Explosives workers not checked - who is at fault

From USA Today, via Yahoo! portal.

Explosives workers not checked

Tue Apr 5, 8:29 AM ET

By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

Hundreds of people who applied for federal permits to handle explosives during the past two years were allowed to work with such materials despite evidence of criminal records or other conduct that could have disqualified them from such permits, the Justice Department said Monday.
The problem, according to a review by Glenn Fine, the department's inspector general, is that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been plagued by delays in completing background checks for thousands of workers in mining, construction, demolition and other industries that use explosives.
Some background checks have been pending for nearly a year, the review said. Meanwhile, applicants for permits often have been allowed to work with explosives while their requests for permits are pending, the review said.

... more at linked article

Lets see if I can set an example here.

The news in this report is absolute travesty. Much like the lax application of gun control laws, and other areas where background checks should help to avoid problems, and instead the checks are left uncompleted for months, if not years on end, we have hard evidence that our systems are not working.

Now, unlike some on these blogs and forums, I am not going to drop the blame for this on any one individual, you see, I know this problem is systemic. It's not the fault of President Bush, or Alberto Gonzales (or John Ashcroft before him) or other cabinet level individuals. It's a problem within the entire system. This problem has existed for years, and may exist for years into the future. It's existed under Democratic Presidents, and under Republicans. It's part of a larger problem of over-worked and under-paid (in some ways) and over-paid and under-worked (in others) white collar workers using broken IT (Information Technology / Computer) systems to perform checks of records that may not haven been properly enterred, may be kept in some manual access only method, or may have been accidentally lost, misplaced, or otherwise ignored.

It should not take 18 months or more to do a background check on an individual. Most private industries would complete such checks in hours in some cases, and a few days in others. Why our government can't do the same is beyond me. Perhaps it's an abudance of red tape, privacy laws, over-lapping regulations that cause confusion or other problems.

Either way, it's a problem that should be addressed, and which, honestly I would hope some of the leaders at the Justice Department/ATF would take by the horns and work towards resolving. Perhaps, just perhaps, it's a problem that should merit a bullet item on a daily agenda for President Bush to discuss and demand some action on, and perhaps later it should show up again to discuss some progress on. Regardless, it is an issue demanding attention, and it should receive just that.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think fan1980 just made a good argument that there is no real threat of criminals using the purchased explosives for evil purposes. All those criminals with explosives and for some reason they're not using them for bad. Surely fan1980 isn't saying the government should spend a ton of money to try stop people with criminal records from purchasing explosives when there are no cases of any of those criminals using them for evil purposes. But I suppose you may imagine you're more secure if they decide to crack down on criminals who aren't doing criminal acts. And let's me more specific here for a moment. My sister's friend was caught stealing a lame shirt when she was I think 18 or 19. She has a criminal record. She's a threat to the community if she's licensed to purchase explosives?

Successfully updated karma reason!

And let's me more specific here for a moment. My sister's friend was caught stealing a lame shirt when she was I think 18 or 19. She has a criminal record. She's a threat to the community if she's licensed to purchase explosives?

That's part of what is taken into account when a background check is done. Context means everything. If your sister is honest and straightforward in answering questions invovled in getting the background check performed, than no, she'd probably not be considered a threat at all, but if she tried to hide that information she may be discovered as someone that attempts to hide pertinent information in an effort to gain more access to some items than she might be entitled to.

We do need to do these checks, and we need them to be performed in a timely and efficient manner. We can't have prospective employees lost because they couldn't get the clearances they needed, or have the checks performed so slowly that individuals that have no business getting access to these materials are doing just that.

Perhaps we need to spend more money to solve the problem, or perhaps we need the employees we have to work better, faster, and smarter to get their jobs done. I don't know for sure which is the best approach, but in many cases, I expect it's some of all of the above. There are far too many people working for the government that aren't doing the best they can, and they just don't care. That is sad, but I think it's a fact of life in today's workforce.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: