What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Revoking a Security Clearance (1 Viewer)

O

Opie

Footballguy
Based on the number of people here who have actually held a security clearance and your knowledge of it (other than what you have read), I am not expecting any "real life" experiences.

The thing about a security clearance is that they are totally based on one's "need to know".

If you no longer fill a position that requires you to have a security clearance...the clearance is revoked...at least for those of us NOT in the swamp.

I lost my clearance the day I left the Corps.  

So...why the outrage from the left when security clearances of Obama's administration are finally revoked when they SHOULD have been revoked they day that they vacated their position in government?

 
Opie said:
Based on the number of people here who have actually held a security clearance and your knowledge of it (other than what you have read), I am not expecting any "real life" experiences.

The thing about a security clearance is that they are totally based on one's "need to know".

If you no longer fill a position that requires you to have a security clearance...the clearance is revoked...at least for those of us NOT in the swamp.

I lost my clearance the day I left the Corps.  

So...why the outrage from the left when security clearances of Obama's administration are finally revoked when they SHOULD have been revoked they day that they vacated their position in government?
Click to expand...
I'm not outraged.  Why are you outraged? 

 
Opie said:
The thing about a security clearance is that they are totally based on one's "need to know".

If you no longer fill a position that requires you to have a security clearance...the clearance is revoked.
Click to expand...
It’s pretty obvious - if past administration members, which could date back as far as required I’d think, are needed to evaluate classified materials or questions then they will need clearance to do so.

Obviously basing clearances on political views is one of the dumbest and most corrupt ideas this administration has ever contemplated.

 
Bucky86 said:
First step. Do some research on the subject before starting a new thread.

TIA
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

This is towards the beginning of the Post article on the story, and I assume every article on the subject includes something similar:

It’s routine for the former directors of intelligence agencies and other senior officials to maintain their security clearances, so they can share their expertise with current leaders or be called in for consultations on how a prior administration handled an issue or crisis, current and former officials said. Some former officials also have jobs that require a security clearance.
Click to expand...


That said, let's remember the most important thing: being civil to people who spread misleading information on the internet either deliberately or because they can't be bothered to do even 30 seconds of research.  Their complete ignorance/bad faith arguments deserve to be heard and treated with respect!

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It’s pretty obvious - if past administration members, which could date back as far as required I’d think, are needed to evaluate classified materials or questions then they will need clearance to do so.

Obviously basing clearances on political views is one of the dumbest and most corrupt ideas this administration has ever contemplated.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.

 
Meaningless and petty. Comey and McCabe, for example, don’t even have clearance any more. Naming them is just trolling. 

 
It's amazing how quickly a talking point goes from "FoxNews brainstorm session" to "message board thread title".

And when the point doesn't stick, it just slowly slides down the wall and collects dust like a modern day Wacky Wally.

 
Opie said:
Based on the number of people here who have actually held a security clearance and your knowledge of it (other than what you have read), I am not expecting any "real life" experiences.

The thing about a security clearance is that they are totally based on one's "need to know".

If you no longer fill a position that requires you to have a security clearance...the clearance is revoked...at least for those of us NOT in the swamp.

I lost my clearance the day I left the Corps.  

So...why the outrage from the left when security clearances of Obama's administration are finally revoked when they SHOULD have been revoked they day that they vacated their position in government?
Click to expand...
Different levels of clearances have different rules.  I do not know all the rules off the top of my head but IIRC correctly when I left a customer my Secret clearance went away after a few months but it was easy to get an interim clearance when I needed it.

For TS stuff, you sign out of every briefing you have the day you leave the program (or Intelligence Agency).  You clearance is still active (if that's the right word) for up to 2 years.  After 2 years, you have to go through the entire process again.   Everyone is supposed to go through the process every 5 years or so anyway but they are backlogged and I know many people that make it 10 years easily.  You have to submit Financial Disclosure Forms every two years and any red flags there will trigger a re-investigation.

 
Just saw Paul Ryan interviewed, where he dismissed Trump's comments about stripping security clearances from his political opponents as "trolling"

 
rude classless thugs said:
Just saw Paul Ryan interviewed, where he dismissed Trump's comments about stripping security clearances from his political opponents as "trolling"
Click to expand...
Troll seems to be his default setting these days:
 

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!
Click to expand...

 
"Continuing to fling poo until something sticks". It works for monkeys, so why shouldn't it work for message boards, amirite???

 
Opie said:
Wow...My bad....I guess.

Link

Link

Link

Maybe I should stop believing the MSM??
Click to expand...
If you don't know about this, you really should ask or do some research. Yesterday when I brought it up in another thread, I agreed with Rand Paul. I thought it was dumb to let former officials keep clearance. But then @Bucky86 educated me and I realized I was wrong. 

So if you just want this to be a thread where you take potshots at Dems for holding what is actually the proper view ... ok. Keep at it. I guess I'll just ignore the thread. But on the other hand, I learned something yesterday from our fellow posters and it caused me to change what I think Trump should do on this issue. Maybe you could do that too.

 
whoknew said:
If you don't know about this, you really should ask or do some research. Yesterday when I brought it up in another thread, I agreed with Rand Paul. I thought it was dumb to let former officials keep clearance. But then @Bucky86 educated me and I realized I was wrong. 

So if you just want this to be a thread where you take potshots at Dems for holding what is actually the proper view ... ok. Keep at it. I guess I'll just ignore the thread. But on the other hand, I learned something yesterday from our fellow posters and it caused me to change what I think Trump should do on this issue. Maybe you could do that too.
Click to expand...
So...clue me in.

Link to the thread that explains the "proper view" on revoking security clearances where the holder no longer has the "need to know".

 
Bucky86 said:
Your fellow Trump supporter explained it pretty well.

Just because you have a security clearance, it doesn't mean you can just walk into the Situation Room and get briefed anytime you want.

Perhaps, next time you start a thread with a question, you shouldn't use it to attack other people. However, we all know you didn't really come here to learn, but instead to troll.
Click to expand...
You would know.  You certainly aren't here for discussion yourself.

 
whoknew said:
Sure. Here's my initial post. And there are some posts that respond to it below.

ETA:  Shoot. My link is wrong. You have to go above it to see the first post.
Click to expand...
The thread says nothing.

It is called a security "clearance" which means that the holder has been "cleared" to view sensitive information.  Holding that clearance puts the responsibility of the person revealing that sensitive information to the "holder" of the clearance

Releasing (or allowing to view) sensitive information by another person holding the same level, or higher level clearance, totally exonerates the person revealing the information from prosecution...thus, promulgating leaking of information.

The NEED TO KNOW is the #1 requirement for holding a security clearance at any level.

 
Opie said:
The NEED TO KNOW is the #1 requirement for holding a security clearance at any level.
Click to expand...
That's not entirely true.  The need to know may get you special access within a program or different levels of access.  But there are many that hold security clearances and work on programs that don't have a need to know the details of that program.  And they don't know the details either.

 
Opie said:
The thread says nothing.

It is called a security "clearance" which means that the holder has been "cleared" to view sensitive information.  Holding that clearance puts the responsibility of the person revealing that sensitive information to the "holder" of the clearance

Releasing (or allowing to view) sensitive information by another person holding the same level, or higher level clearance, totally exonerates the person revealing the information from prosecution...thus, promulgating leaking of information.

The NEED TO KNOW is the #1 requirement for holding a security clearance at any level.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this response.

To boil down our conversation from yesterday, basically former high ranking intelligence officials keep their security clearance so current officials can consult with them on an as needed basis. The former officials aren't getting regular security updates. They just keep the clearance so if their expertise is needed, they don't have to go through the security clearance process again before they can help.

---

So how does what you wrote relate to that? What am I missing?

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Different levels of clearances have different rules.  I do not know all the rules off the top of my head but IIRC correctly when I left a customer my Secret clearance went away after a few months but it was easy to get an interim clearance when I needed it.

For TS stuff, you sign out of every briefing you have the day you leave the program (or Intelligence Agency).  You clearance is still active (if that's the right word) for up to 2 years.  After 2 years, you have to go through the entire process again.   Everyone is supposed to go through the process every 5 years or so anyway but they are backlogged and I know many people that make it 10 years easily.  You have to submit Financial Disclosure Forms every two years and any red flags there will trigger a re-investigation.
Click to expand...
Secret is every 10, TS is every 5.  Clearances are not based on need to know as suggested in OP.  Clearances are based on position.   You can only get a clearance if your position requires such.   Need to know determines which information you get access to.  You need both proper clearance level and need to know to access specific information.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I heard about Trump being a child and wanting to take clearance away from anyone who dares criticize him.  Am I supposed to be outraged? I didn't get the memo.

 
Seems to me that the discussion of rank and file security clearances here has no bearing whatsoever on this story.

The issue here is the treatment of senior officials from previous administrations (and in this case from the current administration as well).  Like the Post article said and I quoted already:

It’s routine for the former directors of intelligence agencies and other senior officials to maintain their security clearances, so they can share their expertise with current leaders or be called in for consultations on how a prior administration handled an issue or crisis, current and former officials said. Some former officials also have jobs that require a security clearance.
Click to expand...
It's a matter of efficiency and courtesy and to my knowledge nobody has ever even suggested taking the action Trump did yesterday. They're not talking about overhauling the security clearance protocol entirely. They're attacking a handful of officials' livelihoods and reputations over public comments, and by extent are silencing dissent going forward by threatening the same. If you post doesn't specifically address those things I don't really see how it's relevant. 

 
whoknew said:
So if you just want this to be a thread where you take potshots at Dems for holding what is actually the proper view ... ok. Keep at it. I guess I'll just ignore the thread. But on the other hand, I learned something yesterday from our fellow posters and it caused me to change what I think Trump should do on this issue. Maybe you could do that too.
Click to expand...
That's not what alphas do.

Opie said:
Releasing (or allowing to view) sensitive information by another person holding the same level, or higher level clearance, totally exonerates the person revealing the information from prosecution...thus, promulgating leaking of information.
Click to expand...
Do what now?

Can you please provide some instances of this or cite relevant laws?

 
JuniorNB said:
I heard about Trump being a child and wanting to take clearance away from anyone who dares criticize him.  Am I supposed to be outraged? I didn't get the memo.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say outraged, but it should add to your list of things that makes Trump an idiot.

 
JuniorNB said:
I heard about Trump being a child and wanting to take clearance away from anyone who dares criticize him.  Am I supposed to be outraged? I didn't get the memo.
Click to expand...
That's not what is happening whatsoever.  I know plenty of people with clearances that criticize him often.  Though I will say anyone with a clearance is an absolute moron if they are criticizing the US Gov't at all on social media because one of the red flags that can get you in trouble during an investigation is if they suspect you would want to overthrow the government; or even if you aren't loyal to the US Govt.   It was the same under Obama and Bush too but probably way more scrutinized now because of Russia.

 
toshiba said:
I wouldn't say outraged, but it should add to your list of things that makes Trump an idiot.
Click to expand...
I've actually grown numb at this point. Very hard to get me outraged these days. Caging the kids he ripped away from their parents was the last thing that did it.  Watching him choose Putin's word over his own country's intelligence agency almost did it, but I've accepted that Putin has something on Trump a long time ago so it didn't surprise me. I'm still waiting for him to only allow 'friendly' reporters into the Sanders Huckabee pressers. You know he wants to do that very badly.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
That's not what is happening whatsoever. 
Click to expand...
You're wrong.  That's exactly what's happening. It's all people who know ten times more than he does about this country's security issues and he dislikes them because they criticize him. It's a child acting like a child.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Different levels of clearances have different rules.  I do not know all the rules off the top of my head but IIRC correctly when I left a customer my Secret clearance went away after a few months but it was easy to get an interim clearance when I needed it.

For TS stuff, you sign out of every briefing you have the day you leave the program (or Intelligence Agency).  You clearance is still active (if that's the right word) for up to 2 years.  After 2 years, you have to go through the entire process again.   Everyone is supposed to go through the process every 5 years or so anyway but they are backlogged and I know many people that make it 10 years easily.  You have to submit Financial Disclosure Forms every two years and any red flags there will trigger a re-investigation.
Click to expand...
This is correct, though I thought I remembered that two year period being consecutive 24 months of not needing it.  If during that period you were brought back and needed to use it, the clock reset.  I might be wrong about that or it might have changed (mine was from 18 years ago) since I had mine.

 
JuniorNB said:
You're wrong.  That's exactly what's happening. It's all people who know ten times more than he does about this country's security issues and he dislikes them because they criticize him. It's a child acting like a child.
Click to expand...
He is not revoking security clearances from anyone that holds one and criticizes him.  

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
He is not revoking security clearances from anyone that holds one and criticizes him.  
Click to expand...
Hayden and  Clapper both appear on CNN and aren't afraid to criticize Trump's policies. Although both always remain respectful, both do not hide the fact that it disgusts them that he kisses up to Putin and ignores the intelligence given to him by our experts. He can't handle it so he thinks he's teaching them a lesson. And sending a message to anyone else who dares criticize the King.

 
JuniorNB said:
Hayden and  Clapper both appear on CNN and aren't afraid to criticize Trump's policies. Although both always remain respectful, both do not hide the fact that it disgusts them that he kisses up to Putin and ignores the intelligence given to him by our experts. He can't handle it so he thinks he's teaching them a lesson. And sending a message to anyone else who dares criticize the King.
Click to expand...
Ummm okay?  All I said was "wanting to take clearance away from anyone who dares criticize him" is false.   

 
“I write to express my concern about threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information, particularly Top Secret (TS) and Top Secret/Secure Compartmented Information (TS/SCI).  I ask that agency heads… conduct a comprehensive review validating that each government employee or contractor who has been granted a security clearance continues to require such eligibility for access to classified national security information in support of their current position or your agency’s mission.  Agencies should debrief all government and contractor personnel who no longer require such access and update the appropriate national security database or repository.”                                                   - James Clapper, October 31, 2013

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
“I write to express my concern about threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information, particularly Top Secret (TS) and Top Secret/Secure Compartmented Information (TS/SCI).  I ask that agency heads… conduct a comprehensive review validating that each government employee or contractor who has been granted a security clearance continues to require such eligibility for access to classified national security information in support of their current position or your agency’s mission.  Agencies should debrief all government and contractor personnel who no longer require such access and update the appropriate national security database or repository.” - James Clapper, October 31, 2013
Click to expand...
I agree with this, it should always be done and it’s based on need.

And look the only reason these former officials have eligibility is if they’re needed to consult or testify. If they are needed then they can be granted access and if they’re not it doesn’t matter.

But again it’s based on need, not politics.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I agree with this, it should always be done and it’s based on need.

And look the only reason these former officials have eligibility is if they’re needed to consult or testify. If they are needed then they can be granted access and if they’re not it doesn’t matter.

But again it’s based on need, not politics.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: ...except they would never be called to testify on a "current" situation.  They could only base their testimony on what they knew at the time that they held a clearance and if they were "consulting" a govt agency, they would have the "need to know".

Nobody on Trump's list is doing any consulting...especially, James Clapper.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well...being a dumb ### doesn't disqualify you for a clearance...otherwise, nobody in the past administration would have had one and as for being a "traitor", you'll need to find a definition of the word that everyone would buy.

 
He’s using this to try and distract everyone from other things but it’s not without consequence.

As others have mentioned, the main purpose for them to continue having these security clearances is so that their counterparts in the current administration can consult with them and be able to talk about the situation fully.

Trump’s guys are not experienced, so there’s a pretty good chance that they consult with the people he’s trying to strip the clearances from. This might just be him throwing red meat to his base as a distraction but it could have serious consequences.

 
Biff84 said:
He’s using this to try and distract everyone from other things but it’s not without consequence.

As others have mentioned, the main purpose for them to continue having these security clearances is so that their counterparts in the current administration can consult with them and be able to talk about the situation fully.

Trump’s guys are not experienced, so there’s a pretty good chance that they consult with the people he’s trying to strip the clearances from. This might just be him throwing red meat to his base as a distraction but it could have serious consequences.
Click to expand...
:lmao:   That was good.  I am SURE that people in Trump's administration are burning up the phones to get advice from Obama's lackeys!

Tell, me...does it look like ANYONE is taking advice from the past administration?

Has ANYONE from Trump's administration told the POTUS...."wait...don't take away his clearance...I NEED his advice.  He is a FOUNTAIN of information!!"?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
except they would never be called to testify on a "current" situation.  They could only base their testimony on what they knew at the time that they held a clearance and if they were "consulting" a govt agency, they would have the "need to know".

Nobody on Trump's list is doing any consulting...especially, James Clapper.
Click to expand...
I’m not agreeing with your assumption but even for the sake of argument if that were true and they were strictly asked to look at just old classified information they would still need access. And that’s strictly an eligibility question. Whether you have SCI clearance has zero to do with your support of the president. Note I’m talking strictly about eligibility. People can be read in and read out and back again.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I’m not agreeing with your assumption but even for the sake of argument if that were true and they were strictly asked to look at just old classified information they would still need access. And that’s strictly an eligibility question. Whether you have SCI clearance has zero to do with your support of the president. Note I’m talking strictly about eligibility. People can be read in and read out and back again.
Click to expand...
I just cannot recall this ever happening and I cannot imagine a situation where this would happen.

Would you happen to have a link, an example, or something that you could base it on?

I can base my beliefs only on my own experience when it comes to a clearance.  IF IF IF I had ever been called to talk about anything to do with a document that I saw, even when I had a clearance, I could not view it again unless my security clearance was reinstated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
:lmao:   That was good.  I am SURE that people in Trump's administration are burning up the phones to get advice from Obama's lackeys!

Tell, me...does it look like ANYONE is taking advice from the past administration?

Has ANYONE from Trump's administration told the POTUS...."wait...don't take away his clearance...I NEED his advice.  He is a FOUNTAIN of information!!"?
Click to expand...
Sorry didn’t realize that we had a Trump insider on the board.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jackstraw
Republicans will demand cuts to SS and medicare or crash the economy
2
Replies
93
Views
4K
The Commish
The Commish
GordonGekko
Police Departments Struggle With Critical Staffing Shortages Is A Threat To National Security ( 7/19/22 22:43 PST)
2 3
Replies
100
Views
3K
Yenrub
Yenrub
GordonGekko
(Baby Formula Shortage): Biden ADMITS He Knew Of Crisis In Early April (4/27/22 23:53 PST)
8 9 10
Replies
494
Views
15K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top