Cleared for Weird
The eye sees only what the mind
is prepared to comprehend
--Henri Bergson
It is impossible for a man to learn
what he thinks he already knows
--Epictetus
_________________
Clearly there is a need for classification of documents, sources, collection activities, etc., for military operations. This same conslusion can be made for national level operations of the federal government, but here is where Ranger loses his way. If the Federal government can hide behind the protective cloak of secrecy and the need for security, then why, too, don't the states operate in a like manner?
How have the national leaders become exempt from the democratic principle of transparency, which is the basis of democratic thought and action? When our highest elected official claim Executive Privilege, how do we the voters ever gain the needed intelligence to make meaningful election booth choices?
The concept of "need to know" is the basis of classified security programs. If the citizens foot the bills, then we have the right to know everything our leaders do in the official execution of their duties.
We the People need to be cleared for weird -- we have a need to know.
Labels: executive power, executive privilege, need to know, security clearance
posted by rangeragainstwar at 9:25 PM
13 Comments:
i agree with the great sam fuller (director/writer of the big red one and a veteran of north africa and normandy)
who said that the best way to make an anti-war movie is to show exactly what happens.
one of the most gripping devices he used was to show the time frame of the normandy invasion by the passage of time by the watch on the wrist of a dead man. as time passed, the sea grew redder and redder with the blood of the fallen.
we're not "cleared" for the information because if we knew, we would stop them.
that's why the intel was cooked, the torture hidden, the corruption masked, the press embedded, and all the other measures taken.
it wasn't draftees, dirty hippies, the press, or anything but the lying bastards of congress, four administrations, and the top brass who lost vietnam.
if they had even once told the truth about it we would never have gone, or left as soon as the truth was known.
if bush/cheney had told the truth about afghanistan and iraq, we would not have let them go in.
they lied, they went in and made themselves and their supporters filthy fucking rich.
obama is still lying. why? i don't know. i do know that our troops are still there, still fighting, still dying, for no good reason.
MB,
This post is the basis for my disconnect with DEMOCRACY as it's tortured in America. Simply stated - there is no democracy since the citizens do not have the facts to make intelligent voting decisions. Our elections are won or lost on emotional rather than intelligent content.
This is the end my friend to quote Jim Morrison, we've crossed on over to the other side.
Voting is a lie and charade.
jim
Agreed! The need for intellegent vote choice qualifies as 'need to know' for all voters to be clear for all information related to the official duties/actions of all candidates.
Ranger, I hear you, and I agree with you in some respects. However, I quite frankly don't believe the American people have the "need to know" about the work guys like me have done in our lives. Guys like me are small fish, no politics involved, but I'm not about to support entrusting human lives—both ours and those who trusted us and the US—to the American public.
Further, when it comes to matters such as weapon technical specifications and what might defeat a US combat platform and accordingly harm US troops, I don't see where the public needs such information.
If you can convince me that knowing the radar cross section of a multi-million dollar combat platform would somehow benefit the American public, then I might sign up for the full flavor of your argument. Until then, I think I'll limit myself to agreeing that politicians routinely misuse the classification system, but that some matters are indeed properly classified.
Publius,
We agree that there must be tactical and strategic OPSEC in place BUT we voted 43 into a 2nd term W/o knowing the true extent of the corruption that was the PWOT. A vote for 43 was a vote for corrupting the values of America.
We can discuss classified crap w/o endangering the collectors. Why was the NSA surveillance of American commo classified? When we aim Intell activities at the American taxpayer then we've crossed over and the collectors should be compromised.
jim
Ranger: "We can discuss classified crap w/o endangering the collectors. Why was the NSA surveillance of American commo classified? When we aim Intell activities at the American taxpayer then we've crossed over and the collectors should be compromised."
I could not agree more. The NSA activities were totally beyond the pale.
Publius,
We both know what the NSA is and isn't. They are not elected but rather a intel activity aimed at foreign sources. All of our intel seems to be moving in the military direction or if it's not then the Directors are professional military types. This bothers me but not as much as does the civilian leadership that may corrupt these functions. We'll ignore the fact that the agencies accept these depredations.
Without the facts we cannot vote with critical knowledge of the stakes. This is all that I'm trying to convey. Democracy is being short circuited and we're calling it by another name-national security. This is just another brick in the wall.
I'm glad your trip to DC was fruitful.
jim
jim
Ranger, I wonder if you really know what NSA is. Do not ever think that NSA is in any way "military." Just because it is in DOD (sort of) and also employs military personnel does not mean it is "military" or "military intelligence" in the usual sense of the word. NSA is NSA.
Then there are other intelligence agencies. Some civilian, some not. Inasmuch as you are an American concerned with civil liberties and with the conduct of intelligence personnel, the best advice I can give you is that you should always pray for miltary intelligence to be in charge. Not NSA. MI. Compared to some of the people in senior positions in various agencies, many generals, idiots that they may be, come across as very good Americans.
And that's no shit, my friend.
Publius,
You may be correct-I probably don't know what the NSA is, I make presumptions. But then again , I wonder IF I know anything.
IF I were trusting in anyone I'd take your advice and trust an MI wienie.IF..
jim
Trust me. I'm from your government and I'm here to help.
Hi there. I'm translating an espionage thriller book to Portuguese in which the expression «cleared for weird» arises:
“Roderick,” I say, lowering my voice, leaning forward while making
sure our eyes don’t break contact, “I am cleared for weird, do
you understand? I have a higher clearance than anyone in this room,
including Mr. Eways, and that’s why I’m here.”
I could only find the expression in this blog. Could you help me understand the meaning of «for weird» here?
thanks
DL,
"Cleared for Weird" is smart-ass jargon for intelligence that is rated beyond its relevance. It is a derisive way of dismissing a piece of intelligence to which someone has given a high security clearance, yet which does not merit that secret rating.
In Special Forces, we would joke that such material would have to be burned before it was read :)
jim
Thank you very much for the precious help!
Post a Comment
<< Home