It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WikiLeaks 'tweets' Kennedy speech on secrecy

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
"Government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security," Kennedy told the publishers in one of the chosen excerpts.

"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings," Kennedy said.

This is an amazing speech on free speech and lake of secrecy within the state. This man is a hero in my eyes... and was probley killed for his beliefs...

This is my first utube embed so i might get it wrong if so the full link is below...

If you have time please watch....



www.youtube.com...


kx




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I actually have been seeing that this speech is taken out of context, and if you listen to the whole speech he is actually telling the press to be more secretive. I think this is why the original version of zeitgeist had it, then they took it out later.

I haven't listened to the whole thing, just saying what I heard.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
If wikileaks had been around in the 60s, Kennedy's career would have been over in months.

Can you imagine the dimplomatic chitter-chatter around the fact he was cheating on his wife almost every night with a different floozie? Or that his campaign was probably funded by organised crime? Or that while he was president he was attending cold-war summits smashed out of his face on pain-killers? What do you think leaking these secrets would have done for him?

The whole Kennedy family was rife with secrets, and JFK invented much of modern politics - dirty tricks and all.

And yeah, that video takes the speech out of context. He was calling for more secrecy..in the appropriate areas.



* I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future — for reducing this threat or living with it — there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security — a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

* This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President — two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

source: en.wikiquote.org...
edit on 6/12/10 by FatherLukeDuke because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
I actually have been seeing that this speech is taken out of context, and if you listen to the whole speech he is actually telling the press to be more secretive. I think this is why the original version of zeitgeist had it, then they took it out later.

I haven't listened to the whole thing, just saying what I heard.


Well, thanks for that little bit of "Hear/Say" evidence. Ever wonder why such testimony is never admissible in a court of law?


edit on 6-12-2010 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
If an operation such as Wikileaks had come forward in the 60's their would have been dead bankers hanging from the streetlights, Political party leaders would have been jailed, the Democratic and Republican parties would have been declared criminal organizations, along with the CFR and most Washtington think-tanks (which would have then been promptly burned to the ground). Organized crime would have buckled under the reality that their government 'investments' no longer had value. The UN would have to have been cordoned off with barbed-wire.

The US Marshall Service along with the Secret Service would have to have arrested most of the leadership of the CIA, the FBI and half the Treasury department. The IRS would have been shut down and dismantled and the Fed would have run from the country to hide in Switzerland.

The Bureau of Land Management, the Departments of Health and about 100 of the top universities of the country would have been reduced to rubble.

World leaders bearing the window dressing of a communist costume would have called for UN sanctions and authority to come in and keep the peace... and they would have gotten it.

----

All this angst and anguish because impunity is no longer part of the arsenol of the 'politically appointed' jesters our representatives send to other countries.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


lol I knew I would have a reply like this, sorry I don't have time to find the whole speech right now (normally i back up what I say). I'm dealing with my kid.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


Go and listen to the whole speech.... what plantet are you on if you think he was calling for more secrecy...

kx



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by mayabong
 


Go and listen to the whole speech.... what plantet are you on if you think he was calling for more secrecy...

kx

Errm, I've already put the quote where he calls for more secrecy, look up a few posts. It was the whole point of the speech - it was all about the Cold War. To reiterate:



This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President — two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.


It's pretty damn clear. He was asking the press not to leak state secrets that might endanger the US.
edit on 6/12/10 by FatherLukeDuke because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5

log in

join