This past week, former CIA Director John Brennan had his security clearance revoked. In the midst of all the twitter debate and other uproar over this action, one response in particular caught our attention. This came from a group of former CIA Directors and Deputy Directors as well as the former Director of National Intelligence:
“The President’s action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances — and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech.”
Brennon himself made a similar statement via twitter:
“…This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out…”
Stifling/suppressing free speech?? Exactly what “speech” are these quotes referring to? For those holding a government security clearance, it is illegal to speak or write about classified information in the public domain. Mr. Brennan knows this perfectly well, as do his defenders who wrote their statement in support of him. Surely, they aren’t suggesting they have a “right” to reveal classified information to the public. So why are these former officials claiming this is a violation of free speech?
The primary reason some senior government officials retain a security clearance after they leave the employ of the federal government is to preserve the ability of their successors to call on them for advice. This makes sense given the wealth of first-hand experience these former officials gained in their prior positions. Pertinent aspects of those experiences could be very useful in informing present day decisions. For former officials to know what part of their own experience would be “pertinent” to a current problem, they would need to know some level of detail about that current problem when called on for help – hence the need for a security clearance.
However, prior experience is not the only factor most of us consider when deciding to ask someone for advice. How much you trust that person, and therefore trust their advice, plays a big role. In this case, while Mr. Brennan may have experience to offer, there is no trust in either direction in the relationship between himself and the President (or his staff). He has made no bones about his disdain for the President, both personally and professionally, which is surely a major factor in the lack of trust. Regardless, logic dictates there is no longer a reason for Mr. Brennan to keep a security clearance if he will no longer be called on “officially” by the current Administration for advice.
Since classified information is prohibited from being publicly discussed under any circumstances there is no logic in the assertion that Mr. Brennan’s right of free speech has been violated. He knows this. He also knows that in his present position as a paid news media commentator, any headline including the phrase “…suppress freedom of speech…” grabs attention and has been associated with many recent high-profile news stories. His use of this phrase shows his willingness to be untruthful and confirms that his main allegiance is to the business imperatives of his employers in the media. This is why he can’t be trusted by the current Administration. Brennan’s defenders in the aforementioned group of former CIA officials included a similar phrase in their public statement of support (“…stifle free speech…”). Several of them are now paid news media commentators also (most notably Hayden and Clapper). Their motivations, loyalties, and reason for retaining their own security clearances are also being questioned by the Administration, just like Brennan’s. The fact that they are using the same fallacious claim of suppression of “free speech” as a defense is ample reason to have their clearances revoked as well. One can only assume from these statements that they believe they somehow have a “right” to include classified information in their free speech. Some would call that the very definition of “leaking”.
The fierce response by these former officials may also be fiduciary in nature for some of them. Credibility is a critical factor to maintaining stature as a news media commentator. Being a former high-ranking Intelligence official has a certain “built-in” credibility. Having an active security clearance adds a degree of “currency” to that credibility that would otherwise wither with time (the bane of all “former officials”). A current security clearance adds value to the commentator that the news organization profits by. Without the clearance, that element of value is lost.
The affronted response of Brennan and his cohorts says much more about human nature than anything else. There is no free speech violation here at all. It’s all about trust.
One Response
Leftists complaining about “stifling free speech” while simultaneously having their Silicon Valley tech oligarchs terminate the online presence of nearly every right wing voice across every tech and social media platform, all in unison, is just… comedy gold.