It it is revoked for partisan or personal reasons (not due to performance or criminal activity) then yes - it is an abuse of power even though it is up to the President ultimately. When the revoking of security clearances are being done to intimidate or punish people for exercising their rights *but not violating protocols or the law* I would say that is an abuse. There is a list of people he is reviewing removing clearances from for the sole reason of criticizing him. That should be disturbing.
John Brennan doesn't have a Constitutional right to a security clearance. No matter how you want to try and argue, you will always miss the fact that a security clearance is not provided to an individual so they can do whatever they feel like with the information, locations or materials they are allowed to access.
Who said that he did?
What the heck are you thinking? Geeze, Coyote, there's no need to take a leap off the deep end just because you don't like the President. What you are suggesting should be tolerated from someone with a security clearance is not only counterproductive, and defeats the purpose of having one, but it is fricken insane.
THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, and leave your hatred at home.
So being able to consult with prior experts on terrorism, and other cases they worked on is "fricken insane"?
If you want to blame everything on "hating the president" - that's your perogative. I think you would do better to distance yourself from your adoration of him and look at his actions in a logical manner.
Has any other president used security clearances as a way to punish his critics? Yes or no? Simple question really.
If not - is this a good precedent to set for the revokation of clearances? Yes or no? Another simple question.
These two questions have nothing to do with how I or anyone else feels about the current occupant of the White House. It should apply to anyone in that position.
Holy smokes people.
A security clearance is what you need to access materials the government has classified as being sensitive or secret. Do you know what a fricken secret is?
You said exercising his rights, which don't include a security clearance.
Other than that, the administration has clearly stated they don't trust John Brennan with our secrets.
They have the authority to use their discretion and did so.
Don't take me for a fool and ask me leading questions either, because that's child's play.
Don't pretend your assessment that it was done to punish anyone for what you think they should not have been punished for, doesn't have everything to do with your lie about how it doesn't concern the way you feel about who occupies the White House. And don't pretend that since there is nothing new about people having their security clearances yanked because command lost trust in them, or they couldn't keep their mouths shut, is in the least bit is some kind of new precedence, because it isn't.
Thanks Again