Slashdot Mirror
US Declassifications Delayed. Infrastructure Classification to follow?
kiwimate writes "This article discusses an executive order issued yesterday which delays the release of millions of historical documents until the end of 2006. Apparently, the relevant agencies need more time to study the affected papers, even though it only affects papers more than 25 years old. Evidently a quarter of a century is not a sufficiently lengthy review period. For a slightly different version of the same story, see here." For further news on the classification of "critical infrastructure" see Declan's story.
In related news.. Phybersyko writes "Declan McCallagh at cnet.com(website) reports (story)that "President George W. Bush has signed an executive order that explicitly gives the government the power to classify information about critical infrastructures such as the Internet."
Do we chalk this up to the cost of "freedom" or are we repeating the same mistakes the Catholics made in the Middle Ages (keep em' ignorant and our rule is secured)...."
Is this to bury information about the actions of the current administration's people that they carried out when they worked for the Reagan administration?
That's Weapons of Mass Distraction...
The war is providing great cover for domestic changes like this. Another example
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
Having worked in the Government (military), I can assure you the 25-years is NOT enough time for the government to determine the effects of releasing information. This is because the deadline probably crept up on the affected agencies and they hadn't made any proactive measures to insure the document's declassification.
Now that the deadline has actually approached, they have their pants down and don't know what to do.
The linked CNET article has a bit of a misleading title.
The title and by-line states: "Bush order covers Internet secrets" and "President Bush has signed an executive order that explicitly gives the government the power to classify information about critical infrastructures such as the Internet."
But the last paragraph states:
"Steven Aftergood, an analyst at the Federation of American Scientists who tracks government secrecy, says the change in definitions "creates an opening that could be exploited in the future, but in practice the previous policy would have permitted much of the same thing."
Meaning that the previous act (signed into law by President Clinton in '95) would have allowed the same thing as President Bush's re-do of the act.
Unfortunately, most people won't read the entire article to see what the real information is.
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
In the past, the declassification of historical documents about American security activities has been damaging to the public perceptions of security agencies (mostly because it reveals them for the unscrupulous bastards they are, or at least were), and this is a time when the US government can hardly afford to risk further losses in public opinion.
They don't want you to know about this stuff because they are afraid you won't like it. It's that simple.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
This has nothing to do with petty politics. It has to do with a federal government run-amok and lying to everyone to cover up that fact.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
George Bush is not an elected leader. He is appointed by the courts.
President Bush was elected according to the rules as set out by our Constitution. There were no irregularities in the 2000 election. It was an unusual election, but not a unique one; basically the same thing happened in both 1876 and 1888.
Democracy?
No: republic. Big difference.
Even ignoring this 'incident', you think voting for one monkey over another every 3-4 years gives you any say in what actually goes on?
Yes and no. Representative government removes the power of self-determination from the people themselves and places it in a body of elected leaders, but holds those leaders directly accountable to the people who elected them.
The main problem with representative government is, to put it bluntly, people like yourself. People who don't understand how the system works, and who therefore see themselves as disenfranchised, are less likely to vote and vote wisely. We haven't figured out how to solve this problem yet. Ideally, most people would be active participants in the political process, while a slim minority would choose to abstain. In reality, it is just the other way around: most people don't vote, and many of those who do don't vote wisely, and yet these same people feel entitled, almost compelled, to claim that their government is not representative of them.
Ironic, isn't it?
Your fine democracy is nothing but a corporation-run dictatorship, masquerading as a democracy.
I'm glad you've lived a life of such liberty and luxury that you are unable to distinguish between a republic and a dictatorship. If you'd ever lived under a true dictatorship, you'd know it when you saw it.
I write in my journal