Security Clearance Issues

Submitted by barbara bovee (United States), Mar 31, 2008 at 13:52

WOW. Thanks for the input!!! You have obviously looked at this issue.

Security Clearance requirements post 9/11 (Revised Dec. 2005) and in light of current revelations, I'm still of the opinion Barack Obama should have his security clearance revoked. These requirements have stiffened since Obama became a US senator (Jan. 2005) and I doubt his clearance has undergone an intense subsequent review. In either event, there are glaring deficiencies.

Also there are grounds to find Rev Wright guilty of sedition. In THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 14th Judicial Circuit, ) Rock Island County, Illinois Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 95--CF--838 ) DOUGLAS E. NITZ, ) the defendant was found guilty of sedition for HATE SPEECH. His comments were less offensive than Rev Wright as he did not defame a group for causing AIDS or other imagined crimes. The question was posed to the Supreme Court if there was a violation of free speech. The court upheld the ruling and the finding of sedition stood. Also see Beauharnais v Illinois, Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, Near v Minnesota. There is little tolerance for Hate speech and libel against an individual or group is not protected by the First Amendment.

Courts have found, "If an utterance directed at an individual may be the object of criminal sanctions, no good reason appears to deny a State the power to punish the same utterances when they are directed at a defined group," Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 US 250 254-58. "Libelous utterances not being within the area of constitutionally protected speech, it is unnecessary . . . to consider the issues behind the phrase 'clear and present danger." Id at 266.

The Security Clearance requirements as to sedition. In the strict sense, sedition is, per USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 15, §2385 is, " Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government;"

Wright knowingly advocates the desirability of violence against the United States.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".