Dear Editor:
U.S. government personnel that have access to classified information, and/or controlling the disposition of sophisticated weapons and tactics for U.S. defense, are required to have high level security clearances.
For typical employees an extensive background check by FBI is conducted before security clearance is issued.
If the subject's history indicates a potential jeopardy to security then the individual cannot obtain the clearance. If the individual has a clearance and does not adhere to security regulations the clearance is revoked and they are removed from the position and perhaps they also do prison time.
However, this does not appear to be the case for elected or politically appointed high level U.S. government management; those who have the ultimate power and control over subordinates that are highly scrutinized and held to strict clearance standards.
This is illogical and a double standard that cannot be tolerated; it is the ultimate risk to national security.
If the elected or politically appointed individuals cannot be vetted and held accountable for maintaining a security clearance, or have previously violated or disregarded security regulations, then they should not be considered as a candidate for the position.
Lying to either the FBI or Congress regarding the location and status of classified information would constitute a violation of both the security regulations and federal law.
Presidential candidates may in the near future have access to top secret information and literally have their finger on the button controlling nuclear war.
They must at least be held to the same security standards as a typical U.S. government employee.
__________
Issue-oriented letters to the editor are welcome. All letters should be limited to 400 words; letters may be edited to conform to guidelines. The author's name must appear with the letter, and the name, address and phone number provided for verification. Letters that cannot be verified by telephone will not be published. Email to [email protected].