Ex-Navy admiral: Revoke my security clearance

Posted by $ nickursis 6 years, 11 months ago to Government
45 comments | Share | Flag

If anything confirms the deep state (which I think is what Ayn Rand was trying to warn us of), it is this, someone treading on their military service to appear offended because they want to keep their access so they can go on TV and be brilliant talking gasbags. Another corrupted senior officer. Ask yourself, why does ANYONE need a security clearance AFTER they leave the job? ALL security systems are founded on one basic principle: Need to know. How can someone who has left that position have a need to know? We ALWAYS terminated security clearances of people who left the submarine command precisely because of need to know, which no longer existed. The only reason anyone would WANT to keep one: access to secrets you can use to sell yourself, manipulate others and be a self important, pompous ass. Brennan is a traitor, Comey is one too. They abused their power, then set themselves up with their access to sell to the higest bidder. Brennan needed a high level security clearance so he could consult for CNN? Really? You think this is at all realistic?

If anything, this is concrete proof of what is going on, and how people get power and then abuse it for themselves, and will sell us out along the way. ALL clearances should be revoked immediately, if that person is not in the position for which it was granted. Common sense.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm with you in that respect Bill, also, as a former security assistant on a missile sub, where we had to apply for and get TS and SCI clearances for people, there was never a provision for keeping it afterwards, you could have the actual clearance, but when you left, you had :"Access Terminated", but the clearance itself was not revoked. Then at the next duty station, you could get access again, per your need to know. This whole mess is that they got to keep their clearances and access, despite no need to know. A clear, total breakdown of the system to facilitate insider information given for money at many levels. All pure BS, and a violation of the basic rules.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's usually an up hill domino effect. Top guy goes and either an underling moves up or some political hack gets appointed. I don't much like the structure but I do have a bit of understanding in it.
    When my wife retires she will sign a NDA saying she will not divulge company secrets or go to work for any competitor for 5 years and she will assist where necessary during the transition.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by TheRealBill 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I understand where you're coming from. In my view, however, you transition before leaving. There is no good reason why retirement in the S2 field is excused from executing a proper transition to your successor prior to leaving. This is especially true at the big-wig level.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 6 years, 11 months ago
    I know many family and friends who had clearances while they worked for the government in various capacities. The second they retired, quit, were laid off, or were fired their clearances were revoked. I don't see where some of these whiners like Brennan and the admiral are any different from all the other citizens.

    If they later have a "need to know", then the clearances can be re-instated.

    Now I hear all the crying about violation of the whiners 1st Amendment rights. Really? Hey, I'm a loyal born American citizen with zero criminal past, so why doesn't MY 1st Amendment rights allow ME to have all those clearances? To paraphrase former Governor Huckabee, if it's a 1st Amendment issue, then why not sell the clearance forms at county fair booths for a buck or two so we all can have one and help bring money into the mired-in-debt treasury to boot?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dark_star 6 years, 11 months ago
    OK give him what he's asking for .... revoke it. What does he think he's proving?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CTYankee 6 years, 11 months ago
    Another important factoid about clearance, is that one who possesses it would never actually reveal that they have more clearance than is necessary for any given need. e.g.

    Item XYZ requires SECRET clearance to access, and Joe Lunchbox has "SECRET, Top Secret, Eyes Only, and Ultra-Violet" clearances in his jacket, Joe would only reveal that he has SECRET clearance to gain access to the XYZ item.

    Which is to say that when the original possessor of the SECRET information was asked to disclose to Joe Lunchbox, this inquiry from the clearance authority would also only confirm that Joe has SECRET clearance.

    In other words, you DO NOT need to know how much clearance I have, you only need to know that I have sufficient clearance to receive XYZ item. Anything else is CLASSIFIED.

    Anyone who knows this also knows that Hillary belongs in prison. It's not a crime to receive classified information above your level, only to distribute it. And that's why Hillary is guilty.

    Because of certain inequities, we can also conclude that another aspect of security clearances is to punish political adversaries, and provide meat for the sausage grinders, while allowing the privileged few to eschew the rules with impunity. And that's not right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Lots of businesses and gov. agencies keep the retiring big wigs on as paid consultants for a period of time. Many of the contacts and relationships they developed are invaluable resources. I do feel that some but certainly not all X employees may need to maintain the clearance for a short transitional period to get the new folks up to speed.
    If your removal was the result of some negative condition then the clearance should expire immediately.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by TheRealBill 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Sure, some of them might be kept if they might be called upon to update their replacements"

    I've seen this claimed frequently, but it doesn't hold water. Clearance is needed to receive or learn of secret information. In that scenario what is needed is for the replacement to have the clearance and the former official/employee to be able to verify the replacement's authorization to be "updated".

    Then again, to me needing to do that signifies the outgoing employee failed to properly document and store the information necessary for their successor. As far as ongoing, either be under active contract or uninvolved.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years, 11 months ago
    The most absurd claim is that removing a security clearance is a violation of the 1st amendment. You can't talk publicly about classified information, period, whether you have the clearance or not. Brennan has certainly been shooting his mouth off without any form of suppression.

    The explanation of the 1st amendment "violation" is that Brennan is being punished for criticizing the President, but the freedom of speech clause is about being able to express your thoughts without fear of legal suppression. It is not license with a guaranteed freedom from any consequences. Even Brennan himself had second thoughts about his irrational outburst accusing the President of committing treason by meeting with Putin.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Snezzy 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Bingo! I held Secret but never had a need to know, never knew anything, and even if I did, I would never mention it.

    True story: Our off-base site's security officer was asked by a snotty summer-help kid about the on-premises safe.

    "What's that safe?"
    -- "That's for keeping classified information."
    "What is in it?"
    -- "The answer to your question is NO."
    "Then you mean there isn't anything in it?"
    -- "The answer to your question is NO."
    "Then there is?"
    -- "The answer to your question is NO."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 6 years, 11 months ago
    I see absolutely no reason for any gov. employee to keep the clearance once they leave the job. Sure, some of them might be kept if they might be called upon to update their replacements or were highly involved in ongoing projects but it should not be a life long TS clearance and certainly not when they are in complete opposition of the current admin.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by seez52 6 years, 11 months ago
    Listened to an NPR interview of a retired Naval officer with top clearances. May have been this guy. The moronic interviewer asked several questions to which the retiree seemed to answer in a completely sublime manner and one most of the audience would find acceptable. But the question that need to be asked was never asked: "Being retired, why do you need a security clearance anymore anyway?" I was waiting, and waiting but it was never asked. Nothing but tools all of them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 6 years, 11 months ago
    Government issued clearances exist for the specific reason that access to sensitive information is essential to you doing your job.. When you no longer have that job you no longer need access to sensitive information. Typically a clearance includes "need to know" restrictions. Actually, and this is down in the weeds, once granted a security clearance never really goes away. What does go away is "need to know access". What Trump actually pulled from Brennan was his "need to know" status. The clearance remains in tact as does the penalty for violating your oath.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly mminnick, right on target. The fact this is even going on, and the fact they are making a public stink, thinking they can normalize such a security breach, is indicative of the arrogance of the other side, and their attitude of privilege. It is not too far a step to "I am above the law". That seems to encapsulate all the bad sides of government we see, add in the fact 60 "ex" CIA people protested he and Brennan should be allowed to keep it shows the depth of corruption and arrogance these idiots have acquired.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 6 years, 11 months ago
    Well, buh-bye, McRaven. Who cares? Revoke the joke.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 6 years, 11 months ago
    I work in DOD or Defense contrators from 1968 to 1999. During that time I held SECRET and Top Secret clearences. the day I left employment my clearences were all terminated. No question asked. It is not the person that needs the clearance, it is the position he/she is occupying that needs the clearance. Anyone doing that job is required to demonstrate they have the necessary capacity to keep their mouth shut. For my TS I was investigated back 15 yrs. My family was also. This includeded in-laws and direct family. it was not easy nor was it cheap.
    As I said when I left DoD work, my clearences were withdrawn immediately. I no longer needed to have access. Some of the project I worked still have restrictions imposed on my ability to talk about them and to travel freely. Brennan et al shold just shut up and do what they know they should be doing, and not blabbering away.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 6 years, 11 months ago
    Sure, by all means.

    Security clearance is required only for those who are in active positions, not retired like you.

    Having said that, I'd enjoy my retirement if I were you rather than playing politics.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 6 years, 11 months ago
    Agreed, nick. Revoke them all unless they are currently involved in active operations. That's how civilian contractors should be handled, too. In fact, every retired ex-military should be re-vetted before having access to national secrets at ANY time more than 3 months after retirement. Power corrupts. The system has too much power and it must be curtailed or freedom dies.

    Killed Bin Laden? Bull shit. Show me the body you statist liar.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo