| How even a secret foreign agent can access
America's top secrets!
Let's say you're an ordinary American citizen like me, and
you've just landed a great job with the government or with
a government contractor. Let's also assume that part of your
new job includes working with Top Secret documents. Of course,
before you can do that, you've got to pass a strict background
check.
A document called Director of Central Intelligence Directive
1/14, issued in 1998, details the high standards most of us
must pass before we're allowed access to Sensitive Compartmented
Information. "The individual must be stable, trustworthy,
reliable, (and) of excellent character, judgment and discretion,"
according to the directive.
For your thorough background scrutiny, the directive says
interviews must be conducted with four references who "have
social knowledge of the subject." Also, two of your neighbors
are supposed to be interviewed, as well as "cohabitants,
relatives ... and law-enforcement officials," if your
case warrants.
After you've passed, and you must pass with flying colors,
and you have your high clearances, you're supposed to report
even your own activity when it potentially conflicts with
specific security guidelines. For instance, one—Guideline
D—states that "sexual behavior is a security concern
if it involves a criminal offense ... may subject the individual
to undue influence or coercion, exploitation, or duress, or
reflects lack of judgment or discretion."
So how does an American citizen who's spying for a foreign
government get around such tough standards? By being elected
to Congress, of course.
This situation has troubled many in intelligence recently,
because of Rep. Gary Condit's admitted sexual affair with
intern Chandra Levy. As former top CIA officer Duane ("Dewey")
Clarridge says, Gary Condit "was made to order for blackmail.
This guy is a perfect setup." Yet Condit has sat on the
house intelligence committee since 1999, where he's had continuous
access to documents even higher than Top Secret.
The general view of lawmakers is that voters should rule
on someone's fitness for office, and party leaders choose
whom they want for plum assignments. Clarridge points out,
"None of those people want to be investigated."
— Gayle Lynds
|