Here's an Idea

[05 Busa LE]

I woke up in the middle of the night--couldn't sleep--so I turned on the TV and saw some politician talking (couldn't even identify the person) ... and then it came to me. Since citizens can be jailed if they give "false statements" to the government ... how about the reverse?

Any time a government employee does not tell the truth to the public (and we'd have to figure out how this is defined, but it's only a detail), then they would be liable for a public offense, ranging from misdemeanors for "white lies" to felonies for fraud. Included would be statements that any government employee--including politicians--makes to the public.

And you could have a "safe harbor" provision for confidential information or for people that don't want to lie. For example, if you ask a politician a question, and it's either confidential information (which we would have to define) or they don't want to lie, they could say something like "I cannot answer on the grounds that it [(is confidential information) or (may incriminate me).]" If it's not confidential, and they simply don't want to lie, then it's nothing more than your basic Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

This way, government employees either tell you the truth, or then don't say anything at all.

Comments?

 

[MC MUSTANG]

Interesting idea...
One problem that I see is that sometimes Gov't employees are given information as truth, but it is not true... meaning that someone could make statements as they believe them to be true, but that ultimately never pan out that way.

 

[LCB]

Or only part of the truth... a few key details are missing.

I think that's been referred to as "Plausible Deniability"... or something like that...

 

[VaBusa]

I work for local gov't and I can tell you, citizens don't know 1/2 of what really goes on behind the scenes, the messes created by appeasing the powers that be, the things that are never fully disclosed to prevent an uproar...I've said on more than one occasion that if it's this bad in small town America, I'm not so sure I could handle knowing just how bad it gets near the top...honestly, do you really want to know?

 

[inthexring]

YES ha ha

 

[VaBusa]

Yeah, so would I! LOL

I just see an endless cycle of "no one's accountable", so it would be nearly impossible to ever enforce without revamping everything...

 

[thrasherfox]

realistically. because of how our society is, how our world is, there are things the government cannot be honest about.

In some instances the ends do justify the means.

And this is the honest truth, trust me. I work for the government

 

[VaBusa]

Politics breeds a certain kind of person...sure, there are honest politicians out there, maybe...

I don't know any, but I digress...

It seems to be understood that if you're an elected official of the gov't, you get away with certain things, you're not accountable unless it's really bad and no one else was there to take the blame and what kills me the most is NO ONE bothers to really dig for the truth anymore...you're hit with smoke and mirrors and dead-ends and things that can't be asked for under FOIA...the list goes on and on...

I hate politics and I really, really suck at playing the game...I work with two political offices and let me tell you, it's tough to be a gal like me in a sea of corruption...I hate it and have learned that blinders are good...

 

[LCB]

*hands over ears*

lalalalalalalalalalala.....

 

[VaBusa]

(LCB @ Mar. 19 2007,14:49) *hands over ears*

lalalalalalalalalalala.....

Yep, that too!!

 

[MoosesBusa]

If we enacted that plan everybody in the government would be in jail. Now that's not necessarily a bad thing but in all reality it would break the law regarding cruel and unusual punishment ........ for the criminals already in there!!!

 

[05 Busa LE]

(MC MUSTANG @ Mar. 19 2007,10:44) Interesting idea...
One problem that I see is that sometimes Gov't employees are given information as truth, but it is not true... meaning that someone could make statements as they believe them to be true, but that ultimately never pan out that way.

Good point, MC.

So maybe there are excuses written into the law ... if you REASONABLY believed that the information was true, then you're OK. If it was not reasonable, then you're in trouble.

If the government can enforce a similar law against its citizens, then why can't we model a similar statute against the government?

 

[05 Busa LE]

(VaBusa @ Mar. 19 2007,14:14) I work for local gov't and I can tell you, citizens don't know 1/2 of what really goes on behind the scenes, the messes created by appeasing the powers that be, the things that are never fully disclosed to prevent an uproar...I've said on more than one occasion that if it's this bad in small town America, I'm not so sure I could handle knowing just how bad it gets near the top...honestly, do you really want to know?  

I've worked in a very limited capacity in government, and know exactly what you mean, Michelle. "Stuff" goes on all the time, and that'll never stop.

But my point is that when you actually tell the public something, you're now going to be held accountable. This way, you either tell us the truth, or don't say anything.

No more lies.

Truth or Silence.

 

[05 Busa LE]

(thrasherfox @ Mar. 19 2007,14

) realistically. because of how our society is, how our world is, there are things the government cannot be honest about.

In some instances the ends do justify the means.

And this is the honest truth, trust me. I work for the government

I agree 100% TF.  We, the public, can't know certain things, and will never know them.  And I think it's appropriate in certain circumstances to keep information from us in order to keep us free and safe.

But when you do tell us something, it better be the truth.  And if you can't answer truthfully, don't lie, just tell us that you can't tell us.

 

[05 Busa LE]

(VaBusa @ Mar. 19 2007,14:39) Politics breeds a certain kind of person...sure, there are honest politicians out there, maybe...

 I don't know any, but I digress...

It seems to be understood that if you're an elected official of the gov't, you get away with certain things, you're not accountable unless it's really bad and no one else was there to take the blame and what kills me the most is NO ONE bothers to really dig for the truth anymore...you're hit with smoke and mirrors and dead-ends and things that can't be asked for under FOIA...the list goes on and on...

I hate politics and I really, really suck at playing the game...I work with two political offices and let me tell you, it's tough to be a gal like me in a sea of corruption...I hate it and have learned that blinders are good...

That's why this law would be good ... no more lying and deceit. You tell us how it is, or you don't tell us at all.

 

[thrasherfox]

(05 Busa LE @ Mar. 19 2007,13:25)

(thrasherfox @ Mar. 19 2007,14

) realistically. because of how our society is, how our world is, there are things the government cannot be honest about.

In some instances the ends do justify the means.

And this is the honest truth, trust me. I work for the government

I agree 100% TF.  We, the public, can't know certain things, and will never know them.  And I think it's appropriate in certain circumstances to keep information from us in order to keep us free and safe.

But when you do tell us something, it better be the truth.  And if you can't answer truthfully, don't lie, just tell us that you can't tell us.

The problem 05 is that if you give an answer to something that is not truthful, but leads people in another direction. 80% of the people will be satisified with the answer and move on.

if you answew a question with. "I cannot give you that answer"

80% of the people will want to know and hound you until your life is miserable or until they find out the truth.

human beings are curious creatures and have a thirst for knowledge, most humans cannot except the answer "you are not entitled to know" us humans want and feel we need to know everything. At least most do.

So the best and most efficient way to not tell someone the truth is to misinform them and move on.

I guess the quickest example I can give is in my job. There are times I go places and all I tell my wife is I am going here or I am going there. she rarely knows specifics and fortuantley I am blessed with a wife who knows I cant tell her stuff, so she just never asks.

it used to drive her mom nuts though. I would go away somewhere and her mom would ask "where is Ron" and she would reply "I dont know" when is he coming back?" I am not sure. "How can you just let him go away and not know where he is going, when he is coming back and what he is doing?" its none of my business.

So yeah, my wife is pretty good about it.

My mother in-law got a little frustrated with the whole thing until my father in-law explained to her it was non of her business (he is retired military). And it was just part of my job.


so the point is, some people dont deal well with being told they are not allowed to know something. yet if you tell the public things that they should not know, it often equates to costing American lives, OR it will cause people large amounts of stress they have no control over.

for example, if there was a large asteroid going to impact the planet and there was no escape, no where to hide, no where to be safe even if you knew it was coming. why bother telling anyone?

All it is going to do is cause wide spread panic and make peoples last hours alive miserable, let people live in ignorant bliss until the very end

And somethings just never happen. What about the cuban missle crisis? if I remember correctly we were like moments away from some serious crap, and at the last minute the crisis was controlled.

No one knew about it until years later. If the public would have been made aware right then when things were happening no telling what would have happened and  how things would have turned out. But I dont think the public knowing would have helped, it more than likley would have made things much worse.

just food for thought from my perspective

 

[05 Busa LE]

All excellent points.

I recall G. Gordon Liddy, when he was on Howard Stern's show with his son--a former Black Op--maybe a year or so ago, telling the story about how he would try to find out where in the world his son was when he'd call home--by trying to figure out the time. He never could, and his son never spoke about anything. So I understand what you're saying, and also compliment you on being fortunate to have a wife that understands.

If the asteroid was going to hit, I'd want to know to make my peace. Like knowing how and when you're going to die. If it's knowable, then it's your human right to know. Yes it'll cause chaos, but if that's all she wrote, then what's the difference?

The Cuban Missle Crisis is another excellent example. That's one of those things that, at the time, we simply couldn't--and shouldn't--have known about. Too sensitive and too charged. But if we don't know, then nobody asks, and then nobody lies. But in today's world, it would be too hard to keep that one from CNN ... Soviet ships steaming toward Cuba ....

If someone leaks the information and the press asks, then you simply don't answer, and then find and penalize the person who leaked the information. I guess it's like being under oath; maybe there's a time and place for it.

Good hearing your thoughts.

 

[05 Busa LE]

PS  Regarding "misinformation," I recall hearing on CNN at some point that the government had a "bureau" of misinformation that they would use to feed, I believe, the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I recall that after it was discovered, it was discontinued.  Now, in that situation, I wholly support those efforts because it protects our freedom and our safety.

 

[thrasherfox]

Well something else to take into consideration between the Cuban missile crisis and now and in reference to the media.

You are right, there is NO WAY we could keep CNN from finding out about Soviet Ships heading towards Cuba.

And while we are in a more connected world today than we were back then, it doesn’t mean that the news media didn’t find out about stuff back then.

the difference was back then the news media was more patriotic than those of the media today. They also had more common sense and were not driven to fame and glory and driven by the hunger for power that a good story would bring.

Back then the news media probably had contacts and sources and new a lot, however they new when they could report on things that would not cause wide spread panic, they knew what they could report on without stabbing the country in the back.

These days with reporters being embedded and more concerned with getting a story out than they are about giving away troop movement and location, or embedded reporters being more concerned about doing what is "right" in a combat zone vs. what is life and death necessary.

I personally do not feel it is so much an issue if not being able to hide things from the media as it is more of an issue of the media being more irresponsible.


But yes, there are times (often times) our politicians could and should tell the truth and they too often take liberty in knowing they don’t have to.

My comments are primarily focused towards military application and the defense of our country, too often government entities that are involved in day to day politics NOT dealing with national security do lie for their own benefit. in those cases I would not have a problem with them being held accountable.

But how does a society that is not allowed to know stuff going to be able to differentiate between what is national security and what isn’t? when they can raise the BS flag and when they shouldn’t?

The only way for that to happen is to have the government monitor itself and police itself. and like the old saying goes. that is like the fox guarding the hen house


Just my opinion