At 07:10 AM 7/9/96 -0700, Ernest Hua wrote:
Ok. Not that I really care, at this point, who really killed Kennedy or whether there was this or that conspiracy, but I am really sick of this bull shit "national security" excuse.
What kind of "national security" excuse could there be for the CIA to say whether they confirm or deny the employment of some guy (whom they could easily discredit by saying that they have nothing to do with him)?
It has always seemed to me that when they say "National Security" what they mean is "Job Security". Usually this involves some sort of behaviour that the government (or in-duh-viduals in it) do not want revealed, lest the scandal might drive them from their job or get them demoted. (Or their boss might demand "a peice of the action".) Sometimes it is just a relex action to a request for information. I remember such excuses being given during the Iran Contra hearings. They kept refering to "Country 1" and "Country 2", while the Pacifica commentator was in the background telling you what each country was and who most of the "unnamed players" were. The information was not unknown. It had been reported in the foriegn press already. It was known to other governments. The only people it was being kept from was the American people. Makes you wonder just who they are trying to remain secure from... --- Alan Olsen -- alano@teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano@teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."