1085
Biden pardons thousands of US veterans convicted under law banning gay sex
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
1085 points (98.7% liked)
News
36711 readers
568 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
While obviously not near the same level of criminalizing someone for part of their core identity, I’ve felt the same way about the US government’s treatment of pot smokers. Can’t get a security clearance if you’ve smoked pot within the past 7 years because it’s blackmail leverage ignoring the fact that it’s only blackmail material when the government considers it verboten
You can 100% get a clearance if you've smoked within 7 years of applying for one. Hell, you can get a clearance if you smoked within the last year. You just have to a) disclose the fact, b) be able to show mitigations as to why smoking weed won't be an issue while you have a clearance, and then c) not do it while you have a clearance. It ends up being not so much about the fact that you smoke weed as it is that you're not following the law, and that's the real clearance risk (from their POV). Getting a clearance is really about proving you're trustworthy to the investigator.
There are agencies, iirc mostly law enforcement, that consider it a strict bar. It also depends on the level of clearance, and how much they need you. An Army private getting a secret clearance to present weather to the general on the daily isn't getting nearly as much scrutiny as a nuclear physicist. But nuclear physicists willing to work for the government are a finite resource. It's all clear as mud and the fear of losing your career over some stupid persecution is real.
You're mixing some things up. Yes, some agencies will have some POLICIES about not wanting to hire personnel with a history of drug abuse/use, but that is separate from the clearance adjudication process.
A secret clearance is a secret clearance, and you're correct that it's much simpler to get a basic secret than it is a TS-SCI or to be read into certain programs. But there isn't a "FBI" secret and an "Army" secret.
There's no timeline for how long it's been since you've smoked pot, or number of times, or anything. I think a poster said that it's about whether the investigation finds you trustworthy enough for the level of eligibility they're investigating you for, and that is correct - and there isn't a hard and fast rule necessarily.
If you do an investigation and are asked if you've ever used any illegal drugs and you say no, but in your criminal record you have a possession charge, that's bad. You're obviously lying, and not even being smart about it. If you say you used to smoke trees every day and are blazed right now, that's bad because you obviously don't give af about laws and stuff (not my opinion, this is the opinion of the Fed that still thinks it's illegal). If you say you used to smoke with your friend for a couple months in college a year ago but stopped and think that was probably a dumb decision, that's not necessarily bad, it all depends on how the interview goes. They'll ask for the names of who you smoked with and how you got the weed - so they can check if you were hanging out with known cartel members or just some other joe schmoe at UCWhatevs.
At the end of the day it's all based on context and a ton of factors. They dig a lot deeper and have a much higher standard for more selective clearances or programs, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone? But it's all about whether you're trustworthy to keep certain sensitive information from unauthorized people.
I understand all of that, I was just keeping it simple for Lemmy. And there's no functional difference between a pass from DCSA with a note of prior drug use in the last 3 years and a fail from DCSA for those agencies. It's a distinction without a difference in their eyes. But there is also different pipelines for Military and Civilian clearances. If you come to the government with a military clearance they will want you to get an upgraded check and interview. It's a lot easier than a new clearance for most people but it's still a thing. This was per the State Department for FSO's last time I checked out that process.
So we can dig into minutia all day long if you want.
That change requires an act of Congress. They’ve been dragging their heels on it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3617
It’s not so much the blackmail with pot, it’s the fact you can’t “follow the rules”. They will give a bye for previous smoking events (before you need the clearance, took a position etc.), it’s smoking with a clearance or NOT telling them that will get you wrapped up.
Smoking with a clearance is only possible blackmail material because the government makes it verboten. Their point stands.
Their point doesn’t stand. Just report it.
That varies extensively by department and administration.
can't get a fucking job because they're allowed to demand your piss and inspect it
Considering that Nixon's cabinet has openly talked about how they made it a federal offense so that they had justification to arrest the leaders of the war protesters (and the same thing with cocaine and the black community), I'd say it's of a similar level but a different kind of evil.