The theme? Is it okay for any agency to go beyond omission of truth (as in, no comment) to out-and-out false tales? Is it okay for the legal apparati to be applied to sustaining such dis-information?
Okay, there ought to be proprietary clamps on information (truth derivatives); however, ought these be without any termination in time? So, how has the use of the non-disclosure ad infinitum been allowed? Ought there not be some timeframe put on these things so that down the pike the truth of matters can become known? Is this not especially true for payoffs and other legal maneuvers to avoid admission of guilt?
- The Justice Department is saying that our government will no longer say that some document isn’t there when it actually is in the files. This use of mis-truth has been going on for 25 years (thanks to Reagan and Meese). The blogger knows for a fact that business has been allowed to do this (next bullet) with impunity, it seems. Of course, the cynics know that we cannot expect the truth, ever (a whole set of issues here); but, do we have to accept that the use of lies can go unbounded? Oh, we tout our scientific selves?
- The Cain issues that have arisen of late have forced him to take defensive action. However, it seems that his lawyers did this years ago. How? The forceful signing of some contract that says that one cannot speak the truth about a matter. That is, those who raised the behavioral flag were muzzled. Folks, businesses do this when they enslave their workers, the so-called non-disclosure agreement. Most of these seem to have no temporal limit. How can that be allowed? Is it not unconstitutional (the right to free speech)?
So, prevarication is okay if it's done with some institutional backing? Is not that like having our people, with their weapons, decide who is to live and who is to die?