-
This is interesting. Is this a free speech issue? Seems pretty clearly like it to me, but I see the Daily Wire is already is full refutation mode arguing that Obama tried to do the same thing.
August 16, 2018
STATEMENT FROM FORMER SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS
As former senior intelligence officials, we feel compelled to respond in the wake of the ill-considered and unprecedented remarks and actions by the White House regarding the removal of John Brennan’s security clearances. We know John to be an enormously talented, capable, and patriotic individual who devoted his adult life to the service of this nation. Insinuations and allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Brennan while in office are baseless. Since leaving government service John has chosen to speak out sharply regarding what he sees as threats to our national security. Some of the undersigned have done so as well. Others among us have elected to take a different course and be more circumspect in our public pronouncements. Regardless, we all agree that the president’s action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances – and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech. 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. We have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool, as was done in this case. Beyond that, this action is quite clearly a signal to other former and current officials. As individuals who have cherished and helped preserve the right of Americans to free speech – even when that right has been used to criticize us – that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable. Decisions on security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views.
William H. Webster, former Director of Central Intelligence (1987-1991)
George J. Tenet, former Director of Central Intelligence (1997-2004)
Porter J. Goss, former Director of Central Intelligence, (2005-2006)
General Michael V. Hayden, USAF, Ret., former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2006-2009)
Leon E. Panetta, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2009-2011)
General David H. Petraeus, USA, Ret., former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2011-2012)
James R. Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence (2010-2017)
John E. McLaughlin, former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (2000-2004)
Stephen R. Kappes, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2006-2010)
Michael J. Morell, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2010-2013)
Avril Haines, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2013-2015)
David S. Cohen, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2015-2017)
-
I genuinely don't understand the concept of permitting retired people who no longer have a need to know, to keep a security clearance. In my job, once you don't need it, you lose it.
[edit] And what ad comes up on Spotify after I respond to this thread? ASIO is looking for Int Officers. LOL
-
@gt12 What speech is Trump stopping exactly?
What stuff can Brennan now not say that he could previously?
Why is Brennan upset? Why does he need clearance?Trump has changed lots of stuff. He has also banned his staff from becoming lobbyists.
Let's be honest Brennan was using his clearance for profit by working on MSNBC.
Any others on that list do that? -
IMO, I think this is happening as payback for him being a critic of the administration. So, I don't think it is about stopping free speech per se (he's not locked up), but it is about the president punishing people for expressing their opinion. Is there any proof that he has abused his clearance? That has traditionally been the step for having it removed, so I think that the lesson here is that if you are critical of the administration, you'll be penalized. That doesn't sound like a great idea to me.
Btw, I actually agree with @antipodean that retired officials should have their clearance revoked. However, if that's the case, then I think putting that to congress and changing established practice for all retired directors would be a fairer and more appropriate way of dealing with it.
-
@gt12 I mostly agree, free speech is hardest to defend when people are saying stuff you dont like.
I dont really see it as a free speech issue, but can see the argument. I think it is more about that clearance being a privilege not a right. And Brennan (like Trump) has broken the mould on how to behave, a ex CIA director jumping on cable TV and ranting, making incredibly thinly veiled statements that he knows things that you don't is dangerous and not really great.
I think the unwritten 'normal' was that these people keep clearance, but they dont go on national news shows and leverage that clearance.And congress doesnt need to be involved, it is the presidents sole job. Not up for debate really.
-
John McCain just died. He kind of tarnished his legacy towards the end there but that was kind of understandable given what Trump said about it. Can't take anything away from what he achieved after going through hell for so many years.
-
@donsteppa said in US Politics:
Sad news about John McCain. He always seemed like a very decent bloke.
I think he seriously lost the plot in the last few years. And his accomplishments in politics were a procession of failures. Would have made a good president, if he hadn't been savaged by the media..... Like every other republican nominee and president
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@donsteppa said in US Politics:
Sad news about John McCain. He always seemed like a very decent bloke.
I think he seriously lost the plot in the last few years. And his accomplishments in politics were a procession of failures. Would have made a good president, if he hadn't been savaged by the media..... Like every other republican nominee and president
Not sure I was ever comfortable with McCain has President, he had a massive temper.
-
@donsteppa said in US Politics:
Would have made a good president, if ...
... he hadn't picked Sarah Palin as running mate
-
@booboo said in US Politics:
@donsteppa said in US Politics:
Would have made a good president, if ...
... he hadn't picked Sarah Palin as running mate
Oh yeah... Yet another left wing media target. How much do you actually know about her?
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
@donsteppa said in US Politics:
Would have made a good president, if ...
... he hadn't picked Sarah Palin as running mate
Oh yeah... Yet another left wing media target. How much do you actually know about her?
Am not commenting on her ability just her electability. Her image didn't help his chances.
-
@booboo said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
@donsteppa said in US Politics:
Would have made a good president, if ...
... he hadn't picked Sarah Palin as running mate
Oh yeah... Yet another left wing media target. How much do you actually know about her?
Am not commenting on her ability just her electability. Her image didn't help his chances.
Which was my point. Her image, like every single republican for decades has been slanted by a left wing media. Just like McCains was. Some of the things written about him were horrific. Kinda sickening how they are not clambering to say how great he was
-
@paekakboyz said in US Politics:
@booboo there was only room for one maverick in that team.
Do you actually remember the things said about him while he was running against saint Obama??? Maverick would have been a massive compliment
-
The maverick call became a joke iirc, especially once Palin really started getting some air time.
Vitriol gets aimed at any and all candidates, left or right. Would agree that candidates on the left have had more MSM support, particularly since Obama, but some icky stuff gets fired in all directions.
-
@paekakboyz said in US Politics:
The maverick call became a joke iirc, especially once Palin really started getting some air time.
Vitriol gets aimed at any and all candidates, left or right. Would agree that candidates on the left have had more MSM support, particularly since Obama, but some icky stuff gets fired in all directions.
Nope I would not agree at all.
Sure stuff gets said about all candidates. But republican candidates get slaughtered very time in a vicious way.. far beyond anything a democrat.. jeez Obama had his citizenship questioned... and that wasn't even by MSM much.. and that was about it. Trump is immune to criticism form MSM .. because candidates were also slandered, and that was clearly bullshit so now people just dont believe anything. -
Are we just talking about slander via MSM or media? or by joe public? You don't agree that MSM has taken it easier on left aligned candidates than those on the right? or that vitriol is aimed at both sides?
I think it's gotten incredibly personal across the board in the last 2-3 elections in particular. With things hitting peak bullshit with Trump, where as you said, it's all hot air now as so much shit was thrown about. Obama coped a hell of a lot more than just the birther stuff. Not that I think any of this is productive or required as part of electing someone.
US Politics