posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 11:01 AM
"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 secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far
outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its
arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there
is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of
official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration,
whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to
cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on
infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies
by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that
combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is
questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
"No President should fear public scrutinity of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or
opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of
informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers-- I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise
man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we
expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-- and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon
decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First (emphasized) Amendment-- the only
business in America specifically protected by the Constitution-- not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental,
not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our
crises and our choices, to lead, mold educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news-- for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means
greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must
meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security...
"And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of mans deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news-- that we look for strength
and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."
This all came from John F Kennedy, lets consider if kennedy would consider the 30,000 drones flying over americans?