• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Over 175 ex-US spy officials join Brennan clearance outcry

EnigmaO01 said:
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You're just shooting your mouth off.
Click to expand...

You've said that to the last 3 posters YET never responded a single retort....Sounds like you DONT know what you are talking about.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You're just shooting your mouth off.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never held a security clearance before.
 
jdog21 said:
No it doesn't. The keeping of security clearances hasn't been in practice very long, its a new thing that should never had started.
Click to expand...

Citation? It's not a new thing at all.
 
Exactice said:
1) If you leave a JOB position relevant for X level of Clearance, it should be removed the day you step out of the office? SOP (Standard Operating Procedures - NOT laws)
Click to expand...
That is not standard procedure. It should not be standard procedure. No one immediately becomes a risk because they stopped working for the CIA or NSA or DoD. Aside from transition duties, many people who worked on the government side of the intelligence community often wind up going into the private sector. The ability to access classified materials in connection with the contract is often required.


2) It has always been a courtesy to allow high levels to maintain. My recollection though, Brennan is the only Senior Official in recent years that has gone off the rails to insight this flame from a President. So he dished it he should take it
Click to expand...
It has NEVER been normal for the President to haul off and yank someone's clearance, like a spoiled child selfishly grabbing a doll, solely because the former official criticized the President. Brennan violated no law, he did not release any classified information, he hasn't compromised any investigations or operations.

This is not normal, and should not be normal. This is Trump violating yet another democratic norm.


4) I wonder why everyone is standing up now? BECAUSE it looks great on a resume and it looks great that you still have it, Brennan USED it for his benefit... MSNBC Contributor and feeding that Narrative of the Media to blast the POTUS.... What lineman within the chain of command disrespects their Commander in Chief and expects to maintain benefits that are courtesies NOT rights or laws.
Click to expand...
Brennan doesn't need access to classified information to work for MSNBC. In fact, he can't reveal any classified information to anyone at MSNBC who doesn't have clearance.

People are standing up now because Trump literally just attacked the norm last week. Obama didn't do this, Bush 43 didn't do this, Clinton didn't do this, Bush 41 didn't do this... Was the intelligence community supposed to protest this years before it happened?


You will notice.... like 175 ex members will STFU now...because they wont be so stupid to open their mouth politically.....
Click to expand...
Uh, hello? This thread is about 175+ former intelligence officials, of varying political views, opening their mouths.


Its not brennans job to judge the president thats the American people his job WAS the CIA director...NOW he is a contributor to MSNBC. He can do it that all he wants with out a security clearance...
Click to expand...
The point isn't that he needs clearance to do his job. It's that Trump is trying to use revocation of clearance as a weapon against his enemies, specifically to shut them up. Not because they are breaking the law, not because they are revealing classified information, not because they are taking actions which threatens the security if the nation, but because they're criticizing him -- a perfectly legitimate action.

Of course, this is also happening whilst the President is attacking the press left and right, and squealing about the right of conspiracy theorists to utter violent incitements on social media as a "free speech" issue. Sure, you can speak, as long as you flatter rather than criticize the President. Reeeeal nice.

I'd add that it is Brennan's job to judge the President, just as much as it is yours or mine or anyone else's.
 
Vladimir Putin said:
Its simple. Security clearance means MORE $$$ in the private sector. Swampies don't wanna lose that cash.
Click to expand...

They would be making money in the private sector security clearance or not just by their background and experience. You're full of crap. The only reason they keep them is to offer experience and expertise in case of a crisis. Take your partisan blinders off and stop looking so ignorant.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Brennan is a political hack, it was proper that his clearance was revoked. And no they are not apolitical..... They jumped right in the middle of something that were not involved in.
Click to expand...


He's a hack because he apposes what your Trump God is getting away with. If he was singing his praises you'd love him.
 
Last edited:
Exactice said:
You've said that to the last 3 posters YET never responded a single retort....Sounds like you DONT know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

You meant, "Sounds like YOU don't know what you are talking about", right? Stressing the "don't" doesn't make sense.
 
apdst said:
Then again, there might be 325 other intel operators that know way more than these dudes, making these dudes pretty much useless.
Click to expand...


There really aren't that many retired directors of the CIA. You can do better than that.
 
jdog21 said:
You're framing it wrong. Its not a political punishment it should just be the normal operating procedure.
Click to expand...


But it was political punishment. Trump came right out and said it was. Denying that is outright silliness.
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
This is not normal, and should not be normal. This is Trump violating yet another democratic norm.
Click to expand...

Indeed. No previous president has ever revoked the security clearance of a former high official.

Few former intel officials have had their clearances revoked by their agencies.

John Deutch comes to mind. But he had classified information on a laptop he brought home.
 
jdog21 said:
No it doesn't. The keeping of security clearances hasn't been in practice very long, its a new thing that should never had started.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.
 
Exactice said:
1) If you leave a JOB position relevant for X level of Clearance, it should be removed the day you step out of the office? SOP (Standard Operating Procedures - NOT laws)
2) It has always been a courtesy to allow high levels to maintain. My recollection though, Brennan is the only Senior Official in recent years that has gone off the rails to insight this flame from a President. So he dished it he should take it
3) REGARDLESS Whom is in office. Dem or Repub. If you leave a job and you are NOT relevant to it in and capacity, Advisor etc.... WHY do you need it, Go and retire enjoy your retirement, you dont need it (caveat standby)
3a) For those that say they need direct access to them in the event of national security. We act like a prior Security Adviser that had given up their clearance could not be given temporary access to a SCIF or Security briefing if the need arouse? JEEZUS there are so many waiver forms that can be signed a CURRENT administration leader or the POTUS can declassified as well as temporary extend a clearance..... IF you are NOT relevant why do you need it?
4) I wonder why everyone is standing up now? BECAUSE it looks great on a resume and it looks great that you still have it, Brennan USED it for his benefit... MSNBC Contributor and feeding that Narrative of the Media to blast the POTUS.... What lineman within the chain of command disrespects their Commander in Chief and expects to maintain benefits that are courtesies NOT rights or laws.


You will notice.... like 175 ex members will STFU now...because they wont be so stupid to open their mouth politically..... Its not brennans job to judge the president thats the American people his job WAS the CIA director...NOW he is a contributor to MSNBC. He can do it that all he wants with out a security clearance...
Click to expand...

He is an American, as are these intelligence officials. They have every right to speak against the President without losing their security clearances.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45249149

More than 175 former US intelligence leaders have backed ex-CIA chief John Brennan since the president revoked his security clearance.

In the third bi-partisan letter of its kind, the former top security officials noted their opposition to President Donald Trump's threats and actions.

CIA, State Department and Navy alumni, as well as US ambassadors and US attorneys signed the letter on Monday.
==========================================================
The WH has defended Trump's actions with regard to Brennan.

"All of us believe it is critical to protect classified information from unauthorised disclosure," reads the letter, published online by Axios on Monday.

"But we believe equally strongly that former government officials have the right to express their unclassified views on what they see as critical national security issues without fear of being punished for doing so."
Click to expand...

Idiots.

How is anyone being punished for expressing their unclassified views? Brennan isn't. He's still perfectly able to do so...and he HAS been doing so.

You know what I think this is all about? Money. They see this as a threat to their ability to parley their security clearances into bigger paychecks.

I say...too ****ing bad.
 
Exactice said:
You've said that to the last 3 posters YET never responded a single retort....Sounds like you DONT know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


I think for anyone that has had a security clearance as I have, I don't need to add much, just to indicate what has been said by the last three posters is not from experience and just an opinion, and misinformed at best.
 
jdog21 said:
You're framing it wrong. Its not a political punishment it should just be the normal operating procedure.
Click to expand...

But it isn't, since it would be much more expensive to set these security clearances up again should they need it within the next 2 years, after they retire, like many do.
 
roguenuke said:
He is an American, as are these intelligence officials. They have every right to speak against the President without losing their security clearances.
Click to expand...

Especially once they are out of the service. When I was in the military we didn't say anything bad about the CIC. But once out he was free game as a private citizen.
 
Visbek said:
That is not standard procedure. It should not be sta.........
Click to expand...

Um Yes, Any normal security job, MY security expires after X time.... OR when I vacate a position and my TS clearance is NOT warranted it gets knocked down to Secret or removed in its entirety. Higher Echelon people are given more leeway. BUT Any S2 guy if they leave...they DONT maintain their access.

YES it is NOT normal for a president to do so, SO WHAT? IT IS his Executive Privilege to do so. ITs NOT against the law and NOT Unconstitutional. Sure it could be childish, it could be recourse BUT its setting the standard to respect the office of the President when you vacate a position. HE IS NOT censoring Brennan just not affording him access when he retired.

You admit Brennan Does NOT need clearance, SO why does he fight FOR it. You say he cant reveal classified material you are Correct but the current trend is ISSUES with leaking as well as he already made past misjudgment about divulging the double agent. SO he already has MADE mistakes.....

THE NORM does NOT mean its right... The Norm for Obama Admin was to defer/catch and release illegal immigrants. THAT was the NORM does NOT make it right. Just because all the prior didnt do it, does NOT mean its right.... PERIOD....

NO opening their mouths about Brennan, I highly doubt we will see 175 people accusing the president of Treason....


As for weapon you are 100% correct SO if congress needs to act to change policies and enact something then its fine....BUT currently its NOT illegal, its NOT unconstitutional because there is Nothing that protects a retired person from maintaining their clearance.


As for judging the President. YES and NO...(Sorta hear me out) As a subordinate of the POTUS (not just Trump) You do NOT criticize your superior, THIS IS A PROFESSIONAL Courtesy NO? The same way they afford the right to maintain their clearance. If they dont extend the same, why should the POTUS maintain it as well?

Finally Yes NOW without is CLEARANCE and NO other Fear of Reprisal he can talk ALLL the smack he freely wants, JUST without his clearance... ohh... but so sorry now it makes him less marketable and unable to make as much money. ... SHOULD have thought about that earlier huh Brennan....
 
ecofarm said:
You meant, "Sounds like YOU don't know what you are talking about", right? Stressing the "don't" doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

No retort.... oh well...... ...
 
roguenuke said:
He is an American, as are these intelligence officials. They have every right to speak against the President without losing their security clearances.[/QUOTE]

NO they HAVE A RIGHT to speak against the President ALL they want..... there is NO debate about that.


If they vacated a Job and their Clearance is a formality NOT a right, and the POTUS says screw you...thats HIS Executive privilege as well to revoke it. Dont like talk to your congress member to change it... but at this point there is NO justification for him to maintain.
Click to expand...
 
EnigmaO01 said:
I think for anyone that has had a security clearance as I have, I don't need to add much, just to indicate what has been said by the last three posters is not from experience and just an opinion, and misinformed at best.
Click to expand...

With respect to your background and experience. I cannot fairly judge you so I will respect that.

From my experience as well as maintaining clearances I that I have had, It can just put up my points.

the Fact is Brennan's situation to maintain is NOT protect by law, rights or constitution.... Sorry that is JUST fact.... The President while childish... whatever can legally do this period. like it or not, only way to change it is by an act of congress...
 
Exactice said:
Um Yes, Any normal security job, MY security expires after X time.... OR when I vacate a position and my TS clearance is NOT warranted it gets knocked down to Secret or removed in its entirety. Higher Echelon people are given more leeway. BUT Any S2 guy if they leave...they DONT maintain their access.

YES it is NOT normal for a president to do so, SO WHAT? IT IS his Executive Privilege to do so. ITs NOT against the law and NOT Unconstitutional. Sure it could be childish, it could be recourse BUT its setting the standard to respect the office of the President when you vacate a position. HE IS NOT censoring Brennan just not affording him access when he retired.

You admit Brennan Does NOT need clearance, SO why does he fight FOR it. You say he cant reveal classified material you are Correct but the current trend is ISSUES with leaking as well as he already made past misjudgment about divulging the double agent. SO he already has MADE mistakes.....

THE NORM does NOT mean its right... The Norm for Obama Admin was to defer/catch and release illegal immigrants. THAT was the NORM does NOT make it right. Just because all the prior didnt do it, does NOT mean its right.... PERIOD....

NO opening their mouths about Brennan, I highly doubt we will see 175 people accusing the president of Treason....


As for weapon you are 100% correct SO if congress needs to act to change policies and enact something then its fine....BUT currently its NOT illegal, its NOT unconstitutional because there is Nothing that protects a retired person from maintaining their clearance.


As for judging the President. YES and NO...(Sorta hear me out) As a subordinate of the POTUS (not just Trump) You do NOT criticize your superior, THIS IS A PROFESSIONAL Courtesy NO? The same way they afford the right to maintain their clearance. If they dont extend the same, why should the POTUS maintain it as well?

Finally Yes NOW without is CLEARANCE and NO other Fear of Reprisal he can talk ALLL the smack he freely wants, JUST without his clearance... ohh... but so sorry now it makes him less marketable and unable to make as much money. ... SHOULD have thought about that earlier huh Brennan....
Click to expand...

This is not true. You lose access to the information, but the clearance itself does not get automatically revoked. It simply goes inactive for 2 years, then expires (unless it was set to expire in less than that 2 years).

Less marketable is a loss and is a violation of his freedom of speech, since it is retaliation by the government for speech.
 
Exactice said:
NO they HAVE A RIGHT to speak against the President ALL they want..... there is NO debate about that.


If they vacated a Job and their Clearance is a formality NOT a right, and the POTUS says screw you...thats HIS Executive privilege as well to revoke it. Dont like talk to your congress member to change it... but at this point there is NO justification for him to maintain.
Click to expand...

Yes they do have that right to speak out against the President. It is a right of every US citizen.

According to this line of logic, the President could simply say he doesn't like/trust Muslims and revoke the security clearances of all Muslims. Or he could revoke the security clearances of all those who voted for or vote for his political rivals.
 
Exactice said:
If they vacated a Job and their Clearance is a formality NOT a right, and the POTUS says screw you...thats HIS Executive privilege as well to revoke it.
Click to expand...

True enough.

But don't sit here and paint this as something it is not (common practice).

This is political retribution pure and simple. The others on Trumps "enemies list" that have also been threatened with revocation are a confirmation of this.

No other president has ever engaged in this sort of petty vindictive BS.
 
DiAnna said:
No, you're ignoring historic national security norms for political expediency to support a petty, vindictive act against someone who exercised his first amendment rights; you are the one who is "framing it wrong".
Click to expand...

Wrong. If Obama would have made it a policy that a bureaucrat or agent that is fired or retired or someway removed from office also lost their security clearance. I would have supported him to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom