Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Flags! Anyone! Help Me, Security Clearances >

Flags! Anyone! Help Me, Security Clearances

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Flags! Anyone! Help Me, Security Clearances

Old 08-20-2018, 05:39 PM
  #1  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
JagMagMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Neches, Texas
Posts: 5,514
Default Flags! Anyone! Help Me, Security Clearances

Since I have spent my whole life in the private sector, I don't quite understand the gooberment security clearance system. In our industry, our "Gate Pass," got you entrance into the Plant! Your Gate Pass, or employee "ID," also got you into different buildings and computer programs, according to your position within the company.
Upon retirement, quitting, firing, or whatever, the last thing you did was to surrender your ID on the way out!
So........ what is the issue with Brennan? If you are fired or whatever, why should you still maintain a Security Clearance?
It's a no-brainier to me, but again, I've never worked for the gooberment!
JagMagMan is offline  
Old 08-20-2018, 05:52 PM
  #2  
Nontypical Buck
 
rockport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,315
Default

The way I understand it is its just easier if you ever wanted them to advise you again. Like if a sitting President ever wanted to consult with Brennan about something classified (lol) he could just go ahead and do so without going through the security clearance process.

I'm sure some of the other guys will have more knowledgeable answers to this question or maybe even tell me I'm wrong all together but that is how I think its works and what makes sense to me.

I don't think they are just fed classified information but they stay cleared so they could still be leaned on if needed.
rockport is offline  
Old 08-20-2018, 06:48 PM
  #3  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,798
Default

The short answer is you don't lose your clearance when you quit, not right away. It is expensive to work up a clearance on people, so it just persists for a certain length of time unless something serious happens.

Of course, Trump hasn't said he is removing the security clearances of the several people who have been identified just because they no longer hold government office. He has said -- more or less -- that they are liars and not good security risks. I think it is within Trump's power and the executuve branch's power to make such decisions without any recourse to appeal. The clearance is sort of a grace or a privilege -- it is not a right or an entitlement.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 08-20-2018, 07:09 PM
  #4  
Boone & Crockett
 
Semisane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: River Ridge, LA (Suburb of New Orleans)
Posts: 10,835
Default

My career was as a civilian employee of Dept. of Army. I had Top Secret clearance in the mid-1970s for a two year tour in Okinawa followed by a year in Hawaii. The clearance was revoked when I returned to an assignment in CONUS that didn't require one.
Semisane is offline  
Old 08-20-2018, 07:49 PM
  #5  
Typical Buck
 
Berserker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: WI&UP
Posts: 751
Default

My secruity clearance is tied to my employer. Not government secruity but acess to stuff.
Berserker is offline  
Old 08-21-2018, 05:09 AM
  #6  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 939
Default

The short answer is you don't lose your clearance when you quit, not right away. It is expensive to work up a clearance on people, so it just persists for a certain length of time unless something serious happens..
This is true. Security Clearances do expire, but unless there has been a 24-month or greater break in federal service, including federal contracted employment, your security clearance is not considered expired after the respective anniversaries for periodic re-investigations (five years for top secret and 10 years for secret clearances).

Security Clearance Expiration

I hope Trump revokes all access for those traitors.
chazspot is offline  
Old 08-21-2018, 07:38 AM
  #7  
Giant Nontypical
 
flags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CO Born but working in Amarillo, TX for now.
Posts: 7,880
Default

Government security clearances are made on a "need to know" basis and they can come and go. For instance my clearance over the years would go from secret to top secret and vice versa depending on the job the Navy had me doing. If my position required access to top secret material it was upgraded and if it didn't it was down graded. Plus they had expiration times and that was normally just so they could run your name through the data base to see if you had any legal trouble that wasn't reported. If nothing popped then you got an extension for either 3 or 5 years depending on what they requested.

When I retired form active duty my top secret clearance was stopped 3 days before I left duty and all classified info and eqpt I had access to was turned in and I did a full debrief on what I could and could not talk about. The clearance did not go with me when I left. Some people do keep their clearances and as noted it is because they can be contacted to take a look at stuff and give input if deemed necessary. A fellow chief I knew in the Intelligence Community for the USN kept his top secret for that reason. But he was officially a "secret squirrel" working with the SEALs and I was a rock and roll gun guy with the Riverines. I had no reason to keep my clearance.

Frankly many people like Brennan and Clapper et al... want to keep their clearance because it helps them land very lucrative contractor jobs since they still have access to classified material. Having the clearance yanked shut down the cash cow for Brennan and that is why he is making so much noise. In 2 months he will be worthless to anyone and you won't hear about him any more unless he follows through with his treat of a lawsuit and he will lose if he tries to go that route.

Last edited by flags; 08-21-2018 at 09:07 AM.
flags is offline  
Old 08-21-2018, 08:09 AM
  #8  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 773
Default

I'm still trying to figure out if a court would actually even hear the case. Clearances are the sole property of the Government and no court could demand one be taken away nor renewed. Commander in Chief means something and what the President says should go when it comes to clearances without question.
hunters_life is offline  
Old 08-21-2018, 08:20 AM
  #9  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,798
Default

I think the upshot of the replies so far is (1) clearances can be removed for a variety of reasons and (2) there is no cause in law for Brennan or any other losing their security clearance to sue on that basis. O, they can make big talk in the news media or on twitter and even get some attorney to TALK about doing this . . . but they aren't going to get a judge to accept that case or it will be dismissed promptly when the defendant -- the government -- calls attention to the fact that there is no cause in law. This is political theatre.

I said in my initial post that Trump was removing Brennan's clearance for cause, not just cavalierly (although it may be entirely legal for the administration to revoke a clearance arbitrarily, without cause -- it is not an entitlement, it is not a right), and I said it was because Brennan was a liar. After looking into this just a bit more, it seems the rationale is a little more nuanced and subtle. I think they would say, indeed, that Brennan is a liar and has lied. But the rationale is more extensive than just that. Without belabouring the point, it has been pointed out that Brennan is comporting himself "erratically." This, in my mind, is sort of a euphemism for irrationally and also mental instability. Nuanced. Subtle. You need to think about it. But think about it this way. What would you think about a high government official who spoke in these terms about, O, I don't know, about Barrack Obama in that way? Called Barrack Obama a traitor? Wouldn't that give rise to a suspicion of lunacy, of mental imbalance? Anyway, this is what I'm seeing when I read between the lines.

They don't have to justify taking the clearance. The clearance is not a right or an entitlement. The guy is acting bizarrely. Game over -- clearance is gone. More could be alleged, in my opinion, against Brennan, but bizarre, irrational behaviour is enough grounds . . . and no grounds is needed in the first place.

No one else has said this, but I wonder if Brennan is tainted with the Russian Dossier affair and the phony FISA court warrant affair? Let me spell out one of the narratives on this. It is a narrative: I do not have proof. Here is the narrative. The Russian Dossier was developed for hire by a former spy who was hired by the DNC to get dirt on Trump. The Russian Dossier was then used as a rationale to secure a FISA court warrant to engage US espionage assets to spy on the Trump political campaign. Various high-ranking US LEO/SPY officials were involved in deploying this Russian Dossier to secure the FISA court warrant. That is the end of the narrative. What are the facts? I don't know. But let's unpack that narrative and put it in perspective. If TRUE -- and it is not obvious or clear that it is TRUE, it may be false -- this means our LEO/SPY government agencies, with the consent of high ranking officials of those agencies, spied on the Trump presidential campaign. Isn't that BIGGER than Watergate? It is pretty devious -- gin up some bogus allegations that the Trump campaign or Trump himself is somehow (and to me it is not clear HOW or why that justifies the FISA warrant) linked with the Russians and then rely on the executive authority of high ranking LEO/SPY officials to give credence to the ginned up bogus allegations. It is evidence because these high ranking LEO/SPY officials say it is reliable evidence. I am not articulating this well, but if you catch my drift THIS is a very serious story and should give all US citizens -- liberal and conservative, democrat and republican -- pause and want things to be fixed. I think this narrative is fair -- I have not heard anyone explain it away yet. But by the same token it hasn't been demonstrated or covered in the media much. But to my mind that isn't dispositive: the media selectively ignores issues and stories that aren't favourable to their ideology. In any case, I do suggest retaining some scepticism about the narrative I provided until corroborating information arrives.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 08-21-2018, 08:45 AM
  #10  
Typical Buck
 
rogerstv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: West Central Illinois
Posts: 973
Default

Good thread. I heard the same as Rockport and Flags. Outgoing people can advise incoming to make transition easier. I believe it is a common upper-class Washington political benefit so those leaving government service can land lucrative contractor/consultant private sector jobs. The move is unprecedented. Albeit likely political backslap to Brennan and his continued verbal lashing of President Trump. I see it as a swamp draining exercise. Comey and Stroke (sp?) should be immediately included.
rogerstv is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.