Why is the cover-up a crime?

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Nasa has, as one of its founding tenents, a responsibility to answer some of the deepest questions about space, inclusive of "are we alone ?" .

There is nothing in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (which established NASA) makes no such charge of NASA. Although it can be assumed under the charge that...

The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space

One could also make the case the following charges allow for the keeping of secrets as necessary...

ex](6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance,

and...

(3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof;

Originally posted by kmarx
is this topic for real?

The thread is quite real, and topic is serious as well. It's a shame you fail to understand the premise.

the elite who control this information are not subject to any law you maybe able to find. they USE the law to suppress individual/company and anyone else they feel is a threat.

Quite frankly you don't know this elite is, much less the laws they are, or not, subjected to.

do you honestly think you can go to any judge in America and ask for a search warrant for Area-51

Did I even remotely make that an absurd statement? You are mischaracterizing my position and my point.

It's obvious that you couldn't, but not because of this elite conspiracy you speak of, but because for you to do it you would need to have a legal reason and standing for it. And as I mentioned in my previous post, even if granted, the Government would then likely invoke state secrets privilege.

But there isn't a reasonable cause for an average citizen to be allowed in Area 51 in the first place, whether there are aliens or not. And again, this wouldn't be because of a conspiracy, but because of well-established military reasons and yes, laws.

get real.

Get real? I'm talking in, and about, objective legal basis and arguments, you're the one talking about elite cabals and using preposterous hypothetical legal scenarios as "arguments" for whatever your opinion is.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


My apologies . I was under the impression that was one of the key reasons for the impotent bunch of loosers to get together in the first place.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
My apologies . I was under the impression that was one of the key reasons for the impotent bunch of loosers to get together in the first place.

Oh, look at that, an anti-science and anti-NASA attitude from a closed-minded believer. No way.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
My apologies . I was under the impression that was one of the key reasons for the impotent bunch of loosers to get together in the first place.

In fact, in the NASA "founding tenets" (the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 DoomsdayRex mentioned), it is explicitly declared that

The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities (...)

The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 201 (e)

And another important, and again explicit, policy:

(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;

In other words, if NASA makes any discoveries of "military value or significance" it is required to relinquish the information and control of such discoveries to "agencies directly concerned with national defenses".

Doesn't say anything about owing the public explanation or announcements of those discoveries.

Also it would maybe be a crime under the freedom of information laws.

That's a pertinent point. The Freedom of Information legislation has limitations and exemptions however. It doesn't ensure that you can get the information you requested.

If you analyze those exemptions, for example, you will find:

(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order; (...)

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

Its saturday ...
I hate being disgusted on a saturday .

Feel free to elaborate...

Was there anything technically 'illegal' (German law) about the Nazi's doing what they did? Was there anything 'illegal' (South African law) about Apartheid and the state's treatment of it's black population? I could post countless other examples but you get the point. If a State wants to do something, it can change, or create exemptions and exceptions or completely suspend the laws accordingly. Hence 'law' is largely an illusion designed to awe the weak minded and allow the state to do pretty much what it wants while maintaining an false aura of propriety.

The error this thread is based on, IMO, is the idea that what the ultimate law makers selectively call 'legal' and 'illegal' really means anything at all. It doesn't. it only means something to those who have been bamboozled by the illusion of 'law'.

If a law goes against the will of the people in a democracy it is inherently illegal, no matter what the 'law' says.

Is it the will of the American people to have the truth about E.T.'s, NASA missions, clean energy, etc. etc. hidden from them and lies offered in their place?

I doubt it.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram
If a law goes against the will of the people in a democracy it is inherently illegal, no matter what the 'law' says.

The legality of legislation isn't dependent on the will of the people but ultimately the Constitution of a country.

While you can pretend, and force, that certain legislation is lawful during a period of time, as it was seen in, for instance, the examples you pointed out, doesn't mean that it is.

Is it the will of the American people to have the truth about E.T.'s, NASA missions, clean energy, etc. etc. hidden from them and lies offered in their place? I doubt it.

Was it the will of the American people to have the development of the Atomic bomb hidden from them?

We're, then, back to the question are you against all type of classifications that prohibit public disclosure of information? Or just when the secret is something you really want to know?

Originally posted by converge

The legality of legislation isn't dependent on the will of the people but ultimately the Constitution of a country.

In theory, not in practice. Are you telling me that that U.S. presently has nothing in law which violates the Constitution? And if the constitution of a country goes against the will of the people, and the country is supposed to be a democracy according to the constitution, then the constitution would be illegal. But we are talking about the constraints of an illusion. It only has power if you believe it does and if you can persuade others that it does too.

While you can pretend, and force, that certain legislation is lawful during a period of time, as it was seen in, for instance, the examples you pointed out, doesn't mean that it is.

I agree. You make my case for me. This 'pretense' and 'forcing' of laws to fit preferred interpretations goes on all the time. It's the status quo for States. It is why McKinnon is being extradited. But as you say "While you can pretend, and force, that certain legislation is lawful ..... doesn't mean that it is." I agree. You demonstrate here how vaporous and conveniently (for the state) vague and malleable the whole notion of 'law' is.

Was it the will of the American people to have the development of the Atomic bomb hidden from them?

What's your point?

We're, then, back to the question are you against all type of classifications that prohibit public disclosure of information? Or just when the secret is something you really want to know?

I think state secrets and democracy don't mix well so that they should - at the least - be kept to an absolute minimum (personally, I'm against all state secrets, but recognise that is an extreme position and don't expect others to agree fully). But in fact, secrecy is an insidious culture which has taken over in Govt. and been grossly, horribly abused. I also think that the will of the people is always paramount. You know, as I do, that is there was a referendum on NASA's secrets, or about advanced technology, that there would be a near 100% call for the whole truth to be told.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram
I agree. You make my case for me. This 'pretense' and 'forcing' of laws to fit preferred interpretations goes on all the time.

Well, you need a case first

And I agree that it goes on all the time, but you haven't got a case until you demonstrate how these current pretense laws are in violation of the actual laws.

Remember that you are contesting that it is illegal, presently, not that it should.

I think state secrets and democracy don't mix well so that they should - at the least - be kept to an absolute minimum.

I completely agree with your statement.

But we don't know what are the reasons for the classification of the, alleged, extra-terrestrial visitation. It seems to me that you, like so many others, are arguing that it's because of nefarious reasons, but it's speculation, as almost everything is when it comes to this topic.

This is obviously a complex situation in which only the ones in the know are able to say if the classification is warranted or not, but that applies to all secret matters and that's not really the point here. The point is that from an ultimately legal point of view the cover-up might not break any laws.

Either way, I think it's an avenue that deserves some attention and exploration because if we don't think and study the laws we'll never find illegalities and we'll certainly never adapt or adopt new ones.