Originally Posted by HookemHorns
Excluding those with high-level clearances (or perhaps those with polygraphs on file) does offer one advantage - it removes a well-investigated, low-risk population from the screening pool without regard to anything that could be considered prejudicial (race, religion, sex, etc). Of course, it would concern me a bit if a large number of the CIs you did on these individuals yielded derogatory information
It's a difference between a general officer, for example, who possesses a top secret security clearance WITH a 25-year record of demonstrated trustworthiness and a 21 year old contractor who may have a top secret security clearance only because there was no derogatory information to disqualify him/her from consideration for that clearance. As a general rule, I believe everyone needs to undergo a measure of security scrutiny; however, IF there are going to be exceptions, then let's have some logic behind them.
If we are truly going to embrace risk management, then we have to accept the concept of exemptions. But let's not let the pendulum swing all the way to the other side and become a matter of political or economic convenience.