175 more US security officials add their names in protest.

It's sort of like asking how does firing the instructors of West Point hurt the military. Conservative logic is... well not.

 

As compared to those who applaud the action. Hannity doesn't count.

 

100% wrong. They are stating no former intel officer should fear retribution for expressing an opinion............also, the withdrawal of security clearances and the ostracization of critics strips the government from being able to benefit from the collective wisdom of those who are singled out for revenge............................................................all because the sitting prez is thin skinned.

 

You're comparing these out-of-government hacks to instructors at a military academy(many of whom I'm sure don't need security clearance for their work.) Wow.

 

They can express any opinion they want, they just can't monetize security clearances anymore. And it's a grave national security threat that I didn't even contemplate until Trump's actions. You've got virtually hundreds of 'soft spots'. It just takes kidnapping someone with a security clearance to a nuke facility to create a total doomsday type of disaster.

This is not how intelligence should be used. If their 'expertise' is welcomed, it is only welcomed in an official, not 'temporary' capacity. And I'm sure their current positions aren't vacant right now.

 

Analogies are not a strong point I see. Retired officials with clearances are a source of guidance to newer officials because they have experience. Revoking the clearances makes them less able to do this, or less able to speak freely. So you're either hurting free speech, or national security, or both. Trump only cares about revenge and pride, not the country, or maybe he's just stupid. Nefarious or stupid.

 

Not necessarily so. The lack of clearances only prevents them from accessing up-to-date information, it doesn't prevent them from talking about past experiences(unless of course they're still classified.) And at any event, if it becomes necessary a temporary clearance can be issued.

And it's not a matter of free speech. There's nothing speech related about the clearances. That's a lesser argument than over the internet censorship issue. If you hold clearance=speech, then these bannings are a violation of free speech also.

In reality,a clearance is basically an access card, GRANTED by the government. Any other government could revoke(in fact, we saw an example posted of the Obama Administration doing so) and there's not even a hint of the same 'OMFG,. freedoms lost' as there is in this case.

You're defending hacks. That's what they are. Hacks, cronies. People who lived off the government doe and need the government to continue supplying the doe. Heaven forbid they actually go into the private sector.
(Actually, those talented enough to do so, do that and they make a hell of a lot more money. Also don't need clearances.)

 

Yes, because compartmentalizing sensitive intel, and restricting access to ACTIVE personnel will "compromise" security. Clearances, all clearances, should be revoked en masse. Allow a 60 - 90 day grace period for former personnel to apply for waiver. Bush wasn't allowed to retain ICBM launch codes was he? These 175 retirees are private citizens not subject to OIG accounting or disciplinary measures. Revoke them all.

 

The new fake Republican party will find an excuse for anything Trump does.

 

Other than personal hatred of anyone daring to criticize King Trump, there is no rational reason for revoking the security clearances of retired top security officials. Historically, keeping this group of experienced professionals in the loop has served America well. Trump's narcissism and ego have done nothing to secure this nation. His latest idea? Let's revoke the security clearance of President Obama. I mean he did insult me and OMG, make fun of me.. Me! The f*****! Grab that clearance. This, of course, make total sense to Trumpies army. Like a lot of things from their master.

 

But trump is running a kakistocracy, so competence and experience are not in the job descriptions.

 

I am not an adoring fan. I personally don't like the guy's personality.

I am objective on this issue, unlike yourself.

Anyone who talks and acts as Brennan has conducted himself honestly deserves to have his security clearance yanked. If these 175 other intel people do not understand that, then they have a problem with rationality and reason.

When Brennan decided to indulge in partisan politics, he disqualifies himself, IMO. This is the man who spied on his own oversight committee for god's sake. And the corruption of DC allowed the bastard to remain in his position!

No one in a right frame of mind would disagree with this guy losing his SC. I know that I am 100 percent right, logical, rational and reasonable. It is sad that people who don't like him will corrupt their own intellect in order to feed their hatred of this president.

I continually lose hope for the human race. Because of absurdities like this one. The pettiness of human beings is appalling. Politics destroys good minds. I have no doubt about that.

I think we need a non partisan board to decide who gets to keep these SCs and who does not. If any intel person, says a president committed treason, they lose it. Unless they can prove it in a court.

 

Only people who don't see the leaks as being an issue would think that.

 

As opinions go, I'm sure that's a dandy opinion, but still just an opinion.

I and our President do not share your opinion.

 

Before you do the dance of the sugar plum fairy, you might want to check out what party those security types belong to.

 

It's hard to give advice on a subject without knowing the relevant new facts.

Getting rid of the clearances is being used as a punishment for speaking out against the president. If this precedent continues, people who hold security clearances will not be free to speak out against any president lest they lose their clearance. Not that I expect the next one to be as insecure, petty, or corrupt as Trump.

The cause for revoking a clearance is meant to be that it poses a security risk, not that they said a mean thing about the president, or were involved in an investigation the president doesn't like.

They're not even all democrats or liberal so calling them all hacks as a blanket statement doesn't make any sense. They don't like the president siding with Putin over the intelligence community, or colluding with Russians, or lying about Russian contacts, or revoking security clearances for political revenge, etc.

 

Did you think you had to be a registered Democrat to be a hack? No, it's called 'I stayed in the system for 10, 15, 20 years, got a lot of kick backs even while looking the other way at those who broke the rules'. There are Democrat hacks, Republican hacks and even Independent hacks. We have by far, the most corrupt government in the free and developed world. We're running a close competition with Venezuela. And yeah, it's not all Trump's fault either.

I think it positively stuns many people that you can't blame Trump for everything under the sun. It also stuns you when some approve of actions(like taking away clearances.) Clearances are a privilege, one that may have, at one point been liberally handed out but when this problem was brought up by POTUS Trump, our position on it became clear: Nope, shouldn't happen like that.

If people want a security clearance from now on, it will only be relative to the position they hold, and when they leave that position be it for any reason they no longer have a need for security clearance. If they're upset at the rules changes, they should be more upset that they made it necessary for those rules to be changed.

I agree with Rand Paul that it had to be announced regardless of specific name, so that this whining would not take place. These are the new, harsh expectations for security clearances. They should've always been this harsh. We're closing a serious loophole that threatened our security.

Imagine if an al-qaeda terrorist kidnapped someone with the clearance to codes for our nuclear infrastructure? Yeah, that'd be REAL swell wouldn't it? If you're outside of government, you can't afford to be such a liability.

 

I thought we were talking about people like Comey. Our government's corrupt, but not primarily because of what you describe, but rather because of lobbying and the idiotic idea that money is speech.

Trump just takes a bad system and makes it worse. He says he'll drain the swamp, but surrounds himself with incredibly corrupt Russia-connected individuals and fills the hen houses with foxes (e.g. EPA).

There's nothing stunning about Trump being petty and republicans being hacks to cover for him. Clearances aren't some kind of special bonus you give to people for being good, they're a tool for those who can be trusted to use it. Speaking out against a corrupt president is not indicative of somebody who cannot be trusted with classified information.

Trump got mad at people and wanted to get at them. Without the option of assassination like his idol Putin, he took their clearances. Nothing more to it than that, other than perhaps a legal strategy of diminishing the ability of witnesses to review classified material.

Fortunately, nuclear codes are not that simple.