41–50 of 266 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can't, of course. But then your only option is to lie to a federal agent. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2016/04/02/consequences-lying...
If it's a CIA interview don't you get a pass if you lie to the liars?
You could already get a clearance with past marijuana use (and other drugs) but I guess this would just make it so someone couldn't be denied a clearance solely for that reason.
I got denied an internship at the CIA for my past drug use, which was entirely trying marijuana after it became legal in my home state. I don’t see how someone can possibly be expected to have the personality to gather (human) intel, but somehow not ever have smoked weed.
You could already get a clearance with past marijuana use (and other drugs) but I guess this would just make it so someone couldn't be denied a clearance solely for that reason.
I got denied an internship at the CIA for my past drug use, which was entirely trying marijuana after it became legal in my home state. I don’t see how someone can possibly be expected to have the personality to gather (human) intel, but somehow not ever have smoked weed.
It's not clear to me how these would have absolutely any relationship at all.
You could already get a clearance with past marijuana use (and other drugs) but I guess this would just make it so someone couldn't be denied a clearance solely for that reason.
That was when they told him that his offer was rescinded for past use of marijuana. They said there were no exceptions to the rule, but it was the only reason he was denied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's a CIA interview don't you get a pass if you lie to the liars?
No, they don’t want people who get caught lying, and if you don’t get caught, its indistinguishable from not lying.
It's a nice filter for the job
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got denied an internship at the CIA for my past drug use, which was entirely trying marijuana after it became legal in my home state. I don’t see how someone can possibly be expected to have the personality to gather (human) intel, but somehow not ever have smoked weed.
> I don’t see how someone can possibly be expected to have the personality to gather (human) intel, but somehow not ever have smoked weed. It's not clear to me how these would have absolutely any relationship at all.
In other words, you need to have a slightly adventurous personality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got denied an internship at the CIA for my past drug use, which was entirely trying marijuana after it became legal in my home state. I don’t see how someone can possibly be expected to have the personality to gather (human) intel, but somehow not ever have smoked weed.
Maybe the CIA expects you to be smart enough to lie to them about not breaking the rules to hire you in the first place?
how can they detect that someone "used marijuana" once long time ago ?
They don't have to detect it, they'll ask as part of the security interview. The interview is very thorough and requires to be completely transparent and truthful in the given answer. The worse that may come out is that you don't get hired (unless you confess to murder, maybe?). Lying, hiding facts or getting whatever kind of crafty to get hired will lead one to MUCH MUCH bigger trouble if/when it gets discovered lat…
No, don’t think “treason”, because lying on (even a national security related) job-related interview is nothing close to treason.
OTOH, lying to government officials about a matter within the jurisdiction is a felony even without invoking weird flights of fancy about treason.
You could already get a clearance with past marijuana use (and other drugs) but I guess this would just make it so someone couldn't be denied a clearance solely for that reason.
A (very talented) friend of mine was supposed to work at the White House during the Obama admin. He got as far as signing documents and moving from California to Washington DC. That was when they told him that his offer was rescinded for past use of marijuana. They said there were no exceptions to the rule, but it was the only reason he was denied.
Edit: marijuana use is now common enough that investigators will actually grill you and accuse you of lying if you say you've never used marijuana.
You could already get a clearance with past marijuana use (and other drugs) but I guess this would just make it so someone couldn't be denied a clearance solely for that reason.
It is useful to explain a bit about the bureaucracy here: the clearance process consists of the investigation and the adjudication. These are two separate steps and often performed by different agencies. The investigation is often performed by OPM, but DoD switched to doing their own, the FBI always has, and it's acceptable to use private contractors (usually retired insurance investigators) up to the S level in some agencies. The adjudication is much more often performed by someone directly in the issuing agency, and agencies publish their own manuals to which adjudicators work. Although the general grounds for denial of a clearance are in statute, the exact rules of what conduct amounts to what grounds (in other words, the real rules of adjudication) are contained in these manuals.