LAT: Some Debate Whether Rove Should Retain Top-Secret Clearance

[DeepModem Mom]

Some Debate Whether Rove Should Retain Top-Secret Clearance
By Peter Wallsten and Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writers


....in the White House, where top advisor Karl Rove is under federal investigation for his role in the exposure of a covert CIA officer, the longtime advisor to President Bush continues to enjoy full access to government secrets.

That is drawing the attention of intelligence experts and prominent conservatives as a debate brews over whether Rove should retain his top-secret clearance and remain in his post as White House deputy chief of staff — even as special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald mulls whether to charge him with a crime in connection with the agent's exposure.

"The agencies can move without hesitating when they even suspect a breach of the rules has occurred, much less an actual breach of information," said Mark S. Zaid, a Washington attorney who has represented more than three dozen intelligence officers in security clearance cases, including those cited above.

If Rove's access to classified information were taken away, it would prevent him from doing much of his job. His wide portfolio includes domestic policy and national security issues and he is at the president's side often during the day. Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) joined Democrats last week in questioning whether the advisor should retain his policymaking post.

Bush has resisted demands in recent days from Democrats and other administration critics that he revoke Rove's security clearance or fire him altogether, deferring comment until Fitzgerald finishes his inquiry....Several intelligence experts and a prominent conservative said in interviews that the White House should take the question of security clearance much more seriously....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove6nov06,0,7623243.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[niyad]

1. WHY is there any debate? he has broken the rules, his clearance should

have been revoked. simple, n'est ce pas?

[babylonsister]

3. Vraiment! Revoke until further proof he's innocent. nt

[Captain Hilts]

2. With security clearances, you're guilty until proven innocent. Revoke! n

[Pam-Moby]

4. I vote to Revoke n/t

[KittyWampus]

5. The Bush WH Obviously Doesn't Respect Security Issues- Jeff Gannon

name ring a bell?

[DBoon]

6. Wasn't Sandy Berger's clearance revoked?

nt

[rodeodance]

7. no debate in my book!!

[bleever]

8. Clear violation of the White Houses's responsibility to investigate

any perceived possible violations, and to restrict security clearances to only those people above any and all suspicion.