Security clearances will become a political commodity. The GOP takes charge and all the democrats lose their clearances. When the democrats are in charge the republicans lose their clearances. Great policy

Find a reason to yank their clearances and charge them. Is that too much work for Sessions?

They left public service, some were fired- Why would they still have security clearances?

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
Security clearances will become a political commodity. The GOP takes charge and all the democrats lose their clearances. When the democrats are in charge the republicans lose their clearances. Great policy

Find a reason to yank their clearances and charge them. Is that too much work for Sessions?

When you are no longer in office WTF do you still need a security clearance for? Are they actually doing any real work?

Do you recall this shit stain? He was Bill Clinton's boy. Can you think of any valid reason why this guy still had a security clearance after Clinton left office? How about Brennan or Clapper? Any reason for those two to keep a clearance?

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:
How about Brennan or Clapper? Any reason for those two to keep a clearance?

I can understand why a former DCI and DNI would need to retain a clearance. But these two, who should be twitching at the end of a rope? Not a fucking chance.

We've entered some troubling waters.

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
They left public service, some were fired- Why would they still have security clearances?

Pick your arguement. Are we talking about men and women who left government service or those who where fired?

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
They left public service, some were fired- Why would they still have security clearances?

Pick your arguement. Are we talking about men and women who left government service or those who where fired?

Why do you want to keep security clearances for those who left government? Fired? I assume you would jerk their clearances?

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
They left public service, some were fired- Why would they still have security clearances?

Pick your arguement. Are we talking about men and women who left government service or those who where fired?

Why do you want to keep security clearances for those who left government? Fired? I assume you would jerk their clearances?

Fired or left service?

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
They left public service, some were fired- Why would they still have security clearances?

Pick your arguement. Are we talking about men and women who left government service or those who where fired?

Why do you want to keep security clearances for those who left government? Fired? I assume you would jerk their clearances?

Fired or left service?

OK, I'll play your game. Left service. Why on God's green earth should they keep their clearance? Then we can talk fired.

Just because they have a clearance does not mean they still have access to information. Normally when you leave a position that requires a clearance it goes "inactive". Say you have a .gov job with a clearance. You quit to go train dancing dogs. No clearance is required so it goes inactive. Then some time later you decide training dogs isn't for you so you go back to another job and a clearance is required. As long as it is within a certain time frame (1-2 years I think) you don't have to go through the entire process again it just gets reactivated.

So yes they have not "lost" their clearances, but they also do not have the ability to access classified information. Besides having an inactive clearance they also do not have a need to know. Since McCabe was fired I can see his being pulled and not just deactivated.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Just because they have a clearance does not mean they still have access to information. Normally when you leave a position that requires a clearance it goes "inactive". Say you have a .gov job with a clearance. You quit to go train dancing dogs. No clearance is required so it goes inactive. Then some time later you decide training dogs isn't for you so you go back to another job and a clearance is required. As long as it is within a certain time frame (1-2 years I think) you don't have to go through the entire process again it just gets reactivated.

So yes they have not "lost" their clearances, but they also do not have the ability to access classified information. Besides having an inactive clearance they also do not have a need to know. Since McCabe was fired I can see his being pulled and not just deactivated.

But can't someone that has classified info turn it over to anyone else that has an appropriate security clearance? Like Sandy Berger from a post of mine that is a few up on this page.

Technically no, a cleared person cannot turn over classified information to someone else just because they have the correct level of clearance. They also have to have what's called a "need to know".

Lets say two engineers are eating luch. Both have the same level of clearance. They each work on different projects. They cannot "swap" information beacuse although each has the appropriate clearance level, they do not have a "need to know". They would each need to be "read in" on the others project in order to share information. They would only be read in if they had a need to know because they were required on the project.

Just beacuse you have a clearance does not mean you are privy to all the information that is set at your level. And if your clearance is currently inactive you can't get access to anthing until it is reactivated.

ETA: Maybe at the level these guys were at (director etc) their clearances remain active after they have retired in case they need to be consulted for one reason or another. I could see that. For low level peons though the clearance goes inactive as soon as you leave and it is no longer required.

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Just because they have a clearance does not mean they still have access to information. Normally when you leave a position that requires a clearance it goes "inactive". Say you have a .gov job with a clearance. You quit to go train dancing dogs. No clearance is required so it goes inactive. Then some time later you decide training dogs isn't for you so you go back to another job and a clearance is required. As long as it is within a certain time frame (1-2 years I think) you don't have to go through the entire process again it just gets reactivated.

So yes they have not "lost" their clearances, but they also do not have the ability to access classified information. Besides having an inactive clearance they also do not have a need to know. Since McCabe was fired I can see his being pulled and not just deactivated.

But can't someone that has classified info turn it over to anyone else that has an appropriate security clearance? Like Sandy Berger from a post of mine that is a few up on this page.

They are not supposed to if the person who they want to turn the info over to doesn’t have a need to know.

You have to have two things to access classified information. Clearance and need to know. Having one without the other means no access. I had a security clearance in the Marines but that didn’t mean I could roll into a vault and start flipping through random documents. I needed to have access to information related to communications equipment since that was my job. So I had the clearance and the need to know. I didn’t need to know about missile guidance systems so even though I might have had the clearance level I had no need to know therefore I had no access.

ETA: Mbinky best me to it.

Thank you mbinky and pale horse. One of the reasons I love hanging out here is the level of expertise.

One more small question... Is there a downside to jerking their security clearance?

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
They left public service, some were fired- Why would they still have security clearances?

Pick your arguement. Are we talking about men and women who left government service or those who where fired?

Why do you want to keep security clearances for those who left government? Fired? I assume you would jerk their clearances?

Fired or left service?

OK, I'll play your game. Left service. Why on God's green earth should they keep their clearance? Then we can talk fired.

Tens of thousands of military and civilian personnel served their country and have resigned, fulfilled their enlistment contract, or retired under honorable conditions; men and women from from the most lowly ranks to executives and flag officers. Many continue government service as contractors, corporate defense executives, or maybe just a welder at Electric Boat. Why would the government strip someone of a clearance only to restart the process of a redoing it at the cost of thousands of dollars?

Fired? You don’t get shit.

I don’t like any of these motherfuckers from the Obama administration but if they fucked up charge them with a crime. If not, the GOP is setting a dangerous precedent.

Personally I don't think pulling their clearances will do anything but cause political noise. I can almost see a case for Brennon retaining his incase the current director needs to consult him on something that was going on during his tenure.

That still dosen't mean current employees can freely share information with him, and that he in turn can share it with the MSM. But honestly until the DOJ applies the laws WRT the handeling of classified information equally for everyone it doesn't really matter. Clearance, no clearance, they would never prosecute.

McCabe is the only one who I can see a case made for him losing his clearance. He was fired for lying, that is grounds right there.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:


I don’t like any of these motherfuckers from the Obama administration but if they fucked up charge them with a crime. If not, the GOP is setting a dangerous precedent.

Agreed. If they are receiving classified information without need to know then charges should be filed. Anyone ignoring the need to know rules would probably ignore clearance levels too.

I’ll say I think this is one of the side effects of HRCs violations and her lack of prosecution.
People aren’t taking the rules seriously anymore. Not that violations didn’t occur prior to her private email server but that whole incident certainly didn’t set any good examples. Violators need to start being held accountable and need to start receiving some harsh penalties.

^^^^
I agree with you 110%. The DOJ ignores violations when they involve swamp dwellers. Remember that girl in GA? She got hammered, and rightly so. But until the DOJ applies that standard across the board the leaks from DC wil continue.

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
They left public service, some were fired- Why would they still have security clearances?

They shouldn't. Mine was disabled on my very last day of work after 18 years. These guys should not have them, unless they're going back in to double-dip as contractors, god forbid, since they're crooks.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
They left public service, some were fired- Why would they still have security clearances?

They shouldn't. Mine was disabled on my very last day of work after 18 years. These guys should not have them, unless they're going back in to double-dip as contractors, god forbid, since they're crooks.

Clearances can be transferable and interchangeable but it’s a complicated process. I’m not explaining it here.