tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.comments2022-03-03T17:16:23.881-08:00A Guy in the WorldChuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-75299981132313735862019-07-10T23:58:04.398-07:002019-07-10T23:58:04.398-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Browny Bellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296272213535061556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-38396330898020378232019-05-29T01:31:15.630-07:002019-05-29T01:31:15.630-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Adelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05839957638126841440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-81530024528919497362018-08-19T09:35:45.509-07:002018-08-19T09:35:45.509-07:00One may read here ( fox news ) bearing the headli...One may read here ( fox news ) bearing the headline : <br /><br />“ Ex-CIA Director Brennan's anti-Trump comments did 'damage' to intel community, Mullen says ” <br /><br />http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/19/ex-cia-director-brennans-anti-trump-comments-did-damage-to-intel-community-mullen-says.html<br /><br />Thanks el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-42177812153353011152018-08-19T05:32:29.150-07:002018-08-19T05:32:29.150-07:00Interesting , just for bit balancing things here ,...Interesting , just for bit balancing things here , worth to quote the official ( or semi official ) statements of the secretary of state , and of Trump himself , so first , generally speaking , they deny any illicit or irrelevant motives , here I quote : <br /><br />"The President has a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information and who has access to it, and that's what he's doing is fulfilling that responsibility in this action" <br /><br />While more concretely concerning John Brennan , here I quote Trump , The report of the CNN ( see link ) and Sanders all together , here : <br /><br />“ Trump in his statement justified the move against Brennan by citing the CIA's infiltration of Senate computers during Brennan's time at the helm of the agency during the Obama administration -- for which Brennan subsequently issued a public apology -- and maintained Brennan has "recently leveraged his status" as a former official to "make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations" about the administration, which Trump called "increasingly frenzied commentary."<br /><br /><br />And more : <br /><br /><br />"Such access is particularly inappropriate when such officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks," Sanders said, reading from Trump's statement. ” <br /><br />End of quotations : <br /><br />Well , at least they deny any illicit motive . But , not enough concrete evidence or suggestion , that such act or revoking the security clearance , has really substantially to do , with national security .Not so strong It seems , I must admit here . <br /><br />One may read here ( CNN ) : <br /><br />https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/15/politics/john-brennan-security-clearance/index.html<br /><br /><br />Thanks <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-3793146220095322312018-07-28T08:40:46.682-07:002018-07-28T08:40:46.682-07:00Here's some pretty good information on this to...Here's some pretty good information on this topic area: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-security-clearances/2018/07/27/46f065a6-90e7-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html?utm_term=.d562119680b2Benny Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05444722478092413093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-40586904638470890892018-07-25T19:58:41.612-07:002018-07-25T19:58:41.612-07:00Just correction to my comment above :
Should be ...Just correction to my comment above : <br /><br />Should be : but to maintain his formal status , and not : " statute " of course . <br /><br />Thanks <br />el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-75795923865614298222018-07-25T18:55:16.406-07:002018-07-25T18:55:16.406-07:00Interesting , but it seems that we have here , sor...Interesting , but it seems that we have here , sort of contradiction in terms . For , first you have defined the clearances as based upon access ( emphasizing : access ) to classified information , and then , you have described one exception ( relevant to the subject of the post ) where senior leaders are allowed to keep clearance so " that their successors can ask them questions about activities during their tenure " .But , they are questioned , they don't get access by it . They only reveal , what they already know or new , and to current officials , that have clearance anyway . So , by that , no access at first place , to current and new let alone information , is obtained . So , the president , denies them , what they don't have anyway : which is access to information , current one . <br /><br />Concerning Free speech issue . It looks then , like a kind of retaliation . Although not while functioning or on duty . Yet , if proven , that denied clearance ( if relevant to call it so ) due to it ( retaliation ) it may constitute sort of illicit or illegitimate coercion . For such official , may prefer ( or not , doesn't matter , for the conduct itself may be illegitimate ) not to criticize Trump , but to maintain his informal statute as a sort of informal adviser . <br /><br /><br />Thanks <br />el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-28158715327608714962018-07-25T18:41:20.334-07:002018-07-25T18:41:20.334-07:00One problem is that mandatory renewal background c...One problem is that mandatory renewal background checks take up 75% or more of the resources, and they don't accomplish much. A new concept known as "continuous monitoring" offers a better approach and will free up resourcews for those seeking background checks for the first time (where the background check really is useful).<br />Chuck Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-84382125840708217612018-07-25T15:01:34.538-07:002018-07-25T15:01:34.538-07:00Try to talk to some of the national labs about the...Try to talk to some of the national labs about the problems they are having with clearances. They lose a lot of good applicants because they can't get clearances for them for several years while they would have to have them on the payroll doing non-security types of jobs.Benny Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05444722478092413093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-90446201462206252582018-07-25T14:55:17.201-07:002018-07-25T14:55:17.201-07:00The information I have is that the focus on anti-t...The information I have is that the focus on anti-terrorism has sucked up all of the traditional investigative review resources. Everyone has to be cleared for everything now. That has extended the application/review period quite a bit. Overclassification is another part of the problem. Also people needing Secret are now asking for TS because Secret is taking so long. That causes further bogging down of the system. When TS/SCI folks need to be renewed they sometimes lose their clearances and projects get delayed/put on hold because the managers can't get their clearances renewed on time. It is a mess.Benny Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05444722478092413093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-5999786812113420552018-07-25T11:11:58.890-07:002018-07-25T11:11:58.890-07:00Benny, at the cabinet level, keeping clearances fo...Benny, at the cabinet level, keeping clearances for some period of time has been a common practice (and for good reasons). For IC positions and military operational , there is likely a justification for keeping clearances even below the cabinet positions. In my experience, however, for most federal employees (including senior political positions), this is not the case. there was discussion of keeping my clearance active when I left government service, but in the end the decision was made not to do so. my sense is that in the past, keeping clearances alive was more common, but starting in the Obama Administration (as applied to those leaving the Obama Administration) there was a more rigorous process of deciding whether it made sense to keep clearances alive (at least within DoD).<br /><br />On a related topic--your son's experience shows that the current security clearance process to broken. I am actually working with a CEO-level working group that is working with ODNI to improve the process so that it can take weeks and not years.<br />Chuck Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-48804012542811596042018-07-25T11:02:03.143-07:002018-07-25T11:02:03.143-07:00I think your due process challenges are accurate. ...I think your due process challenges are accurate. I also agree that if action were taken on a classification of security clearance holders it would stand a better chance of surviving judicial scrutiny.<br /><br />I may be mistaken but I thought I had read that other members of past administrations had retained their clearances after leaving their positions. Names that come to mind are Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice and others. The reason I think I recall this is during the period when Clinton and her advisers, including David Kendall, her attorney, were reviewing her emails to determine which were work related it became obvious pretty quickly that a number of the emails contained classified information. In order to review these emails, an individual would have had to have a clearance. However, there was never a comment about review of the classified emails by people who did not have a clearance, such as Kendall.<br /><br />This led me to believe at the time that these folks must have retained their security clearances and that Kendall had a clearance, possibly for a different purpose.<br /><br />You cite one exception, the senior IC leadership. How about senior military, former members of Congress, leadership in other departments such as State, DOJ, DHS, etc. Seems like a lot of these folks immediately find employment in various places where a security clearance is required. Do they retain their clearances or are they given an expedited review and processing.<br /><br />My son is an engineer who requires a TS/SCI clearance, eventually. He is being told that right now the process takes about three years. In the interim he is working on projects that require lower or no level of security clearance.Benny Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05444722478092413093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-76829141659256538302018-07-02T05:07:24.904-07:002018-07-02T05:07:24.904-07:00Here another illustration , in Switzerland concern...Here another illustration , in Switzerland concerning mosques : <br /><br />https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/2273439/Swiss-to-vote-on-minaret-building-ban.html<br /><br />Thanks <br />el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-41350900133792865162018-07-02T04:13:00.950-07:002018-07-02T04:13:00.950-07:00Just clarification :
" Sharia law " th...Just clarification : <br /><br />" Sharia law " that is to say , the Islamic law ( religious laws ) . <br /><br />Thanks <br />el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-51634762312036548262018-07-02T04:01:45.492-07:002018-07-02T04:01:45.492-07:00Interesting post . But one should notice , one mai...Interesting post . But one should notice , one main issue concerning the public opinion in the US , and all over the world in fact : <br /><br />And it is , the strategic impact , of Muslims immigrating to US and Europe and other states . As perceived , they are not like other immigrants . This is a game changer . Not only they deal with terror as perceived , but they try to change the fabric of society . Trying not only to change things demographically , but literally to impose , Muslim values or Sharia regime even , undermining literally , the fundamental foundations of western world and Christianity . <br /><br />So , it is far greater more complicated , when it comes to Muslims ( as perceived by the public , and many politicians ) . <br /><br />Some quotes and links : <br /><br />Here Trump : <br /><br />“They could be ISIS, I don't know. This could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time. A 200,000-man army, maybe,” he said. In an interview that aired later, Trump said: “This could make the Trojan horse look like peanuts.”<br /><br /> Here : <br /><br />https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/20/i-think-islam-hates-us-a-timeline-of-trumps-comments-about-islam-and-muslims/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.764be014227a<br /><br />Or here in England , imposing even the Sharia regime on England : <br /><br />http://onelawforall.org.uk/new-report-sharia-law-in-britain-a-threat-to-one-law-for-all-and-equal-rights/comment-page-1/<br /><br /><br />https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16522447<br /><br />And much more , all over Europe , we won't finish here simply …. <br /><br />So , if dealing with persuading public opinion , one needs first , to start with it , for it is projecting upon that growing perception , concerning collision of civilizations , after September the eleventh attack . <br /><br /><br />Thanks <br /><br />el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-62030906014854750842018-06-23T17:32:38.549-07:002018-06-23T17:32:38.549-07:00Interesting post, good to have you back after such...Interesting post, good to have you back after such a long break indeed . Just worth to not , that mining in space , is occupying the US legislator . A post raising International legal issues in this regard ( in " opinio juris " blog , bearing the title : " International Law Does Not Prohibit Commercial Asteroid Mining. Nor Should It." ) which can be found here ( and links therein ) : <br /><br />http://opiniojuris.org/2015/11/25/international-law-does-not-prohibit-commercial-asteroid-mining-nor-should-it/<br /><br />Thanks <br />el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-25532883628407137652017-09-26T17:32:31.285-07:002017-09-26T17:32:31.285-07:00There is one criteria that should always be applie...There is one criteria that should always be applied when a decision is made to commit our military forces to combat. Do the American people support the action?<br /><br />Our political and military leaders must always make sure they communicate our national interests clearly and in understandable language. In order to be successful we must all be pulling on the same end of the rope as the nation did in World War II.<br /><br />I am not a fan of using a humanitarian objective as rationale for use of U.S. military force. Humanitarian crises are often determined by a small group of people viewing the situation through their personal perspectives. <br /><br /><br />If the crisis is reaching the situation of another Hitler, Stalin or Mao, then intervention for humanitarian reasons is probably warranted because our national interests will soon be at stake if not already an issue. Short of that I think we should let the local and regional forces sort it out.<br /><br />There are also treaty obligations such as NATO and ASEAN that have to be considered. However, under those treaties we need to make sure the other parties are contributing their proportionate share.<br /><br />We are not real good at picking winners and losers and our political system does not support long-term commitments necessary to do effective nation building. I am not sure anyone's does.Benny Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05444722478092413093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-68077834047093388732017-09-26T17:25:53.030-07:002017-09-26T17:25:53.030-07:00Thanks for that interesting post , such analysis ,...Thanks for that interesting post , such analysis , is , at least to some extent flawed ( morally and factually ) this is because , such military intervention , is not meant necessarily for fixing situation ( fundamentally , actually , from bottom up to the roof ) but rather , to grant the chance for peoples , to take their destiny in their own hands , and try to modify their humanitarian situation , so to live with respect ,freedom , and dignity by all means . <br /><br />So , basically it did work !! This is because , they indeed rose against dictatorships and brutal oppression , and have tried to achieve dignity and democracy ( The " Arab spring " indeed ) . And indeed , many of them , have died in battle field , preferring to die over living in shame and oppression . It was their choice finally , and they took it , and did what they did . And by the way , the story , not yet ended really . Game in on yet !! <br /><br />So , the chaos , was indeed , the outcome , of their free will ( or at least , for great part of them ) . <br /><br />Thanks <br />el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-68866945882262468742017-06-12T05:32:10.256-07:002017-06-12T05:32:10.256-07:00Chris, the Presidential Records Act is far more st...Chris, the Presidential Records Act is far more stringent, and captures far more documents. I would need to take a look at the statute to see how it would be applied if Comey were a White House employee. When I was on the White House staff, all of my emails were automatically collected and we had to mark when we thought our emails were private (and even then the emails were reviewed to make the determination whether they needed to be stored).<br />Chuck Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-49905813359062316382017-06-12T03:24:30.159-07:002017-06-12T03:24:30.159-07:00Chuck ,
It is by the way correct , that the titl...Chuck , <br /><br />It is by the way correct , that the titles of the chapter (18 u.s. code chapter 93 - public officers and employees ) contains mainly titles has to do with commerce and trade and alike , but , one may conclude , that also other issues in the eyes of the lawmaker ( notwithstanding the conclusive wording : " any department or agency " of the US ) here : <br /><br />18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material<br /><br />(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. <br /><br />(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a). <br /><br />(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security. <br /><br />End of quotation : <br /><br />So we read clearly : The meaning of “classified information of the United States” is also related clearly to : " National security " as clearly dictated therein . <br /><br />But just to emphasize it again : I wanted mainly to differentiate between : Records ( format ) , information ( content ) and : Conduct . <br /><br />Thanks <br />el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-12069760809028973662017-06-12T01:28:26.109-07:002017-06-12T01:28:26.109-07:00chuck ,
How have you learned it ?? You don't...chuck , <br /><br />How have you learned it ?? You don't specify !! it is stated clearly : <br /><br />" Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof ..... " <br /><br />Means : any department or agency thereof . It would be relevant for, finance or trade , and not : national security for example ?? Anyway , I wanted rather to illustrate the differentiation between : information , and records ( and conduct also ) . <br /><br />Thanks <br />el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-51234664560301880202017-06-11T21:07:20.330-07:002017-06-11T21:07:20.330-07:00What about White House staff notes? My casual unde...What about White House staff notes? My casual understanding is that the Presidential Records Act permits of a similar analysis but with possibly different conclusions.Chris Kimballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04533770301545618641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-82358566718218535212017-06-11T17:36:09.610-07:002017-06-11T17:36:09.610-07:00This statute only addresses disclosure of trade se...This statute only addresses disclosure of trade secrets or proprietary business information and is not applicable here. Chuck Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-89524599345499641182017-06-11T16:46:32.433-07:002017-06-11T16:46:32.433-07:00Thanks for the post , the issue , is not necessari...Thanks for the post , the issue , is not necessarily whether it is a federal record , this is , because of the fact , that the content of it , in more essential of course . Suppose , it was a confidential secret , would it matter ?? of course not !! The format is hardly an issue !! <br /><br />The fact is , that , only after being fired , he has published it . So , it seems that he was aware to the : at least some extent of confidentiality of such conversation . <br /><br />Here a possible relevant provision : <br /><br />18 U.S. Code § 1905 - Disclosure of confidential information generally<br /><br />" Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, any person acting on behalf of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or agent of the Department of Justice as defined in the Antitrust Civil Process Act (15 U.S.C. 1311–1314), or being an employee of a private sector organization who is or was assigned to an agency under chapter 37 of title 5, publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law any information coming to him in the course of his employment or official duties or by reason of any examination or investigation made by, or return, report or record made to or filed with, such department or agency or officer or employee thereof, which information concerns or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association; or permits any income return or copy thereof or any book containing any abstract or particulars thereof to be seen or examined by any person except as provided by law; shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and shall be removed from office or employment." <br /><br />End of quotation : <br /><br />So , the lawmaker , insist on " information " and not necessarily the format , but rather the content . One needs to look further here , this is because , if such conduct , becomes a habit and spread and routine , it may undermine the work of governance . Imagine , that any spontaneous conversation , shall raise concerns , that it may be leaked later . So , employees , officials , would be afraid to express themselves spontaneously , so , the flow of information , exchange of ideas ( especially in preliminary state or forms , as theoretical plans ) shall be undermined . <br /><br />But , more legal research is needed here of course ….. <br /><br />Thanks <br />el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1874869649906953718.post-71614751689801368352017-06-06T12:38:01.725-07:002017-06-06T12:38:01.725-07:00Thanks for the post , there is just a potential mi...Thanks for the post , there is just a potential missing link here . This is because , it is not quite understood , why would Trump , defy that much Qatar . One good and common explanation , is of course , the fight against terror ( they allegedly , had supported and funded the IS and others ) yet , Saudi Arabia also is blamed for it . <br /><br />Another good reason , is the relative close ties , between Iran and Qatar. Maybe for Trump , that is a game changer . The fear and hostility of Saudi Arabia towards Iran , is complete and undeniable , yet , not that one of Qatar , while that one of Trump towards Iran , surly ….<br /><br />Here one may read : <br /><br />http://thehill.com/policy/defense/336454-qatar-split-raises-problems-for-us-with-iran-isis<br /><br />Thanks <br />el roamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00406442932147092365noreply@blogger.com