WASH POST: U.S. strips intelligence analyst of security clearance and job but won't say why..

[heyholetsgogrant]

By Peter Finn

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, November 27, 2010; 10:51 AM

U.S. strips intelligence analyst of security clearance and job but won't say why

On St. Patrick's Day 2009, the government stripped the Irish-born Dullahan's security clearance and fired him from his job at the Defense Intelligence Agency in a manner that has no precedent at the Pentagon - invoking a national security clause that states that it would harm the interests of the United States to inform him of the accusations against him.

As a result, Dullahan, a Vietnam veteran who served at military posts around the world and as a U.N. weapons inspector in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, cannot appeal to a board of senior agency officials, as others in his position might. He is, in effect, stranded.

"This has been devastating for me," said Dullahan, 65, who became a U.S. citizen in 1973. "I am a loyal American."

Security clearances are a ticket to opportunity for hundreds of thousands of federal workers and contractors. But when those clearances are taken away, so is any chance of employment in the national security complex.

The reasons to revoke a security clearance can vary. Some federal workers lose them because they are found to be using illicit drugs. Others lose them when they are determined to be financially vulnerable, a situation that might make them susceptible to blackmail.

Dullahan was fired after apparently "showing deception" during three polygraphs - each time when he was asked whether he had ever spied for the Soviet Union. That, at least, is his best guess as to the reason for his termination.

Author: Peter Finn

Source: Washington Post

Full Article Click Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/AR2010112605017.html?hpid=topnews

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure what to think of this, I know the Post did a piece within the last year bringing into question of polygraphs and people failing them. I have heard of people failing them for showing deception on questions like killing someone..Never taken one...maybe he is a spy who knows...Whats really crazy is his wife still works at DIA and has top secret clearance and has access to top secret files...

[Larry]

Kind of conflicted on this one.

For a long-winded example of one part of the conflict, I'll point at a story I saw on 60 Minutes, probably 20 years ago.

Their story concerned a man who'd been working, I think, at Los Alamos, designing components for nuclear weapons. His security clearance was revoked because he is gay. At the time, the US Government's position was that homosexuals are not permitted security clearances for any reason. The justification for that policy is that homosexuals are vulnerable to blackmail. An enemy could force them to reveal classified information, or expose them for being gay.

The fired employee points out that he's

openly

gay, and that open gays can't be blackmailed. You can't threaten to reveal information that's already publicly known.

(Insert Larry's observation that the military's current DADT policy

forces

military personnel into situations in which they can be easily blackmailed, by both forcing them to congeal their homosexuality, and by guaranteeing that "if somebody tells, you'll be prosecuted".)

60 Minutes goes to the man's commander, pointing out that his open homosexuality makes him immune to blackmail. The military changes their story, and announces that he's losing his clearance because he lied when he applied for his clearance, and every year, when he renewed it, because there's a question on the form that asks "are you homosexual?".

The fired employee states that he answered "yes" on that question, every year when he renewed his clearance. Apparently nobody actually read the form.

Seems that what

really

happened was, the old commander of the unit, left the unit. (died, transferred, I don't remember.) New commander comes in, works there a few weeks, and goes "OMG! There's a GAY working here!" (Everybody else in the unit knew it all along.)

That said, though, . . .

1) I wasn't aware that, when the US Government declines/revokes a security clearance that they had to give a reason.

2) And I can certainly conceive of circumstances where the government can't reveal why they're revoking/denying a clearance, without revealing classified information.

This guy's Irish. Suppose the government has a source that says this guy used to be IRA. (So, sue me for using stereotypes. I'm re-reading Clancey's Patriot Games, right now.) Is the government really required to tell a former IRA terrorist, how we found out he's a former terrorist?

[Corcaigh]

In my limited dealings with them, the DIA have very, very severe cultural issues. Lying, playing politics and turf wars are the norm.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Anyone see the movie "Burn After Reading" with Malcovcih, Clooney and Brad Pitt?

This reminds me exactly of that movie

[HSW]

What is there to be confused about? If someone with a clearance that high

cannot pass a poly about spying then there is no way he should have that

clearance. Are they supposed to ignore the test and send him back to work????

[PokerPacker]

What is there to be confused about? If someone with a clearance that high

cannot pass a poly about spying then there is no way he should have that

clearance. Are they supposed to ignore the test and send him back to work????

Why the secrecy not telling him why he was fired?

[HSW]

Why the secrecy not telling him why he was fired?

He knows EXACTLY why he was fired. He failed his poly... 3 times. He knows this. Again, what is the big mystery here?

[Larry]

What is there to be confused about? If someone with a clearance that high

cannot pass a poly about spying then there is no way he should have that

clearance. Are they supposed to ignore the test and send him back to work????

Remembering a 60 Minutes piece on polygraphs, years ago. (I seem to be quoting them a whole lot, today.)

They did a "sting", where they claimed that a minicam had disappeared from their newsroom.

They called in a private investigator who's yellow page ad said that he did polygraphs, and had him polygraph every employee in the newsroom. He couldn't find anything conclusive.

Then, they called a second investigator. But this one, before he started, they told him. "Frankly, we suspect that it's Ted. We just can't prove it."

The second investigator said that Ted's response showed evasion.

Then they called in a third investigator. This time, they told him that they suspected Marry.

Sure enough, investigator three said Marry was evasive.

They called in every single investigator in the NYC phone book whose ad said he did polygraphs.

And every single one of them said that (whichever employee management fingered) gave evasive readings.

Kind of OT. And not really valid, scientifically. (The investigators were questioning a dozen employees, every one of which knew that there was nothing missing, and all of which had gone through it a dozen times, already.)

But, still. Every single one of them?

[heyholetsgogrant]

Remembering a 60 Minutes piece on polygraphs, years ago. (I seem to be quoting them a whole lot, today.)

They did a "sting", where they claimed that a minicam had disappeared from their newsroom.

They called in a private investigator who's yellow page ad said that he did polygraphs, and had him polygraph every employee in the newsroom. He couldn't find anything conclusive.

Then, they called a second investigator. But this one, before he started, they told him. "Frankly, we suspect that it's Ted. We just can't prove it."

The second investigator said that Ted's response showed evasion.

Then they called in a third investigator. This time, they told him that they suspected Marry.

Sure enough, investigator three said Marry was evasive.

They called in every single investigator in the NYC phone book whose ad said he did polygraphs.

And every single one of them said that (whichever employee management fingered) gave evasive readings.

Kind of OT. And not really valid, scientifically. (The investigators were questioning a dozen employees, every one of which knew that there was nothing missing, and all of which had gone through it a dozen times, already.)

But, still. Every single one of them?

Polygraph Results Often in Question

CIA, FBI Defend Test's Use in Probes

By Dan Eggen and Shankar Vedantam

Washington Post Staff Writers

Monday, May 1, 2006

The CIA, the FBI and other federal agencies are using polygraph machines more than ever to screen applicants and hunt for lawbreakers, even as scientists have become more certain that the equipment is ineffective in accurately detecting when people are lying.

Instead, many experts say, the real utility of the polygraph machine, or "lie detector," is that many of the tens of thousands of people who are subjected to it each year believe that it works -- and thus will frequently admit to things they might not otherwise acknowledge during an interview or interrogation.

Many researchers and defense attorneys say the technology is prone to a high number of false results that have stalled or derailed hundreds of careers and have prevented many qualified applicants from joining the fight against terrorism. At the FBI, for example, about 25 percent of applicants fail a polygraph exam each year, according to the bureau's security director.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/30/AR2006043001006.html

Larry, I saw that 60min episode on youtube, but I cant find it anywhere (Must have been removed); It was pretty funny. Doesn't the CIA teach some of its employees how to beat the test?

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Anyone see the movie "Burn After Reading" with Malcovcih, Clooney and Brad Pitt?

This reminds me exactly of that movie

Really good, underrated movie.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Really good, underrated movie.

My gf and I love that movie. We quote it constantly

"Parker, with all due respect, what the **** are you talking about? What the **** is this?"

"The Russians? They went to the Russians?"

"You in league with that moronic woman, you are in a league of morons"

[Metalhead]

Anyone see the movie "Burn After Reading" with Malcovcih, Clooney and Brad Pitt?

This reminds me exactly of that movie

Lol, exactly like it.

A guy who deals intelligence, and likely spies and lies for a living failed a polygraph because he may or may not have spied on Russia. The agency is probably the one that sent him on the mission in the first place, if it happened.

I literally just started the book "Memoirs Found In A Bathtub" by Stanislaw Lem. It's a cross between the plots of Burn After Reading and Dr. Strangelove. So far it's really good. Some of you guys should check it out if you get the chance.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I have never bought the idea that these secretive agencies operated by the same employment rules that the rest of the nation works with, the level of security and secrecy is just WAY to high to chance infiltration or deception. That being said I can imagine turf wars are indeed a regularity in these agencies, but for this guy to want an open investigation into this is naive, and for him to go to the press with it was just plain stupid if he ever had any hopes of being reinstated.