• 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!

ADM Bill McRaven (Ret.) Calls Out Our Faux-Patriot President: Revoke My Clearance As Well

RetiredUSN said:
LMAO.


So you never served?
Click to expand...


In civil-military relations the armed services serve the society, not the other way around. No member of the armed services has the right or duty to call civilians to account to meet the service member's requirements of citizenship. Accordingly, members of the armed services through the chain of command have no right or place to issue their own standards of citizenship against the general population of the society.

Service in the contemporary armed services is moreover voluntary so it is not the place or role of the armed forces to question a citizen's personal and individual choice to serve or not to serve. Military service is not a requirement of citizenship nor should it be. Civilian opinion is indeed superior to the opinions of members of the armed services given the Constitutional principle of civilian authority over the military authority. Anyone who believes otherwise or is ignorant will stand corrected.
 
Tangmo said:
In civil-military relations the armed services serve the society, not the other way around. No member of the armed services has the right or duty to call civilians to account to meet the service member's requirements of citizenship. Accordingly, members of the armed services through the chain of command have no right or place to issue their own standards of citizenship against the general population of the society. Service in the contemporary armed services is moreover voluntary so it is not the place or role of the armed forces to question a citizen's personal and individual choice to serve or not to serve. Military service is not a requirement of citizenship nor should it be. Civilian opinion is indeed superior to the opinions of members of the armed services given the Constitutional principle of civilian authority over the military authority. Anyone who believes otherwise or is ignorant will stand corrected.
Click to expand...

And the forum has seen enough of your ceremonial soldier nonsense.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
Retired and outgoing high-level officials’ successors routinely consult with them on sensitive matters. This isn’t new. Their continued access to classified is certainly one ****-ton more benefial to the people of the United States than Jared Kushner’s and most of the rest of this adminstration’s.

Or Trump’s for that matter.
Click to expand...

Security clearances are a priviledge, not a right.
 
RetiredUSN said:
And the forum has seen enough of your ceremonial soldier nonsense.
Click to expand...


If you want to get into it then yes, there are occasional flag officers who are assholes just as there are lifer nco who are flaming assholes.

If you want to get into it.


Know that Adm Raven retired speaks for more retired and active duty flag officers than himself only. Many more. A whole slew of 'em. I have said from the outset Trump's failure will be on national security, national defense, national sovereignty, to include the intelligence agencies and the FBI which since 9-11 has focused on counter intelligence under the directorship of Robert Mueller.

Not everyone who supports Trump against all of it is in the classification of Putin-Trump-Fanboy. What we do know however is that American Conservatives have become what we fought against. The fact includes a majority of the Republican party. So we'll definitely need a housecleaning. Speaking metaphorically of course.
 
Last edited:
CMPancake said:
I don't have the time, crayons, or wall space to dumb down security clearances
Click to expand...

So, here...let dumb it down to your level for you then...

Will reduce it, will make it a simple "yes" or "no" answer: Does the president have the authority to revoke security clearances?

Yes...or No?
 
RetiredUSN said:
Wrong.


It will always expire at the convenience of the Gov't.


And, it can be revoked for many reasons.
Click to expand...
Again, is someone positing the argument that the government, at the president’s direction, isn’t within its legal right to suspend, restrict, or revoke the clearance or access of any particular clearance holder? I’ve held a clearance for over 12 years, have been through three SSBIs and a CI polygraph, and have extensive knowledge of how clearances are granted, reinvestigated/renewed, retained, and revoked. If you actually have any knowledge about any of this, you’ll stop pretending that the government’s actions against Brennan were within our norms.
 
Tangmo said:
If you want to get into it then yes, there are occasional flag officers who are assholes just as there are lifer nco who are flaming assholes.

If you want to get into it.


Know that Adm Raven retired speaks for more retired and active duty flag officers than himself only. Many more. A whole slew of 'em. I have said from the outset Trump's failure will be on national security, national defense, national sovereignty, to include the intelligence agencies and the FBI which since 9-11 has focused on counter intelligence under the directorship of Robert Mueller.

No everyone who supports Trump against all of it is in the classification of Putin-Trump-Fanboy. What we do know however is that American Conservatives have become what we fought against. The fact includes a majority of the Republican party. So we'll definitely need a housecleaning. Speaking metaphorically of course.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ma-15-percent-approval-rating/article/2557722
 
Linc said:
You obviously don’t know Admiral McRaven’s Life Story Serving the Military.

During My Air Force Father’s Time, There Were No Veterans and Military Personnel That Would Ever Consider Bastardizing Their Service Aiding, Abetting and Covering For A Criminally Insane Traitor.
Click to expand...

There was a time in The United States when senior officers would shut the **** up and not attempt to undermine a legitimately elected president.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
Again, is someone positing the argument that the government, at the president’s direction, isn’t within its legal right to suspend, restrict, or revoke the clearance or access of any particular clearance holder? I’ve held a clearance for over 12 years, have been through three SSBIs and a CI polygraph, and have extensive knowledge of how clearances are granted, reinvestigated/renewed, retained, and revoked. If you actually have any knowledge about any of this, you’ll stop pretending that the government’s actions against Brennan were within our norms.
Click to expand...

The President, CIA director, FBI director SEC of DfES, Sec of the armed forces can cancel a clearance in 5 seconds.....for reason.

Please stop putting out your BS because it only makes you look foolish.
 
RetiredUSN said:
You just debunked your own OP.

Nice work.
Click to expand...
Conceding that something is a privilege doesn’t disabuse me of the right to judge the capricious manner in which that privilege is granted, withheld, or withdrawn by an unqualified and petty charlatan of a leader. Any good Chief, Mustang, or Senior Officer in the Navy would know that. What did you do in the service?
 
Typically, senior government officials keep their security clearance eligibility when they leave office to ensure continuity. Although the president has the right to revoke security clearances, revocation would be more likely to come through their former agencies rather than the White House. That said, there is no previous precedent for a president engaging in this. Janet Reno recommended revoking the security clearance of John Deutch after classified information was found on two laptops. In this case however, revocation is obviously political. Last week a Fox News correspondent charged that former CIA Director John Brennan was using his security clearance to attack Trump (with no evidence presented). A few days later, GOP Senator and Trump lapdog Rand Paul publicly suggested Trump revoke Brennan's security clearance (again with no evidence presented). Besides Brennan, Trump is also considering revoking the security clearances of Clapper, Comey, Hayden, and Rice. Just remember, what goes around comes around. The next Democrat president will reciprocate.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
Conceding that something is a privilege doesn’t disabuse me of the right to judge the capricious manner in which that privilege is granted, withheld, or withdrawn by an unqualified and petty charlatan of a leader. Any good Chief, Mustang, or Senior Officer in the Navy would know that. What did you do in the service?
Click to expand...

Please stop your petty penis comparison BS,

A security clearance can be stopped at the lowest of commands when a Officer in charge thinks the need is warranted. This applies to civilians as well.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The President, CIA director, FBI director SEC of DfES, Sec of the armed forces can cancel a clearance in 5 seconds.....for reason.

Please stop putting out your BS because it only makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...
Um. More people than that can suspend access or hold up a clearance. Some of your terminology really makes me question how much you know about it or whether you served at all. Most clearances are regulated by agencies and services. And access can be suspended or withheld at the command level (and reviews ordered). For the Navy, for instance, it’s DONCAF—unless a sailor is detailed to an agency like DIA, CIA, etc. Then they’ll make you go through their own process. The president has little to do with the formal process of handling clearances—unless he inserts himself like our current idiot.

Also, few pointers.

People in DoD abbreviate Secretary of Defense as SECDEF.

The DNI is the head of the IC—not the Director of CIA. The CIA director as DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) was supplanted in 2005 as a result of the 2004 IRTPA.

And there are service secretaries, but there is no “Secretary of the Armed Forces.” That’s SECDEF.

Glad to help.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
So, here...let dumb it down to your level for you then...

Will reduce it, will make it a simple "yes" or "no" answer: Does the president have the authority to revoke security clearances?

Yes...or No?
Click to expand...

It's adorable you think that you somehow have any sort of real understanding of anything that's a higher classification than the yellow pages. Run along now.
 
Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.

Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.
Click to expand...

Every person who has a shred of decency sees Trump for the slimeball that he is. Trump's presidency shows us who has integrity and who doesn not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom