Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
indy_phal  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, December 07, 2011 12:43:06 AM(UTC)
indy_phal

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 162

In case you haven't been following, Hegab, a budgetary analyst at NGA, had his clearance revoked over a year ago due to his wife's alleged Islamic links via her employment at "Islamic Relief USA."  He is suing NGA over civil rights violations, claiming, among other things, his constitutionally protected right to practice religion without persecution.

Original complaint, 10/4/2011: http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/hegab-complaint.pdf
Government's motion to dismiss, 12/5/2011: http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/hegab-mtdmemo11.pdfUpU

-Update 1/24-

Ruling in favor of dismissal 1/19: http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/hegab-opinion.pdf



indy_phal2012-01-24 04:49:03
~Security clearance 101~<br />How long does clearance take?: http://goo.gl/i9ATd<br />Adjudication criteria: http://goo.gl/OLNlN<br />DOHA verdicts (appeals): http://goo.gl/MqAZL
polypasser  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, December 07, 2011 4:12:19 AM(UTC)
polypasser

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/24/2011(UTC)
Posts: 77




I read the story in the Post, but the motion to dismiss has a little more info why his ts/sci was revoked. The SOR to Hegab
Quote:
The risks associated with you and your family members
holding dual citizenship with another country other than
the United States; your possession of a foreign national
passport; your family members residing in Egypt; your
continuing contact with multiple foreign nationals; your
spouse being or having been publicly affiliated with one or
more organizations that are reportedly active in
advocating political issues that support governments
other than the United States; and your publicly known
affiliation with NGA significantly heighten the risks of
you being a target for foreign intelligence or security
services.

I thought holding a foreign passport was a no-no for SCI? I've also read in DOHA verdicts of clearances being revoked for living with family members that are citizens of other countries. I don't see why this is any different. If it was based solely on his wife being involved with "organizations that are reportedly active in advocating political issues that support governments" I could understand, but he seems to be fighting an uphill battle here. Especially since no one has a "‘right’ to a security clearance.” Also, did this stuff come up in his initial investigation? Did he conceal or withhold it?

I don't necessarily agree with adjudicator decisions in the past, but it seems like he can or could have "mitigated"  a lot of the concern adjudicators might have. E.g. renouncing his and his families citizenship and giving up his passport.

polypasser2011-12-07 12:38:13
indy_phal  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, December 07, 2011 6:29:38 AM(UTC)
indy_phal

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 162

polypasser wrote:
  it seems like he can or could have "mitigated"  a lot of the concern adjudicators might have.


For the record, through a written rebuttal and, later, a personal appearance, he actually did mitigate everything in the initial SOR except his wife's employment at IRUSA.  You are correct, though, the details about his dual Egyptian citizenship, his parents' Egyptian citizenship, and his wife's dual Jordanian citizenship had not come out until the motion to dismiss was filed.  However, those details should be irrelevant at this point, as NGA has already judged them to be mitigated (mitigated twice, in fact, in the case of his own citizenship and that of his parents, because he was initially cleared with NGA's full knowledge of those issues).
~Security clearance 101~<br />How long does clearance take?: http://goo.gl/i9ATd<br />Adjudication criteria: http://goo.gl/OLNlN<br />DOHA verdicts (appeals): http://goo.gl/MqAZL
indy_phal  
#4 Posted : Monday, January 23, 2012 8:46:48 PM(UTC)
indy_phal

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 162

The case was dismissed last week.  See original post for the decision.  Here is some analysis from FAS: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2012/01/hegab_dismissal.html
~Security clearance 101~<br />How long does clearance take?: http://goo.gl/i9ATd<br />Adjudication criteria: http://goo.gl/OLNlN<br />DOHA verdicts (appeals): http://goo.gl/MqAZL
polypasser  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, January 24, 2012 7:37:08 AM(UTC)
polypasser

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/24/2011(UTC)
Posts: 77

I didn't think the case had any legs in court. 

Is this it for Mr. Hegab? Is he done with DOHA appeals or whatever it is they do?

If so, its sucks. Hopefully he can make a career somewhere else. I know I'd be done in my line of work, might as well go back to school...
indy_phal  
#6 Posted : Friday, February 03, 2012 2:46:18 AM(UTC)
indy_phal

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 162


polypasser wrote:
I didn't think the case had any legs in court.
I don't know much about law, but I do think that the case brought up a
fundamental question that we should all be asking: If someone loses his
job because his clearance was revoked, and that revocation was based on
religious or racial discrimination, should the former employee be
offered any legal recourse?  Pulling someone's clearance ruins their
entire career.  What happens when someone's boss doesn't like the fact
they they are a homosexual? or a woman? or 7th day Adventist? Or a
democrat?  These aren't hypothetical, it happens to real people.  Maybe
that's the price we pay for security, but I'm still disappointed that
the court flat out refused to hear the case, and refused recognize the
interest of the judiciary in serving as a check to an executive branch agency.

I don't know who would have won in the end, and I would have been
satisfied with whatever the result, had it actually been heard in
court.  At the very least, I'm sure Hegab is very relieved to be done with the whole ordeal.
polypasser wrote:
Is this it for Mr. Hegab? Is he done with DOHA appeals or whatever it is they do?

He's well past that phase.
polypasser wrote:
If so, its sucks. Hopefully he can make a career somewhere else. I know I'd be done in my line of work, might as well go back to school...

He obviously thought the same, as evident by his motivation to fight for so long.

indy_phal2012-02-03 10:55:28
~Security clearance 101~<br />How long does clearance take?: http://goo.gl/i9ATd<br />Adjudication criteria: http://goo.gl/OLNlN<br />DOHA verdicts (appeals): http://goo.gl/MqAZL
fedsRule  
#7 Posted : Monday, February 06, 2012 2:02:11 PM(UTC)
fedsRule

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/13/2011(UTC)
Posts: 100

indy_phal wrote:
polypasser wrote:
I didn't think the case had any legs in court.
I don't know much about law, but I do think that the case brought up a fundamental question that we should all be asking: If someone loses his job because his clearance was revoked, and that revocation was based on religious or racial discrimination, should the former employee be offered any legal recourse?  Pulling someone's clearance ruins their entire career.  What happens when someone's boss doesn't like the fact they they are a homosexual? or a woman? or 7th day Adventist? Or a democrat?  These aren't hypothetical, it happens to real people. 
 
First, someone's boss has almost nothing to do with whether they get to keep their security clearance.  That's the job of the security office and CAFs.  Next, your theory that people get their clearance revoked on the basis of race, being a democrat, or being a woman sounds a lot like a hypothetical to me without documented cases.  Being homosexual is far less important than historically, but could still be a legitimate security concern if you're still living in "the closet", although that's becoming more and more uncommon, with the potential that information could be used for blackmail.  As to religion, that absolutely should be considered in the security process.  Johnathon Pollard, one of the most famous spys in US history, did it because he felt had religious obligations as a member of the Jewish faith to support the state of Israel.
indy_phal  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:17:24 AM(UTC)
indy_phal

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 162

fedsRule wrote:
First, someone's boss has almost nothing to do with whether they get to keep their security clearance.  That's the job of the security office and CAFs.  Next, your theory that people get their clearance revoked on the basis of race, being a democrat, or being a woman sounds a lot like a hypothetical to me without documented cases.  Being homosexual is far less important than historically, but could still be a legitimate security concern if you're still living in "the closet", although that's becoming more and more uncommon, with the potential that information could be used for blackmail.  As to religion, that absolutely should be considered in the security process.  Johnathon Pollard, one of the most famous spys in US history, did it because he felt had religious obligations as a member of the Jewish faith to support the state of Israel.


Well, I'm going to try and stay civil here.  I'll just say that I think it was an interesting case and I believe it deserved to be heard, if only by virtue of the importance of the issues it brings up.  I think that is something you could perhaps agree on, no matter what your feelings about the eventual verdict.
~Security clearance 101~<br />How long does clearance take?: http://goo.gl/i9ATd<br />Adjudication criteria: http://goo.gl/OLNlN<br />DOHA verdicts (appeals): http://goo.gl/MqAZL
fedsRule  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:47:12 PM(UTC)
fedsRule

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/13/2011(UTC)
Posts: 100

I'm not sure.  The government already has an appeals process for security clearances.  Now, I don't know much about his specific case or the internals of the security clearance process, but I would imagine they sometimes want to deny an applicant for a reason that they're not able to reveal to the applicant because its classified.  As complete and total speculation, they think someone is a spy, but don't want to declare that person a spy so that can continue to monitor his handler and try to catch other moles.  They still want that someone off the job, so they have to come up with a contrived reason to revoke the clearance.  I'm not sure the judicial court system is equipped to deal with those types of cases. 
waitingOutSequester  
#10 Posted : Friday, May 10, 2013 8:38:20 AM(UTC)
waitingOutSequester

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/8/2013(UTC)
Posts: 143

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Today is a great day. His clearance revocation was upheld by the court of appeals.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121182.P.pdf
SESIQ70  
#11 Posted : Friday, May 10, 2013 12:07:01 PM(UTC)
SESIQ70

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/22/2013(UTC)
Posts: 323

a good day for all americans
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.924 seconds.