- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The entire “clearance issue” could be an excellent learning opportunity
Posted on 8/17/18 at 7:09 am
Posted on 8/17/18 at 7:09 am
I was under the impression that almost all top secret intel was “need to know” so obviously if you are no longer employed you have zero “need to know”
Everyone with top secret clearance should have a yearly review to see what they “need to know”
If it’s a retired or inactive person that needs to be brought in to consult then they can be brought up to date on a “need to know” basis
Everyone with top secret clearance should have a yearly review to see what they “need to know”
If it’s a retired or inactive person that needs to be brought in to consult then they can be brought up to date on a “need to know” basis
8
Posted on 8/17/18 at 7:11 am to Strannix
That’s not exactly how it works. I have a TS clearance but am only privy to information that pertains to me. Having a clearance allows you I be “read in” on certain projects or operations you are specifically a part of. If you don’t have the clearance you can’t participate.
Posted on 8/17/18 at 7:20 am to Strannix
quote:
I was under the impression that almost all top secret intel was “need to know” so obviously if you are no longer employed you have zero “need to know”
Everyone with top secret clearance should have a yearly review to see what they “need to know”
If it’s a retired or inactive person that needs to be brought in to consult then they can be brought up to date on a “need to know” basis
This is how I view the situation also.
Don't know what all the blather and bother is about. I don't think any outgoing official should retain their prior security clearances - except in extraordinary circumstances and even then the 'need to know' should be vigorously applied.
And certainly what such a person does as a private citizen should be completely disassociated with what clearance level they once had. To advertise that "Remember, I have a Top Secret Clearance with Special Access" should be a totally unacceptable ethical breach.
Anyone with a pulse should know that an ex-Director of CIA would have had access to such information in their prior service. They shouldn't need to be reminded.
But that is all in a logical world - totally anti ethical to the DEM plantation of ignorance, greed, and despair.
Posted on 8/17/18 at 7:30 am to Strannix
quote:
Everyone with top secret clearance should have a yearly review to see what they “need to know”
I hear you but that’s not how it works.
Posted on 8/17/18 at 7:35 am to Strannix
I understand they keep the clearance so if they are needed after retiring, they can be recalled back in. But that's just not very smart. People's life situations could change after retiring or moving on....someone could become compromised- (this could be anything like an affair/blackmail, get in debt and needs money, etc). So, that being said, if you leave govt, you should lose the access and then if they need you to come back, you go through the process to get clearance again. It's common sense.
Posted on 8/17/18 at 7:42 am to Strannix
Definitely above your pay grade!
This smacks of allowing no dissension. It's how petty despots grow in power, it reeks of insecurity, and it's bad to juju to surround yourself with only yes men. His silencing the opposition and will only foster resentment and segregate his base even more from those moderate republicans and sympathetic independents which he needs to remain in office, be re-electable and govern in between.
This guy's clueless to the discourse he's fomenting as September draws near in an midterm election year.
This smacks of allowing no dissension. It's how petty despots grow in power, it reeks of insecurity, and it's bad to juju to surround yourself with only yes men. His silencing the opposition and will only foster resentment and segregate his base even more from those moderate republicans and sympathetic independents which he needs to remain in office, be re-electable and govern in between.
This guy's clueless to the discourse he's fomenting as September draws near in an midterm election year.
Posted on 8/17/18 at 8:12 am to Strannix
For God sakes, having a clearance does NOT mean you are able to view classified material. it merely means if someone determines you have a need to know, you are authorized to receive it. PERIOD.
Do yall really think that having a security clearance means you can just head on to your local government building and demand to see anything that is classified?
And yes, the argument that some of his allies in government now were authorizing him to see classified material is valid, BUT that could have been countermanded by Trump "don't let Clapper see any classified intel" and his clearance is irrelevant.
Trump and Clapper both made a big deal out of nothing here, and the media went along with it
Do yall really think that having a security clearance means you can just head on to your local government building and demand to see anything that is classified?
And yes, the argument that some of his allies in government now were authorizing him to see classified material is valid, BUT that could have been countermanded by Trump "don't let Clapper see any classified intel" and his clearance is irrelevant.
Trump and Clapper both made a big deal out of nothing here, and the media went along with it
Posted on 8/17/18 at 8:36 am to Strannix
quote:
I was under the impression that almost all top secret intel was “need to know” so obviously if you are no longer employed you have zero “need to know”
Everyone with top secret clearance should have a yearly review to see what they “need to know”
to put it simply, access to any particular material requires both a sufficient clearance AND the need to know, as deemed by the authority responsible for the security of the material
Posted on 8/17/18 at 11:25 am to Strannix
Lessons-learned should begin with the screening process which allowed clearance granted to what more than enough evidence indicated is a loose cannon.
But then who could have foreseen problems arising from a muslim sympathizer appointing another muslim sympathizer/apologist to actually head one of our "security" agencies.
Only with this guy, we got lagniappe in that he was also a constituent and enthusiastic supporter of presidential aspirant Gus Hall.
Security clearance? How was he ever allowed into any gov'tal position of trust, much less that appointment.
But then who could have foreseen problems arising from a muslim sympathizer appointing another muslim sympathizer/apologist to actually head one of our "security" agencies.
Only with this guy, we got lagniappe in that he was also a constituent and enthusiastic supporter of presidential aspirant Gus Hall.
Security clearance? How was he ever allowed into any gov'tal position of trust, much less that appointment.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News