| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| techno900 wrote: | swchandler said: | Quote: | Seemingly, our friends on the right feel that anyone with a security clearance can't be free to offer their opinions publicly in this nation, especially if the current administration may not approve of it.
Does this seem right? |
Say what????
Where do you get that impression. Why or how would anyone with "removed security clearance" not be allowed to speak their mind? The exception (with or without) security clearance would be talking about material that is classified/secret.
Iso hit the nail on the head. If fired or retired government officials are no longer needed/wanted for advice, why would anyone want them to continue with security clearance?
This is a really insignificant issue that gets blown out of proportion by the left, as is everything Trump. |
Well. not really. If you take everything that Trump says in isolation, and apply the reasoning that he is just Trump being Trump, you can make that argument. But taking each boorish Tweet out of the context misses the entire point.
I get that many voted for Trump because they thought both parties were beholden to special interests--and he wasn't. But to ignore the fact that he is more beholden to special interests--and his own self interest--than any President is to put your head in the sand. Trump's ending a security clearance for Brennan, as part of an effort to limit the amount of people that hold such clearances, and the unreasonable increase in classifying material that should be public is something that I would support. But this was intended as a threat to all who disagree with him publicly--and to specifically target security clearances for those investigating his campaign.
What the administration admits to is that it has stockpiled little press releases like this to divert media attention from a bad news week--like this one, where he called an African-American woman a "dog", and lost 3 lawsuits over his attempts to roll back environmental protection. Buying this is to pretend that calling yet another black person a name (what is it, half a dozen so far this month?) is not a dog whistle to the extremists who usually don't vote--but voted for Trump--as the mid-terms approach.
To take Brennan's revocation out of context is to ignore Trump's many months of attacking the FBI and the press with blatant lies (virtually everyone working on the Mueller probe was, at least at one time, a Republican to name just one). He has freely admitted that his aim is to discredit those that would report conflicts of interest and crimes by those close to him.
The sad thing is that it is working, and a portion of America is so jaded and paranoid that they are willing to back an authoritarian bigot to express their frustration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's just one example of how tightly the government TRIES to control its secrets. I was briefed in on a Special Access Program, better known as SAR, along with maybe 50 other people in our organization. A year later, many of us received orders to this effect: "Remember that thing about that thing you were briefed on? Forget it. We briefed too many people, making it hard to maintain secrecy."
That was about 33 years ago, and I still haven't forgotten (or uttered) what either "thing" was. But Brennan not only leaks secrets but lies under oath about it. Does even one of you want him learning more national security secrets?
Similarly, does ANYONE this side of Jim Acosta think Trump fired Omarosa because of her skin color or gender?
BTW, she implies that she has another couple of hundred such tapes. What does that say about her mission from Day One besides "I'm here to Get Trump, not to do the job taxpayers are paying me to do"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| swchandler wrote: | Seemingly, our friends on the right feel that anyone with a security clearance can't be free to offer their opinions publicly in this nation, especially if the current administration may not approve of it.
Does this seem right? |
There are 5 million people who have security clearances. They all speak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LHDR
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 528
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to techno, this Brennan thing is a really insignificant issue that gets blown out of proportion by the left!
Well, a few good men felt compelled enough to bother making public statements.
1. The first group includes former Directors of Central Intelligence Robert Gates, William Webster, George Tenet and Porter Goss; former CIA directors Gen. Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta and Gen. David Petraeus.
"You don't have to agree with what John Brennan says (and, again, not all of us do) to agree with his right to say it, subject to his obligation to protect classified information," they wrote. "We have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool, as was done in this case." The president sent "a signal to other former and current officials" to refrain from criticizing him, the letter continued, and "that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable. ... Decisions on security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views," they conclude.
2. In a separate six-paragraph open letter published by The Washington Post Thursday afternoon, a few hours before the national-security emeriti weighed in, retired Adm. William H. McRaven, head of the Special Operations Command during the 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden, dared the president to pull his security clearance as he had Mr. Brennan's. "If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken," Admiral McRaven wrote.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/opinion/cia-brennan-trump-letters.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
techno900 and the right wing gang just don't get it, and I'm afraid they never will because they are fully dedicated to Donald Trump no matter what he does. A pretty damn sad state of affairs. Trump is taking America down and they could care less.
LHDR, let's see how they respond to your noteworthy post. There are many well respected folks publicly calling out Trump's action against Brennan, and rightly so. How easy is it to blow them off?
Last edited by swchandler on Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MalibuGuru wrote: | | swchandler wrote: | Seemingly, our friends on the right feel that anyone with a security clearance can't be free to offer their opinions publicly in this nation, especially if the current administration may not approve of it.
Does this seem right? |
There are 5 million people who have security clearances. They all speak. |
And that includes Hillary, as odd as it may seem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What am I missing here? If you have your security clearance revoked, that has nothing to do with what that person can say now or in the future, but it does take that person out of the current "need to know" brotherhood. So, why should Brennen (or any other ex government official) still have access to classified information?
If Trump want's to work with an ex official, he can ask advice without clearance, but if Trump needs to provide new classified info. to update the ex official, he can reinstate the secruity clearance whenever he wishes.
Much to do about nothing. Trump just pissed of a bunch of out of work feds that liked being in the know. To me, it looks like the overall security of our country has been improved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What am I missing here? If you have your security clearance revoked, that has nothing to do with what that person can say now or in the future, but it does take that person out of the current "need to know" brotherhood. So, why should Brennen (or any other ex government official) still have access to classified information?
If Trump want's to work with an ex official, he can ask advice without clearance, but if Trump needs to provide new classified info. to update the ex official, he can reinstate the secruity clearance whenever he wishes.
Much to do about nothing. Trump just pissed of a bunch of out of work feds that liked being in the know. To me, it looks like the overall security of our country has been improved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14880
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | What am I missing here? If you have your security clearance revoked, that has nothing to do with what that person can say now or in the future, but it does take that person out of the current "need to know" brotherhood. So, why should Brennen (or any other ex government official) still have access to classified information?
If Trump want's to work with an ex official, he can ask advice without clearance, but if Trump needs to provide new classified info. to update the ex official, he can reinstate the secruity clearance whenever he wishes.
Much to do about nothing. Trump just pissed of a bunch of out of work feds that liked being in the know. To me, it looks like the overall security of our country has been improved. |
what you are missing is a brain to think critically and objectively. It would probably take you 3 minutes to google why you want former high level people with their security clearances in tact. But you might have to figure out how to google something vs listen to fox which obviously is the only thing you are able to do.
the saying is we can lead a stupid horse to the water but no-one can make it drink.
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
techno900, why did you ignore LHDR's post?
Donald Trump cancelled Brennan's security clearance because he wanted to politically punish him for his speech against him. That's not reasonable grounds, and that's why a whole bunch of extremely notable folks with stellar credentials wrote a letters of protest. Don't you get it?
How about Trump's growing threats to cancel the security clearances of lots of other folks in and out of government? Don't you see what's going on here? You can't be that lost, but then again, maybe you are. Just another Trump zombie nodding their head to anything that Trump says or does. All that don't are enemies of the people.
Damn scary in my book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
