Why Hillary's Email Issue Should Result in Clearance Revocation

[Geaux4it]

I want to hear the justification how Hillary keeps a clearance. Now that I'm retired, I can speak freely. I worked within DoD for nearly 34 years. The branch for which I managed consisted of Engineers, Electronic/ Engineering Technicians and photographers. Certain photographers and Telemetry operators aboard naval aircraft required Top Secret clearances. My level was at Secret. In essence, while I knew in general terms what the teams were doing at a high level, I lacked the detail because clearance levels are issued on a ' need to know' basis. With that said, I had to release (2) employees over my 13 years as a manager. The reasons were related to their lack, or failure if you will, to maintain a security clearance at the 'Secret' level. We're not talking Top Secret or SDI here, but secret. We were, and are, expected to live our lives in such a way that we DO NOT compromise national security at any level. INTENT is irrelevant for the rank and file. If you're deemed a risk, you lose your clearance. Lose your clearance, you lose your job. An example was an individual with excessive debt. Personnel security considered him a risk, therefore, suspended his clearance. Other examples were DUI's. Same thing, your judgment in your personal life is examined and scrutinized.

Lastly, that pesky form they seem to have misplaced where Hillary signed she would protect classified information. Interesting enough, during my out processing, the official turned behind her desk and retrieved an old fashioned 3-ring binder correlated from A-Z. Promptly she produced the form I signed back in 1985. Yep, same form Hillary signed which also had the clause she would protect classified information. Even as a retired employee, I have to maintain OPSEC. Yes, it's that important and detailed.

I did have some fun though. Just before signing my exit form, I paused, removed my cheaters and asked....... "Does this mean I can't have classified information on my home PC"? "I'm confused on the matter". The woman was stiff as a wedding dick but I did get a laugh from her, but no comment

Bottom line, what Hillary did would have rendered me, you, or just about anyone else, a pink slip.

FACT

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

A good read on the damage of not protecting classified information

-Geaux
==================
Consequences of Not Acting
“If the law supposed that,” said Mr. Bumble, “the law is an ass.”

Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

The consequences of legal inaction are high—perhaps higher than we should ask the American citizen to bear. Years of inaction, indifference, and permissive neglect are taking an enormous toll on US intelligence capabilities. And the toll is higher still since 11 September 2001. Intelligence leaks do serious and often irreversible damage to our sensitive collection capabilities. By publicly unveiling unique and often fragile collection capabilities through leaks, the media actively help our adversaries to weaken US intelligence. These disclosures offer valuable insights—at no cost to our enemies—into possible errors in their assessments of how well or poorly US intelligence works against them, as well as useful feedback on how well they succeed or fail in countering US intelligence. This kind of feedback also increases the risk of foreign manipulation of our intelligence for deception operations.

Unless comprehensive measures with teeth are taken to identify and hold leakers and their publishing collaborators accountable for the significant, often irreversible, damage that they inflict on vital US intelligence capabilities, the damage will continue unabated. Conceivably, without some legally effective corrective action, the situation could even worsen, leading to intelligence on significant national security issues that is less accurate, complete, and timely than it would be without foreign countermeasures made possible by unauthorized disclosures. Warning of surprise attacks against the United States by terrorists or other hostile adversaries could be further degraded. Moreover, multi-billion-dollar collection programs could become less cost-effective than they would otherwise be if foreign adversaries were not learning, through unauthorized disclosures, how to neutralize such programs.

The alternative is better intelligence capabilities for the United States. This can result throughno added costs by merely better protecting the sources and methods we now have and those that are in the pipeline. Stemming press leaks will afford significantly better protection. Better laws—and enforcement of these laws—will make this possible. If we continue to be encumbered by a failure of will, our present climate of permissive neglect will become one of pernicious neglect.

James B. Bruce is Vice Chairman of the DCI Foreign Denial and Deception Committee.

The Consequences of Permissive Neglect — Central Intelligence Agency