The fact that–

[RavenHawk]

There’s really not much to comment on. It’s just interesting that this POTUS would say this. You have to wonder if the system was any tighter, would he still be President?

[questionmark]

If they would actually do their job instead of interviewing the dead (as I posted some time back) background checks already would be tighter.

[Agent0range]

What exactly are you trying to imply?

[ReaperS_ParadoX]

Yeah what are you trying to imply?

Edited September 18, 2013 by ReaperS_ParadoX

[Space Commander Travis]

Ah yes, he's Kenyan, isn't he

[Agent0range]

Ah yes, he's Kenyan, isn't he

Haha, that's what I think hes implying. As if Romney didn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to find some dirt on Obama...

[Farmer77]

Regardless of the Kenyan comment the OP makes a good point. The background checks to work for a government contractor are extremely rigid already....how much of your soul should you have to sell to work for a gov. contract?

[questionmark]

Regardless of the Kenyan comment the OP makes a good point. The background checks to work for a government contractor are extremely rigid already....how much of your soul should you have to sell to work for a gov. contract?

BS (sorry but can't find a less scathing term), if guys like me got a pretty high clearance, to get one to just access an installation must be child's play.

I am no, and have never been an, angel.

[Farmer77]

BS (sorry but can't find a less scathing term), if guys like me got a pretty high clearance, to get one to just access an installation must be child's play.

I am no, and have never been an, angel.

Sure you got clearance , that doesn't change my point at all. Maybe rigid was the wrong term, invasive is what I should have said. You got your clearance but they had permission to invade every aspect of your life if they chose (read the fine print). Adding legislation to broaden those powers is unnecessary and cedes more power and information to the government needlessly.

[questionmark]

Sure you got clearance , that doesn't change my point at all. Maybe rigid was the wrong term, invasive is what I should have said. You got your clearance but they had permission to invade every aspect of your life if they chose (read the fine print). Adding legislation to broaden those powers is unnecessary and cedes more power and information to the government needlessly.

Sure they had, I don't deny that. Fact seems to be that they didn't or chose to ignore some things.

And I don't think I was the only one.

What they need to do is actually exercise their powers, no need for broadening anything.

[Babe Ruth]

I appreciate the dry political humor, but the truth is that NO system of 'security' is perfect or flawless. There will always be the exception to the rule, ESPECIALY, it seems, when people are medicated with the SSRI type drugs.

That is actually old news, but the media won't talk about that issue, maybe because they would anger their biggest sponsors of ads, Big Pharma.

[aztek]

sure we don't, we still have no database for mentaly sick. no wonder gvmnt refuses to talk about mental health, but insist on banning big magazines, and semi auto rifles. like that is doing any good.

they also refuse to talk about gang violence, and gangs do commit about 80% of all crimes. thay just go after thsoe that do almost no crimes. and keep saying it is not enough.

this is pretty clear they want to take YOUR guns away. and will do anything, and use anyones tragedy to get it done.

well it isn't that easy with nra in their way, and ppl like me and millions others enabling nra to do so with our dollars.

Edited September 18, 2013 by aztek

[questionmark]

sure we don't, we still have no database for mentaly sick. no wonder gvmnt refuses to talk about mental health, but insist on banning big magazines, and semi auto rifles. like that is doing any good.

I can fully support you on that

they also refuse to talk about gang violence, and gangs do commit about 80% of all crimes. thay just go after thsoe that do almost no crimes. and keep saying it is not enough.

I doubt I ever heard of a case when a known gang member got a SC anywhere... could be wrong though.

[aztek]

I doubt I ever heard of a case when a known gang member got a SC anywhere... could be wrong though.

http://www.gangsorus...in_military.htm

http://www.academia....orldwide_threat

they are there, 1-2% of us military of every branch are active gang members, pretty sure few have SC.

Edited September 18, 2013 by aztek

[questionmark]

http://www.gangsorus...in_military.htm

http://www.academia....orldwide_threat

they are there, 1-2% of us military of every branch are active gang members, pretty sure few have SC.

Among the grunts there always were shady people. Not so long ago a judge would give the choice of 2 years of Army or 3 years of jail (in those nice days I was young), but those guys generally did not have a clearance beyond getting on post and the sergeants knew how to handle them.

And that other thingy... well the KKK got to Germany by means of the Army, so did the Hells Angels. But most of the people were very low ranking and under special supervision because they were sent there by a judge.

But then again, yes, it is still not nice to export our problems to other parts of the world. But they generally were/are not a security concern. In fact, in some parts of the Army it is a recommendation towards your ability to follow orders.

[Gromdor]

Security and background checks went up after 9-11 but we have become lax again since then. You also have to remember that even security checks are sub-contracted out- Usually to the lowest bidder, who can process them the fastest.

Here is another thought about security checks as well. You basically have to surrender all rights to privacy about nearly every aspect of you life for a security check. For one of my security checks, they had called everyone I had listed, called everyone that those people listed and so on until no new names were given. I had to take a psych test, undergo a financial background check, criminal background check, and of course drug and alcohol test. This was over ten years ago though. And you know that all this information went into a database, because the next security checks didn't take nearly as long.

[questionmark]

Security and background checks went up after 9-11 but we have become lax again since then. You also have to remember that even security checks are sub-contracted out- Usually to the lowest bidder, who can process them the fastest.

Here is another thought about security checks as well. You basically have to surrender all rights to privacy about nearly every aspect of you life for a security check. For one of my security checks, they had called everyone I had listed, called everyone that those people listed and so on until no new names were given. I had to take a psych test, undergo a financial background check, criminal background check, and of course drug and alcohol test. This was over ten years ago though. And you know that all this information went into a database, because the next security checks didn't take nearly as long.

Didn't you love it when everybody you gave on your list (and on their list) called you to ask if you got the job?

Edited September 18, 2013 by questionmark

[aztek]

You also have to remember that even security checks are sub-contracted out- Usually to the lowest bidder, who can process them the fastest.

And you know that all this information went into a database, because the next security checks didn't take nearly as long.

different contractor may be?? lower bidder, posibly, lol

[Gromdor]

Didn't you love it when everybody you gave on your list (and on their list) call you to ask if you got the job?

Well, the sad thing was.... The project that this was for was a 2 month project and the background check took 3 months. I was allowed to work pending a result however. So basically they said I was all cleared to do the job after I had already completed it.

[aztek]

are we talking about regular joe background check to buy a gun, or check for security clerance for gvmt job??

[questionmark]

Well, the sad thing was.... The project that this was for was a 2 month project and the background check took 3 months. I was allowed to work pending a result however. So basically they said I was all cleared to do the job after I had already completed it.

sounds like Army and the CID.

are we talking about regular joe background check to buy a gun, or check for security clerance for gvmt job??

guv jobs,of course.

[aztek]

oh, than they should subcontract el al airline.

[Gromdor]

Nah, you go into a database and they don't have to go back and redo your entire history. Just update it. Not sure if the different contractors keep their own database or not. I think they use a third party or everything gets put into a federal database that they can reference. I asked about it during one of my background checks and the, "we just have to check till your last background check" was the reply. But now that you mention it, maybe they just check the few years in between and then give me a pass for everything before the previous background check.

[Gromdor]

I had previous security clearance for being military, but that particular one was for a nuclear power plant. Commercially owned but the NRC regulates.

[questionmark]

Nah, you go into a database and they don't have to go back and redo your entire history. Just update it. Not sure if the different contractors keep their own database or not. I think they use a third party or everything gets put into a federal database that they can reference. I asked about it during one of my background checks and the, "we just have to check till your last background check" was the reply. But now that you mention it, maybe they just check the few years in between and then give me a pass for everything before the previous background check.

They even have all the records of anybody still alive who ever worked for the government stacked away somewhere in Kansas (if my memory serves me right). Whenever you apply for a new job they just pull your old record to reference it. So yes, everything after your last BC becomes relevant for new employment unless it is not older than 12 months, then they might not even make a new check unless it is a very sensitive position.