• 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!

Security Clearances

Clearances

  • Everyone on the white house staff should have security clearance

    Votes: 4 14.3%

  • Everyone with access to classified information should have security clearance

    Votes: 6 21.4%

  • Both of the above

    Votes: 14 50.0%

  • Up to the presidents discretion

    Votes: 3 10.7%

  • Security Clearances are a waste of time

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Total voters
    28
Kreton

Kreton

Doesn't know
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
13,350
Reaction score
6,591
Location
Across the street from the family across the stree
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Quick background story here.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...ls-lack-permanent-security-clearances-n848191

To be clear I am not asking if past presidents did it. Please don't derail this topic into what Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Lincoln had. This topic is specific to these questions.

Should everyone who has access to classified information have security clearances? Should people have security clearance to be in the white house and hold top positions in our government?

I am asking for a universal answer for all presidents. Whether they are in your party or not.
 
Yes, yes absolutely. Before I was trusted with classified information, I was investigated thoroughly for any potential conflicts of interests, as were others in my profession. There really isn't any reason why someone without being investigated should be given access to information.
 
Kreton said:
Quick background story here.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...ls-lack-permanent-security-clearances-n848191

To be clear I am not asking if past presidents did it. Please don't derail this topic into what Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Lincoln had. This topic is specific to these questions.

Should everyone who has access to classified information have security clearances? Should people have security clearance to be in the white house and hold top positions in our government?

I am asking for a universal answer for all presidents. Whether they are in your party or not.
Click to expand...

That would blow your narrative out of the water, not derail the thread.
 
apdst said:
That would blow your narrative out of the water, not derail the thread.
Click to expand...

It is not a narrative. It is a question. The same standard would apply to Obama and the next president and the one after that. This problem is not unique to one guy it is and has been universal. Stop your damn snowflake cry baby narrative and answer the question or exit the thread.
 
Kreton said:
Quick background story here.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...ls-lack-permanent-security-clearances-n848191

To be clear I am not asking if past presidents did it. Please don't derail this topic into what Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Lincoln had. This topic is specific to these questions.

Should everyone who has access to classified information have security clearances? Should people have security clearance to be in the white house and hold top positions in our government?

I am asking for a universal answer for all presidents. Whether they are in your party or not.
Click to expand...

Of course everyone in the White House staff should have clearance, and I don't mean the temporary kind the President can grant you. I mean the real kind that you get after the FBI does its due diligence on you.
 
Everyone who works in the White House, not just Presidential Staff, should have some level of security clearance.

After all, it is not just a risk to classified information, but also access to the Chief Executive, staff, and important visitors who might be subject to assassination attempts or other terrorist attacks.

Moreover, anyone in the Government that either deals with, or might have eventual access to, any classified materials should have some level of clearance too.
 
apdst said:
That would blow your narrative out of the water, not derail the thread.
Click to expand...

This was a general question, not a partisan let us go back and whine about previous presidents to make this into a pissing match about who was the most irresponsible president (still would be Trump but that is a whole other matter), this is simply a general non-partisan question that is valid for every president.
 
tres borrachos said:
Of course everyone in the White House staff should have clearance, and I don't mean the temporary kind the President can grant you. I mean the real kind that you get after the FBI does its due diligence on you.
Click to expand...

Just a note on this.

It's not simply that the President can grant it to you. People, all throughout our government, are currently working on temporary clearances as the full scope of the background investigation is still ongoing. I spent my first roughly year in the government on an interim clearance before it became permanent. I'm not sure of the entire process, but my understanding is there's a certain bar that needs to be met to be able to give an interim, at which point you could start the position while the rest goes through. This is in relations to the lower level of clearance mind you, I didn't start at a top end level so not sure if that goes a bit different.

Requiring a full and finalized clearance on everyone in an administration would, in times of backlogs, cause an incoming administration to potentially be lacking necessary employees to perform it's duties.
 
If the person in the white house will have to be dealing with things classified at a secret level, they should have to hold a secret clearance. Same goes for TS and TS/SCI related things. If the job is one that is unlikely to have them dealing with anything classified at those levels, I see no reason why we need to expand the time and resources on clearing them at those levels.

Mind you, working inside the white house may, in and of itself, be set at a secret level. If it is, that's fine; I'd trust those making the designations.
 
Zyphlin said:
Just a note on this.

It's not simply that the President can grant it to you. People, all throughout our government, are currently working on temporary clearances as the full scope of the background investigation is still ongoing. I spent my first roughly year in the government on an interim clearance before it became permanent. I'm not sure of the entire process, but my understanding is there's a certain bar that needs to be met to be able to give an interim, at which point you could start the position while the rest goes through. This is in relations to the lower level of clearance mind you, I didn't start at a top end level so not sure if that goes a bit different.

Requiring a full and finalized clearance on everyone in an administration would, in times of backlogs, cause an incoming administration to potentially be lacking necessary employees to perform it's duties.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I was strictly talking about the people working in the White House, which is why I answered the poll as I did.
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes, but I was strictly talking about the people working in the White House, which is why I answered the poll as I did.
Click to expand...

I understand that. My point was that requiring such a thing, especially if they require pretty extensive background checks, could potentially be requiring that any inbound President not actually have a staff for 6+ months as they wait for their full and finalized clearance to go through. This would be exceptionally problematic to a functioning presidency.
 
Peter King said:
This was a general question, not a partisan let us go back and whine about previous presidents to make this into a pissing match about who was the most irresponsible president (still would be Trump but that is a whole other matter), this is simply a general non-partisan question that is valid for every president.
Click to expand...

No it's not. It's another anti-Trump bait thread.
 
Zyphlin said:
Just a note on this.

It's not simply that the President can grant it to you. People, all throughout our government, are currently working on temporary clearances as the full scope of the background investigation is still ongoing. I spent my first roughly year in the government on an interim clearance before it became permanent. I'm not sure of the entire process, but my understanding is there's a certain bar that needs to be met to be able to give an interim, at which point you could start the position while the rest goes through. This is in relations to the lower level of clearance mind you, I didn't start at a top end level so not sure if that goes a bit different.

Requiring a full and finalized clearance on everyone in an administration would, in times of backlogs, cause an incoming administration to potentially be lacking necessary employees to perform it's duties.
Click to expand...

If there are backlogs, I would expect that those in need of clearances of the type we are discussing would have priority over clearances for lesser posts than in and out of the Oval Office. If the FBI Director is telling the truth, I find it hard to rationalize Mr. Porter still employed in the White House after a year or so. From the coverage I have seen, it was pretty much understood that Mr. Porter was not going to clear the hurdles to be granted the necessary clearance. In his interim status, no one from the White House has made the claim that any restrictions had been put on Porter's access to classified material. They(WH) have tried to send it back to the FBI (blame, I'm meaning), and this just a day or so before the Director was to attend a congressional briefing and then when the FBI sent the ball back to the WH, the WH security office, staffed by career employees was blamed.
 
Kreton said:
Quick background story here.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...ls-lack-permanent-security-clearances-n848191

To be clear I am not asking if past presidents did it. Please don't derail this topic into what Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Lincoln had. This topic is specific to these questions.

Should everyone who has access to classified information have security clearances? Should people have security clearance to be in the white house and hold top positions in our government?

I am asking for a universal answer for all presidents. Whether they are in your party or not.
Click to expand...

It's up to the President and it's not against the law to not require security clearances.

If you don't like it, don't vote for the guy next time.
 
Kreton said:
It is not a narrative. It is a question. The same standard would apply to Obama and the next president and the one after that. This problem is not unique to one guy it is and has been universal. Stop your damn snowflake cry baby narrative and answer the question or exit the thread.
Click to expand...

But, it doesn't. You all are hot under the collar about it, now, because it's happening under a Republican president.
 
Rexedgar said:
If there are backlogs, I would expect that those in need of clearances of the type we are discussing would have priority over clearances for lesser posts than in and out of the Oval Office. If the FBI Director is telling the truth, I find it hard to rationalize Mr. Porter still employed in the White House after a year or so. From the coverage I have seen, it was pretty much understood that Mr. Porter was not going to clear the hurdles to be granted the necessary clearance. In his interim status, no one from the White House has made the claim that any restrictions had been put on Porter's access to classified material. They(WH) have tried to send it back to the FBI (blame, I'm meaning), and this just a day or so before the Director was to attend a congressional briefing and then when the FBI sent the ball back to the WH, the WH security office, staffed by career employees was blamed.
Click to expand...

I disagree that some Oval Office staffer should have priority over a mid-level analyst/LEO/agent who is actually performing work for the government.
 
apdst said:
But, it doesn't. You all are hot under the collar about it, now, because it's happening under a Republican president.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. Focus you can do it. Just try harder. Reply to the actual post rather than trying to make it about your political biases.
 
Kreton said:
This has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. Focus you can do it. Just try harder. Reply to the actual post rather than trying to make it about your political biases.
Click to expand...

Suuuuuure it doesn't!

You wouldn't even know about it if the media hadn't made a big deal out of it (leaving out the fact that it's happened in past administrations).

The media only made a big deal out of it because "Truuuuump!!" (they ignored it when happened during Obama's admin).
 
This is a slam dunk question. Unless you want to greatly increase the risk of foreign spies or compromised Americans leaking information to hostile powers, background checks/security clearance are essential for everyone involved in sensitive government operations and information.
 
apdst said:
No it's not. It's another anti-Trump bait thread.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion or what you are trying to make it into (perhaps) but for me everyone who works in the white house, past and present, for this president and those working for previous presidents should all have had a security clearance and any president who failed to do that should feel very ashamed of his failure to protect the halls of government/the American people.

And if Obama did not do this, shame on him. If GW Bush did not do it, shame on him, etc. etc. etc.
 
apdst said:
Suuuuuure it doesn't!

You wouldn't even know about it if the media hadn't made a big deal out of it (leaving out the fact that it's happened in past administrations).

The media only made a big deal out of it because "Truuuuump!!" (they ignored it when happened during Obama's admin).
Click to expand...

You are right. I wouldn't have known if I hadn't read it because I haven't checked anyones clearances. I get news from the news to save myself the trouble of investigative journalism.

YOU are not answering the questions. I am asking you approve of the process having people without clearances having access to the white house and classified information. For all presidents. Of every party.
 
Zyphlin said:
I understand that. My point was that requiring such a thing, especially if they require pretty extensive background checks, could potentially be requiring that any inbound President not actually have a staff for 6+ months as they wait for their full and finalized clearance to go through. This would be exceptionally problematic to a functioning presidency.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that process is flawed. There is no reason it should take that long if properly prioritized.
 
apdst said:
But, it doesn't. You all are hot under the collar about it, now, because it's happening under a Republican president.
Click to expand...

Maybe if I word it differently just for you you delicate little flower. I didn't mean to offend you.

Was it ok that that black commie non american freedom hating hippie coon piece of **** obama had a bunch of muslim terrorists reading classified information in the WHITE house? YEE HAW DEY TOOK ARE JOBS!
 
Kreton said:
Maybe if I word it differently just for you you delicate little flower. I didn't mean to offend you.

Was it ok that that black commie non american freedom hating hippie coon piece of **** obama had a bunch of muslim terrorists reading classified information in the WHITE house? YEE HAW DEY TOOK ARE JOBS!
Click to expand...

There it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom