Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

So you want to work at a Project Office?

Expand Messages
  • Jason
    I m curious if anyone knows what kind of training AT&T provides/requires for secure facility jobs, and how long a process it is. Although I m probably too old
    Message 1 of 23 , Aug 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm curious if anyone knows what kind of training AT&T provides/requires
      for secure facility jobs, and how long a process it is. Although I'm
      probably too old to be starting a career in this field I'm curious about
      what is required, what positions/job titles are at these facilities, and
      any resources or links would be appreciated, thanks.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David
      ... First, get checked out in Doc s DeLorean and go back to 1959.....
      Message 2 of 23 , Sep 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On 8/31/12 11:14 PM, Jason wrote:

        > I'm curious if anyone knows what kind of training AT&T provides/requires
        > for secure facility jobs, and how long a process it is.

        First, get checked out in Doc's DeLorean and go back to 1959.....
      • Mike Walker
        Someone re-posted a recent ad less than a year ago here on this list for an AT&T position that required a TS/single-scope security level, though Idk where the
        Message 3 of 23 , Sep 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Someone re-posted a recent ad less than a year ago here on this list for an
          AT&T position that required a TS/single-scope security level, though Idk
          where the actual position was. It seemed to be a mid-level engineering
          position as I recall. I would presume that would be close to what would be
          needed for the Project Offices, also.



          2012/9/1 David <wb8foz@...>

          > **
          >
          >
          > On 8/31/12 11:14 PM, Jason wrote:
          >
          > > I'm curious if anyone knows what kind of training AT&T provides/requires
          > > for secure facility jobs, and how long a process it is.
          >
          > First, get checked out in Doc's DeLorean and go back to 1959.....
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jason Bourne
          Thanks Mike! Over the years I ve met people who claim to have worked in these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a very involved
          Message 4 of 23 , Sep 1, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks Mike! Over the years I've met people who claim to have worked in these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a very involved background check. One person even told me that he was rejected for a security clearance because he'd had an extra-marital affair! But once they were assigned to these places, they quickly found the shift very boring and either played alot of pool or watched 1970's cop shows.

            --- On Sat, 9/1/12, Mike Walker <thecloudboy@...> wrote:


            From: Mike Walker <thecloudboy@...>
            Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] So you want to work at a Project Office?
            To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Saturday, September 1, 2012, 10:45 PM


            Someone re-posted a recent ad less than a year ago here on this list for an
            AT&T position that required a TS/single-scope security level, though Idk
            where the actual position was. It seemed to be a mid-level engineering
            position as I recall. I would presume that would be close to what would be
            needed for the Project Offices, also.



            2012/9/1 David <wb8foz@...>

            > **
            >
            >
            > On 8/31/12 11:14 PM, Jason wrote:
            >
            > > I'm curious if anyone knows what kind of training AT&T provides/requires
            > > for secure facility jobs, and how long a process it is.
            >
            > First, get checked out in Doc's DeLorean and go back to 1959.....
            >

            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

            Yahoo! Groups Links





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David
            ... The American Tragedy maybe?? (re: ...)
            Message 5 of 23 , Sep 1, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              On 9/1/12 8:23 PM, Jason Bourne wrote:
              > But once they were assigned to these places, they quickly found the
              > shift very boring and either played alot of pool or watched 1970's cop
              > shows.


              'The American Tragedy' maybe??

              (re: <http://long-lines.net/places-routes/Washington1DC/Wash1TOC.html>...)
            • Jason Bourne
              lol, could be! I just assumed that there was always plenty of stuff to do in one of those places, but one guy told me he hated being  downstairs because he
              Message 6 of 23 , Sep 1, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                lol, could be! I just assumed that there was always plenty of stuff to do in one of those places, but one guy told me he hated being "downstairs" because he always seemed to gain weight!

                --- On Sun, 9/2/12, David <wb8foz@...> wrote:


                From: David <wb8foz@...>
                Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] So you want to work at a Project Office?
                To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 12:33 AM



                 



                On 9/1/12 8:23 PM, Jason Bourne wrote:
                > But once they were assigned to these places, they quickly found the
                > shift very boring and either played alot of pool or watched 1970's cop
                > shows.

                'The American Tragedy' maybe??

                (re: <http://long-lines.net/places-routes/Washington1DC/Wash1TOC.html>...)







                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Blake Bowers
                It was only a couple of years ago they were hiring for people to work maintenance at Hagerstown, requiring security clearances. ... From:
                Message 7 of 23 , Sep 1, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  It was only a couple of years ago they were hiring for people to work
                  maintenance at Hagerstown, requiring security clearances.



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com [mailto:coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com] On
                  Behalf Of Mike Walker
                  Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 5:46 PM
                  To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] So you want to work at a Project Office?

                  Someone re-posted a recent ad less than a year ago here on this list for an
                  AT&T position that required a TS/single-scope security level, though Idk
                  where the actual position was. It seemed to be a mid-level engineering
                  position as I recall. I would presume that would be close to what would be
                  needed for the Project Offices, also.



                  2012/9/1 David <wb8foz@...>

                  > **
                  >
                  >
                  > On 8/31/12 11:14 PM, Jason wrote:
                  >
                  > > I'm curious if anyone knows what kind of training AT&T provides/requires
                  > > for secure facility jobs, and how long a process it is.
                  >
                  > First, get checked out in Doc's DeLorean and go back to 1959.....
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • Sheldon Daitch
                  My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn t that the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was
                  Message 8 of 23 , Sep 2, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                    the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                    investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                     
                    If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                    will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                    the security risk of the individual.  On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                    part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                    later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                    being disclosed.
                     
                    Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                    deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                    holder of a security clearance.
                     
                    73
                    Sheldon
                    --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:




                     





                    Thanks Mike! Over the years I've met people who claim to have worked in these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a very involved background check. One person even told me that he was rejected for a security clearance because he'd had an extra-marital affair! 
                     










                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Mike Harpe
                    A rule I have been taught about clearances is that they don t like surprises. If your finances take a turn for the worse (or better), notify your Facility
                    Message 9 of 23 , Sep 2, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      A rule I have been taught about clearances is that they don't like
                      surprises. If your finances take a turn for the worse (or better),
                      notify your Facility Security Officer for example. An affair is going
                      to depend on who it's with and other circumstances.

                      I've always heard that the worst clearance investigations are the
                      TS/SCI with lifestyle poly that the intelligence services do. Those
                      take months and get very, very personal.

                      The biggest thing is that when you do your SF-86, DON'T LIE. If they
                      come to question you about something, DON'T LIE. They know nobody is
                      perfect and there's only a few jobs that require a "perfect" person
                      anyway :-).

                      Mike Harpe

                      On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...> wrote:
                      > My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                      > the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                      > investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                      >
                      > If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                      > will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                      > the security risk of the individual. On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                      > part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                      > later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                      > being disclosed.
                      >
                      > Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                      > deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                      > holder of a security clearance.
                      >
                      > 73
                      > Sheldon
                      > --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Thanks Mike! Over the years I've met people who claim to have worked in these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a very involved background check. One person even told me that he was rejected for a security clearance because he'd had an extra-marital affair!
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Marc's Yahoo Account (original)
                      Fraternizing with foreign nationals is also a no-no , especially if your having an affair with one. Could cost you your clearance and job. Or you could wind
                      Message 10 of 23 , Sep 2, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Fraternizing with foreign nationals is also a "no-no", especially if your having an affair with one. Could cost you your clearance and job. Or you could wind up sweeping the floors or changing the filters in the air handlers.

                        Sent from my iPad

                        On Sep 2, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...> wrote:

                        > My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                        > the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                        > investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                        >
                        > If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                        > will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                        > the security risk of the individual. On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                        > part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                        > later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                        > being disclosed.
                        >
                        > Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                        > deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                        > holder of a security clearance.
                        >
                        > 73
                        > Sheldon
                        > --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Thanks Mike! Over the years I've met people who claim to have worked in these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a very involved background check. One person even told me that he was rejected for a security clearance because he'd had an extra-marital affair!
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • John K Scoggin, Jr
                        I recall many years ago when I was working for Naval Research (70’s), one of my co-workers married an East German woman with relatives back in the Old
                        Message 11 of 23 , Sep 2, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I recall many years ago when I was working for Naval Research (70’s), one of my co-workers married an East German woman with relatives back in the Old Country. Oh my God! Needless to say, he disappeared into the Land Of The Unclearable. I have no idea where he landed…



                          john



                          From: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com [mailto:coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marc's Yahoo Account (original)
                          Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 11:09 AM
                          To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                          Cc: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances





                          Fraternizing with foreign nationals is also a "no-no", especially if your having an affair with one. Could cost you your clearance and job. Or you could wind up sweeping the floors or changing the filters in the air handlers.

                          Sent from my iPad

                          On Sep 2, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@... <mailto:sheldondaitch%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

                          > My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                          > the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                          > investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                          >
                          > If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                          > will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                          > the security risk of the individual. On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                          > part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                          > later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                          > being disclosed.
                          >
                          > Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                          > deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                          > holder of a security clearance.
                          >
                          > 73
                          > Sheldon
                          > --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@... <mailto:quiet_cool1986%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Thanks Mike! Over the years I've met people who claim to have worked in these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a very involved background check. One person even told me that he was rejected for a security clearance because he'd had an extra-marital affair!
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • John Young
                          A friend married an East German to get booted from tedious Air Force communications duty. Honorably discharged. Worked just fine. He said most security jobs
                          Message 12 of 23 , Sep 2, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            A friend married an East German to get booted from tedious
                            Air Force communications duty. Honorably discharged.
                            Worked just fine.

                            He said most security jobs are tedious and embellished with
                            inept security checks like those in "The Falcon and the Snowman,"
                            the security clearance used to lure the unwary expecting
                            insider excitement. Said they joked about being duped,
                            enjoyed the perks of indolence and timewasting, bragged
                            they couldn't talk about it. He crossed his fingers and eyes.

                            The couple remained happily married with four kids, two
                            in cleared jobs. Passing on clearance to descendants is
                            a pretty good toe in the door. And allows some of the
                            family members to share the truth.

                            As the Walkers demonstrated.
                          • OZOB99
                            FWIW when I got a reissue TS(no SCI for this one))for a job at the Pentagon in 1987 the NIS guy said it would take an additional 3-6 months because my son had
                            Message 13 of 23 , Sep 2, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              FWIW when I got a reissue TS(no SCI for this one))for a job at the Pentagon in 1987 the NIS guy said it would take an additional 3-6 months because my son had since married a West German national.



                              --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, "John K Scoggin, Jr" <aat3bf@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > I recall many years ago when I was working for Naval Research (70’s), one of my co-workers married an East German woman with relatives back in the Old Country. Oh my God! Needless to say, he disappeared into the Land Of The Unclearable. I have no idea where he landed…
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > john
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > From: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com [mailto:coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marc's Yahoo Account (original)
                              > Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 11:09 AM
                              > To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                              > Cc: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Fraternizing with foreign nationals is also a "no-no", especially if your having an affair with one. Could cost you your clearance and job. Or you could wind up sweeping the floors or changing the filters in the air handlers.
                              >
                              > Sent from my iPad
                              >
                              > On Sep 2, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@... <mailto:sheldondaitch%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
                              >
                              > > My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                              > > the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                              > > investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                              > >
                              > > If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                              > > will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                              > > the security risk of the individual. On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                              > > part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                              > > later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                              > > being disclosed.
                              > >
                              > > Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                              > > deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                              > > holder of a security clearance.
                              > >
                              > > 73
                              > > Sheldon
                              > > --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@... <mailto:quiet_cool1986%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Thanks Mike! Over the years I've met people who claim to have worked in these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a very involved background check. One person even told me that he was rejected for a security clearance because he'd had an extra-marital affair!
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • Sheldon Daitch
                              Mike,   I think you have pretty much summed it up very well.   73 Sheldon ... From: Mike Harpe Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and
                              Message 14 of 23 , Sep 2, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mike,
                                 
                                I think you have pretty much summed it up very well.
                                 
                                73
                                Sheldon

                                --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Mike Harpe <mike@...> wrote:


                                From: Mike Harpe <mike@...>
                                Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances
                                To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 4:23 PM



                                 



                                A rule I have been taught about clearances is that they don't like
                                surprises. If your finances take a turn for the worse (or better),
                                notify your Facility Security Officer for example. An affair is going
                                to depend on who it's with and other circumstances.

                                I've always heard that the worst clearance investigations are the
                                TS/SCI with lifestyle poly that the intelligence services do. Those
                                take months and get very, very personal.

                                The biggest thing is that when you do your SF-86, DON'T LIE. If they
                                come to question you about something, DON'T LIE. They know nobody is
                                perfect and there's only a few jobs that require a "perfect" person
                                anyway :-).

                                Mike Harpe

                                On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...> wrote:
                                > My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                                > the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                                > investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                                >
                                > If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                                > will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                                > the security risk of the individual. On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                                > part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                                > later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                                > being disclosed.
                                >
                                > Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                                > deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                                > holder of a security clearance.
                                >
                                > 73
                                > Sheldon
                                > --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Thanks Mike! Over the years I've met people who claim to have worked in these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a very involved background check. One person even told me that he was rejected for a security clearance because he'd had an extra-marital affair!
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > ------------------------------------
                                >
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >







                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Sheldon Daitch
                                My experience is that it depended on what country the foreign national is from, and that is the could in your comment.   There is a considerable difference
                                Message 15 of 23 , Sep 2, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  My experience is that it depended on what country the foreign national is from,
                                  and that is the "could" in your comment.
                                   
                                  There is a considerable difference between having an affair with a Filipina
                                  compared to an affair with a Russian.  Bear in mind, this is probably more
                                  an issue with military stationed outside the US than civilians with clearances,
                                  working and living inside the US. 
                                   
                                  Back when the US bases were still open in the Philippines, if every person
                                  at Clark, Subic, San Miguel and Wallace, with a TS clearance who ever
                                  fraternized with a Filipina lost their clearances, there would have been
                                  a fair amount of turnover at these bases. 
                                   
                                  I've had TS on both the military side and the civilian side and TS/SCI for a few
                                  years and my spouse hasn't always been a US citizen.  All my security people
                                  needed was background information on spouse and family and they seemed
                                  to be happy. 
                                   
                                  Yea, I know, the bases have been gone for 20 years, and things have been
                                  changed.
                                   
                                  I did my last TS update three years ago, and the SF-86 at time was the shorter
                                  version.  A co-worker had his update earlier this year and the security folks
                                  are asking more detailed questions. 
                                   
                                  Thank goodness I won't have to do any more, as my five year update will run
                                  out about the time I retire, and looking at the new 127 page version, I am glad
                                  I probably won't have to deal with it again.
                                   
                                  See:
                                   
                                  http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf
                                   
                                  Oh, if you ever have to do an SF-86 for a clearance, always, always, keep a copy
                                  for yourself, for the next time.  That way, you don't have to do the research each
                                  time you need to fill one out.
                                   
                                  73
                                  Sheldon
                                   


                                  --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Marc's Yahoo Account (original) <cappy755@...> wrote:


                                  From: Marc's Yahoo Account (original) <cappy755@...>
                                  Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances
                                  To: "coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com" <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Cc: "coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com" <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 6:08 PM



                                   



                                  Fraternizing with foreign nationals is also a "no-no", especially if your having an affair with one. Could cost you your clearance and job. Or you could wind up sweeping the floors or changing the filters in the air handlers.

                                  Sent from my iPad

                                  On Sep 2, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...> wrote:

                                  > My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                                  > the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                                  > investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                                  >
                                  > If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                                  > will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                                  > the security risk of the individual. On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                                  > part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                                  > later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                                  > being disclosed.
                                  >
                                  > Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                                  > deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                                  > holder of a security clearance.
                                  >
                                  > 73
                                  > Sheldon
                                  > --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                   


                                  .







                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • lajes67
                                  Stationed at NAF Lajes Field, Azores in the 60 s, comm officer, Ensign, got involved with a local portuguese girl, as soon as he married her he was shipped
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Sep 2, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Stationed at NAF Lajes Field, Azores in the '60's, comm officer, Ensign, got involved with a local portuguese girl, as soon as he married her he was shipped out with all his security clearances pulled. We had different classifications of messages, one was "UNCLASS EFTO" (unclassified encrypted for transmission only), the supply department let the portuguese nationals that worked for them have access to these messages...."let's see, unclassified, OK, encrypted for transmission only...gee do you think if someone got hold of these messages they might be able to break the encryption?", the supply Chief said that could never happen..........

                                    --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > My experience is that it depended on what country the foreign national is from,
                                    > and that is the "could" in your comment.
                                    >  
                                    > There is a considerable difference between having an affair with a Filipina
                                    > compared to an affair with a Russian.  Bear in mind, this is probably more
                                    > an issue with military stationed outside the US than civilians with clearances,
                                    > working and living inside the US. 
                                    >  
                                    > Back when the US bases were still open in the Philippines, if every person
                                    > at Clark, Subic, San Miguel and Wallace, with a TS clearance who ever
                                    > fraternized with a Filipina lost their clearances, there would have been
                                    > a fair amount of turnover at these bases. 
                                    >  
                                    > I've had TS on both the military side and the civilian side and TS/SCI for a few
                                    > years and my spouse hasn't always been a US citizen.  All my security people
                                    > needed was background information on spouse and family and they seemed
                                    > to be happy. 
                                    >  
                                    > Yea, I know, the bases have been gone for 20 years, and things have been
                                    > changed.
                                    >  
                                    > I did my last TS update three years ago, and the SF-86 at time was the shorter
                                    > version.  A co-worker had his update earlier this year and the security folks
                                    > are asking more detailed questions. 
                                    >  
                                    > Thank goodness I won't have to do any more, as my five year update will run
                                    > out about the time I retire, and looking at the new 127 page version, I am glad
                                    > I probably won't have to deal with it again.
                                    >  
                                    > See:
                                    >  
                                    > http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf
                                    >  
                                    > Oh, if you ever have to do an SF-86 for a clearance, always, always, keep a copy
                                    > for yourself, for the next time.  That way, you don't have to do the research each
                                    > time you need to fill one out.
                                    >  
                                    > 73
                                    > Sheldon
                                    >  
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Marc's Yahoo Account (original) <cappy755@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > From: Marc's Yahoo Account (original) <cappy755@...>
                                    > Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances
                                    > To: "coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com" <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > Cc: "coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com" <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 6:08 PM
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >  
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Fraternizing with foreign nationals is also a "no-no", especially if your having an affair with one. Could cost you your clearance and job. Or you could wind up sweeping the floors or changing the filters in the air handlers.
                                    >
                                    > Sent from my iPad
                                    >
                                    > On Sep 2, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                                    > > the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                                    > > investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                                    > >
                                    > > If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                                    > > will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                                    > > the security risk of the individual. On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                                    > > part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                                    > > later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                                    > > being disclosed.
                                    > >
                                    > > Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                                    > > deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                                    > > holder of a security clearance.
                                    > >
                                    > > 73
                                    > > Sheldon
                                    > > --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >  
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > .
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                  • Jason Bourne
                                    I m thinking it may be/have been an issue of simple trust, like if your own spouse can t trust you, how can AT&T?   I recall there were cases in the U.S.
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Sep 2, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I'm thinking it may be/have been an issue of simple trust, like "if your own spouse can't trust you, how can AT&T?"  I recall there were cases in the U.S. Army of soldiers being forced to change MOS because of extra-marital affairs, including a friend of mine who had re-enlisted after having an affair and was unable to come back as an MP.

                                      --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...> wrote:



                                      From: Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...>
                                      Subject: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances
                                      To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 11:29 AM



                                       



                                      My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                                      the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                                      investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                                       
                                      If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                                      will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                                      the security risk of the individual.  On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                                      part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                                      later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                                      being disclosed.
                                       
                                      Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                                      deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                                      holder of a security clearance.
                                       
                                      73
                                      Sheldon
                                      --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:

                                       

                                      Thanks Mike! Over the years I've met people who claim to have worked in these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a very involved background check. One person even told me that he was rejected for a security clearance because he'd had an extra-marital affair! 
                                       

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Sheldon Daitch
                                      Understand.   But there are major differences between the way message traffic was encrypted in the 1960s and the way message traffic is encrypted today.   
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Sep 2, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Understand.
                                         
                                        But there are major differences between the way message traffic was encrypted in the
                                        1960s and the way message traffic is encrypted today.   
                                         
                                        Even as far back as 20 years ago, DOD was using bulk encryption on T-1 circuits carrying unclassified telephone channels on microwave shots, but classified telephone calls were encrypted again, generally at the user level with STU/STE telephone sets.
                                         
                                        Yes, there are anecdotal stories of those loosing security clearances due to associations
                                        with foreign nationals or even marriages and there are also far more stories of those
                                        who have mingled with the foreign nationals, even married and security clearances were
                                        not revoked.
                                         
                                        73
                                        Sheldon
                                         
                                         


                                        --- On Mon, 9/3/12, lajes67 <jsmale859@...> wrote:


                                        From: lajes67 <jsmale859@...>
                                        Subject: [coldwarcomms] Re: Affairs and Security Clearances
                                        To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                        Date: Monday, September 3, 2012, 3:49 AM



                                         



                                        Stationed at NAF Lajes Field, Azores in the '60's, comm officer, Ensign, got involved with a local portuguese girl, as soon as he married her he was shipped out with all his security clearances pulled. We had different classifications of messages, one was "UNCLASS EFTO" (unclassified encrypted for transmission only), the supply department let the portuguese nationals that worked for them have access to these messages...."let's see, unclassified, OK, encrypted for transmission only...gee do you think if someone got hold of these messages they might be able to break the encryption?", the supply Chief said that could never happen..........

                                        --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > My experience is that it depended on what country the foreign national is from,
                                        > and that is the "could" in your comment.
                                        >  
                                        > There is a considerable difference between having an affair with a Filipina
                                        > compared to an affair with a Russian.  Bear in mind, this is probably more
                                        > an issue with military stationed outside the US than civilians with clearances,
                                        > working and living inside the US. 
                                        >  
                                        > Back when the US bases were still open in the Philippines, if every person
                                        > at Clark, Subic, San Miguel and Wallace, with a TS clearance who ever
                                        > fraternized with a Filipina lost their clearances, there would have been
                                        > a fair amount of turnover at these bases. 
                                        >  
                                        > I've had TS on both the military side and the civilian side and TS/SCI for a few
                                        > years and my spouse hasn't always been a US citizen.  All my security people
                                        > needed was background information on spouse and family and they seemed
                                        > to be happy. 
                                        >  
                                        > Yea, I know, the bases have been gone for 20 years, and things have been
                                        > changed.
                                        >  
                                        > I did my last TS update three years ago, and the SF-86 at time was the shorter
                                        > version.  A co-worker had his update earlier this year and the security folks
                                        > are asking more detailed questions. 
                                        >  
                                        > Thank goodness I won't have to do any more, as my five year update will run
                                        > out about the time I retire, and looking at the new 127 page version, I am glad
                                        > I probably won't have to deal with it again.
                                        >  
                                        > See:
                                        >  
                                        > http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf
                                        >  
                                        > Oh, if you ever have to do an SF-86 for a clearance, always, always, keep a copy
                                        > for yourself, for the next time.  That way, you don't have to do the research each
                                        > time you need to fill one out.
                                        >  
                                        > 73
                                        > Sheldon
                                        >  
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Marc's Yahoo Account (original) <cappy755@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > From: Marc's Yahoo Account (original) <cappy755@...>
                                        > Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances
                                        > To: "coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com" <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
                                        > Cc: "coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com" <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
                                        > Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 6:08 PM
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >  
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Fraternizing with foreign nationals is also a "no-no", especially if your having an affair with one. Could cost you your clearance and job. Or you could wind up sweeping the floors or changing the filters in the air handlers.
                                        >
                                        > Sent from my iPad
                                        >
                                        > On Sep 2, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                                        > > the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                                        > > investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                                        > >
                                        > > If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                                        > > will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                                        > > the security risk of the individual. On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                                        > > part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                                        > > later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                                        > > being disclosed.
                                        > >
                                        > > Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                                        > > deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                                        > > holder of a security clearance.
                                        > >
                                        > > 73
                                        > > Sheldon
                                        > > --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        >  
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > .
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >








                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Sheldon Daitch
                                        Yes, that is, of course, the other issue.  We could look at some politicians for guidance in that area, but that is way off topic.   I wonder if there is
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Sep 2, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Yes, that is, of course, the other issue.  We could look at some
                                          politicians for guidance in that area, but that is way off topic.
                                           
                                          I wonder if there is also a supply and demand aspect of the total
                                          security clearance equation.  Perhaps the Army has such a large
                                          waiting list for MPs that if a handful of them are nailed for affairs,
                                          there are far more folks in the pipeline.
                                           
                                          But with that said, I do note the Armed Forces today are starting
                                          to take a fair amount of action against even officers who are involved
                                          in affairs - several Navy officers have been relieved of ship commands
                                          due to inappropriate activities usually of a sexual nature, and an Army
                                          colonel was just recently convicted in connection with an affair
                                          conducted with a foreign national in Southwest Asia. 
                                           
                                          Maybe another supply and demand aspect involved, with the Armed
                                          Forces shrinking after Iraq.   Extra-marital activities which get people
                                          booted out of the service today might have been overlooked during
                                          the massive build-up days of WWII. 
                                           
                                          As you know, adultery is a prosecutable violation of the UCMJ, but the
                                          act itself isn't necessarily the mechanism to prosecute.
                                           
                                          b. Elements.

                                          (1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

                                          (2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and

                                          (3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.


                                           
                                          The (3) is probably more important to the decision to prosecute than
                                          (1) and (2). 
                                           
                                          It is obvious there is a great deal of discretion available to the powers
                                          that be when it comes to how to deal with clearances and affairs.
                                           
                                          73
                                          Sheldon

                                          --- On Mon, 9/3/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:


                                          From: Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...>
                                          Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances
                                          To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                          Date: Monday, September 3, 2012, 6:18 AM



                                           





                                          I'm thinking it may be/have been an issue of simple trust, like "if your own spouse can't trust you, how can AT&T?"  I recall there were cases in the U.S. Army of soldiers being forced to change MOS because of extra-marital affairs, including a friend of mine who had re-enlisted after having an affair and was unable to come back as an MP.

                                          --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...> wrote:

                                          From: Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...>
                                          Subject: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances
                                          To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                          Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 11:29 AM

                                           

                                          My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                                          the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                                          investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                                           
                                          If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                                          will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                                          the security risk of the individual.  On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                                          part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                                          later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                                          being disclosed.
                                           
                                          Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                                          deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                                          holder of a security clearance.
                                           
                                          73
                                          Sheldon
                                          --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:

                                           

                                          Thanks Mike! Over the years I've met people who claim to have worked in these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a very involved background check. One person even told me that he was rejected for a security clearance because he'd had an extra-marital affair! 
                                           

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • james kester
                                          They re not interested in the subject matter as much, however they would like to know if the subject can comply with the 9th commandment.  Which pretty much
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Sep 3, 2012
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            They're not interested in the subject matter as much, however they would like to know if the subject can comply with the 9th commandment. 
                                            Which pretty much defines most everything else in the battery of questions regarding a current operative, shield, or candidate.



                                            ________________________________
                                            From: Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...>
                                            To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 7:29 AM
                                            Subject: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances


                                             
                                            My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                                            the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                                            investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                                             
                                            If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                                            will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                                            the security risk of the individual.  On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                                            part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                                            later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                                            being disclosed.
                                             
                                            Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                                            deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                                            holder of a security clearance.
                                             
                                            73
                                            Sheldon
                                            --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:

                                             

                                            Thanks Mike! Over the years I've met people who claim to have worked in these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a very involved background check. One person even told me that he was rejected for a security clearance because he'd had an extra-marital affair! 
                                             

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • james kester
                                            Truth or consequences, I say..... ... From: james kester To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com Sent:
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Nov 14, 2012
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Truth or consequences, I say.....

                                              ----- Forwarded Message -----
                                              From: james kester <radioconstco@...>
                                              To: "coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com" <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
                                              Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 12:35 PM
                                              Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances


                                              They're not interested in the subject matter as much, however they would like to know if the subject can comply with the 9th commandment. 
                                              Which pretty much defines most everything else in the battery of questions regarding a current operative, shield, or candidate.



                                              ________________________________
                                              From: Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...>
                                              To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                              Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 7:29 AM
                                              Subject: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances


                                               
                                              My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs isn't that
                                              the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was with the
                                              investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the investigating agency.
                                               
                                              If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an affair, the details
                                              will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be interviewed as to
                                              the security risk of the individual.  On the other hand, if the affair is not disclosed as
                                              part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is discovered
                                              later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects which aren't
                                              being disclosed.
                                               
                                              Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria used in
                                              deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to compromise the
                                              holder of a security clearance.
                                               
                                              73
                                              Sheldon
                                              --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:

                                               

                                              Thanks Mike! Over the years I've met people who claim to have worked in these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a very involved background check. One person even told me that he was rejected for a security clearance because he'd had an extra-marital affair! 
                                               

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Todd McMahon
                                              Your clearance can even be revoked by going into bankruptcy. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Nov 14, 2012
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Your clearance can even be revoked by going into bankruptcy.


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Lou Novacheck
                                                All it depends on is who you are and who your friends are. To wit: *20121110-When a C.I.A. Director Had Scores of Affairs* By STEPHEN
                                                Message 23 of 23 , Nov 14, 2012
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  All it depends on is who you are and who your friends are. To wit:

                                                  *20121110-When a C.I.A. Director Had Scores of Affairs*

                                                  By STEPHEN KINZER<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/stephen_kinzer/index.html>

                                                  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/opinion/when-a-cia-director-had-scores-of-affairs.html



                                                  WALKING through the lobby of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters
                                                  in Langley, Va., after handing in his resignation on Friday, David H.
                                                  Petraeus passed a bas-relief sculpture of Allen
                                                  Dulles<https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/allen-dulles-becomes-dci.html>,
                                                  who led the agency in the 1950s and early �60s. Below it is the motto, �His
                                                  Monument Is Around Us.�

                                                  Both men ran the C.I.A. during some of its most active years, Dulles during
                                                  the early cold war and Mr. Petraeus during the era of drone strikes and
                                                  counterinsurgency operations. And both, it turns out, had high-profile
                                                  extramarital affairs.

                                                  But private life for a C.I.A. director today is apparently quite different
                                                  from what it was in the Dulles era. Mr. Petraeus resigned after admitting
                                                  to a single affair; Allen Dulles had, as his sister, Eleanor, wrote later,
                                                  �at least a hundred.�

                                                  Indeed, the contrast between Dulles�s story and that of Mr. Petraeus
                                                  reflects how fully the life of public servants has changed in the United
                                                  States.

                                                  Dulles ran the agency from 1953 to 1961, and he had a profound effect on
                                                  the America�s role in the cold war. Together with his brother, Secretary of
                                                  State John Foster
                                                  Dulles<http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0225.html>,
                                                  he exercised enormous power and helped overthrow governments from Iran to
                                                  Guatemala to Congo.

                                                  He was also a serial adulterer. Dulles was married in 1920, but he and his
                                                  wife, Clover, had a difficult home life. She was sensitive and introverted,
                                                  while he was handsome and charming � and a skilled seducer.

                                                  His affairs were legendary. The writer Rebecca
                                                  West<http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/09/10/specials/west-obit.html>,
                                                  asked once whether she had been one of his girlfriends, famously replied,
                                                  �Alas, no, but I wish I had been.�

                                                  For most of the 1920 and �30s, Dulles worked with his brother at the Wall
                                                  Street law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. He often took extended foreign
                                                  trips, and the letters he wrote home to Clover were full of references to
                                                  other women that could at best be read as insensitive, at worst as taunting.

                                                  In one he wrote of a night out with �an attractive (not beautiful)
                                                  Irish-French female whom I took to Scheherazade, where we stayed until the
                                                  early hours.� In another, the subject was a �rather good-looking� English
                                                  woman with whom he �danced and drank champagne until quite late.�

                                                  Other women he reported meeting included �a charming widow,� �a most
                                                  pleasant companion,� �a young English damsel,� �a very delightful person�
                                                  and �a sensible soul, also by no means ugly.�

                                                  After one Atlantic crossing he proudly wrote to Clover that �on the whole I
                                                  have kept rather free from any entanglements, and in particular there have
                                                  been no ladies on board with whom I have particularly consorted.�

                                                  As if to pour salt in her emotional wounds, Dulles wrote in another letter
                                                  that he didn�t �deserve as good a wife as I have, as I am rather too fond
                                                  of the company of other ladies.�

                                                  During World War II, Dulles ran American espionage operations in neutral
                                                  Switzerland. Soon after arriving in Bern, he found a mistress, Mary
                                                  Bancroft, a dynamic woman of the world who had grown up on Beacon Hill in
                                                  Boston under the wing of her doting step-grandfather, C. W. Barron,
                                                  publisher of The Wall Street Journal.

                                                  Dulles hired Bancroft to write political analysis, but there was little
                                                  doubt where his interest lay.

                                                  �We can let the work cover the romance, and the romance cover the work,� he
                                                  told her as they began their affair.

                                                  By her own account, Bancroft developed �overwhelming admiration for his
                                                  abilities� and fell �completely in love� with him. Later Dulles introduced
                                                  her to his wife. Somehow, they became close friends. �I can see how much
                                                  you and Allen care for one another, and I approve,� the wife told the
                                                  mistress.

                                                  Dulles was 60 years old when he took over the C.I.A., and had slowed down a
                                                  bit. Nonetheless, he was rumored to have become familiar with one of the
                                                  highest-profile women of the era, Clare Booth
                                                  Luce<http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0310.html>,
                                                  the wife of Henry R.
                                                  Luce<http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0403.html>,
                                                  the publisher of Time and Life (who in turn was said to be keeping company
                                                  with Mary Bancroft).

                                                  Another of Dulles�s conquests, according to several accounts, was Queen
                                                  Frederika of Greece<http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/07/obituaries/frederika-greek-queen-mother-in-madrid-hospital-as-an-exile.html>.
                                                  In 1958 she came to the United States on a tour with her son, the future
                                                  King Constantine II, and just as her trip was about to end, she announced
                                                  without explanation that she would stay for another week.

                                                  She came to Washington, discussed �spiritual values� with President Dwight
                                                  D. Eisenhower in the Oval Office and then visited Dulles at C.I.A.
                                                  headquarters.

                                                  They had been alone in his office for nearly an hour when an aide knocked.
                                                  Hearing no response, he entered. He found the office empty, but heard
                                                  noises from the adjoining dressing room. Later Dulles and the queen emerged.

                                                  As she was being driven back to the Greek Embassy, the queen suggested one
                                                  reason Greek-American relations were so strong. �We just love that man!�
                                                  she exclaimed.

                                                  Dulles�s behavior was well known in Washington and elsewhere, but never
                                                  publicly reported. By the journalistic codes of the 1950s, it was not
                                                  newsworthy.

                                                  The same code applied to Dulles�s superiors. Presidents Eisenhower and John
                                                  F. Kennedy entrusted the security of the United States to him. What Dulles
                                                  did in his private life, even when it intersected with his public role, was
                                                  considered none of their business.

                                                  Allen Dulles, who died in 1969, may have been, as one biographer claimed,
                                                  �the greatest intelligence officer who ever lived.� Yet by today�s
                                                  standards, this master spy would not have been allowed even to join the
                                                  C.I.A., much less lead it.

                                                  Stephen Kinzer <http://www.stephenkinzer.com/>, a former
                                                  correspondent<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/k/stephen_kinzer/index.html>
                                                  for
                                                  The New York Times, is the author of the forthcoming book �The Brothers:
                                                  John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War.�

                                                  On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:45 AM, james kester <radioconstco@...>wrote:

                                                  > **
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Truth or consequences, I say.....
                                                  >
                                                  > ----- Forwarded Message -----
                                                  > From: james kester <radioconstco@...>
                                                  > To: "coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com" <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
                                                  > Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 12:35 PM
                                                  > Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > They're not interested in the subject matter as much, however they would
                                                  > like to know if the subject can comply with the 9th commandment.
                                                  > Which pretty much defines most everything else in the battery of questions
                                                  > regarding a current operative, shield, or candidate.
                                                  >
                                                  > ________________________________
                                                  > From: Sheldon Daitch <sheldondaitch@...>
                                                  > To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 7:29 AM
                                                  > Subject: [coldwarcomms] Affairs and Security Clearances
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > My somewhat anecdotal understanding of security clearances and affairs
                                                  > isn't that
                                                  > the affair itself is the cause of rejection (unless perhaps the affair was
                                                  > with the
                                                  > investigator's spouse!), but how the affair was discovered by the
                                                  > investigating agency.
                                                  >
                                                  > If the applicant is up front with the investigators in regards to an
                                                  > affair, the details
                                                  > will be noted and even perhaps the other party to the affair may be
                                                  > interviewed as to
                                                  > the security risk of the individual. On the other hand, if the affair is
                                                  > not disclosed as
                                                  > part of the security clearance application and interview process, but is
                                                  > discovered
                                                  > later by the investigators, then ther are concerns about other aspects
                                                  > which aren't
                                                  > being disclosed.
                                                  >
                                                  > Those with security clearances aren't all saints, and one of the criteria
                                                  > used in
                                                  > deciding on security clearances is things which could be used to
                                                  > compromise the
                                                  > holder of a security clearance.
                                                  >
                                                  > 73
                                                  > Sheldon
                                                  > --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jason Bourne <quiet_cool1986@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Thanks Mike! Over the years I've met people who claim to have worked in
                                                  > these places, and they said they did alot of correspondence courses and a
                                                  > very involved background check. One person even told me that he was
                                                  > rejected for a security clearance because he'd had an extra-marital affair!
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >



                                                  --
                                                  If the C.I.A. director can get caught, it's pretty much open season on
                                                  everyone else.
                                                  ~ Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information
                                                  Center

                                                  Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance
                                                  auction in stolen goods.
                                                  ~ H.L. Mencken

                                                  Pun of the Week
                                                  When the smog lifts in Los Angeles, U.C.L.A.
                                                  ---
                                                  Looking for the best coverage of American music? You'll find it at
                                                  www.ElmoreMagazine.com, and at www.NoDepression.com.

                                                  Be sure to visit The Morton Report and BlogCritics for the best and the
                                                  most diverse comments and reviews on every subject imaginable.


                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.