MASSIVE BANK LOOTING and Bush N COMPANY, Cover Up an Secrecy
Judson Witham
MASSIVE BANK LOOTING and Bush N COMPANY, Cover Up an Secrecy
Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:28

Bernie Ebbers, Kenny Lay, Martha Stewart and the WHOLE Harris County Texas Gang behind George W needs to ask "WHY is Kevin Brady from Woodlands Texas, (Montgomery County) NOT questioned about the HUNDREDS of ILLEGAL SUBDIVISIONS (Whitewater Style) It needs to be fully probed and all the BANKING,INSURANCE and US Postal Transactions involved COMPLETELY AUDITTED. Steriods in Baseball, WHAT A HUGE Distraction. The Great Texas Bank Job the ARCHILES HEAL of the most Powerful Political Trash in the DNC and RNC.


judson witham wrote:

Can you imagine how many election cycles you can buy for a few hundred billion looted from Banks/ S&Ls/ Wall Street and Pension Funds ? The reason for all the SECRECY is The Land Records and TAX Office mapping, County Surveyors Records and OH YEAH , INSURANCE REGULATORS papers would be DEVASTATING. Congress picked Base Ball and Steroids because these CROOKED BASTERD WIMPS do not have the integrity or NERVE to Probe and Investigate The Great Texas Bank Job. Bernie Ebbers, Kenny Lay and their BUDDIES gave how much STOLEN CASH to the Likes of Bush and Clinton et al ?

How Many elections will ONE BILLION BUY Mr. McMasters, Whitewater/Madison shit there are THOUSANDS of them - I LIE NOT

The Great Texas Bank Job

Secrecy in government a rebuke to democracy

By - Paul K. McMasters, First Amendment ombudsman at the First Amendment Center, .

"It would be a fair guess that if every page of every newspaper published in the United States on a given weekday were given over solely to reprinting the (secret) documents created that day, there would not be enough space."
Those are the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan writing in "Secrecy," a landmark report by the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, which the late senator chaired.

When the report was issued in 1997, secrecy in the federal government actually was in decline. How times have changed.

So, too, has the amount of secrecy the federal government regularly turns out. In 1995, this nation was creating 3.6 million government secrets a year. Today, we have reached a stunning pace of 14 million secrets annually a fourfold increase in a decade.

The argument for this secrecy, of course, is to make us safer. The irony is that excess secrecy can and will make us less safe.

How does a nation that celebrates the idea of openness find itself shackled to a government information system that has a default setting of secrecy? Excessive government secrecy, after all, is a rather sharp rebuke to our democratic instincts. It, too, readily accepts the rationale that to keep America's enemies at bay, we must keep America's citizens in the dark.

Government officials never have been comfortable with too much public access to information. The political impulse is to control information, not share it. Indeed, the Bush administration, like its predecessors, has not been able to resist that impulse. Even before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it was moving aggressively to constrict the flow of government information to the public.

Early in the administration, the Justice Department began working on a revision of the attorney general's implementation memorandum for the Freedom of Information Act. When finally issued in October 2001, the document sharply diminished the presumption of openness that had brought the law into being.

During the past few years, the White House and federal agencies have rebuffed requests for information from Congress, public-interest groups and the press about such crucial issues as meetings of the vice president's energy task force, detainees rounded up in the wake of 9/11, implementation of the Patriot Act, the FBI investigations into the anthrax poisonings, and treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

One of the most far-reaching changes in government information policy has been the emergence of a massive new system for putting information beyond the reach of the public, the press and Congress. This category of information is called "sensitive but unclassified" or SBU.

The decision to safeguard material as SBU can be made at very low levels, based on broad definitions and complicated criteria.

Thus, in a relatively short time, one of democracy's core principles, the "right to know" for the public, has devolved into a "need to know" for certain individuals.

The more secretive a government, the more estranged it becomes from democratic principles and traditions. And the less it benefits from the wisdom, experience, enterprise, ingenuity and support of its citizens.

Contact Paul K. McMasters, First Amendment ombudsman at the First Amendment Center, at .

Main Page - Thursday, 03/17/05

    Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


    messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)