I searched the diaries and didn't see this. My friend, who is a news writer, just forwarded me this AP article. I wish I had the energy to paraphrase... but I don't. I'm exhausted thinking about pre-emptive war in Iran, Democrats who let Republicans off the hook, my sister's husband about to leave for Iraq....
I would think the White House would have better things to think about too but apparently not. Bush's War on America continues. I guess he gets to slip this one in because who the hell has time to fight THIS with so much else going on?
WASHINGTON (March 16) - The White House said Wednesday
a revised policy on granting security clearances to
gays and lesbians does not reflect a change in how the government will treat sexual orientation.
But several Democrats denounced the new rules.
"The Bush administration is waging a covert war on
loyal federal employees who happen to be gay," said
California Rep. Henry Waxman, the top Democrat on the
House Government Reform Committee.
The administration rewrote a 1997 regulation that had
said sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis"
for denying clearances or determining whether
individuals should be eligible to access classified
information unless it could make them vulnerable to
coercion or exploitation.
President Bush's updated language says security
clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of
the sexual orientation of the individual."
If sexual behavior is "strictly private, consensual
and discreet," that could lessen security concerns,
according to the regulations that came as part of an
update to clearance guidelines distributed in
December.
Gay rights activists said the change could open the
door to added attention on sexual orientation - and discrimination.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the new
language stems from a 1995 executive order aimed at
preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
He insisted no language has been removed and that the
new rules are similar to the old ones.
"There's no change in our policy," McClellan said. "I
think that they updated the language to reflect
exactly what was spelled out in the executive order."
The Senate Intelligence Committee's Republican staff
director, Bill Duhnke, said the Clinton and Bush
regulations have the same effect, although they
approach the issue in slightly different ways. "It's a controversy without substance," he said.
Neither allows someone's sexual orientation to be used
by itself, Duhnke said, but in both cases some other
behavior must give the government pause. If someone
were trying to hide the fact that they are gay, for
instance, he or she could be susceptible to coercion
or blackmail.
Security clearances "are a privilege, not a right.
They are granted on the discretion of the executive
branch," Duhnke said.
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee Chairman Susan Collins, R-Maine, and House
Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va.,
both requested briefings on the issue, their aides
said.
Others lawmakers were critical.
Waxman and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said the
revisions come as the administration has refused to
enforce a policy that protects federal employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The administration has rejected the allegations.
Frank, who is gay, said the administration is taking a
step backward by changing the Clinton-era protections
on security clearances. Frank said it is too soon to
know the impact.
"Of course, sexual misbehavior could be grounds for
denying a security clearance," he said. "But that's
irrelevant as to whether the misbehavior is gay or
straight, unless you think that sexual behavior by gay
people is inherently misbehavior."
A second openly gay lawmaker, Rep. Tammy Baldwin,
D-Wis., urged the White House to rescind the
guidelines. "Sexual orientation has no relevance to a
person's reliability, trustworthiness or ability to
protect classified information," she said.
Several million civilian and military personnel have
security clearances that require lengthy background
checks. Investigators look at whether applicants have
shown signs, including drug use, criminal activity and
sexual behavior, that they could be a security risk.
Steve Ralls, spokesman for Servicemembers Legal
Defense Network, said his organization is going to
watch closely to be sure the White House follows
through on its assurances about the new rules.
"We want to be sure sexual orientation is not used as
a road block for security clearance approval," said
Ralls, whose group advises gay military personnel on
how to answer questions during the background checks.