Anonymous ID: fcb1f1 July 24, 2018, 11:59 p.m. No.2275964   🗄️.is 🔗kun

The clearances …

 

https://www.govexec.com/management/2018/07/white-house-can-revoke-anyones-security-clearance/149980/

 

The White House Can Revoke Anyone’s Security Clearance

By Lindy Kyzer

July 24, 2018

 

Sen. Rand Paul made headlines Monday morning by suggesting the White House revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan. Paul’s request came just a few days after a Fox News correspondent suggested John Brennan had politicized his security clearance and was using it to attack the White House.

 

Asked about Paul’s comments, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed the president was considering revoking the security clearances of not just Brennan, but also former FBI Director James Comey, former director of the Office of National Intelligence James Clapper, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden.

 

Paul raised specific questions about Brennan, which are at the heart of the current kerfuffle over former officials and access to classified information: Is Brennan using information he learned in his former role and directly related to national security, to accuse the president of treason, and to promote his cable television commentary? If the government finds grounds to say, yes, he has access to classified information and he is using it in a non-official capacity, there is a precedent for prosecution. But that may not have anything to do with his security clearance.

 

Because access to classified information is based on need to know, the security clearances of officials such as Brennan and Comey would only be active if they were sponsored by a government agency or contractor that required them to have access. Obviously, they still retain the knowledge of their decades of federal service, but that’s very different from them actively retaining a Top Secret security clearance and wielding it to their personal advantage.

 

“Typically, senior government officials keep their security clearance eligibility when they leave office, even if they are no longer government employees,” said Evan Lesser, founder and president of ClearanceJobs. “This is done to ensure continuity between administrations, allow former officials to consult government and industry on national security matters, and keep senior people readily available in the event of an emergency. While they may maintain their eligibility, their access to classified information remains based on national security. Ultimately, the president has the power to grant or revoke security clearances to whomever he chooses.”

 

When it comes to the security clearances of former officials, an exception to need to know does exist—former government officials may be granted access to classified “items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a Presidential or Vice Presidential appointee or designee” according to Executive Order 13526. The agency head decides which former officials need to retain access, and what form that access takes. That means a clearance revocation would also be more likely to come through their former agencies or executive branch offices versus a White House mandate.

 

“As former directors of the FBI and CIA, their respective agencies would be the [entities] with the authority to terminate a security clearance,” noted Christopher Burgess, veteran CIA officer and a regular contributor to ClearanceJobs.com. Since the FBI and the CIA fall under the control of the executive branch (and therefore the president), a “request to the current directors of the FBI and CIA would be the mechanism by which I would expect the request to be made, as these individuals do have the ability to summarily terminate access and employment.”

 

While there is no precedent for a president making a unilateral decision to revoke a former official’s security clearance, former officials have previously been accused of inappropriately maintaining access to classified information following their government employment.

Anonymous ID: fcb1f1 July 25, 2018, 12:08 a.m. No.2276047   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Protecting our military kids … Hope they address pedos also!

 

https://www.govexec.com/defense/2018/07/pentagon-watchdog-examine-sexual-harassment-defense-schools/149747/?oref=channelriver

 

Pentagon Watchdog to Examine Sexual Harassment at Defense Schools

By Charles S. Clark

July 16, 2018

 

The Pentagon inspector general will open a review of procedures and policies designed to prevent sexual harassment of students in the Defense Department’s pre-K-12 school system, Principal Deputy IG Glenn Fine announced on Thursday.

 

In a memo to all service secretaries and manpower-related Defense undersecretaries, the IG previewed an “evaluation of the Department of Defense and DoD Education Activity Response to Incidents of Serious Student Misconduct on Military Installations.”

 

The assignment of investigators to perform site visits, interviews, documentation and database reviews of both sexual assault and harassment cases comes in response to instructions in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report accompanying the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.

 

In a section on family readiness matters, the senators cited Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act and noted that “student victims of sexual harassment in DODEA schools do not have the same rights and protections as those available to students attending U.S. public schools.”

 

The Pentagon schools’ current policies for responding to incidents, the report stated, “fail to respect the rights of victims and lead to inadequate and insufficient responses to complaints of sexual harassment.” The senators in their report gave DODEA until March 31, 2019, to establish new policies and procedures.

 

The IG’s office said it would also “evaluate the department and referrals to DoD law enforcement organizations, as well as referrals to military and civilian child advocacy and health services.”

 

DODEA managers do have detailed sexual harassment prevention policies in place. The agency did not respond to Government Executive queries by publication time as to what incidents might have prompted concern.