The entire “clearance issue” could be an excellent learning opportunity

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

This would be like the Hatch Act which says people doing work in government can't make political statements in their official capacity.

It has been violated flagrantly in this administration (see Kellyanne Conway) and there are no public consequences.

People know who you are when you say stuff on TV, that's why they but you on TV. It's silly to think you can separate that.

quote:

---

So what could a guy like Brennan look at?

---

He's not "looking" at anything right now. His active clearance was for potential advice on Classified info. Now that possibility is gone.

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.

quote:

---

But that is all in a logical world - totally anti ethical to the DEM plantation of ignorance, greed, and despair.

---

Meh. That's not just DEM foolishness, it's the government work environment in general. I can't tell you how many times my group has gone up against the "well this is just how we've always done it so we will keep doing it this way" mentality.

I hear what you are saying but the problem is your TS is reviewed every five years anyway. Also the people that do your initial and recurring checks are way way behind. The number of people with TS is pretty large. We have had aircrew types waiting for nearly a year to get their TS.

quote:

---

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.

---

Which is "need to know" so the OP was right.

quote:

---

If you don’t have the clearance you can’t participate

---

Correct

quote:

---

So what could a guy like Brennan look at?

---

quote:

---

He's not "looking" at anything right now.

---

Prior to a couple of weeks ago you and everyone else would be shocked at what he was stilling "looking at" or "being told".

quote:

---

That’s why I said should....

---

It would not be practicable or necessary. When you have a TS clearance, you are read into the information you need to access for your job.