A government employee's security clearance has been removed in the past for much lesser reasons.
From the LA Times:
An intelligence analyst temporarily lost his top-secret security clearance because he faxed his resume using a commercial machine.
An employee of the Defense Department had her clearance suspended for months because a jilted boyfriend called to say she might not be reliable.
An Army officer who spoke publicly about intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks had his clearance revoked over questions about $67 in personal charges to a military cellphone.
But in the White House, where 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 over whether to charge him with a crime in connection with the operative'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 Zaid, a Washington attorney who has represented more than three dozen intelligence officers in security clearance cases, including those cited above....
Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia and a former CIA official and federal prosecutor... said the Justice Department should examine Rove's actions, apart from the Fitzgerald probe, to determine specifically whether Rove's security classification should be stripped....
Retired Navy Adm. Stansfield Turner, who was director of the CIA during the Carter administration, said Rove's actions needed to be "fully aired" and reviewed by intelligence and Justice Department officials.
Turner acknowledged that revoking or suspending Rove's secret clearance would "almost certainly end his usefulness as a top White House aide" and would be a "drastic step." But, he said, "you can't hold lower-level people accountable for possible leaks and not act when leaks occur at a higher level."
Turner said that among other consequences, the unmasking of an operative makes it difficult for intelligence agents to recruit sources, who may be skeptical of confidentiality pledges.
