023-mccain-on-life.html

[Michale32086]

Why would that frustrate me?

I am voting for Obama...

Probably not til Monday or Tuesday, but unless something huge happens, that's how I am going to vote..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@LeftRight

Again, this is simply a difference of opinion..

However, I will concede that the example of being an alcoholic was a bad example due to the evidence that supports the contention that alcoholism is a disease..

Be that as it may.. I am of the opinion, that once a wife beater, ALWAYS a wife-beater. Once a druggie, ALWAYS a druggie.. Once a racist, ALWAYS a racist.. Once a terrorist, ALWAYS a terrorist...

As I said, I believe that same traits ARE defining..

I see where you are coming from insofar as you believe that some can be rehabilitated. I respect that opinion of yours. I just don't share it.

However, given the circumstances of **MY** beliefs/opinions, surely you can understand why *I* would want to know every nuance, every aspect of Senator Obama's association with Ayers..

As such, Senator Obama has not answered the questions to my satisfaction. It's likely, given his current lead in the race, that he will never do so..

That is a blot on his honor that is not easily overlooked..

Again, we're talking judgments and opinions here. I respect yours and I am sure, give the explanations I have given, that you would respect mine..

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

Sorry, this won't fit in another reply, so here:

"Pulemerci

Please tell me honestly that if McCain had an association with someone who bombed buildings years ago the Left wouldn't jump all over that and demand answers. I'm sorry, "He's a guy that lives in my neighborhood" is disengenuous at best."

I wouldn't care! Let's look at McCain's most famous "association", Charles Keating. That was an adult association, and McCain has acted the same way for the rest of the time till now.

In the case of Ayers, Obama didn't know him when he was a terrorist. Obama didn't actively seek him out. Obama simply worked on the Annenburg board to advance his career, which is the same thing that *I'M* doing at my job! (without the Annenburg board.... =) In addition to all of that, Obama has never acted in any way to help Ayers, and he's not acting like Ayers did!

In other words, the "evil association" that you see between Ayers and Obama is NOTHING!!!

[Michale32086]

}}}}
I wouldn't care! Let's look at McCain's most famous "association", Charles Keating.
{{{{

Keating isn't a terrorist...

}}}}
In the case of Ayers, Obama didn't know him when he was a terrorist.
{{{{

Assumes facts not in evidence...

}}}}}
In other words, the "evil association" that you see between Ayers and Obama is NOTHING!!!
{{{{{

It's all but assured that the association between Ayers and Obama wasn't "evil"...

But that doesn't mean it was "nothing"... The ONLY person who can fully explain the association is Senator Obama. And the fact that he has refused to do so IS damning, in my not so humble opinion...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

}}}}
In the case of Ayers, Obama didn't know him when he was a terrorist.
{{{{

Assumes facts not in evidence...

================

ACK... I misread your post... Disregard this part...

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

I never said that Keating was a terrorist, but the argument could be made that he was an economic terrorist. Either way, by the time that Obama met Ayers, he hadn't been a terrorist for several DECADES!

[Michale32086]

@LetMeUnderstandThis

}}}}}
So if you learn that someone sold/used drugs then you would disassociate yourself from them?
{{{{{

All things being equal, yes, I would...

}}}}}
No matter what he says it will NEVER be good enough for you, and that is a fact.
{{{{{

No, this is not a "FACT". This is your OPINION.

An opinion, I might add, unsupported by ANY evidence whatsoever...

Michale.....

[suemag]

Can't you see it already, how the Repugs will attack Obama the whole time he's in office just like they did Clinton? It will always be something. We need to start standing up and saying "ENOUGH!" WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT UP WITH! Get ready to take a stand, people, 'cause here we go again!

[Michale32086]

And, what exactly do you propose?

Take away the "repugs" First Amendment rights by reinstalling the "Fairness" (sheeya right) Doctrine??

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

Actually, the fairness doctrine would not remove ANYONE'S first amendment rights. ALL that it would do would ensure that each radio/TV station provide equal time for BOTH sides, but they wouldn't be taking away time from EITHER side!

[Michale32086]

@LeftRight

}}}}
The fact of the matter is that no matter WHAT he did back then he's spent the last three decades NOT DOING IT NOW. In other words, he's no longer a terrorist!
{{{

Some actions are "defining" actions and are with someone for life..

Being an alcoholic is one. You don't STOP being an alcoholic just because you don't "do it" any more.

Being a child molester is another. You don't STOP being a child molester just because you don't "do it" any more..

In my not so humble opinion, I feel that terrorism is along the same vein.

You may disagree.. That is your right and I respect that. But I bring a wealth of experience and training that supports my opinion..

What do you have in the way of evidence that supports your contention that a terrorist is NOT a terrorist when he is NOT committing terrorism??

I don't mean to sound snooty.. I am sincerely curious as to what you have to support your opinion..

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

Yes, there are certain diseases that you can get which make you always have that disease, such as alcoholism. However, if you were once a wife-beater, and then you stopped beating your wife, you are no longer a wife-beater. If you were once a shoplifter, but don't do it anymore, you are not a thief.

Being a former terrorist who no longer acts like a terrorist means that you are no longer a terrorist.

And no matter what, being on a charity board with a man who is no longer a terrorist means that you have never been a terrorist!

[Michale32086]

@LeftRight

}}}}
After emerging from his spider hole William Ayers turned himself into federal authorities. Try to do some better research please.
{{{{

I stand corrected.. Thank you for that information..

Michale.....

[LetMeUnderstandThis]

Hey Michale32086

Do you do background checks on your friends and family? Do you know every single thing about them?

[Michale32086]

Nope...

But, if I learn that one of them was a terrorist, I certainly would go out of my way NOT to associate with them...

Like I said, it's nearly inconceivable that Obama did NOT know about Ayers' past. The fact that Obama refuses to clarify this one important point would seem to support the theory that he did, in fact, know about it.

Michale.....

[LetMeUnderstandThis]

So if you learn that someone sold/used drugs then you would disassociate yourself from them?

No matter what he says it will NEVER be good enough for you, and that is a fact.

[Michale32086]

@LeftRight

}}}}
Yes, it's true that he's unrepentant, and that he has stated that he wished that they had done more, but here's the thing: HE HASN'T DONE MORE!!
{{{{

No.. HERE is the thing. When asked if he would do it again, Ayers said, "I don't want to discount the possibility.''

THAT is the "thing"...

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

No, the fact of the matter is that we can only go based on actions. There are many times where I have had thoughts run through my head that were not legal. When I was in the Navy I figured out many ways to get around the security systems that we had in place. That does not make me a terrorist. When my wife and I are arguing, there are times that I want to hit her. That does not make me a wife-beater.

Yes, he did terrible things, and he is not repentant about those things, but his actions in the last three decades PROVE that he's not a terrorist!

[Michale32086]

Let me ask you something..

Seriously, honestly and sincerely..

If Ayers' crime had been child molestation instead of terrorism and he somehow evaded the charges and, again somehow, became "respectable".....

Wouldn't you STILL consider him a child molester... No matter how much he had "atoned" for his crimes??

Some crimes can NEVER be forgiven or atoned for...

Crimes against children is one.. Terrorism is another..

Michale......

[Michale32086]

@Quaoar

}}}}}
It's entirely possible that he didn' t know about Ayers' reputation among the tinfoil plated neocon conspiracy theorists. In fact, like most Americans (even knowledgeable ones), he there's an excellent chance he never heard of Ayers before he accepted the invitations or a position on the board.
{{{{{

That is highly doubtful that Senator Obama did not know of Ayers past.

But, that is what Senator Obama needs to address and hasn't to date.

What did he know about Ayers when he made the decisions to work and socialize with Ayers?

Michale.....

[ccrane]

Your argument is not supported by an ounce of logic. It *is* entirely possible that Obama had no idea of Ayers' past. They were only casually acquainted, and he's explained all of this ad nauseum, as have other members of the Hyde Park neighborhood where they both live. The 'socializing' consisted of one coffee at Ayers' house, a coffee that is a tradition among members of the neighborhood, and it wasn't even thrown in Obama's honor, it was for his predecessor.

But if you don't want to listen to reason and you only want to live in fear and spread un truths, then there's nothing anyone can do to help you. It's kind of pathetic, really.

[Michale32086]

You seem to imply that, because of the casualness of the association, that it "*is* entirely possible" that Obama had no idea of Ayers' past.

You are operating under a faulty premise.

It's not my assertion that Obama probably knew about Ayers past because he learned it from Ayers.

It's my assertion that it would have been nearly impossible for Obama NOT to know, simply because of the academic circles they both ran in at the time. It's also established that many media articles were printed in the Chicago area about Ayers during Obama's time there. It's highly unlikely that someone was well read and worldly as Obama would NOT know.

However, the biggest indication that Obama knew about Ayers' past is that the good Senator has not DENIED it... Senator Obama has not said one IOTA about whether or not he knew of Ayers' past when he began his associations with Ayers.

Ergo, since this is such a large point in the whole issue, it would behoove Obama to deny it emphatically and succinctly. To date, Senator Obama has not chosen to do so.

Such a refusal to deny, in the face of overwhelming incentive to do so, would logically indicate that Senator Obama DID know of Ayers' past when Obama chose to begin the association.

Simple logic...

Michale.....

[Pulemerci]

Ayers and Dohrn are well known in that Hyde Park area. Michelle Obama said "Anyone who knows about education in Chicago knows Bill Ayers."

[blaqntelligence]

"...But, that is what Senator Obama needs to address and hasn't to date".

Insipid pronouncements such as this make me ever more proud and confident of my decision to support and vote for Obama.
Senator Obama has essentially let Ayers, Wright, and bittergate be YOUR problem.
He has addressed these issues, he has answered questions as recently as the last debate on these issues.
Yet, some are determined to breathe life into this stinking corpse then mewl that he hasn't answered the questions.
Obama, and the rest of the country, has turned the page on Ayers, Wright, and bittergate.
All that remain are the lunatic fringe for whom no answer or response will ever satisfy.
And some wonder why the republican brand is irrevocably linked to the worst of America.
That's also why no one trust them in office.
Also why you have lost.

[Michale32086]

Newsflash for you, cupcake...

I am a confirmed and demonstrable Obama supporter. So, I haven't "lost" anything.

It's just that I am one of those rare (apparently) supporters who DOESN'T believe that Obama is perfect and can walk on water. I know that Obama is a fallible human being and CAN make mistakes.. And you know what? Senator Obama agrees with me...

I am willing to wager that Senator Obama would WANT me to be completely satisfied before I voted for him. I am certain that the good Senator would WANT me to be absolutely sure that I am voting for the best candidate that *I* am comfortable with..

That's the kind of person I believe Senator Obama is..

Apparently, many on this thread don't measure up...

Michale......

[Michale32086]

@JDShipley

}}}}}
What if you were invited to belong to a board funded by the former ambassador to Great Britain, a Republican, a University professor and other community luminaries. Would you join? No?
}}}}}

I would want to know WHO those people are.. Not what they do...

}}}}
Would you join a committee chaired by G. Gordon Liddy, who has recommended that citizens shoot ATF agents, aiming for head shots because of their armor?

Would you call G. Gordon Liddy a "fine American?"
{{{{

As a former cop, my answer would be an emphatic NO...

Michale.....

[zanzig]

Over 50 years ago my late father was a proud member of the Communist Party of India in Kerala State. Now this is not shocking to anyone in India since Kerala continues to be the only remaining State in India that regularly democratically elects a Communist State government and has done so since independence. In Australia where we have lived for 40 years, it raises eyebrows in some circles but only in a mild way and it has been of absolutely no consequence to any of the civil service appointments I have held (not to Top Secret classification level, however). It seems to be a much bigger bugbear in the US, where communism is conflated with liberalism, socialism and legal disagreement with the government. I can tell you that I thought, as a well educated baby boomer, I thought I was well versed on all the actions of the 1960's (ACROSS THE WORLD) that caused such changes, but the Republicans have given a great deal more importance to the Weather Underground movement than I knew they had, or even than they deserved.

[obamadeus]

It's also worth mentioning that Kerala has close to 100% literacy rate, the best healthcare, and the lowest childhood mortality of any region of India.