It still has to be done fairly, and isn't really "revoked". That is why it is simply allowed to become inactive/expire after 2 years, not revoked unless there is evidence of a security risk because revocation is a type of punishment, an indication that the person who had their clearance revoked did something that showed they should not have a clearance, whereas just allowing it to expire does not come with that same indication, that red flag on this person.
It has nothing to do with how good a job anyone else is doing. It has to do with fairness and the normal operation of security clearances. They should not be simply revoked (which again is a red flag and makes it harder later to reinstate, if able at all) from anyone. In fact, nothing should be done outside of the normal procedures for how they use, come about, are investigated, are revoked/expire, etc., especially not when there is a connection to the decision being made based off of a political statement. There may be the rare occasion when someone's clearance should be different, but that should be based on the situation showing a security risk that isn't otherwise covered by the established rules and precedence.
In fact, if Trump had not have targeted others after first threatening Brennan's security clearance and clearly stated that it was because of his lying to Congress, done, most people would have accepted it even if they suspected that it was being done from political motivation. But that isn't what happened. Trump made it political with what he said about it, what his staff put out about it, and even by threatening to remove the clearances of others who were speaking out against him.
They are bogged down with such issues all the time. And it is their job to address such things.
The Supreme Court receives 7-8,000 petitions annually. During a busy year, the court hears 75-85 cases.
This nonsense will likely not even be heard by lower courts.
It is not the job, outside of small claims and L&T, to hear frivolous cases. Maybe Traffic courts. :doh
AHHH Fairly to who???? ITS NOT LAW or Constitutionally protected, Its Executive Privilege. I know what you mean and trying to say about norms and procedures, but understand the FACTS.. the POTUS can do this no if ands or butts. This is WHY I said in my earlier or other post. THIS SHOULD be Concerning to ALL parties NOT just Trump.... If a DEM POTUS is in and does this to Repubs it will be an uproar.
So there SHOULD be some type of actual LAW or Legitimate procedure across the board EITHER to maintain or NOT... that cannot be diverted due to political recourse. When apply for a clearance there is NONE, so at the time of employment termination/separation that should be the cut off as well.
Fair again to WHO? USUALLY when someone is revoked they are replaced with an able body person, THAT was Mike Pompeo and then Gina Haspel. If someone is FIRED then they are replaced with the NEXT capable person to continue to pertinent job. its not left vacated so the ONLY person that can do it is the one that was released. Many of these positions are Political Appointees to begin with..... That means we know there is some political partisanship when they get PUT in period. That also means with it shifts.....there will be POLITICAL backlash....
As for your mid point again the justification is not quite clear yet..... there will likely be a ruling of some sort... but facts are POTUS can currently do it... And again, you agree that there are SOME situations where clearances can be terminated immediately. Anyways we are beating the Dead horse.
As for your last point.... I agree... Trump talks too damn much and needs a gawt damn filter. Sadly the list LOOKS extremely partisan, BUT also Many on the list are warranted for odd misdeeds and actions beyond the norm.
Sally Yates, declining a Direct order from the POTUS.
Comey, Fired FBI Director. if you are fired you should NOT even be considered to maintain a clearance
Bruce Ohr, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page all connected to some back room wheeling and dealing.
Sure these are out spoken critics but some really off the wall case for these people.
Now again, if People, Pelosi, Mueller, Schummer, Maxine Waters active members, active clearances that are direct out spoken critics pertinent to ACTIVE jobs. Then I have a personal issue. But if they are retired in the weeds... meh.....
let me be clear AGAIN... THIS goes for BOTH sides of the AISLE if this happened the other way as well I would feel the same......HONESTLY.... Safeguarding our systems to me is more important so to revoke more often then to maintain sounds good to me especially when you have completed your job.
It is only a frivolous case according to you. It is a pretty important constitutional rights case, whether decided for the President or Brennan.
It should be an uproar no matter who does it, whichever Party the person belongs to who abuses their powers by trying to "punish" their political opponents by removing things like their security clearance. The safeguard is in not allowing government officials to abuse their power by "punishing" their political objectors/detractors in any way, even if something they have "executive power" to do.
No that is his power and that does not change the fact that he is abusing it.
What you like is irrelevant to the facts.I don’t like your words.
They'll ramp up impeachment.
They are bogged down with such issues all the time. And it is their job to address such things.
Understood.
Here are 2 points.
1) Your access and ability to access material is likely halted though. I am assuming you just cant walk into work one day pop in your CAC cards and start perusing through information. BUT if they need arises to bring you on contract your access can be reinstated?
1a) I really dont know what Brennan's agreement is but I would assume simlar. That his access has been terminated, but his Clearance is active on the books. BUT it does NOT seem like that, It seem (Opinion) That he still has access and contacts based on his clearance level. This is to deter the opportunity to limit his ability to continue talking with those active in the community so that he does not have the temptation to "leak"
1b) I think there were some points of "CAUSE" the warrant to withdraw his clearance, BUT again could be partisan talking points.
2) Political WHIM it is, I am acknowledging WHILE it does NOT look good, IT does seem childish and does seem like a political whim. Regardless it is his executive privilege to do so.
3) IF YOU ARE ACTIVE and in the JOB I agree that you need to adjudicated. ONCE you retire. Its practice to let it expire.... "practice/norm" BUT its NOT law or a part of a constitution. If they feel they want to terminate prior to expiration its their obligation to do so. AS long as its not relavent to an active contact no? AGAIN we are talking about NORMS/Practices/courtesies. But Im talking strictly legal ability.
So again I Know what you all are arguing about honestly. AGAIN though is it really that big a deal if he has or has not any access as retired? Im sure Gina Haspel is doing a fine job? So why again is Brennan relevant?
It is only a frivolous case according to you. It is a pretty important constitutional rights case, whether decided for the President or Brennan.
You do not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about. You are just making it up as you go along. The president can revoke a security clearance for any reason or no reason at all. Security clearances are not covered by the First Amendment. There is no constitutional right that guarantees that you can hold onto a clearance until it expires.
Everything the government can do to a person, has control over when it comes to a person is covered by the 1st Amendment if the action is being taken by the government solely due to a person speaking something the government does not like. It doesn't matter if a person has a constitutional right to that thing or not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?