|
Post by lionking on Sept 23, 2006 10:54:42 GMT -4
I don't think so. Anyone who claims he has secret information and clearance is different than anyone noticing some anomalies in photos.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 23, 2006 11:18:59 GMT -4
I'm pretty sure it's not a crime in the U.S. to claim you have a clearance in the process of making up a story, as long as you don't attempt to use the fake clearance in an official context, in particular to obtain real classified information. It's definitely not a crime in the U.S. to make up stories about the government, as long as you don't libel or slander specific individuals, use the story to incite others to riot, or use the story in the service of advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
In any case, the claims fall under "whackjobs making up UFO stories" and are thus simpy not worth law enforcement attention, even though the FBI has wasted time and money on some pretty foolish things before. I think combatting bank robberies, kidnappings, and terrorism are better ways for the G-men and -women to spend their time.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Sept 23, 2006 11:26:08 GMT -4
But it is a name of an institution you would be slandering, isn't this a crime?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 23, 2006 13:14:07 GMT -4
No!
Anyone can say pretty much any thing they want about a US government organization. You can slander corporations because they have status in law as a person. As long as you don’t make intentionally false and damaging statements about the individuals managing a government agency, you can say what you want. Saying some NASA chief covered up a UFO sighting is not slanderous because no one applying rational thought would be expected to believe it and it is unlikely to hurt his reputation or future job prospects.
Things are different in other parts of the world. For instance the Turkish govnerment just tried a woman for “insulting Turkishness,” whatever that is. The insult was a line by a Kurdish character in her novel who called the Turks that killed his family “butchers”. Fortunately she was acquitted. We have some people in this country that would like to see a similar standard here but for now most of us prefer the liberal style of letting people just speak their minds without fear of government reprisal, even if they are somewhat irrational.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 23, 2006 14:52:22 GMT -4
I don't think so. Anyone who claims he has secret information and clearance is different than anyone noticing some anomalies in photos. Not to a certain mindset. You have to understand, these people already think, without any evidence at all, that the Evil Government is out to get them. If the government started prosecuting, which I agree that they probably couldn't, it would feed the delusion. Now, again, if the person in question tried to use phony credentials, that would indeed be a crime, and it would be well worth the time and money of the FBI to go after them and well worth the time and money of the US judicial system to prosecute them, etc. However, they don't seem to be. It's at the moment the apparent equivalent of trying to pick up a girl in a bar by claiming to have an impressive car. He's trying to pick up CTs by claiming to have impressive credentials, is all.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Sept 23, 2006 16:27:28 GMT -4
I disagree with both of you. Rumours from here and there do spoil the reputation of the organization, and it is where the tiny line between freedom of speach and Evil Government persecution should be drawn. Maybe it is not law in America, but I think it should be. Such are no freedoms of speach. You have the right to say that you think an organization is doing so and so, not to say that you have clearance and you are a star witness of some falsifications and untransparency going on that is against the law to do in the first place. It is like saying that you witnessed thefts in the government, not that you think the gov. is stealing. No one should remain silent on these.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 23, 2006 16:58:44 GMT -4
It is like saying that you witnessed thefts in the government, not that you think the gov. is stealing.
But if you can't show that you were in a position to have witnessed such theft then there is no reason to take the allegation seriously. I could say I witnessed a government official taking bribes in the halls of the House Of Commons, but if my credentials simply do not allow for me to have been in the House Of Commons in the first place my statement is meaningless and it is not necessary to investigate the politicians I accuse.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Sept 23, 2006 17:34:51 GMT -4
Don't you need to check these credentials first, and to inquire about them? Besides, even if your credentials don't allow you to do that, you are decieving ppl on the account of the reputation of an organization.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Sept 23, 2006 18:36:52 GMT -4
Yes, but if it is shown that I have no basis for making the accusation why would the organisation think that they need to defend themselves against such a clearly fabricated accusation?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 23, 2006 19:57:47 GMT -4
What it comes down to is the level of discernment needed to separate the genuine from the liar. Once one learns how to separate them, most BS artist are pretty easy to spot. If you need the government to do that for you, you are in trouble.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 24, 2006 21:34:56 GMT -4
However, I wonder why doesn't NASA sue people who claim they have clearances?
a) It's, as has been said, not illegal, and b) because it'd be a civil matter and Government agencies (as far as I understand) can't bring civil cases. It'd be like Coca-Cola having someone charged for having in their CV that they used to be a VP at Coke. It's not illegal to do it.
Why no investigations are carried into such acts?
If they aren't breaking the law, you can't investigate them, plain and simple.
Wouldn't that serve the truth more?
And have them shouting from the rooftops about the Government's abuse of civil liberties?
So why doesn't the FBI deal with it?
Because it's not against the Law in the US, unless they attempt to use the faked credentials in a fraudulent manner.
but it is the duty of intelligence to go after falsifications
No, it's the duty of Intelligence and Police to deal with those that break the law.
Anyone who claims he has secret information and clearance is different than anyone noticing some anomalies in photos.
But it's still not illegal. You can claim to be anything you like in the US, including a cop if you want, but unless you actually do so in a manner where you are using it to perpetrate a fraud, (such as attempting to gain entry or arrest/Cite someone, which is "Impersonating an Officer") it's not considered an offense.
But it is a name of an institution you would be slandering, isn't this a crime?
Slander is a civil case and can not be taken by Government departments. You can pretty much say anything you like about any US Govt department and they can't touch you.
Rumours from here and there do spoil the reputation of the organization, and it is where the tiny line between freedom of speech and Evil Government persecution should be drawn. Maybe it is not law in America, but I think it should be. Such are no freedoms of speech.
Here you are really getting into murky waters. I do find that it's interesting that while the US Govt is seen to be so Evil, it's one of the few Governments in the world that does let you get away with calling it evil. Try it in a lot of countries and you would be arrested. The fact that the US doesn't should be applauded. Freedom of Speech is the one major liberty that is precious above all others. If I can say want I want, I can think what I want, and that is true freedom. Went I am told what I can and can't say, my freedom is removed, and that is a world I don't want to live in. So yes, while it does allow wackos to claim anything they want too without anyone being able to stop them, it protects the rest of us allows us to think and speak as we wish as well. The irony is that so many people use this gift to slander the ones that allow them to use it, unseeming to realise that is half of what they were claiming was right, they'd be arrested for saying it in the first place because they wouldn't have free speech.
You have the right to say that you think an organization is doing so and so, not to say that you have clearance and you are a star witness of some falsifications and untransparency going on that is against the law to do in the first place. It is like saying that you witnessed thefts in the government, not that you think the gov. is stealing. No one should remain silent on these.
Again, telling people what they can and can't say is getting murky. Claiming on TV you saw a crime you didn't is not illegal. Going into the Police station and reporting a crime that didn't happen is, it's called wasting police time. Freedom of Speech allows you to do the first, as long as you don't name the person you made the claim about (That would leave you open to a civil suit,) it doesn't protect you in the second case.
Don't you need to check these credentials first, and to inquire about them?
Most of us have seen Donna Hare and her ilk before, and they don't pan out when they are put under the spotlight.
Besides, even if your credentials don't allow you to do that, you are decieving ppl on the account of the reputation of an organization.
A case could be made by those people for fraud, if they parted with money. For example, if someone claimed to be an Apollo Insider with a high up job making the Hoax and he wrote a book claiming this was how the hoax was done. If you bought that book with an expectation that what he was saying was true, and he was who he said he was, then you could have a very good case to place a civil case against him for Fraud. Trouble is that it's not worth the legal fees to do, and most people who would buy the book already want to believe the topic and so would not feed defrauded anyway. You could file a class action, if you could get enough people who read it and felt that they had been defrauded, but this is again unlikely. That really is the trouble with the legal system.
slightly off-track
or use the story in the service of advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
I wonder whether anyone has pointed this out to James Fetzer?
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Sept 25, 2006 10:11:38 GMT -4
I was measuring with laws here, where if you come up with a false accusation to the police about someone, you get punished, if I am not mistaken
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 25, 2006 17:45:09 GMT -4
I was measuring with laws here, where if you come up with a false accusation to the police about someone, you get punished, if I am not mistaken
I underlined the important part.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Sept 26, 2006 3:17:13 GMT -4
You can IIRC even claim credentials that you don't have without fear of punishment. The worst that will happen to you if you're discovered is "trial by media". We had a pretty large flap about that in Sweden some 10 years ago, with a pretty major businessman being hung out to dry for claiming a doctorate he didn't have.
The moral here is to check who you put your trust in. If you don't, be prepared to reevaluate your position when someone else does.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Sept 26, 2006 9:31:50 GMT -4
So, if someone says the government stolemoney in front of my eyes, no one would be sent to check up for the dangerous accusations? Maybe it is law, but it is not a fair law, then.
|
|