you're WRONG about ufo cults.
well, most of them ARE in fact BORING and tame.
send $1 to
SubSite - Start to find out
too much more.
---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------
Obviously because the space brothers prevented it man...they knew the soviets were evil...
In all seriousness though if there was any kind of correlation between release of intelligence information and government collapses it would happen all the time. So then maybe its just not how the game is played....
Obviously because the space brothers prevented it man...they knew the soviets were evil...
In all seriousness though if there was any kind of correlation between release of intelligence information and government collapses it would happen all the time. So then maybe its just not how the game is played....
it's just human evolution: and we know who wants to INSIST that there is and never could be any such animal as evolution.
it's human SOCIAL evolution, and the Egyptian development of 2011 is still developing! crucial to it: the Bush Boys, the Reagan Team, and ALL THOSE YUMMY SECRETS. All the lies that must be told to maintain "freedom" and "a free world"? it is societal evolution.
yes, this is a theory. but not about a conspiracy per se. it's a theory that people in the United States are simply placated by LIES as a general form of government. What if Americans were to rise up today and decide that we were tired of being lied to? Well, STUPID Americans would decide that newcomer Barack Obama HAD TO GO, and maybe would clot Pennsylvania Av by tens of thousands, pooping on the rose gardens and basically making a big stink until something different happened...that would be STUPID Americans.
Much more logical to go after the MUCH OLDER and therefore FRIGHTENING "players" who have been working hard to keep secrets for DECADES...going back to an ugly area: the way that the United States in history resembles the actions of Nazi Germany against Jewry. Anyone may deny this statement. The reservations are what they were, however, that's concrete -- and it requires a form of SELF LYING for people to pretend that the reservations are anything other than what they are, and what they represent. A form of self lying that those who have pledged Allegiance to Republic are amazingly skilled at. How DARE you question the Republic and its values...
it's societal evolution when people want REAL freedom, not simply the gentle police state and honored and respected tanks of the recent semi-revolution...
State secrets privilege
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege#p-search
The
state secrets privilege is an
evidentiary rule created by
United States legal
precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a
legal case based solely on
affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security.<sup id="cite_ref-Carrie_Newton_Lyons_0-0" class="reference">
[1]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Executive_Misconduct_1-0" class="reference">
[2]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-El-Masri_Rendition_Case_2-0" class="reference">
[3]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Julie_Hilden_3-0" class="reference">
[4]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Glenn_Greenwald_4-0" class="reference">
[5]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Andrew_Zajac_5-0" class="reference">
[6]</sup>
United States v. Reynolds,<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference">
[7]</sup> which involved military secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.
Following a claim of "state secrets privilege", the court rarely conducts an
in camera examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.<sup id="cite_ref-Carrie_Newton_Lyons_0-1" class="reference">
[1]</sup> The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.<sup id="cite_ref-El-Masri_Rendition_Case_2-1" class="reference">
[3]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Glenn_Greenwald_4-1" class="reference">
[5]</sup>
Function
The purpose of the state secrets privilege is to prevent courts from revealing state secrets in the course of civil litigation (in criminal cases, the
Classified Information Procedures Act serves the same purpose). The government may intervene in any civil suit, including when it is not a party to the litigation, to ask the court to exclude state secrets evidence. While the courts may examine such evidence closely, in practice they generally defer to the
Executive Branch. Once the court has agreed that evidence is subject to the state secrets privilege, it is excluded from the litigation. Often, as a practical matter, the plaintiff cannot continue the suit without the privileged information, and drops the case. Recently, courts have been more inclined to dismiss cases outright, if the subject matter of the case is a state secret.
Distinguished from other legal doctrines
The state secrets privilege is related to, but distinct from, several other legal doctrines: the principle of non-justiciability in certain cases involving state secrets (the so-called "
Totten Rule")<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">
[8]</sup>; certain prohibitions on the publication of classified information (as in
New York Times Co. v. United States, the
Pentagon Papers case); and the use of classified information in criminal cases (governed by the Classified Information Procedures Act).
History
Origins
The doctrine was effectively imported from
British law which has a similar privilege.<sup id="cite_ref-Carrie_Newton_Lyons_0-2" class="reference">
[1]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Executive_Misconduct_1-1" class="reference">
[2]</sup> It is debatable whether the state secrets privilege is based upon the President's powers as
commander-in-chief and leader of
foreign affairs (as suggested in
United States v. Nixon) or derived from the idea of separation of powers (as suggested in
United States v. Reynolds)<sup id="cite_ref-Carrie_Newton_Lyons_0-3" class="reference">
[1]</sup> It seems that the US privilege "has its initial roots in
Aaron Burr's trial for treason." In this case, it was alleged that a letter from General
James Wilkinson to President
Thomas Jefferson might contain state secrets and could therefore not be divulged without risk to national security.<sup id="cite_ref-Carrie_Newton_Lyons_0-4" class="reference">
[1]
===============
can you go against that?
if you wanna pass notes until you die, fine.
the system has tools for that, right in front of you.
but if what you want to know about is deemed a "state secret" -- a "law" on the books since Aaron Burr walked the Earth -- a law that was taken from the monarchy that Americans originally rebelled against!--
definitely, this denial of factual understanding of things for the American people is grounds for revolt. Reform could happen, but imagine the denial level by level. "we can't discuss this." "there is No Such Agency."
</sup>
