Guilty. I nevertheless think the parallels are worth exploring. Senior governmental advisors aren't used to having clearances rescinded as political punishment, and Oppenheimer's still the best example of that. History doesn't rhyme but repeats, etc. etc.https://twitter.com/wellerstein/status/1030854372157272064 …
-
And unlike Brennan there WERE significant (if exaggerated) security issues involved in Oppenheimer's case. It wasn't just Teller not liking his judgment, which was probably the weakest part of the AEC case against Oppenheimer anyway.
Oppenheimer admitted in sworn testimony to lying to security officers, to having an affair with a known Communist while he was director of Los Alamos, and to appointing people he knew were Communists to key positions at the lab.
-
-
I'm not saying he deserved the hearing, which was indeed a farce (punctuated by illegal things like Strauss and the FBI wiretapping his confidential conversations with his lawyer), but it's more than "they didn't like his political opinions." The guy did some legit sketchy stuff!
-
Yes...but those in charge had known about this for quite some time. The timing of enforcement matters.
-
Oh, of course. I'm *not* saying it wasn't a farce. I'm just saying that as far as farces go, once you go down the hearing road, Oppenheimer was not going to come up smelling like roses.
-
(I am basically sympathetic with Henry Smyth's argument for keeping his clearance: Oppenheimer did a lot of dumb and questionable stuff but nothing truly disloyal or disqualifying, and revoking it would cause more trouble than not.)
-
(The fact that Oppenheimer's clearance was about to expire within days anyway makes it even further farcical. In the long-run I think Strauss would have been better served by not denying it — all the dirty laundry would be aired, but no martyr-complex.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.