Gunslinger
Regular Member
It probably would surprise some how many here hold or have held a clearance and at what levels. They just don't talk about it. But, that's kinda the point!
That's exactly the point.
It probably would surprise some how many here hold or have held a clearance and at what levels. They just don't talk about it. But, that's kinda the point!
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society."
--John F. Kennedy
Our government has no business keeping secrets.
I would respectfully disagree.
Should we tell our enemies our exact troop strength and dispositions?
Should we tell our enemies what advanced research projects we are working on?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of theirs we are aware of?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of ours they are not aware of?
Should we tell our enemies exactly what is being tested and developed at Area 51, or any other location?
I would respectfully disagree.
Should we tell our enemies our exact troop strength and dispositions?
Should we tell our enemies what advanced research projects we are working on?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of theirs we are aware of?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of ours they are not aware of?
Should we tell our enemies exactly what is being tested and developed at Area 51, or any other location?
One may make the argument that the government shouldn't keep secret from it's own people any of the above information, but releasing such information to our own people would be exactly the same.
Governments have secrets for the same reasons individuals, businesses and corporations do.
SNIP (entire post ending: "The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society."
--John F. Kennedy
How can a man be contractually bound for 50 years to keep those secrets harmful to himself and his fellow human beings?
Its nuts. The signer perhaps does not realize the door he is closing by signing. Then, no matter the weight on his conscience of any misdeeds he knows about, he may not tell until it is too late to correct them and the perpetrators are beyond justice.
I'm thinking such a contract cannot be morally, ethically binding. As a fellow citizen--a member of "the people" with who the signer is contracted--I certainly would not hold a signer to such a contract if he had information the non-disclosure of which was harmful to us.
While I can understand (theoretically) where you are coming with that, Citizen, the choice to keep secrets comes before any of the secrets are given.
I (and the others here) took a solemn oath to do so. That is when the choice is made. First the oath to protect the Constitution and our country when we were sworn into service, secondly when we promised again to keep the secrets we were about to be given.
When I give my word, I keep it. It is that simple. If I did not plan on keepint the promise, I would hot have made the promise.
When I was in 'Nam, much of what I saw as part of my duties was classified, as a fair portion of my job was Bomb Strike Damage Assessment (BSDA). Also as part of my job I had the ability to determine that some of what I was first to view was unclassified, and I so marked it (some was automatically classified unless marked that it was not).
Other than knowing from my job where and what we had been and were going to attack, and the amount of damage done to targets at specific locations, I really didn't know much else that was classified, other than technical details of some of our sensor systems.
I have no problem keeping those secrets.
I took an oath to do so.
The PIs (Photo Interpreters) used to like us to go over the gun tapes for BDA with them, as the quality was crappy compared to sat ISR today. Even the Recce RF-4 guys' cameras weren't that good. Then there was the Baker-Nunn from the Blackbirds. That was all TS because we didn't want how high they went and how good the pics were coming out unless need to know. All strictly No-Forn, as well. Used to piss the Israelies off that we flew SR-71 missions over them and there was nothing they could do about it. All of this has long since been declassified. (25 year cycle) The real factor in VN was whether or not we needed another Frag for the target. Going back a second time was never good. Laser guided bombs (Pave-Nail/Spike) solved a lot of that being needed, but before it was the PIs that forced the situation.
I would respectfully disagree.
Should we tell our enemies our exact troop strength and dispositions?
Should we tell our enemies what advanced research projects we are working on?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of theirs we are aware of?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of ours they are not aware of?
Should we tell our enemies exactly what is being tested and developed at Area 51, or any other location?
One may make the argument that the government shouldn't keep secret from it's own people any of the above information, but releasing such information to our own people would be exactly the same.
Governments have secrets for the same reasons individuals, businesses and corporations do.
You're right, releasing things to the citizenry is the same as releasing them to the enemy. With that in mind, I ask, why should we not do any of these things?
Just because you have one level of clearance, doesn't mean you get access to everything that requires the level of clearance you have. You still must have a "need to know."
Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the "Whistle Blower Protection Act" protect people bound by confidentiality agreements when they are disclosing classified activity that is also unlawful activity? If your commander gives you an op-order brief and begins by announcing that "what he is about to tell you is classified top secret," then goes on to tell you that you are to break up into teams and begin going house to house confiscating weapons from lawfully armed civilians in the united states, I doubt you can be disciplined for blowing the whistle as the orders you were given were not lawful orders.
I'm not sure I understand your question as you seem to have provided the answer most profoundly in the previous sentence. Are you advocating the position that releasing national secrets to sworn enemies of the United States is a commendable thing to do, or, are you saying that our national security would be increased by releasing national secrets to our enemies?
If you are taking the position that releasing secret information to the citizenry is Not the same as releasing the information to our enemies, I'd certainly be interested in learning how you would propose to keep that information out of foreign hands once it's been released to the public.
..........And, furthermore, that these things enable a slew of government excesses and abuses which are a much graver danger to our future than are any of our real or potential enemies.
One who truly honors the confidences bestowed upon him as a result of the level of trust his clearance grants him does not announce, "I know something you don't know."
Having said that I'll say this about that. I had a way high clearence,,and guess what? I know lots of things that you don't know too,,.