Posted on 08/17/2018 11:43:17 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
If Brennan still had his security clearance, then it was unlawfully reactivated by the FBI or CIA for nefarious purposes, or he was still working for them in an official capacity
I received several emails from fellow veterans asking: How in the hell did Brennan still have an active security clearance if he wasn’t holding a position that required one? What is going on with Clapper, Rice, Brennan and others still having access to classified information? What’s all this about pulling security clearances from people who shouldn’t have one anyway?
Like me, they know that, according to regulations, civil servants and government officials lose their clearance when they leave office or their jobs because they no longer hold a position that requires a security clearance. Let me explain.
A vast amount of the public and even the media is ignorant of "need to know". They only rely on the disinformation they are fed.
The first sentance is FALSE.
When a person leaves a classified position, their ACCESS is terminated but not their CLEARANCE. The CLEARANCE remains in place for 2 years. This is by design as the effort to get someone cleared is very costly. Thus the 2 years allows the government to rehire the person prior to the end of the 2 years and only have to conduct a minimal investigation. Once the 2 years is up, and if no other renewal based on a job is submitted, that clearance becomes “inactive”
“inactive” is a designation that says essentially, the person is trustworthy but does not have a need.
“suspended” is a derogatory that usually means something funny is going on, and they are suspected of a breach. Access is no longer granted and the suspension must be cleared before proceeding,.
“revoked” is a VERY derogatory action and is rarely reversed. It means that the administration has found that individual to be in violation of procedure and MAY be in violation of law.
Do any Bush officials still retain clearance?
Condoleezza Rice?
Those holding Security Clearance seem to be holding them for life. It seems as though when issued it is permanent until a case is made(bogus or true) they are no longer deserving.
Why would an individual with FBI connections, holding onto Security Clearance even though no longer working for FBI feel the need to keep out of legal financial misadventures for fear of losing the perk. What would it matter? True story of one known individual.
Ok so you seem to know what you're talking about. Can you explain the difference between "clearance" and "access"? I assume that access means you are free to view information at different levels of security. But what are the benefits of having clearance? Does it mean you are just allowed to enter certain facilities with your credentials or is it more than that? I guess what I'm asking is - say you had a computer in a secure facility that you were able to keep files on the were classified. Would there be a way for someone with just clearance to get into that computer and extract stuff that may have been stored when you had that access?
Funny how those of us that have had SCI level clearences (and some others) had to 1) be assigned and WORKING IN a slot which required them, and 2) had those clearances removed when we changed jobs or retired.
And, just as a jab at the bimbo Hillary, we KNEW what the rules were - she obviously gets a by because she is a crook, stupid, dishonest, and repulsive...but a Democrat.
Why do idiots such as this creep still have a clearance? Hell, he wouldn’t even qualify to work on some of the projects I was involved with because he just does not have the education and qualifications to even spell the stuff we were doing.
I’m sick and tired of political marshmallows who got As in do nothing courses getting choice government jobs and then getting to get on tv and act as if they actually have an IQ greater than two digits.
I disagree with this guys whole article. There is a difference between having a ‘clearance’ and having ‘access’.
Clearances go with the individual and can be renewed for potential work (at cost) on a scheduled basis. They are basically the screening tool.
Access is based on your CURRENT role and should be immediately withdrawn upon leaving office/role. Access is then added for any new role that you may take - provided your Clearance is the appropriate level. Access is based on A NEED TO KNOW.
Clearances are usually only pulled when someone demonstrates a lack of due diligence or improper conduct for the level they have. Access is immediately withdrawn from personnel without a clearance.
As you pointed out, if the clearances are kept active, they will lapse until a new background investigation is complete.
The real issues is Access: you can have all sorts of clearances but unless you are given access to a particular intelligence product, it's really worthless. The question is why has-been CIA directors or failed former staffers or persons who have grossly violated security procedures are being granted access.
“Access” includes something called “need to know”. As noted elsewhere, if it is “above your pay grade”, there is almost no need, EVER, to know.
A clearance, no matter the level, does not give you access. You have to have the clearance and THE NEED TO KNOW. Once you’ve left any position, your need to know stops immediately. I don’t understand why allow this.
I agree with all of the above comments.I once held a SCI level and they watch those like hawks. Once the work is done ALL access goes away.
Who was the Clinton guy who got caught stealing documents? Wasn’t that after he left his government post?
No security clearance needed for spam and clickbait.
Pulling from prior Army experience for myself and Air Force experience from my sister.
I had a TS/SCI (Top Secret / Sensitive Compartmented Information). Due to my job, I had access to tactical battle plans for fighting WWIII in Europe.
My sister was for a while, assigned to the white house communication staff. She also had a TS/SCI. Sister had ACCESS to Presidential communications, I did not, but we were cleared to the same level. I had ACCESS to battle plans down to division deployments, my sister did not.
It helps to think of it like this - Clearance represents a level of trust. Access represents the information needed to do your job.
taxcontrol is correct. When I finally retired, I was told my clearance would be reinstated if I rejoined the government within two years. This is a change to previous situations.
When I left the military back in the seventies this was not the case. I was told when I inprocessed that I had no clearance and would not have access to classified for up to six months. IOW, I would only be allowed to do coloring books while getting paid. My gaining organization ignored this since they were well aware of my clearances.
Clearance is a status that indicates the level of classified information you can see. Need to Know is a condition that indicates whether you actually need to see this information. It takes both, an appropriate level of clearance and a need to know to get access.
Being a former employee is insufficient to establish Need To Know.
There are three types of statuses for a security clearance.
Active – Present job requires use of a security clearance.
Current – Had a job in the past two years that required use of a clearance.
Expired – More than two years since that person had a job that required a clearance.
https://militarybenefits.info/security-clearance-jobs-after-the-military/
Were you trained on how to handle the information? I only ask because you just put out over a public website the exact information you (and your sister) know. Way too much information. Is that really wise?
I thought it was 5 years, but 2 would make more sense. I know my ACCESS to classified ended when my need to know ended: when I retired. I was told if I went to work for a place needing a clearance, mine would still be good. But when I retired, I RETIRED.
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.