Ex-CIA Chief John Brennan Has His Security Clearance Revoked...

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by garhkal

Add to that, if say a member of the intel community needs to be 'contacted' by his successor, and as such he needs to keep his clearance, WHY DOESN'T the same apply to members of the military?? after i retired, i got 3-4 emails a day for the first two or so months after getting out, asking about this and that related to what i did...

so, how long should a person who left govt. service keep his security clearance?

[I B Hankering]

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Or maybe something to do with protecting us against those who would revise intel for political reason.

You mean like lying about the cause of the death of an ambassador in Libya?

Claiming it was a video and arresting the producer?

[Yssup Rider]

Why wasn’t he pilloried for that, then?

Just because you stamp your feet and hold your breath doesn’t make it so, dude.

This is another case of “What Aboutism,” LL.

If nobody can be trusted, how can there be Intelligence. From anybody?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You mean like lying about the cause of the death of an ambassador in Libya?

Claiming it was a video and arresting the producer?

and sending that guy to jail.


he should be pardoned!!!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

and sending that guy to jail.


he should be pardoned!!!

Jerry Springer Brown ain't gonna.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by lustylad

... and immediately starts screaming that it's an effort to suppress his free speech and intimidate him from expressing his all-consuming hatred of Donald Trump.
Clearly two guys who have reached a point of irreconcilable differences.


He is full of shit. Having a security clearance is a privilege, not a right. Brennan is free to continue trashing the POTUS on his twitter account, as a guest on MSNBC, or using whatever fucking vehicle he chooses.
Agree.


When this story first broke I asked - Why aren't security clearances revoked AUTOMATICALLY when someone leaves the intelligence services? Presumably it's to allow retired senior intel people to discuss sensitive national security issues with their successors, if asked.
That is generally the reason. Especially to ask a former senior person, "WHY did you do XXX (or refrain from doing XXX", ie "What was the rest of the story that was never written down because no one in the IC ever really trusts writing the most sensitive things down."



That explanation may have made sense back in the days when both parties sought to maintain continuity in our foreign policy.
And even more so, when so many of the top layers of the IC have become political boons given to people who often have no clue and minimal credentials for the job. Used to be most top IC folk tried to remain separate from politics, but that has been eroding for a couple decades or more.



It makes no sense today when we have a former CIA director running around like a lunatic accusing the POTUS of "treason" and shamelessly working to undermine him at every opportunity.
I am not sure that invalidates the tradition of doing it, but I think in this case Brennan has certainly EARNED having his clearance revoked. It should be case by case, but should not be a blanket revoking just because someone is of a different party or someone disagrees with the current administration.



Nobody in the Trump administration is going to call Brennan in for advice. The only thing he will be called in for is to testify under oath about how he conspired with obama and others to hatch the Russian collusion canard, disseminate the phony Steele dossier, and illegally deploy the machinery of the federal government to spy on an opposing party's political campaign!

Anyone with an intel background have any thoughts?

A clearance of any level should never mean you get access to sensitive material. It just means you are trusted not to misuse the information, especially not to divulge it to those who should not have it. In this case I sincerely doubt there was any valid reason to expect Brennan would have a need to know for anything under this administration so revoking his clearance is as much symbolic as anything, but Brennan brought it on himself. I do not think that applies en mass to all former very high level former people.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Old-T

A clearance of any level should never mean you get access to sensitive material. It just means you are trusted not to misuse the information, especially not to divulge it to those who should not have it. In this case I sincerely doubt there was any valid reason to expect Brennan would have a need to know for anything under this administration so revoking his clearance is as much symbolic as anything, but Brennan brought it on himself. I do not think that applies en masse to all former very high level former people.

Ok, thanks for your answers. I respect them since I know you lean left politically but you were irate and disgusted with the way hildebeest mishandled confidential information as SoS yet got off scot-free. The question is really what should the default policy be. Do we let ex-intel officials keep their clearances unless there is a reason to revoke them? Or should such clearances expire automatically at retirement unless there is a valid reason to keep them active. Perhaps the process of being "re-cleared" would be too time-consuming and a needless hassle if the POTUS wanted to pick up the phone and talk to, say, Henry Kissinger about some highly classified issue.

Also, I thought I heard someone say there are almost 5 million people out there right now who have some level of security clearance. Not sure how many are retired folks, but that's a staggeringly high number. The bigger it is, the harder it is to keep secrets secret.

[Old-T]

Typically it is only a few top level IC people, mostly with specialized knowledge/perspective. It should never be many.

I have heard the 5M number, and do not know the breakdown. I expect most are at the lower clearance levels, but it is still a large number. It used to be that almost all military had at least a CONFIDENTIAL clearance--don't know if that is true any more--and that would be upwards of 2M counting active and reserve/guard. Gov't civilians are another .75M, but not all have clearances. DoD contractors are almost certainly a significant chunk as well.


Add in a significant numbers in other organizations like DOE labs, DHS, FBI, CIA, etc., and that gets up there.

There has been an increase in the number of drug and anti-terrorist related clearances in state and local gov'ts & LE as well after the (valid) complaints that info wasn't shared after 9/11. There are a lot of "local" government entities that all complain very hard when they don't get to know info what they feel they need to to keep their community safe. This can include classified info related to intel on criminal activities, some of the technologies given to local LE, and other things. I have no idea if the head count in this area is right or not--not the playground I play in.


Just a guess, the number connected to retirees is a very, very, very, small fraction.

Policy? I would argue the norm should be your clearance is either frozen when you retire for 99.999+% Not revoked, because reinstating can be a bitch and take way too long, but "frozen" (not a technical term as far as I know) so if the government needs to reach out and pick your brain it can be "unfrozen" more quickly. The freeze approach might also make it easier to transition from gov't to contractor when necessary--e.g. a Navy nuke sub CAPT hits 30 yrs and gets an offer from GE Electric Boat to work sub design.

[The_Waco_Kid]

when i was in the Navy i don't recall the rank and file enlisted requiring a confidential clearance. i mean, why would a boatswain mate need it? or a machinist's mate. these days it's nearly impossible to get into the Military with any serious criminal record. they did that in the 80's when i was in also but the standards were less stringent than today. perhaps there was such a thing as a general clearance? There is an overall obligation to protect any info on Military affairs, ship's movements, etc.

my rate, Data Processing, required a secret clearance to even qualify for it. one command i was at required Top Secret because we processed scheduled radio traffic to nuclear subs, their 30 day operational orders while on patrol. several other rates also required Secret or Top Secret.


when i left that command, PMOPAC (Polaris Material Ordnance Command, Pacific Fleet) my clearance reverted back to Secret.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

when i was in the Navy i don't recall the rank and file enlisted requiring a confidential clearance. i mean, why would a boatswain mate need it? or a machinist's mate. these days it's nearly impossible to get into the Military with any serious criminal record. they did that in the 80's when i was in also but the standards were less stringent than today. perhaps there was such a thing as a general clearance? There is an overall obligation to protect any info on Military affairs, ship's movements, etc.

my rate, Data Processing, required a secret clearance to even qualify for it. one command i was at required Top Secret because we processed scheduled radio traffic to nuclear subs, their 30 day operational orders while on patrol. several other rates also required Secret or Top Secret.


when i left that command, PMOPAC (Polaris Material Ordnance Command, Pacific Fleet) my clearance reverted back to Secret.

I had a Top Secret clearance from the mid-70s until Aldrich Ames was caught. The Army reevaluated everybody's security clearance and downgraded the clearances of those who realistically didn't need a rating of Top Secret in the duty position they held: i.e., the "need to know" rule of thumb. In those preceding years, I never had occasion to see or deal with anything classified Top Secret. Up until Ames and afterwards, it was an extremely rare occasion that I saw or dealt with anything classified above Confidential.

[The_Waco_Kid]

at PMOPAC the need for a Top Secret clearance was obvious, those patrol assignments would have been a gold mine for the Russians. By design, the reports where staggered so that even if the report was obtained it only had a small number of the total subs on patrol any given day. it was pretty interesting how they radio in those patrol orders. There was a large installation in Wisconsin of all fucking places for a Navy facility where they had a large transmission ring designed to send a signal over long distances in a tight radio beam. Encrypted of course. The subs typically went out on 90 day patrols. they'd leave with orders for their first 30 days on patrol then at a pre-scheduled time and place, then while still submerged, they raise an antenna and wait for a certain period of time and receive the next 30 days patrol assignment. Each transmission was specific to only one sub at a time so even if the radio signal was intercepted only one sub's operational orders would be compromised.

on a sub tender, Secret was also pretty clear, under real operations during war, the tender would have replacement nuclear ballistic missiles on it. our job would have been to take up station in the rear areas and wait for subs to arrive and reload their missiles.so the number of ballistic missiles onboard would be stored in the mainframe obviously.

we went out to sea several times a year for about two weeks to drill on replacing ballistic missiles. with several subs as well as they also had to qualify on this. we'd extend a boom on either side of the ship and the subs would anchor next to us on either side and we'd drill on installing a full scale mock-up of a Polaris missile. quite interesting.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

on a sub tender, Secret was also pretty clear, under real operations during war, the tender would have replacement nuclear ballistic missiles on it. our job would have been to take up station in the rear areas and wait for subs to arrive and reload their missiles.so the number of ballistic missiles onboard would be stored in the mainframe obviously.

we went out to sea several times a year for about two weeks to drill on replacing ballistic missiles. with several subs as well as they also had to qualify on this. we'd extend a boom on either side of the ship and the subs would anchor next to us on either side and we'd drill on installing a full scale mock-up of a Polaris missile. quite interesting.

how hard was it to load those Polaris into the sub? sounds pretty tricky if the waters are rough.


are they still doing this with Tridents?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

how hard was it to load those Polaris into the sub? sounds pretty tricky if the waters are rough.


are they still doing this with Tridents?

it was very hard. in calm seas. try that in rough waters and the difficulty goes way up. they anchor the sub next to the tender to keep them in sync. then they get the missile into position and lower it into the missile bay. they still are doing this with the newer Trident missiles today. And Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Sub Tenders are designed to be able to support up to 12 subs at a time.


"The USS McKee (AS 41) was a mobile support and repair facility with the capability of providing simultaneous repairs to 12 nuclear-powered & diesel, fast-attack submarines."


"When Operation Desert Storm began, the McKee deployed to the Persian Gulf and spent six months providing support to submarines and surface combatants in Jebel Ali, just outside Dubai, United Arab Emirates. McKee was awarded a second Meritorious Unit Commendation and the Southwest Asia Service Medal. Following Desert Storm, McKee was awarded a fourth Battle Efficiency "E" Award."

US Navy’s sub tenders sail on into the 2020s

https://navaltoday.com/2018/02/12/us...nto-the-2020s/


here is a photo of it being done.






interestingly, the two sub tenders mentioned in this article are 1970's era ships where the ship i was on, the USS McKee was built in 1980 and decomm'd in 1999. our sister ship the USS Dixon has also been decomm'd.


depending on when this photo was taken, i might have been aboard! LOL.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_McKee_(AS-41)

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

so, how long should a person who left govt. service keep his security clearance?

They shouldn't. That is what i've been saying. I had my revocation of it, paperwork, filled out days before i actually retired, during my terminal/house/job hunting leave period. So i can't see WHY these plebs need to keep theirs.