Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (17647)	12/6/2002 7:05:24 PM
From: MSI	Respond to of 93284

"Terrorism incidents are down, and hype is up," said the congressional staffer with FBI oversight responsibilities." Here's an example from Mackenzie's book "Secrets", pg 155, regarding the gutting of the Freedom of Information Act during the Reagan/Bush administration "Congressman Don Edwards ordered the GAO to inspect politically motivated FBI "terrorism" investigations into peaceful dissenters opposed to US foreign policy in Central America. But the GAO was stymied by the FBI and not allowed to inspect Bureau files for their political content... "Terrorism incidents are down, and hype is up," said the congressional staffer with FBI oversight responsibilities." A House investigator observed, "The only way for Congress to learn about FBI political investigations and disruption is with the aggressive use of the FOIA. In past years, congressional oversight of the FBI could not function without FOIA. William Webster [most recently, ex-SEC chief accountant], who had moved laterally from FBI director to CIA director under Reagan, admitted that the FOIA amendment [which allowed gov't bureaus to refuse FOIA requests and keep secrets forever] was "what it's all about".

To: MSI who wrote (17647)	12/6/2002 8:49:10 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Not quite. I've worked in these areas. There were things I could discuss and things I could not. For example, I usually could tell someone I was working a radar design, but could give no details of how it operated or would be used. And there were instances where I could tell nothing. Nada. Zilch. But if you knew what those programs were about, you knew why that was the case. If you work for DOD you can be jailed for talking about anything, even if it's already appeared in the newspaper. You don't understand that? surely you do. If you were in a position to know that truth and you said "Yes, that's correct", you just confirmed its accuracy. It didn't have to be accurate you know. And the people putting it there may have been looking for a fish like you to tell them they were right. I have seen some real garbage published in newspapers and books. You can bitch, moan and whine all you want. Men's lives can depend on these things. I doubt if you would appreciate my loud mouth getting you killed. with prison penalties for discussing even topics that may have already been made public. Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper? Is all of it true? Any information that, including that would could reveal hanky-panky by intel groups is considered legally an "asset" of the agencies, which is the legal grounds by which the DOJ in a Nixon-era decision decreed they could legally ban any verbal or written expression by anybody, even a reporter, without violating the First Amendment. We will see about that. The gov't has tried such claims before. The courts have slapped them down. Ex-CIA director Stansfield Turner, for example, had that treatment to his book "Secrecy and Democracy: The CIA in Transition", as did ex-CIA case officer Frank Snepp's "Decent Interval" and many others, due to Wm Casey's determination to keep the lid on Agency actions under Reagan and Bush. Unfair. There is a difference between someone who has worked in the gov't and been in a position to know and someone who has not. And there is a legal difference: Those people in the gov't sign papers stating they know the info they will be given is classified, they are aware of provisions of the National Security Act and other applicable laws protecting that information, and they agree not to reveal it. A reporter signs no such agreements. The bureau used in the CIA is called the "Publications Review Board", which can classify and jail anybody, without publicly declaring a reason. Anybody? Even if they have not worked fro the CompanY? I doubt that.