Systematic Review of Security Clearances for Former and Current Officials

The recent controversy surrounding former officials and their security clearances has brought to light serious questions about the efficacy and integrity of our security clearance system. President Trump's decision to strip certain officials of their security clearances has sparked debate, especially among those who have worked in government and the military.

Addressing the Issue

I believe there should be a systematic review of all former and current officials to determine if they have a need to retain their security clearances. This review is essential to ensure that those who hold access to sensitive information and classified materials are indeed necessary for their current roles. For instance, Admiral Rogers, the former NSA director, was actively working to restrict the unmasking process, which is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Options for Retaining Clearance

There are several options for maintaining a security clearance:

Active Clearance: Former officials who are still needed for their input in the near term can maintain an active clearance. This ensures that critical information can still be accessed when needed. Inactive Clearance: Officials who may require clearance in the future but are not currently needed can maintain an inactive clearance. This option provides potential reinstatement by a future administration. Total Revocation: This option is for officials who have demonstrated misconduct or criminal actions. Their clearance can be revoked, and they may be banned from holding a clearance in the future. Banning Future Clearances: For those who have engaged in severe misconduct, their clearance and future access to classified information should be revoked. This is based on actions that go against the Uniform Code of Military Justice and other ethical standards.

The Complicated Reality of Clearance Abuse

Many former government officials, regardless of their political affiliations, have access to classified information they then use to benefit themselves or others. For instance, General David Petraeus, a renowned military figure, has been vocal about attacking President Trump for removing former director John Brennan's clearance. However, Petraeus himself was a hypocrite and should have been stripped of his rank and privilege for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. His actions, such as using government funds to bring his mistress to his headquarters and attempting to cover up the fraud, clearly demonstrate a breach of trust and ethics.

Clearance Audits: A Necessity

There needs to be a thorough audit of former government officials to determine whether they actually have the need for a security clearance in their current positions. Are they assisting the government in any capacity or do they simply use their 'Top Secret' clearance to open doors in the private sector, especially in the media, as 'security consultants'? This industry is fraught with corruption, with a lot of money changing hands and being lost when clearances are suspended or revoked.

It is crucial to revisit the rationale behind granting and maintaining security clearances to ensure that they are indeed serving the national interest and not being abused for personal gain. Transparent and objective evaluations can help restore public trust in the security clearance system and ensure that those who hold this sensitive information are truly necessary for their roles.