Security Clearances Not Easy to Pull

I did a report once on why certain people had their security clearances suspended, denied or revoked.  Some of those people had done things that I found so horrible that suspension of a security clearance was only one small thing that should have been done.  In a couple of instances, especially those involving children, hanging was not enough to satisfy justice.  But in others, people retained the basis for their clearance while still being denied access to classified information.  Those people were usually in jail for crimes they had yet to be convicted of.  Once convicted, they could have their clearances revoked. 

But the President thinks he might want to pull the clearances of some people who know a lot more about them than he does.  That is not as likely as he thinks.  I was surprised at reporters' lack of knowledge about security clearances and why people who leave government still have them.  Who do they think does most of the government's work?  Contractors.  These leaders become high-paid consultants because they have had positions and access very few others have had.  They can have access to the same computer networks they had at their government offices.  (That is an area worth looking into) Some start their own companies;  some work for other companies doing some of the same work they did before.  They make money that way. 

So, there are procedures for taking a clearance away.  A letter is sent to the individual stating the reasons why the clearance is going to be taken away.  Suspending a clearance means the individual still have one but does not have access pending a review of the case or circumstances leading up to the suspension.  One guy had killed his wife, was put in jail and awaiting trial.  His clearance was suspended until he was tried, even though he was not going to have access in jail anyway.  Once convicted, his clearance was revoked. 

I can imagine the former heads of the CIA and DNI getting a letter saying his clearance was going to be suspended.  In the case of contractors, the individual can have a hearing on the circumstances and an administrative judge presides over that hearing.  I testified twice at hearings, both being cases where computers were involved and the individuals thought security was not important.  They both lost theirs and deserved to lose them, but I doubt that a former head of the CIA, even if he is an obnoxious individual, would lose his.  There has to be something pretty serious to justify that, and so far we have not seen anything that rises to that standard.  As we are finding, over time, our President gets briefed on things ahead of the news curve and may have seen something that justifies this consideration.  We will find out pretty soon, but in the meantime, let's not rush into doing anything with clearances.  There is due process in revoking one.  Be patient.