The First 100 days

What happens when you're in between jobs or on a short-term consulting gig? Not sure what the costs of gaining a top secret clearance is now but in '91 I was quoted $40k. To start/stop a clearance would be inefficient and take massively more government (FBI) resources. If you have clearance, you don't let it expire.

In '91, it took 6 months to get a clearance. We had guys going through basic and AIT only to discover they had been denied and forced to reclassify (take a different job).

Incidentally, my job in the Army was a "Telecommunications Operator". I sat at a special typewriter and sent encoded messages back and forth. The job required a Top Secret clearance.

 

This sums it up using different words

 

Completely disagree. If you get a clearance paid for by taxpayers for a job you have in the military or federal gov that clearance should end when you leave.
Or to quote Mr. D " The clearance should be attached to the job, not the person."

If you need a clearance for a private job pay for it yourself instead of taxpayers.

 

I don't know, and it isn't relevant. Brennan is, and that's who we're discussing.

 

That makes no sense. The person is the object being assessed/cleared, not the seat they sit in. How do you hand a security clearance to a seat? When someone changes seats do they inherit the clearance? Is a person less of a risk simply because they sit in a clearence required job?

Attaching the clearance to the person allows them to most efficiently move around. Think of it as a certification thst is necessary for a job. If your company pays for a professional certification does the employee lose that certification when they change companies? Does said employee suddenly lose the knowledge they used to get certified because they left the company? If Law Firm A pays for Mr. Deez BAR prep classes and the test, does he lose his law credentials when moving to Law Firm B?

The security clearance is that certification. Is a clearance holder suddenly a risk or untrustworthy because they've left a role?

 

Once you leave the agency for which we paid for a clearance you are no longer under their umbrella and jurisdiction.
Who knows who one becomes.
NO, that security clearance we paid for is ONLY for that job .
Pay for your own once you leave the gov't>
It is NOT a seat btw it is a job. someone else took over that job and security clearance.

 

It's primarily the FBI that does all the vetting so not sure what you mean by "jurisdiction".

I suggest you educate yourself on security clearances before commenting further. A job (seat) does not get a security clearance. A person gets a security clearance necessary for a job. A doctor gets certified as a doctor to be a doctor. A project manager gets their PmP certification to be a certified Prject Manager. Often times companies pay for these certifications. Nobody loses them simply by vacating a job. They lose them when they don't renew them.

Clearly you've taken a stance based on a political viewpoint that is as impractical as it is illogical.

 

uh NO
The FBI may do the investigation but it is the agency who has jurisdiction over that job. When you are employed by the agency ( fed or military) You must adhere by their rules.
Once you leave that agency you are just another citizen. That security clearance should end then too just like any other tool of that job.
It might be impractical for you to pay for your own security clearance if you want another job outside of gov't that requires one> Gee too bad, Want the job? Pay for it yourself just like you might have to pay for any tool in a private job .
Nothing political about that.

 

No. First, I know the whole media is licking Brennan's sack because he's a Trump-hater who just got "schlonged" by Trump. That all by itself is making him a big martyr. But he's no Boys Scout. Both he and James Clapper are perjurers. Not only could the case be made that their security clearance should be revoked. The case could be made that they should be in the slammer, and that was true before Trump even became President. The point is that the revocation could be justified under the guidelines if it had to be.

Second, DoD directives aren't the Constitution or statutes. In fact, in the literal sense, they aren't even regulations. They are policy guidelines that are frequently set aside by high-level officials, and the President can certainly do so. The point is that Brennan had no right to security clearance. (In fact, nobody does.) So if the President wants to revoke it because he thinks Brennan is a seditious ******* who says nutty things (which he does), he can do that. It doesn't violate his free speech rights. Keep in mind that other Trump critics have kept their security clearances.

I wouldn't mind tweaking the rules to account for scenarios in which keeping the security clearance for a period is appropriate. However, that shouldn't be the default rule. And if a defense contractor wants its employees to have it, they should definitely pay for that since they're making money off of it. The government doesn't pay for private law firms to keep their attorneys licensed. I don't see why it should pay for defense contractors to get its employees security clearanced (if that's a word).

 

What rules? Not around an individual's security clearance as those are centrally managed and apply to all branches of government.

It's impractical to get another job IN the government, let alone for a private company like Raytheon.. Move from the Pentagon to NSA? Get vetted again. Defense contracts would quickly grow in $$$ by orders of magnitude since they would have to pay to re-vet someone that was already vetted. Friends, family and co-workers of those in roles requiring clearance might be the most irritated as the FBI reaches out to them over and over to ask the same questions they did for previous roles.

A role requires a level of clearance but the individual carries the security clearance. To tie the actual clearance to the role is not a well thought out idea.

 

Those rules are in place now. Every 5 years a Top Secret clearance has to be renewed, regardless of the role at that moment (private or public). Lower clearances have a 10yr renewal cycle. It makes sense to make them time-based to account for those who remain in a job many years and those who move around often.

If you are already a licensed lawyer to you need to renew that license with each firm you move to?

 

The rules governing the job for which taxpayers paid for a clearance.
BTW what was Brennan using his clearance for?

 

That case isn't being made though. It wasn't cited in the initial statement nor Trump's WSJ interview. There may be a case for perjury but that would come out in any litigation. My argument here is that this was a direct response by the government "Trump" due to Brennan excercising his Free Speech. Are you saying that Trump has some extra-right to leverage the government to punish the exercise of free speech he doesn't like? Isn't Trump beholden to the constitution as a representative of it?

To be clear, no litigation will come of this but I'm enjoying the philosophical conversation.

 

How does the government's action prevent Brennan from continuing to speak out against the current administration?

 

The government didn't stop Brennan but this is most assuredly an intimidation tactic.

 

I'm still confused. What rules? Not the rules governing security clearance eligibility, assessments or appeals.

Does it matter what Brennan was using his clearance for? Just by having the clearance doesn't give one the ability to access information/briefings. That's what's missing in this debate. He can have top secret security clearance and not had any new information since January 2017.

 

Whole lot of energy being spent to protect the privilege of a guy who lied to congress about spying on them, as well as about key details in the ongoing Russia investigation.

 

Gee SH
I guess rules like loyalty to one's country, the oath. I know the oath for enlisted people is different than for officers but both swear To protect and defend, and IIRC enlisted agree to obey the orders of the President and the officers over them.
You know THOSE rules.
People in private jobs typically do not take oaths to our country.
I am guessing even you had to swear an oath to our country when in the military. Did you swear an to obey your bosses in your current job?

 

Ummm...what does any of that have to do with security clearance? You just went from government guidelines and rules to a ceremonial pledge. I appreciated the pledge when I took it but recognized it's purpose is pomp and circumstance.

 

Your analysis comes from a rational, logical mind. Unfortunately, the MSM has the need to make Trump look like some oversensitive despot trying to shut down his enemies to their brainwashed viewers. From what I've seen it's working.

 

I can only say I am glad you were someone who only sat at a computer typing if you feel the oath is " it's purpose is pomp and circumstance."
The oath ties to the security clearance since the ONLY reason one gets the clearance is because one took the oath.

 

Well there ya go. In today's society sorta like "till death do us part", I reckon.

 

If you support free speech for confederate license plates, I will back you on free speech for security clearances.

 

They have to be renewed, but without an actual need for one's work, I don't think it should be possible to have security clearance at least as a general rule.

A few points on this. First, I have to renew my license each year, and that happens at my expense or my employer's, not the taxpayers'. Second, there is no national security or governmental interest in pulling my license when I leave a job, unlike the pulling of security clearance. Third, my right to access confidential client information does not follow me (even though my affirmative duty of confidentiality does follow me), and that is more analogous to security clearance than my license is. I can't just walk into my old firm's office and have a right to see a client's file.

 

Have you read the full statement? It cites to all kinds of things justifying the move, including his lies before Congress about spying on Senate staffers and the Steele dossier.

Trump is often worthy of criticism for any number of things he says and does. However, when Brennan made those statements to Congress, he committed a serious crime. That all by itself is enough reason to pull his clearance. In fact, Trump would not be at all out of line to prosecute him and throw him in the slammer. I'm sure people would throw a fit if he did, but he'd be well within his right to do so.

You don't need litigation to pull someone's security clearance.

That may be true. I'm sure that Brennan pisses Trump off, and I'm sure Trump takes it personally. However, when it comes to national security matters, you don't have the same degree of free speech rights. That's why military personnel can't just say and do whatever they want when it comes to politics.

Brennan has a right to make idiotic statements. He can still go on MSNBC and act like a damn fool. However, he doesn't have a right to do that and keep his security clearance.

If we were talking about something that actually inhibited Brennan's ability to speak, I would agree. If Trump charged him with a crime for his statements or threatened to pull media outlets' FCC licenses for hosting Brennan, you'd have a good point here. However, pulling his clearance does nothing to stop him from speaking nor does it impact his ability to be heard.

Let's put it this way. D'Nesh D'Souza had a much stronger argument that his free speech rights were violated when he was prosecuted for campaign finance violations. What he did is pretty common and rarely gets charged as a felony if at all. Had he been D'Nesh the 7-11 clerk rather than D'Nesh the guy who made a big documentary that trashed Obama, he likely wouldn't have been slapped around anywhere near as hard. Despite that, he's no free speech martyr to me even if some on the Right think he is. He committed a felony, and when you do that, you risk getting caught and having the book thrown at you, especially if the chief law enforcement officer hates your guts.

 

You know they say that if both sides have objections to an agreement then you probably got it right?

Well, I'm seeing more and more consternation from Republicans and of course the "intelligence" community to Trump. We saw heavily entrenched Republicans also object to the Tea Party. As simplistic as this may sound, I'm taking it (in part) as evidence that the swamp is truly being stirred... It would make complete sense that both parties would object strenuously to any challenge to their cushy political industrial complex.

 

bystander
"I'm taking it (in part) as evidence that the swamp is truly being stirred... "
Hell Yes
Please

 

According to Rand Paul Brennan was briefing Dem talking heads with information that should have remained secure.
from link, Rand Paul:
In 2012, John Brennan leaked information to former counter-terrorism officials, who retained a security clearance, about an underwear bomb-making plot in Yemen.

Brennan revealed to these former officials - turned talking heads - that the underwear bomb plot never threatened the U.S. “because Washington had ‘inside control’ over it,” according to Reuters.

After Brennan’s briefing, one of the call’s participants, Richard Clarke, went on ABC and broadcast the government implying that there was a Western spy inside the Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula bomb-making group.

John Brennan’s careless leak to former intelligence officials turned television commentators helped compromise an operation and risk the life of a double agent, and who knows what other objectives it also hindered or outright prevented. This is exactly why former intelligence officials who are now talking heads on television should not continue to have a security clearance."
Rand Paul Rages: John Brennan's Security Clearance Is A Danger

Yes Brennan still was in Gov't when he leaked that info which makes what he did even more disturbing.

 

Thank YOU for your service. Surely you served to level that type of judgement.

The signature on the SF312 is what legally binds you to the non-disclosure of classified information. It's what was used when Pvt. Manning was court marshalled. The oaths are a tradition dating back to the forming of our constitution but they are in no way legally binding. It feels good to take the various oaths for government service but recognize them for what they are...ceremony.