Why is there a controversy over ex-employees maintaining their government clearances? They are just a citizen, upon leaving government service, and nothing more. How many private citizens are allowed the privilege of continuing their former status once they leave any other employer? How many kept the keys to the office, or company car or whatever else that was afforded them due to employment? The right answer is NONE. I have been employed by the federal government on several occasions, with a level of clearance pertaining to the work I was involved with, and this included electronic data (computers) which required an FBI background check, not once when my work was completed and I was severed from employment did I retain any clearance, no longer had access to the data that I had before. So why does the media have such a fit with the idea of rescinding the clearances for John Brennan, or any other?
Is it that it’s just another dig at the President? Seems so to me; I’d feel better with the idea of ALL former employees having their clearance revoked. What with a
Russian [CORRECTION: Chinese] spy working in the office of a U.S. Senator (Sen. Feinstein), a Pakistani spy working in the Democratic National Committee (Imran Awan / Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s), both that were under FBI investigation, it was reported (Awan) left the U.S. for Pakistan with a couple of laptops. Spies have always been embedded in the government (John Antony Walker), would you like to know that one left and took their clearance with them? I wouldn’t.
I applaud those who in their faithful service to the country retired or moved on with honor, but I do not see it fit to maintain their ability to access the secrets that they once safe guarded, upon departure. With the current atmosphere of resistance to the present government from former employees, I see a real danger of there being an opportunity of using said clearance in an obstructive or damaging manner.
At no point should those that have been appointed to a high level government position, and left, be afforded a special access to any sensitive governmental portal without direct supervision. This meaning that if any predecessor should be required to provide information to a present holder of the office or position to which they were involved, should report in person and be in presence of the present office holder. At no point do I accept the fact that an open access be granted. This could be done and still preserve a level of respect. I amazed that those who formerly held such esteemed offices and with understanding the need for security did not call in to question the continuance of such practice. Unless, they have the need to feel indispensable, then they truly are clueless.
Thank you for taking the time to read this
THE COMMENTARY GAZETTE®
CONTRIBUTOR: Eddy Toorall