Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Can you think of a legit reason for a person to ha

bpost
A government Classified clearance after they are fired for cause, resign from their position or leave government service for any other reason?

Why does some GS dude or dudette NEED access to anything except his cushy retirement or pension account?

As far as I can tell shutting off this most unnecessary pipeline of potential leaks makes excellent security sense.

Hell Comey was fired for being less than forthcoming, lying his ass off in real speak by Trump. His having clearance to anything seems stupid, tradition be danged. These folks should go through the same TSA grab your junk screening as you and I are subjected to if they fly.
0

Comments

15 comments

Date Votes
  • gearheaddad
    Been wondering about that myself......wth?
    0
  • fordsix
    saw that if you dont work there any more your not privy to the secrets
    0
  • Wild Turkey
    "Having a clearance" only means you'be been checked out and briefed on the penalties for telling any of the secrets.

    Getting access is the real problem. If you've changed jobs, etc. and no longer have "The need to know" you won't get access no matter how high your clearance.

    So "pulling their clearance" is mostly symbolic unless it was "for cause" and that would mean going through a huge bureaucratic hassle to get a new one (which probably wouldn't happen) and therefore they are shut out of the high paying jobs so loved in DC.
    0
  • shilowar
    I figured they turned in the keys when they walked out the door for the last time. Once again I manage to be the ass for assuming the reasonable thing.
    0
  • lpaalp
    After leaving a job or government employment requiring one, a security clearance is essentially meaningless. After being granted, or revalidated (normally every 5 years)a clearance simply authorizes access to classified information when/if/as required for the job. Without the access requirement ("need to know"), a clearance is simply a record in personnel and security files - there is no access to new or changing classified information. Revoking a clearance, as an administrative action, actually involves some amount of time and effort, hence the normal practice of simply allowing it to expire.

    There has recently been significant public discussion - most of it incorrect or uninformed - concerning retention of clearances and information access. Granted the process described above may not be followed in the case of high level public officials, it routinely is, and certainly should be. For example, a former Director of the CIA should not (routinely) be provided new or changing classified information, since he doesn't have a job which requires such information.

    Hope this helps. I now have to go and closely examine my cushy retirement account... after all, I put 10% of every pay check in it for years in order to build it to the admirable level it has reached today.
    0
  • Mobuck
    When I went back to work for a Federal agency as a "contractor" after retirement, I had to have another complete "background check" in order to be granted access to agency files. This is for pretty basic stuff, not classified in the context of national security stuff.
    0
  • bpost
    quote:Originally posted by lpaalp
    After leaving a job or government employment requiring one, a security clearance is essentially meaningless. After being granted, or revalidated (normally every 5 years)a clearance simply authorizes access to classified information when/if/as required for the job. Without the access requirement ("need to know"), a clearance is simply a record in personnel and security files - there is no access to new or changing classified information. Revoking a clearance, as an administrative action, actually involves some amount of time and effort, hence the normal practice of simply allowing it to expire.

    There has recently been significant public discussion - most of it incorrect or uninformed - concerning retention of clearances and information access. Granted the process described above may not be followed in the case of high level public officials, it routinely is, and certainly should be. For example, a former Director of the CIA should not (routinely) be provided new or changing classified information, since he doesn't have a job which requires such information.

    Hope this helps. I now have to go and closely examine my cushy retirement account... after all, I put 10% of every pay check in it for years in order to build it to the admirable level it has reached today.


    And what department did you rule over in DC? FBI?, NSA, CIA, SS? DOJ?

    Where you fired for Just Cause like Comey getting to write a book to make millions; or given a awesome retirement package after running a political hit squad at the IRS like Lois Learner? Did you meet with Clinton on a tarmac during an active investigation of his wife like Loretta Lynch did? I for one do not think you did.

    I think you probably did your job with honor and integrity then retired after providing years of service to our Nation. We did not see you in the news having the press white-wash your misdeeds and see your mug on TV lying like a rug like the scumbags in question.
    0
  • hillbille
    only good reason I heard was in case they were called back to help advise on a current situation, like the current russian bs, and one of the retired who worked on the russian stuff 10 years ago could consult with current people. still not enough reason for me but that situation could be understandable if the consult had to be done in a short time frame.
    0
  • mogley98
    Well to hear my brother tell it the country would fold without him so when he retires in 386 days I am sure we need him to maintain his clearance so he can protect us from the other tax payer supported idiots.
    0
  • WearyTraveler
    quote:Originally posted by Wild Turkey
    "Having a clearance" only means you'be been checked out and briefed on the penalties for telling any of the secrets.

    Getting access is the real problem. If you've changed jobs, etc. and no longer have "The need to know" you won't get access no matter how high your clearance.

    So "pulling their clearance" is mostly symbolic unless it was "for cause" and that would mean going through a huge bureaucratic hassle to get a new one (which probably wouldn't happen) and therefore they are shut out of the high paying jobs so loved in DC.

    Actually it's more than symbolic. When you leave a position and retain your clearance, you're much more attractive to other companies. True, you no longer have access to data from your previous employer / position, but... You've already gone thru an expensive BC and passed. The next company sees you as someone who has already been cleared, so no "surprises" and they can get you cheaper, no expensive background check (a less stringent one would still be required).
    I agree that the clearances should be yanked...
    0
  • Big Sky Redneck
    I have a mothballed Secret clearance, once I left Force Protection the clearance was no longer active but is still there, I have 2 more years left in it that it can be reactivated before filling out another SF86. If it expires in 2020 thm I will have to start over, if I get another job requiring that clearance before then the recert will be a little less intrusive.

    As others stated, even with a clearance you only have access to what you need, nothing more. A clearance is not a blanket permission slip to view or have access to classified information, it only allows access to required information pertaining to the task at hand.
    0
  • Big Sky Redneck
    Ohh, and just to add, being a pothead can seriously hamper ones ability to obtain a clearance unless you are one of the Chosen Ones like oblammer or kilinton [}:)][;)]
    0
  • nmyers
    None of the folks threatened by Trump were GS (General Schedule) dudes or dudettes; they were presidential appointees. Unlike Trumps SIL, they cannot view classified material without clearance. And, pensions for retirees are hardly cushy, compared to those of government contractors.

    In the DC area, a clearance is worth a lot of money for most folks. A clearance is mandatory for hundreds of thousands of jobs with the federal government & federal contractors. Clearances are g iven by -- guest who? -- contractors, not the federal government.

    Retired federal employees with a clearance can go to work for a contractor, & earn another pension after 5 or 10 more years.

    Neal
    0
  • spasmcreek
    if you have to trun in the keys to the executive toilet you should TURN OFF security clearances....PERIOD... you are NO LONGER IN THE LOOP
    0
  • Rocky Raab
    The "may need to consult them about their former area of expertise" is utter BS. Anything they knew when they were in office is either now in the agency records and available to the current officials or it is now irrelevant. In neither case do we have to ask them about it.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity