• 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!

Revoke My Clearance Too, Mr President.....

I sense a trend coming. Other former officials will probably do the same because it is an easy way to publicly display dissent without actually costing anything, because again, without access these security clearances don’t do anything anyway.
 
Rexedgar said:
Open Letter to the President:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...149b02-a178-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html
Click to expand...

The least you could have done is quote the letter, since everyone knows that WaPo is behind a paywall.

Anyway, whoever this guy is that wants his clearance revoked, he doesn't have to wait for the President to do it. Just give it up. If he's working for the Executive Branch now, he should do the right thing and resign.

Don't let the door hit you...
 
Uh, it's NORMAL, not to mention a best security practice, for one to have their current clearance revoked when their position no longer requires that level of access. The political stoopid season just got stoopider. What are they going to whine about next...that they don't get the same pay they did when they were doing their former jobs? That their name should not be removed from the office door?

I lost some respect for McRaven here. He's turning into another Betrayus.
 
Mycroft said:
The least you could have done is quote the letter, since everyone knows that WaPo is behind a paywall.

Anyway, whoever this guy is that wants his clearance revoked, he doesn't have to wait for the President to do it. Just give it up. If he's working for the Executive Branch now, he should do the right thing and resign.

Don't let the door hit you...
Click to expand...

Almost every day someone posts the work-a-round for paywalls; you’ve been here how long? “For dead swine, the ground is always frozen.”-unknown
 
Rexedgar said:
Almost every day someone posts the work-a-round for paywalls; you’ve been here how long? “For dead swine, the ground is always frozen.”-unknown
Click to expand...

The work-around doesn't work for me.
 
Mycroft said:
The least you could have done is quote the letter, since everyone knows that WaPo is behind a paywall.

Anyway, whoever this guy is that wants his clearance revoked, he doesn't have to wait for the President to do it. Just give it up. If he's working for the Executive Branch now, he should do the right thing and resign.

Don't let the door hit you...
Click to expand...

He already did...he retired. Should everyone who has retired or moved on retain their security clearance, just cuz? Of course not...it's sad to see this kind of mindless whining for political reasons. BOO-HOO, WE WANT MOAR WAR AND THE ACCESS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN!
 
Rexedgar said:
Almost every day someone posts the work-a-round for paywalls; you’ve been here how long? “For dead swine, the ground is always frozen.”-unknown
Click to expand...

shrug...

It's your link. You do the work around and post the quote.
 
More mindless political nonsense.

A security clearance is not given for life. You hold it for as long as you are in a position that requires it, then it is revoked when you do not need it any longer.

This guy is retired. So unless he is working for some company or government agency that requires him to have a clearance, it was revoked when he retired. When I left Active Duty, my clearance was revoked. Then when I reported in to my new unit, it was reinstated.

And if I ever move to a position where my clearance is no longer needed or when I retire, it will be revoked again. This is simply how these things work.
 
Oozlefinch said:
This is simply how these things work.
Click to expand...

Not like this. No president has ever revoked the security clearance of a high-ranking former administration official.

Usually, it is revoked upon the former official's request by that official's former agency. Long-lasting clearance is one of the perks that makes such appointments attractive.

Trumps action here is purely political and will no doubt be reciprocated when the inevitable political turnover occurs.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...944de66d9e7_story.html?utm_term=.c2a827d198b2

John Brennon said, in his open letter to the president:
My first visit to the Oval Office came in October 1990, when I was a 35-year-old CIA officer. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait two months before, and President George H.W. Bush wanted to discuss the implications of a U.S.-led military coalition that would ultimately push the Iraqis out. I remember the nervousness I felt when I entered that room and met a president of the United States for the first time. By the time the meeting ended, his intellectual curiosity, wisdom, affability and intense interest in finding the best policy course to protect and promote U.S. interests were abundantly evident.
Click to expand...

George H.W. Bush is a Skull and Bones member, connected to the globalist elite. Neo conservatives are just as dangerous to US security as terrorists. Bush also had connections to Big Oil so it’s ironic that this man is convinced that Bush cared that much for US interests.

Over the next quarter-century, I returned to the Oval Office several hundred times during the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton,
Click to expand...

Rapist. Fraud. Liar. But apparently, Bill Clinton is also more trustworthy that President Trump. What spin.

I’ll just stop there. It amazes me that people buy into this crap.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Not like this. No president has ever revoked the security clearance of a high-ranking former administration official.

Usually, it is revoked upon the former official's request by that official's former agency. Long-lasting clearance is one of the perks that makes such appointments attractive.
Click to expand...

That is not how security clearances work.

They are only granted for the office they are holding at the time. Leave that office, they are automatically revoked.

And yes, I have had security clearances several times. I held my first form 1983-1987. When I left the post that required it in April 1987, it was immediately revoked.

It was then re-instated in 1988, because I needed it again. Then revoked in 1988 when I no longer needed it. Reinstated in 1991, revoked again in 1992.

I then got it back again in 2008, upgraded in 2009, downgraded in 2010, revoked in 2012. Reinstated yet again in 2012.

There is no such thing as a "long-lasting security clearance", it simply does not exist. It goes hand in hand with "need to know".

Yes, I still have a clearance. But that does not mean I can just go up to somebody and request information that is in keeping with my clearance. No need to know in an official capacity, I am told nothing.

This is something everybody who has ever had or has a clearance is aware of. He is a civilian. He does not have a need to know, and as with everybody else his clearance was revoked unless he can prove he has a need to know.

But please, give us more information on this "Long-lasting clearance" perk you mentioned.

Oh, and they are not just "revoked upon the former official's request". Clearances are reviewed annually by every organization. Unless an individual is filling a position that requires a clearance at that time, they are automatically revoked. So even if the "former agency" had not revoked it, it would be revoked within a year. This has been done because of the many security leaks over the decades, many times by people who had clearances in excess of their needs, or people who are no longer in need of them doing the same.

Somebody leaving a position or being fired and keeping their clearance makes about as much sense as the same individual still having a credit card with that agency for expenses after they get out. When a senior official with the CIA leaves, you better believe their GTC is revoked. Do you really think they treat the security clearance any less seriously?
 
Oozlefinch said:
This is something everybody who has ever had or has a clearance is aware of. He is a civilian. He does not have a need to know, and as with everybody else his clearance was revoked unless he can prove he has a need to know.
Click to expand...

Exactly! It's not like anyone with a clearance can just waltz in and start rummaging through the vault. I held a TS clearance back in the 90's when I worked for the DoD and never once in my life have I ever handled any classified information.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
The least you could have done is quote the letter, since everyone knows that WaPo is behind a paywall.

Anyway, whoever this guy is that wants his clearance revoked, he doesn't have to wait for the President to do it. Just give it up. If he's working for the Executive Branch now, he should do the right thing and resign.

Don't let the door hit you...
Click to expand...

Admiral McRaven is a retired 4 star who, among other things, commanded all US Special Forces. He was the SOC CO when Osama bin Ladin was killed. He started life as a Navy SEAL.

The man is apolitical and highly respected.
 
Jarhead1369 said:
Uh, it's NORMAL, not to mention a best security practice, for one to have their current clearance revoked when their position no longer requires that level of access. The political stoopid season just got stoopider. What are they going to whine about next...that they don't get the same pay they did when they were doing their former jobs? That their name should not be removed from the office door?

I lost some respect for McRaven here. He's turning into another Betrayus.
Click to expand...

Then please explain why it isn’t normally done for high ranking former government employees? It may be as you say for lower level people but it clearly isn’t the case for former CIA, NSA and FBI directors.
 
It's one thing to get on the case of some overpaid sports figure, only to have other overpaid sport figures side with the initial overpaid sports figure, against the president. That's all fabricated drama and makes for good ratings.

But if history is to repeat itself, and more of our distinguished military leaders, "take a knee" stance against Trump, like the NFL'er's did, that's another ball game altogether.

Lack of confidence in the "Commander-in-Chief," (and I use the term lightly) by our military leaders, could result in big problems.

If the military leaders put the heat on the military industrial complex, and the military complex squeezes the GOP, the GOP may have to step up, once and for all, and "'trow da bum out!"

Not to mention, witnessing these Trumptards demonize America's finest all in the name of defending their chosen one, leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of patriots from coast-to-coast and this will not fare well for Comrade Trump when people do not want to be identified as a Trump supporter.

I'm just guessing though. My crystal ball is in the shop.
 
Last edited:
Oozlefinch said:
That is not how security clearances work.

They are only granted for the office they are holding at the time. Leave that office, they are automatically revoked.

And yes, I have had security clearances several times. I held my first form 1983-1987. When I left the post that required it in April 1987, it was immediately revoked.

It was then re-instated in 1988, because I needed it again. Then revoked in 1988 when I no longer needed it. Reinstated in 1991, revoked again in 1992.

I then got it back again in 2008, upgraded in 2009, downgraded in 2010, revoked in 2012. Reinstated yet again in 2012.

There is no such thing as a "long-lasting security clearance", it simply does not exist. It goes hand in hand with "need to know".

Yes, I still have a clearance. But that does not mean I can just go up to somebody and request information that is in keeping with my clearance. No need to know in an official capacity, I am told nothing.

This is something everybody who has ever had or has a clearance is aware of. He is a civilian. He does not have a need to know, and as with everybody else his clearance was revoked unless he can prove he has a need to know.

But please, give us more information on this "Long-lasting clearance" perk you mentioned.

Oh, and they are not just "revoked upon the former official's request". Clearances are reviewed annually by every organization. Unless an individual is filling a position that requires a clearance at that time, they are automatically revoked. So even if the "former agency" had not revoked it, it would be revoked within a year. This has been done because of the many security leaks over the decades, many times by people who had clearances in excess of their needs, or people who are no longer in need of them doing the same.

Somebody leaving a position or being fired and keeping their clearance makes about as much sense as the same individual still having a credit card with that agency for expenses after they get out. When a senior official with the CIA leaves, you better believe their GTC is revoked. Do you really think they treat the security clearance any less seriously?
Click to expand...

That is simply factually incorrect at the level Brennan was at. You just have the facts wrong on this one
 
Gaius46 said:
Admiral McRaven is a retired 4 star who, among other things, commanded all US Special Forces. He was the SOC CO when Osama bin Ladin was killed. He started life as a Navy SEAL.

The man is apolitical and highly respected.
Click to expand...

Good for him.

Does that mean I should MAKE him keep his security clearance?
 
Mycroft said:
Good for him.

Does that mean I should MAKE him keep his security clearance?
Click to expand...

You do get the point he’s making? It has nothing to do with him wanting or not wanting to keep his clearance. It has everything to do with the President using his power to silence political opposition.
 
Gaius46 said:
You do get the point he’s making? It has nothing to do with him wanting or not wanting to keep his clearance. It has everything to do with the President using his power to silence political opposition.
Click to expand...

???

Make up your mind, eh? You just said the guy was apolitical.
 
And in what way exactly did this silence Brennan? He's all I've heard for the last 2 days.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
The President ought to call him to the White House and give him the forms so he can submit his request.
 
Excon said:
The President ought to call him to the White House and give him the forms so he can submit his request.
Click to expand...

Southwest Georgia Voter Suppression.

Crooked GOP Secretary of State running for Governor refusing Paper Ballots, after Russia broke into their Electoral Infrastructure.

GOPutins colluding with Russians in Georgia and 20 other States for the 2018 elections
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom