Revoke my security clearance, too, Mr. President: Admiral McRaven

Nemo567

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2017
Messages
169
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...149b02-a178-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html

"Dear Mr. President:

Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance yourevoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.

Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency."
 
Why should any retired government and military official retain a security clearance and get access to classified information if they are not performing duties that require a clearance?

Being a talking head on MSNBC doesn't require access to classified material.
 
Now hit print, and send it to:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Or you can send him an email here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Make sure that you use your full name, so whomever reads it can get straight to work on revoking your clearance.
I agree, there is no reason a former anything should have clearance. Honestly anyone who isnt in politcal office and has this type of clearance should really stay out of politics anyway.
 
Presidents and have brought prior presidents and cabinet members back to DC to consult on various critical situations. This cannot happen unless the prior office holder maintains his or her security clearance.

In more civil times, political party did not pose any obstacle.

An example: Ike providing advice to JFK following the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961.

Kennedy+and+Eisenhower+-+confidence+levels+-+5+-+camp+david.jpg


Reference:
https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/...s/photos-from-the-vault/article165609517.html
 
Last edited:
Why should any retired government and military official retain a security clearance and get access to classified information if they are not performing duties that require a clearance?

Retaining your clearance is common, not just with high level intelligence people. as an officer every one of your son's and daughters will have at least a Secret Clearance. Many depending on their job or branch will have a higher clearance. For many this is one of the draws of branching MI, getting the Top Secret Clearance. Once they decide to leave the service the clearance does not just disappear, it goes with them, it's one of the things that makes them attractive to employers that require a clearance, the employer does not need to pay the ten's of thousands of dollars for a clearance they already have. Even if they are not hired by a firm that requires a clearance they still have it until it times out.

One of the main reasons it's good for these top intel people to retain their clearance is so they can be tapped for their experience by the new intel leadership. When new intel people come on board they do not have much info other then what they are briefed on, they need the former intel officers input as they get up to speed. If former intel were to lose their clearances as soon as they left their office they would not be of any use to the current intel officers and a lot of valuable information would be locked away. A security clearance and the First Amendment are not mutually exclusive.

If they followed your thinking then not only intel officers would leave with no clearance, every member of the military would lose theirs as well, none of our kids would be very happy if that happened.
 
Last edited:
Brennan voted for the Communist Party candidate for President (of the United States of America!) in 1976. Maybe he should have never been given a clearance in the first place. Leopards, spots, something like that. Or maybe Spenser Rapone will be DNI someday.
 
Brennan voted for the Communist Party candidate for President (of the United States of America!) in 1976. Maybe he should have never been given a clearance in the first place. Leopards, spots, something like that. Or maybe Spenser Rapone will be DNI someday.

C'mon, Sledge. That was a protest vote from a young man who was ticked off at the entire system after Watergate, and you know it. So do you now think Admiral McRaven is a commie by endorsing Brennan?

source:
https://www.politifact.com/florida/...was-john-brennan-once-member-communist-party/
 
We don't know what McRaven's reasons were...he was an Obama pick also. Everything at that level is political.

I don't disagree with your statement.

My point is that the "enemy of the state" label that Sledge is painting Brennan with is just false. Furthermore, it is a slippery slope when our government penalizes past public servants for disagreeing with the current administration.
 
I held a secret and top secret clearance for most of my 20 years because of various responsibilities along the way, but each time I was transferred the command I was transferring into had to reauthorize my clearance based on the requirements of the job. The original clearance didn't go away and had to be renewed periodically but the authorization was removed at the transferring command level upon transfer and had to be reinstated at the receiving command. Basically, although I was cleared through TS, I wasn't authorized to see material until the new command gave me permission.
 
Retaining your clearance is common, not just with high level intelligence people. as an officer every one of your son's and daughters will have at least a Secret Clearance. Many depending on their job or branch will have a higher clearance. For many this is one of the draws of branching MI, getting the Top Secret Clearance. Once they decide to leave the service the clearance does not just disappear, it goes with them, it's one of the things that makes them attractive to employers that require a clearance, the employer does not need to pay the ten's of thousands of dollars for a clearance they already have. Even if they are not hired by a firm that requires a clearance they still have it until it times out.

One of the main reasons it's good for these top intel people to retain their clearance is so they can be tapped for their experience by the new intel leadership. When new intel people come on board they do not have much info other then what they are briefed on, they need the former intel officers input as they get up to speed. If former intel were to lose their clearances as soon as they left their office they would not be of any use to the current intel officers and a lot of valuable information would be locked away. A security clearance and the First Amendment are not mutually exclusive.

If they followed your thinking then not only intel officers would leave with no clearance, every member of the military would lose theirs as well, none of our kids would be very happy if that happened.
Not entirely true.
I work for a DoD contractor that hires a lot of separated and retired military.
Each one loses their clearance and are debriefed when they leave the service.
Our company then has to submit them for a clearance again including a new SF86.
It can and does take months and sometimes over a year to be vetted, including investigations, before they gain even a Secret clearance. Then it takes longer to get a TS and/or SAP/SAR.
I know a LTC who updated his TS/SAR clearances just before he retired under the false assumption it would "transfer" once he was hired by my company.
Seventeen months later, he finally received his Secret clearance.
 
My son is at UPT right now and he was told that his clearance would be redone in five years. How that relates I dont know but at least for him, they will re-exam him in five years
 
My son is at UPT right now and he was told that his clearance would be redone in five years. How that relates I dont know but at least for him, they will re-exam him in five years
I hope he kept his original SF86. He will have to completely fill it out again in 5 - 6 years to continue his clearance.
 
If Brennan knows something that makes Trump unfit to serve he should report that to the DOJ. He should otherwise STFU.

Mcraven's statement is very clear on the issue of President Trump's fitness for office. Should he also STFU? I'd love to be there when you tell tell him that.
 
Last edited:
Brennan voted for the Communist Party candidate for President (of the United States of America!) in 1976. Maybe he should have never been given a clearance in the first place. Leopards, spots, something like that. Or maybe Spenser Rapone will be DNI someday.

C'mon, Sledge. That was a protest vote from a young man who was ticked off at the entire system after Watergate, and you know it. So do you now think Admiral McRaven is a commie by endorsing Brennan?

source:
https://www.politifact.com/florida/...was-john-brennan-once-member-communist-party/

I agree with @Sledge . How could anyone, under any circumstances vote Communist after witnessing the devastation of Communism in Japan.

https://www.thewrap.com/fox-friends-co-host-remembers-u-s-defeat-of-communist-japan-in-world

It's like voting Nazi after the Alamo.
 
Each one loses their clearance and are debriefed when they leave the service.

That's interesting, current rules are that a clearance is "Generally' good for 2 years after separation unless the reexamination expires before the 2 year period. Of course the caveat is "generally". I know when I moved from the service to the private sector I had about a year left. I did need to go through a short reexamination process but it didn't take the time frame you referenced. The difference may have been that I went to another Government Agency, not a contractor and this was years ago.

I do however agree that it's not always that easy depending on the type of clearance they had and the level they need at their new position.
 
Back
Top