Originally Posted by jkhuggins (Post 14394570)

Let me try again.

Suppose every worker at airport FOX is undergoing a security check, and I'm the person who has to decide whether that worker gets to keep their security clearance. I'm told that if I make a wrong decision, I'll be "held accountable".

I can screw up two different ways:

• If I revoke someone's security clearance who deserves to have it, like this story, I've made a wrong decision, and I'm screwed.
• On the other hand, if I allow someone to retain a security clearance, and then it turns out that he shouldn't have been allowed to keep it (because he ends up blowing up a plane or something), then I made a wrong decision, and I'm screwed. (Along with all his victims, of course.)

So, now here's an application on my desk. It's a borderline case. What do I do? If I improperly renew the clearance, I'll be condemned like the shmucks who gave the Underwear Bomber his visas, even though lots of people seemed to know he was a risk to aviation. If I improperly deny the clearance, I'll be condemned like the shmucks who made this guy's life so difficult for eight months.

All I'm saying is that one can make errors in both directions. That's not an excuse for not getting it right, of course. But how do you chart the middle course?