- 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
re: John Brennan reveals real reasons swamp rats are up in arms over revoked security clearanc
Posted on 8/21/18 at 8:32 am to Revelator
Posted on 8/21/18 at 8:32 am to Revelator
quote:
I love and respect and admire my former colleagues at the CIA and other places, and I will fight to keep their profession pure, objective and not being politicized
This dumbass doesn't even realize the harm he's doing to the people he claims to love by his ridiculous behavior since leaving his job.
0
Posted on 8/21/18 at 8:51 am to Revelator
EO 13526 signed by Obama in 2009 or 2010.
Item a2 pertains to Brennan. Item b3 is hardly any sort of limitation.
Obama expanded this list of potential waivers from previous EO's to include himself and his VP.
So - you have a president and vice president, along with their hand picked policy makers that can retain access without a need to know.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the defintion of historian and researcher is rather loosely defined in application.
Excerpt:
Sec. 4.4. Access by Historical Researchers and Certain Former Government Personnel.
(a) The requirement in section 4.1(a)(3) of this order that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information may be waived for persons who:
(1) are engaged in historical research projects;
(2) previously have occupied senior policy-making positions to which they were appointed or designated by the President or the Vice President; or
(3) served as President or Vice President.
(b) Waivers under this section may be granted only if the agency head or senior agency official of the originating agency:
(1) determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of the national security;
(2) takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is safeguarded in a manner consistent with this order; and
(3) limits the access granted to former Presidential appointees or designees and Vice Presidential appointees or designees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a Presidential or Vice Presidential appointee or designee.
archives.gov
Item a2 pertains to Brennan. Item b3 is hardly any sort of limitation.
Obama expanded this list of potential waivers from previous EO's to include himself and his VP.
So - you have a president and vice president, along with their hand picked policy makers that can retain access without a need to know.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the defintion of historian and researcher is rather loosely defined in application.
Excerpt:
Sec. 4.4. Access by Historical Researchers and Certain Former Government Personnel.
(a) The requirement in section 4.1(a)(3) of this order that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information may be waived for persons who:
(1) are engaged in historical research projects;
(2) previously have occupied senior policy-making positions to which they were appointed or designated by the President or the Vice President; or
(3) served as President or Vice President.
(b) Waivers under this section may be granted only if the agency head or senior agency official of the originating agency:
(1) determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of the national security;
(2) takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is safeguarded in a manner consistent with this order; and
(3) limits the access granted to former Presidential appointees or designees and Vice Presidential appointees or designees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a Presidential or Vice Presidential appointee or designee.
archives.gov
This post was edited on 8/21/18 at 8:54 am
Posted on 8/21/18 at 8:54 am to Revelator
quote:
I love and respect and admire my former colleagues at the CIA and other places, and I will fight to keep their profession pure, objective and not being politicized
Yeah, a-hole...nice job so far.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 8:58 am to Revelator
I just don’t get why people who no longer hold a position with the government think they can continue to hold a security clearance.
If you’re no longer on the job, you shouldn’t have the benefits of the job.
The only people who should have clearance are people who are actively employed or temporarily on assisgnment with the federal government.
If you’re no longer on the job, you shouldn’t have the benefits of the job.
The only people who should have clearance are people who are actively employed or temporarily on assisgnment with the federal government.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:02 am to Revelator
quote:
John Brennan reveals real reasons swamp rats are up in arms over revoked security clearanc by Revelator NBC News
After reading your post it’s clear that Rush was right yesterday when he said the Swampers want to retain their security clearances for DC Swamp prestige and more important, personal gain.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:04 am to the808bass
quote:
So 1) he can’t obtain classified info because he just prances around the old office and 2) he can’t make money off of it. Sounds like a solid case for him to not have it any more.
Haven’t read all the posts yet but this one alone will draw in boosiedumbass and heyheyhawgs. Lol!
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:08 am to Revelator
Let them keep their clearance after leaving their official capacity for 90 days so they can assist new people during a transition then strip it.
Anyone that moves on to a private sector job that requires clearance can then re-apply.
How hard is that?
Anyone that moves on to a private sector job that requires clearance can then re-apply.
How hard is that?
This post was edited on 8/21/18 at 9:12 am
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:10 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
overnment contractors with security clearance people on their boards. Do the boards need to know classified info? Look at say a Boeing. If they get a project to build something that is a classified project, they need to have people on the inside with security clearances. Thus a random engineer has to have one to work on some thing. And maybe therefore business decisions by the board are rightly to be influenced by those with security clearances? But that doesn’t mean the board members need to be former gov officials. But think about how great it would be to get on your board somebody who can walk into an agency like what’s up fellas? Then they go back to the board and deliver the goods.
Here’s what you’re describing and what we were warned about by an American patriot!
In his speech, Eisenhower warned about the growth of a 'military-industrial complex,' and the risks it could pose. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power," Ike said, "exists and will persist." His anxieties back then were prompted by the ten-fold expansion of the US military after two world wars, and by the development of a "permanent arms industry of vast proportions". Today, the proportions of both the military and the industry that serves it are vaster than ever.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:16 am to saints5021
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:23 am to Revelator
quote:
I love and respect and admire my former colleagues at the CIA and other places, and I will fight to keep their profession pure, objective and not being politicized
I mean, how does anyone in his position say this and not realize just how hypocritical and slimy it sounds, right after going on TV and creating a national stir by claiming the POTUS committed treason - and acting as if his “inside knowledge” led him to the conclusion that no one else is privy to.
I don’t have TOO much of a problem with individuals keeping a clearance after they leave the job, as long as they’re not directly creating any problems for the ones that granted the clearance in the first place. The minute you’re caught spilling secrets in any way, using your private knowledge (classified or not) for personal gain, or directly/indirectly causing any sort of problems for the current and/or former administrations, that security clearance should rightfully be yanked. It’s a privilege to have one, not a right.
Regardless if you like Brennan or hate him, agree with his politics or disagree, the above should hold true if you’re being honest or possess any sort of rationalization skills.. If you disagree you’re just being disingenuous due to the politics or lack any common sense whatsoever.
A poster in another thread summed it up the best I’ve seen: you’re given a security clearance because the United States government needs you to have it; not because YOU need to have it.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:24 am to Revelator
No project with any company needs a board member with security clearance. When necessary, the company can appoint a certain individual to be given to security clearance ONLY AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PROJECT!
Brennans babbling is yo protect the criminals who take millions per year as a "board memeber" to give the company a heads up on secret jobs coming on line.
Brennans babbling is yo protect the criminals who take millions per year as a "board memeber" to give the company a heads up on secret jobs coming on line.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News