Retirees Shouldn’t Get Security Clearances

[jimnyc]

And as I said a few times since Brennan rightfully had his revoked, this applies to both sides. Talk about a recipe for disaster.

And stop with the free speech crap, as all these folks are free to hop on the nightly and weekend news as they wish, as some do, but free speech doesn't include security clearance. That's absurd, but liberals are lapping it up anyway.

---

Retirees Shouldn’t Get Security Clearances

Between the Mexican-American War and the start of the Civil War, men like Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman — two of the greatest military leaders in American history — found themselves living rather dull civilian lives. As tensions heated up between the Union and the Confederacy, both Grant and Sherman were initially on the sidelines (though this did not last very long). No one in Washington consulted these two relative unknowns. What’s more, those in Washington among the military command structure could have cared less about their opinion. They were, after all, no longer in uniform.

Today, when one retires either from the uppermost echelons of America’s bloated intelligence services or from the United States Armed Forces, depending on one’s rank, that ex officio is allowed to maintain his or her security clearances. We have been told by the “experts” that this is to help with institutional memory. What memories are the national security institutions trying to preserve anyway?

Folks like John Brennan and James Clapper have a track record of unmitigated failures under their proverbial belts. Why do they get to keep their clearances? Who would want to consult with them? From 9/11 to the Iraq War to the supposed Russian-backed cyberattack on the U.S. presidential election in 2016, these men have presided over one disaster after another. Not only should people like Brennan lose their security clearances — but they should probably be investigated for gross incompetence!

Recently, retired Admiral William McRaven wrote a scathing op-ed in the Washington Post excoriating President Donald Trump for having terminated former CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance. The former admiral is trading on his fame of having been the commanding officer at the United States Special Operations Command during the Bin Laden Raid in May of 2011 as proof that his opinions should be heeded.

They should not be.

McRaven, like anyone else who has a security clearance, is a public servant who is supposed to remain apolitical. When he crosses the line, he should be rebuked and ignored — by both sides. At the end of his emotional letter to the president, McRaven insisted that his security clearance be revoked, so that the retired admiral could stand in solidarity with the honorable John Brennan.

Personally, I think Trump should revoke all former intelligence officials and military leaders’ security clearances — especially those who become public partisans. They do not need security clearances anymore. Besides, these former intelligence and military leaders have proven themselves too irresponsible to be entrusted with the secretive security clearance they’ve been permitted to keep (as a courtesy for their prior service to the country).

Rest - https://spectator.org/retirees-shoul...ty-clearances/

[Gunny]

And as I said a few times since Brennan rightfully had his revoked, this applies to both sides. Talk about a recipe for disaster.

And stop with the free speech crap, as all these folks are free to hop on the nightly and weekend news as they wish, as some do, but free speech doesn't include security clearance. That's absurd, but liberals are lapping it up anyway.

---

Retirees Shouldn’t Get Security Clearances

Between the Mexican-American War and the start of the Civil War, men like Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman — two of the greatest military leaders in American history — found themselves living rather dull civilian lives. As tensions heated up between the Union and the Confederacy, both Grant and Sherman were initially on the sidelines (though this did not last very long). No one in Washington consulted these two relative unknowns. What’s more, those in Washington among the military command structure could have cared less about their opinion. They were, after all, no longer in uniform.

Today, when one retires either from the uppermost echelons of America’s bloated intelligence services or from the United States Armed Forces, depending on one’s rank, that ex officio is allowed to maintain his or her security clearances. We have been told by the “experts” that this is to help with institutional memory. What memories are the national security institutions trying to preserve anyway?

Folks like John Brennan and James Clapper have a track record of unmitigated failures under their proverbial belts. Why do they get to keep their clearances? Who would want to consult with them? From 9/11 to the Iraq War to the supposed Russian-backed cyberattack on the U.S. presidential election in 2016, these men have presided over one disaster after another. Not only should people like Brennan lose their security clearances — but they should probably be investigated for gross incompetence!

Recently, retired Admiral William McRaven wrote a scathing op-ed in the Washington Post excoriating President Donald Trump for having terminated former CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance. The former admiral is trading on his fame of having been the commanding officer at the United States Special Operations Command during the Bin Laden Raid in May of 2011 as proof that his opinions should be heeded.

They should not be.

McRaven, like anyone else who has a security clearance, is a public servant who is supposed to remain apolitical. When he crosses the line, he should be rebuked and ignored — by both sides. At the end of his emotional letter to the president, McRaven insisted that his security clearance be revoked, so that the retired admiral could stand in solidarity with the honorable John Brennan.

Personally, I think Trump should revoke all former intelligence officials and military leaders’ security clearances — especially those who become public partisans. They do not need security clearances anymore. Besides, these former intelligence and military leaders have proven themselves too irresponsible to be entrusted with the secretive security clearance they’ve been permitted to keep (as a courtesy for their prior service to the country).

Rest - https://spectator.org/retirees-shoul...ty-clearances/

Obvious answer(s): The clearance alone means nothing. Having it though binds one to maintaining anything learned from it. We DO (or did) have to sign a bunch of nondisclosure BS ensuring we understood they would fly black helicopters to our houses in the middle of the night and castrate us with butter knives if we disclosed so much as the contents of a cover sheet.

Then there's the fact we are all (retirees anyway) subject to recall until death.

The whole issue is a red herring IMO to deflect from the leftwingnuts in government who have been allowed to get away with what the rest of us would be in prison for. The clearance means nothing. The integrity of the person holding it is what matters. I shouldn't have to explain that last. Those who understand it do, and those that don't never will.

[Elessar]

Obvious answer(s): The clearance alone means nothing. Having it though binds one to maintaining anything learned from it. We DO (or did) have to sign a bunch of nondisclosure BS ensuring we understood they would fly black helicopters to our houses in the middle of the night and castrate us with butter knives if we disclosed so much as the contents of a cover sheet.

Then there's the fact we are all (retirees anyway) subject to recall until death.

The whole issue is a red herring IMO to deflect from the leftwingnuts in government who have been allowed to get away with what the rest of us would be in prison for. The clearance means nothing. The integrity of the person holding it is what matters. I shouldn't have to explain that last. Those who understand it do, and those that don't never will.

That is one thing that persons that have never served do not realize.


So very true!

[pete311]

One interesting aspect is this is a bit of witness tampering. Trumps targeting 12 or so people. Many of whom would need clearance to testify against him. In the end this just simple political retribution. The type authoritarian counties deal with all the time. These rationalizations are not real reasons for any of this. We had 200 years where this wasn't an issue and now it suddenly is because Trump makes it one and you guys just keep drinking the kool aid.

[aboutime]

Taking away their security clearances IS NOT TAKING AWAY THEIR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!
They are all FREE to say whatever they want, whenever, and wherever.
Taking the security clearance is a REQUIREMENT of the President in PROTECTING AMERICA.

PERIOD. Let the Democrats cry, whine and play their silly games. The LAW is the LAW. They can't change that...no matter how much they BLEED Alligator TEARS.

As for RETIREE'S.....Unless we have govt. jobs, following our retirement from active duty. WE DON'T NEED IT.

[Gunny]

One interesting aspect is this is a bit of witness tampering. Trumps targeting 12 or so people. Many of whom would need clearance to testify against him. In the end this just simple political retribution. The type authoritarian counties deal with all the time. These rationalizations are not real reasons for any of this. We had 200 years where this wasn't an issue and now it suddenly is because Trump makes it one and you guys just keep drinking the kool aid.

Wrong. You been taking dumb pills?

You don't need a clearance to testify before Congress. If the matter is classified, they close the doors and keep going. You're REALLY grasping at straws looking to make excuses (I think it's called stammering).

Just because YOU, Joh Q Leftwingnut won't be privy to the proceedings doesn't mean they can't happen. And if shit for brains can leak his sh*t all over the media, turning around and trying to stand on something being classified is REALLY laughable. He's probably already leaked anything he has to say.

[pete311]

Wrong. You been taking dumb pills?

You don't need a clearance to testify before Congress. If the matter is classified, they close the doors and keep going. You're REALLY grasping at straws looking to make excuses (I think it's called stammering).

Just because YOU, Joh Q Leftwingnut won't be privy to the proceedings doesn't mean they can't happen. And if shit for brains can leak his sh*t all over the media, turning around and trying to stand on something being classified is REALLY laughable. He's probably already leaked anything he has to say.

I'm not a lawyer. It is news and interesting to me that someone can testify and discuss classified material without clearance. Thanks for the info.

[Gunny]

I'm not a lawyer. It is news and interesting to me that someone can testify and discuss classified material without clearance. Thanks for the info.

How hard is this? Everyone in Congress has a clearance. He HAD a clearance. Congress and the President are clearance issuing authorities. They can authorize him to divulge any classified information within the scope of their investigation. If that's "within Mueller's scope", that means any and everything they get the urge to ask him Proper authority IS THE person/persons you are allowed to discuss classified material with

I have a low tolerance level for stupid. Especially intentional, rhetorical stupid. Don't act stupid and I won't be a prick.

[Elessar]

When I went through the process of getting my TS/NATO clearance, I was told
by the agent doing the interview for the SSBI, that under no uncertain terms would
I be allowed to speak of anything that happened inside that Command Center.

I worked with cases of drug interdiction and illegal smuggling of people from from
China or Mexico. These kinds of cases went on for days. I could not speak to my then wife,
or her step-dad, who was a Navy Vet.

Only until the lead agency, whether it was CG, Navy, State Dept, or Justice Dept
finally issued a press release could I even talk about, but still was prohibited
from discussing details.

[Gunny]

Binding us to those clearances is wht they hold over our heads should they wish to hang us. Those signed nondisclosure forms are their authority to bury us under Leavenworth.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I had a Secret Clearance. You needed one to even WALK onto the flight line, and even then, you needed to be cleared as a need to know to even LOOK into the cockpit of an F-16. When we had air shows and aircraft were put on static display for people to look at, there was NO ladder leading up to the cockpit of the F-16. You could walk around one but that was IT.

And the day I signed out from CBPO, my clearances were PULLED, DONE, and ya know, I DIDN'T LOSE MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, I STILL HAVE THEM. This first amendment horse shit is about the most PATHETIC, ABSURD bull shit I've ever heard. These leftist are pissed because they're losing their ability to look at things that they can then go LEAK TO THE DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA WING.

Fuck... them. Not only is that ILLEGAL, but these sons a bitches should be in PRISON.

[pete311]

How hard is this? Everyone in Congress has a clearance. He HAD a clearance. Congress and the President are clearance issuing authorities. They can authorize him to divulge any classified information within the scope of their investigation. If that's "within Mueller's scope", that means any and everything they get the urge to ask him Proper authority IS THE person/persons you are allowed to discuss classified material with

I have a low tolerance level for stupid. Especially intentional, rhetorical stupid. Don't act stupid and I won't be a prick.

Why would a republican congress authorize a witness who is testifying against their party president? You are being an arrogant prick. Educate, don't belittle.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Why would a republican congress authorize a witness who is testifying against their party president? You are being an arrogant prick. Educate, don't belittle.

You mean an establishment Washington good ole boys club that's being blown up by this president? Party affiliation makes zero difference.

Don't be ignorant.

[Elessar]

Why would a republican congress authorize a witness who is testifying against their party president? You are being an arrogant prick. Educate, don't belittle.

Civics 101, Pete. The occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is NOT the governing body of this Republic,
The Congress is.

The president cannot remove a senator or representative, but The Congress can remove a president.

The president can suggest, pressure, and cajole Congress, but that is about it.

[Gunny]

Why would a republican congress authorize a witness who is testifying against their party president? You are being an arrogant prick. Educate, don't belittle.

I AM an arrogant prick when this topic has been hashed, re-hashed, beaten to death, buried, dug up and sifted through, beaten some more, on THIS board, within just the last year enough that someone with severe ADD would know the answers if they wanted to... and along comes the usual "I don't know anything about this topic so I'll feign ignorance right after feigning expertise on the topic

If Brennan is compelled to testify on a classified matter to a BI-PARTY Congressional inquiry, it's rather too obvious to pretend it isn't happening like the Mueller investigation uncovering tons of Democrat Russian collusion but nothing but process crimes on Republican underlings.

Not to mention when there's everything to gain and nothing to lose or hide, why should Congress or the President fear anything? Also not to mention the Republican Congress is hardly Trump partisan. He has as many detractors in his own party as supporters.