It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
When asked about “secrets being passed from president to president” the topic of UFOs surfaced, Clinton said:
"Well I don't know if you all heard this, but, there was actually, when I was president in my second term, there was an anniversary observance of Roswell. Remember that? People came to Roswell, New Mexico from all over the world. And there was also a site in Nevada where people were convinced that the government had buried a UFO and perhaps an alien deep underground because we wouldn't allow anybody to go there. And uhm… I can say now, 'cause it's now been released into the public domain.... This place in Nevada was really serious, that there was an alien artifact there. So I actually sent somebody there to figure it out."
In regards to Roswell Clinton said:
"I did attempt to find out if there were any secret government documents that revealed things. If there were, they were concealed from me too. And if there were, well I wouldn't be the first American president that underlings have lied to, or that career bureaucrats have waited out. But there may be some career person sitting around somewhere, hiding these dark secrets, even from elected presidents. But if so, they successfully eluded me…and I'm almost embarrassed to tell you I did (chuckling) try to find out."
Plausible deniability is the term given to the creation of loose and informal chains of command in governments and other large organizations. In the case that assassinations, false flag or black ops or any other illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any connection to or awareness of such act, or the agents used to carry out such act.
Arguably, the key concept of plausible deniability is plausibility. It is fairly easy for a government official to issue a blanket denial of an action, and it is possible to destroy or cover up evidence after the fact, and this might be sufficient to avoid a criminal prosecution, for instance. However, the public might well disbelieve the denial, particularly if there is strong circumstantial evidence, or if the action is believed to be so unlikely that the only possible explanation is that the denial is false.
The concept is even more important in espionage. Intelligence may come from many sources, including human sources. The exposure of information to which only a few people are privileged may directly implicate some of those people in the exposure. For instance, suppose a government official is traveling secretly, and that only 1 of his aides knows the specific travel plans. Suppose further that the official is assassinated during his travels, and that the circumstances of the assassination (an ambush, perhaps) strongly suggest that the assassin had foreknowledge of the official's travel plans. The only logical conclusion is that the official has been betrayed by his aide. There may be no direct evidence linking the aide to the assassin, but the collaboration can be inferred on the facts alone, thus making the aide's denial implausible.
Originally posted by fweshcawfee
It's interesting to me how the President has the power and authority to basically wreak havoc throughout the world if he chooses to, yet he doesn't have enough security clearance to be briefed on the secrets of his own country.
Originally posted by Copernicus
This is exactly what the Disclosure Project witnesses have stated as well. All of the presidents have tried to find out about UFO's but have been denied. There IS a shadow government above the public government, there is no doubt about it at all anymore.
[edit on 2-10-2007 by Copernicus]