Be careful; this type of argument can be used both ways. There are some who would argue that "these people" should be held personally accountable when someone who shouldn't have a security clearance gets one, and later causes a legitimate problem because of that clearance. So, "out of an abundance of caution" (cough), lots of people would be denied clearances who aren't a threat.

Don't get me wrong ... from what the original article says, it sounds like this fellow is entitled to a boatload of compensation. I'm just not sure that individual accountability is necessarily the way to fix this ...