We have had discussions like this before concerning activities of the Bush administration, and the difference has seemed to be in the liberal use of Pixie dust.

I would like to hear more from SkimpyPenguin about the evidence he has that the alleged practices of the Bush administration are continuing, despite Executive Order 12968. Furthermore, I should think it likely that the President could revoke anyone’s clearances, whether they were the founder of a program or not.

Please continue this conversation.

Bob from HI in AZ

It’s always possible that BushCo implemented things differently but the laws regarding clearances were always fairly straightforward in reminding those of us with clearances that the clearance itself was not enough but that there was the “need-to-know”.

Of course, it would not surprise me in the slightest to find that BushCo sprinkled some pixie dust to flip the clearance universe on its head and treat the laws regarding clearnaces in the same way they treated other laws.

First, you state:

SECRET clearances, from the day they are granted (tech speak is “adjucticated”) are good for 10 YEARS.

TOP SECRET/SCI is good for 5 YEARS (with mandatory reinvestigations every five years)

It’s a dirty little (open) secret that you get your SECRET or TS/SCI clearance “refreshed” 18 months or so before you go into the private sector

and then go on later to state:

Either way, she would have AT LEAST a SECRET between now and 2012/2016 election cycles.

So will Rove, Card, the speechwriters and anyone else required to get a TS/SCI w/ YANKEE WHITE who worked in the executive office of the President, was a Secretary of a Department or a deputy in a department.

But, as far as I can discern, security clearances only apply to positions that fall under the purview of the federal government. Pursuant to Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information, security clearances are only granted to persons employed by, detailed or assigned to, an [executive] agency, including members of the Armed Forces; an expert or consultant to an agency; an industrial or commercial contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency, including all subcontractors; a personal services contractor; or any other category of person who acts for or on behalf of an agency as determined by the appropriate agency head.

How do your statements comport with EO 12968? Because they would appear to be prima facially inconsistent.

Secondly, you state this:

You’re trumpeting the need to know urban myth. Which is fine. But let me educate you…

That is all well and good. Perhaps your edification of me might touch on an explanation of how your statement is consistent with EO 12968 section 2.1(b)(4), which specifically provides:

Access to classified information shall be terminated when an employee no longer has a need for access.

I fail to see how, or what, your basis could possibly be, for arguing that Liz Cheney (or “Rove, Card, the speechwriters and anyone else” for that matter) could possibly be viewed and/or stated to currently have “a need for access” at this point since they are no longer in government. Furthermore, I am aware of no information, and you have certainly presented none, to indicate that any of these individuals are employed by or participating in any programs and/or activities that would even remotely place them within the ambit of the applicable provision. And, even further, your statements fly directly in the face of sworn declarations by the highest of Executive officials, including the Director of both the NSA and CIA as well as AGs and DAGs in a plethora of national security cases including, but not limited to, al-Haramain v. Obama, NSA v. ACLU and many others on the issue of dissemination only to those with ”a need to know”. How do you explain that? The proclivity of these individuals, i.e. Liz Cheney, Rove, Card etc., to go on Fox News and blab would not appear to qualify. If you would be so kind as to address these inconsistencies in your arguments, I would appreciate it.

Thirdly, you state:

Liz Cheney was and still is read into more compartments and sub-compartments of classified programs than Colin Powell and Al Gore combined.

I fail to see the relevance of this statement. Initially, it is completely unsupported, but above and beyond that, it seems impertinent to be discussing and comparing Liz Cheney, who was there long after Colin Powell and Al Gore were gone. Of what substance and import is this? Are you arguing that if they were all there at the same time she would have been more “read in” than they? If so, how in the world do you support that; if not what is the meaning of this? This appears to be superfluous hyperbole.

Fourth, I discussed the situation in which the person or persons inappropriately “reading in” or otherwise disseminating information to the individuals you have listed would be in trouble for inappropriate disclosure/leaking. Do you deny this would be a legal issue? If so, how would you explain the AIPAC charges (irrespective of that they were later dismissed)?

Fifth, you allege some kind of strawman cutout in saying:

I would add that people have been on record saying David Addington had a “man sized safe” in his office and in Cheney’s office.

For those of you saying, “SkimpyPenguin, tell me that Addington wasn’t the program manager for these Special Access Programs. Tell me Addington isn’t the one that had to grant or restrict access to classified programs like the interrogation and rendition programs of CIA.”

Who are you referring to? I certainly said no such thing nor asked such questions, nor did I see anybody else do so. Who are you speaking to with this? You go on to make even more fairly astounding claims about David Addington still being the final authority for Special Access Programs (SAPs) and that “Liz Cheney can look at and read whatever she wants.” These are substantial and serious claims, what in the world do you base them on? How do you comport them with the above discussed EO 12969 and the specific subsections? To be honest, those statements appear prima facially alarmist and fantastical; please explain and support them. If that is really the case, as PJ Evans @62 says, that is certainly not the “way to run things” and we should all know how and why such is really the case.

Lastly, you state:

It would probably be a good idea for you and emptywheels visitors if you DIDN’T insult the people that are contributing to the discussion with real world experience. Conjecture is fine, but myself and others I’ve brought to FDL/EW know what we’re talking about.

Neither I, nor anybody else here, has insulted you, and it is inappropriate for you to try to bigfoot others and command them to be subservient to your views, especially when you appear to be engaging in alarmist hyperbole. You are a commenter and your opinion and real world experience are valued, but you have neither the right nor privilege to domineer and/or subjugate anybody, and you are respectfully requested not to act otherwise. I look forward to your reply on all of the above.