Posted on 07/23/2018 12:07:54 PM PDT by seanmerc
Really nice to get replies on FR from those with direct experience. That is always what makes this place so informative. And I would normally agree with your position. I appreciate it would be a major inconvenience for those with clearance and between positions to have clearance revoked and then have to reapply again. But conditions have so changed now. I favor a clean break. When someone leave the government, any clearance they had is terminated at the same time. The downside outweighs the inconvenience.
I’m not “defending” anything. I’m just explaining the policy that’s in place now.
Especially if they go into the media.
If they no longer work for the Government, WTF would they still have their security clearance?
Could someone with knowledge in this area enlighten me?
If he does this, does that mean that any of them in possession of classified material can be arrested?
I mean arrested if they can’t show intent and are just grossly negligent...
Clearance investigations are very extensive. They take months to years to adjudicate. They are cost and manpower intensive. There are times when the backlog of people waiting for clearance investigations to complete is months to years long.
Any security clearance granted to political appointees should certainly terminate immediately upon end of service.
9YearLurker wrote: “I could see them retaining clearance for whatever length of time (for such as if they returned to government or worked for a contractor), but giving them access to anything is insane.”
Exactly. When I retired a couple of years ago, I was told my clearance would remain active for two years in case I decided to return.
This solves a problem. I left the military in the late seventies and they revoked my clearance the day I left. I came back to work as a civilian about 10 days later. The security folks said they would need a couple of months to get my clearance reinstated. Could have been a real issue.
Thank you
Mueller just went out of business your on your own boy.
Good!
“but giving them access to anything is insane.
Exactly...security clearance is distinct from access and as such, they should have NO access. The fact they were awarded a clearance is moot without the access.
If the situation arose where they needed to have access, it could be given on a situation by situation basis i.e. they are asked their opinion on a sensitive issue taking their experience into consideration. But blanket access including briefing, not just no, hell no.”
Agreed, thank you!!
In the current realm, a revocation IS much more serious than inactivation. Revocation means your clearance is removed completely, and should you require a clearance again, you would have to go through the whole process from square one. A revocation would also make it much less likely that the person would be able to pass a subsequent clearance investigation.
Your explanation sounds reasonable as I also wondered if their clearances were ‘activated’ or just ‘inactive’...and ‘Revoking’ would appear to indicate certain circumstances affects an individuals continued eligibility to hold a security clearance.
Security clearance for former officials is up to the current Administration. Here’s a FNC story about Hillary & Co. clearance:
Don’t “Look”, Do
Why should any congressman, senator, government official, or even President, retain their security clearance after they are out of office. What would they need it for?
Brennan has left the government and is working in the private sector, media no less. Nothing short of revocation is appropriate.
H.W. Bush will be getting briefings on his death bed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.