I read thekansan.com article: "Trump makes good on threat to revoke John Brennan's clearance."

I think a lot of hoopla has been raised on what should be a common-sense issue. When a person retires or is no longer employed by a military, government, or even secular job, they are often asked to surrender their special clearances. In the case of former and retired police, when they retire, they surrender their badge, gun, identification and handcuff-keys.

It's only common sense: when you're no longer employed by an entity, why do you need any kind of special clearances? You don't.

John Brennan is no longer CIA Director. Nobody need be offended by his loss of a clearance he doesn't need. Just imagine schools, military airplane companies working on Air Force One, or even bio-chemical scientists in the private sector, there is good reason for "active employees;" but those who are no longer employees or retired, don't need security-clearances if they aren't involved at the task at-hand anymore.

Plus, the case of schools should open everyone's eyes: Nobody wants a retired predator who once carried a clearance able to circumvent security guards and perhaps commit heinous acts. It's the same principle with past CIA Directors.

When they leave office, I say to them: "Thank you for your service, but please surrender your clearance and your credentials. You don't need them anymore." America needs to greatly reduce the number of "clearances"  — both in public-sector and private-sector jobs — in great numbers. Fewer people should hold clearanceswhen they are no longer employed by the given entity. They could become bitter, vindictive or prone to blackmail and they just should have security clearances surrendered upon retirement or termination.


— James A. Marples, Esbon