Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Letter in Doe v. Ashcroft case. The lack of judicial oversight and the Supreme Court ruling in Smith v. Maryland was the core of Doe v. Ashcroft, a test case brought by the ACLU concerning the use of NSLs. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of "John Doe" plaintiff Nicholas Merrill, founder of Calyx Internet Access, [15] who had received an NSL ...
An interim clearance may be denied (although the final clearance may still be granted) for having a large amount of debt, [40] having a foreign spouse, for having admitted to seeing a doctor for a mental health condition, or for having admitted to other items of security concern (such as a criminal record or a history of drug use.). When ...
Within the U.S. government, security clearance levels serve as a mechanism to ascertain which individuals are authorized to access sensitive or classified information. These levels often appear in employment postings for Defense related jobs and other jobs involving substantial amounts of responsibility, such as air traffic control or nuclear ...
Access is restricted by law or regulation to particular groups of people with the necessary security clearance with a need to know. Mishandling of the material can incur criminal penalties. A formal security clearance is required to view or handle classified material. The clearance process requires a satisfactory background investigation.
The term "security clearance" is also sometimes used in private organizations that have a formal process to vet employees for access to sensitive information. A clearance by itself is normally not sufficient to gain access; the organization must also determine that the cleared individual needs to know specific information. No individual is ...
A Q Clearance is equivalent to a U.S. Department of Defense Top Secret clearance. [2] According to the Department of Energy, "Q access authorization corresponds to the background investigation and administrative determination similar to what is completed by other agencies for a Top Secret National Security Information access clearance." [2]
The anonymous tip that led Mexican authorities to a remote shack where four abducted Americans were held described armed men, people wearing blindfolds and plenty of activity around a ranch.
Thus, the U.S. and U.K. claim that they used their right to suspend the cease-fire in Resolution 687 and to continue hostilities against Iraq under the authority of U.N. Resolution 678 (1990), which originally authorized the use of force after Iraq invaded Kuwait. [31] This is the same argument that was used for Operation Desert Fox in 1998. [32]