Security Clearances and Homicidal Maniacs

This is the most stunning thing of all about the case of Bruce Ivins. I cannot understand why this isn't the story itself--that it was known for years that this man was a demonstrable threat and that he still held a security clearance.

Here are the relevant facts:

The therapist for Bruce E. Ivins told a judge that as far back as 2000, the late microbiologist suspected in the 2001 anthrax attacks had attempted to poison people and that she was "scared to death" of him, according to an audiotape of the session that emerged Saturday.

Social worker Jean Duley testified at a hearing in Frederick on July 24 in a successful bid for a protective order from Ivins. The New York Times obtained a recording of the hearing and posted it on its Web site Saturday.

What the hell went on between the year 2000 and July 24, 2008?

Ivins was removed from his lab in Maryland by police on July 10 and temporarily hospitalized, according to court records, because it was feared that he was a danger to himself and others. But it was unclear whether he was still employed by the lab at the time of his death Tuesday.

That raises the question of whether Ivins still had his security clearance and, if so, how he kept it, given that his social worker said Ivins had been viewed as homicidal and sociopathic by his psychiatrist.

Absolutely, yes it does. THAT is the most relevant question of all--why did this man have a security clearance between 2000 and 2008 at all? Why was he allowed to work in a sensitive area?

The Army refused Saturday to say whether it had been reviewing the security clearance of the chief suspect in the anthrax attacks who had mental problems and killed himself as federal prosecutors were planning to indict him.

Ivins was removed from his lab in Maryland by police on July 10 and temporarily hospitalized, according to court records, because it was feared that he was a danger to himself and others. But it was unclear whether he was still employed by the lab at the time of his death Tuesday.

That raises the question of whether Ivins still had his security clearance and, if so, how he kept it, given that his social worker said Ivins had been viewed as homicidal and sociopathic by his psychiatrist.

There's no way--no way--this man should have continued to have any clearance or access whatsoever.

Everyone in that decision making chain needs to be sacked, en masse, immediately, and all of their work reviewed immediately. Between 2000 and 2008, Ivins would have had at least one periodic five-year review of his clearance, and whoever performed that review, investigation, and/or adjudication is now party to this debacle. Their shoddy work has endangered us all.

A serious, serious error was made in not denying this man access to classified materials and weapons. Once again, incompetent, bumbling boobs made the wrong decision to allow this man access. Once again, the real story is lost and the focus is not where it should be. The entire system is seriously broken, from top to bottom, and no one can conclude that our security clearance process is working the way that it should when people like Bruce Ivins can have access for years and years while it is absolutely clear that he should not have had access.

--WS