Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/1001-1100/1037

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-15 | 7.1 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.lava.net!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Na Kaula)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy.area51,alt.paranet.abduct,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.ufo.reports
Subject: Re: Does Clinton Know ?
Date: 15 Jun 1996 12:07:25 GMT
Organization: LavaNet, Inc.
Lines: 117
Sender: hkaul@0.0.0.0
Message-ID: <4pu91t$[e-mail]>
References: <4ose4p$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
 <4p8g0e$[e-mail]> <4pdadm$[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
 <4ponlb$[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: poha045.lava.net
X-Posted-From: InterNews [e-mail]
X-Authenticated: hkaul on POP host 0.0.0.0
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.alien.research:25659 alt.alien.visitors:87497 alt.conspiracy.area51:11195 alt.paranet.abduct:5754 alt.paranet.ufo:53050 alt.ufo.reports:9269

In article <[e-mail]>
Darren Poulton <[e-mail]> writes:


> I did not allege a LEGAL basis for anything. The sad truth is that when extremely
> sensitive information is at stake a country's constitution may very well be thrown out
> the window.

And that IS a sad truth!  It is also disruptive to law and order in
that country.

What bothers me is... who makes these decisions... and why?  A legal,
government body operating under the rule of law is being circumvented
by a very small, covert group.  "Information is power"... and power is
then held in the wrong hands... and maybe for the wrong reasons... and
maybe to the detriment of the people?  I'm not saying all sensitive
information should be publicly available.  I understand the need for
'state secrets' in some areas.

But so far in my questioning and wondering on this group, I have yet to
find a good reason for keeping information about alleged UFOs/aliens
secret.  And this particular secret...(and I think we all here have
enough information to deduce that it IS a world-class secret) makes me
rather nervous wondering WHY it is such a big secret!  I have a
questioning, curious, and (I like to think) scientific mind.  The
potential introduction of EBEs does not threaten my mindset or
religious foundations, it merely piques my intense curiousity.   Why
the 'secret'?  Should I be hiding in my basement and digging a deep
hole, instead of looking for aliens?  If that is the case, I STILL want
to know... how to protect myself!
I resent the fact that someone else is making a 'non-disclosure'
decision on my behalf, but without my knowledge or consent!

> > The Constitution of the United States says, in part:
> > Article II, Section 2.  The President shall be Commander in Chief of
> > the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
> > several States, when called into the actual Service of the United
> > States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal
> > Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating
> > to the Duties of their respective Offices,...
>
> My interpretation of this snippet of your constitution, in conjunction of my knowledge
> of your countries methods for handling sensitive information would lead me to believe
> that your president would only be made aware of such information if he was required to
> make a decision based on that information. The second part of that paragraph says: "he
> may require the OPINION, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive
> departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,...".
> Nowhere (in the paragraph you've referred to) does it say that the information itself
> must be released to him. As I said in my original post - that's what he has advisors
> for.

The point I was going for is that the President is Commander in Chief.
If he 'commands' that certain information be given him, it must
(constitutionally) be done.  He is at the pinnacle of the chain of
command... (pyramid of command?)  I agree with Brian's assesment that
he has advisors that tell him 'some' of the information... but
constitutionally he has a 'right' to any information he asks for.  He
can decide for himself whether he has a 'need-to-know'.  If someone
else decides 'for the President' whether the President has a
'need-to-know', then it seems to me that they are usurping the powers
of the President.

> > By definition, any law that attempts to circumvent this power is
> > UNconstitutional.
>
> Is there such a law?

In this specific instance, I do not know.  It would not surprise me if
there was.  Some of the idiots we elect to congress allegedly to
represent us occasionally try to pass laws that fly in the face of
common-sense interpretations of the constitution.  The 'Communications
Decency Act' attempt to regulate free speech on the internet here is
just one recent example.  Fortunately the courts struck it down.

> I do know, however, that common law in your country is supposed to be
> held higher than federal law and that under common law it is possible to establish an
> independent state under certain circumstances. Why then has the longest seige in history
> only just ended (peacefully to the credit of all involved), a seige which began because
> a few of your citizens tried to do just that! It seems to me (an outsider) that your
> government doesn't really care much for common law.

You answered your own question.  It seems to me also, (an insider) that
our government doesn't really care much for common law!  It has been my
observation that our government will use every legal (and sometimes
illegal or unconstitutional) trick and trap available to it to achieve
it's own ends.  The truth is that common law is so very powerful that
it guts or invalidates a lot of illusory 'Federal' laws, and the
federal government does not want citizens to know about this.
I could rant for hours about this subject.  I was shocked and appalled
when I learned about just how far the Federal government continues to
go under the 'color of law' that has no enabling foundations.  Under
our system, a person is subject to a 'law' if he aquiesces to it!  Even
if the 'law' has no legal foundations.  If every citizen knew the
foundations of common law in this country, the Federal government would
have no teeth to use on it's own citizens.  Strangely enough, this
vision seems to be exactly what our founding fathers had in mind.  It
has been badly perverted by politics over the years.


> > First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:   Congress
> > shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> > speech,...

> Could you please explain the relevance of this to our debate?

Without it, we probably couldn't have this debate. =-)
It was a signature by-line, in celebration of the defeat of the CDA
when I posted it.

I give you credit for knowing a lot more than most US citizens about
our country....
(But then, you're an intelligence operative!)

> Thanx,
> Darren.