 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / May 2008And There Went Out a Decree to NASA, et al
Specifically with respect to Challenger, Columbia, and the Freedom of Information Act, to what extent does this recent memo from George Bush have the force of law? Since Reagan/Bush and Challenger, SBU has been a nearly unpublicized issue before Congress (which of course has the constitutional authority to formulate our laws). Suddenly Bush Jr. has decided it's time for something stronger -- CUI. <http://tinyurl.com/42yp6z> "Sensitive But Unclassified" refers collectively to the various designations used heretofore within the Federal Government for documents and information that are sufficiently sensitive to warrant some level of protection from disclosure but that do not warrant classification. (For example, original film from space shuttle Mission 51-L.) [I received the above link from my Senator's office.] JTM JTM, Is this a general, philosophical question or have you been denied access to something? Assuming that you are trying to get info on a shuttle problem, will you tell us what you are seeking and what you have done to get it? Good luck, Dave M. > JTM, > > Is this a general, philosophical question or have you been denied access > to something? Beginning on January 4 of this year, my Senator's office began an effort to find out from NASA Headquarters what is meant by "sensitive," in the context used to describe various Challenger records residing in the Mission 51-L repository at Johnson Space Center. Thus far, legal counsel to my Senator has been stonewalled by NASA. On my own, I recently discovered a Library of Congress document describing SBU. I then told my Senator's legal counsel about it, at which point they found the referenced White House memo dated May 9, 2008. As I read that memo, I formed the impression that it is meant to be all things to all people, As a minimum, it appears to require a great deal of legal interpretation. > Assuming that you are trying to get info on a shuttle problem, > will you tell us what you are seeking and what you have done to get it? > > Good luck, > Dave M. That's a very long story. My 51-L FOIA requests to various NASA centers date back to mid-1986. Nevertheless, I should probably provide you with at least one pertinent example of information denied. Like the NY Times, I have been denied access to Challenger tracking film described as "sensitive." If necessary, I can provide you with its item number and description in the JSC database, along with other examples of 51-L items described as "sensitive.". JTM > Is this a general, philosophical question or have you been denied access >to something? Assuming that you are trying to get info on a shuttle problem, >will you tell us what you are seeking and what you have done to get it? He's been for over twenty years now denied access to the evidence that within seconds of the Challenger disaster, most of NASA formed an instantaneous conspiracy to cover up the true cause with an alternate yet no less shameful cause. He's also been denied access to the evidence that any such evidence exists. Also access to the evidence of the massive conspiracy to hide the evidence of the massive conspiracy. So you can understand his frustration.  SignatureJoseph Nebus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Is this a general, philosophical question or have you been denied access > >to something? Assuming that you are trying to get info on a shuttle problem, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Joseph Nebus > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If I need someone to speak for me, I'll get an attorney. In the meantime, I suggest that you either face reality or stick to your comic forums for pastime. <http://www.mission51l.com/preface.htm> "Others in American history have uncovered similar (but less sophisticated) treachery than that exposed herein. For example, the Harding administration is remembered for the extravagant financial scandal known as Teapot Dome. After ten trying years, a determined investigator was able to show that President Harding had approved the greedy rip-off of our national oil reserves. Collusion between Cabinet members and the major oil companies was at the heart of the matter. Because of comparable collusion, the major aerospace companies profited unlawfully from Mission 51-L. By restricting real openness about that treachery, the leaders of our manned-space program have managed to place nearly total control over our space shuttle launches into the hands of the main perpetrators. Surely it is not too late for informed citizens to rectify that situation." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The new Bush "control" memo quietly turns upside-down the traditional American understanding of free access to unclassified information held by our government. Bush has put the following section last, rather than first: "(26) Notwithstanding the above, information shall not be designated as CUI: a. to (i) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (ii) prevent embarrassment to the Federal Government or any Federal official, any organization, or agency; (iii) improperly or unlawfully interfere with competition in the private sector; or (iv) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require such protection; b. if it is required to be made available to the public; or c. if it has already been released to the public under proper authority." That is the point I'm trying to make in this thread. Surely folks are getting a bit sick of "shoot the messenger," after twenty years of our steadily declining role in the peaceful exploration of space. JTM On May 25, 10:56 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> wrote: > That is the point I'm trying to make in this thread. Surely folks are > getting a bit sick of "shoot the messenger," after twenty years of our > steadily declining role in the peaceful exploration of space. People of sick of you with your pointless posts and your conspiracy BS. Just another internet kook. You haven't uncovered any. You belong with the Alien and Area 51 believers. you made no point. Nothing has changed. CUI is just a new name. Same rules are in affect. How has it declined? you better watch out. The NASA people that were going to erase Danny Dot's mind might be after you next >People of sick of you with your pointless posts and your conspiracy >BS. Just another internet kook. You haven't uncovered any. You >belong with the Alien and Area 51 believers. ...Would you PLEASE just killfile the senile old bastard? 90% of sci.space.* has done so, and the only people responding to his bullshit are those who are a) clueless, b) newbies who don't know any better, and/or c) trolls like Maxson and his misbegotten ilk. Please. Killfile him and put him out of our misery. Eventually the fuckwit will die of old age, and that'll be the last of him. Until then, killfile him. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > On Sun, 25 May 2008 12:41:11 -0700 (PDT), charliexmur...@yahoo.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ > ]=====================================[ Predictable kiss-of-death follow-up. JTM On May 25, 2:41 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > On May 25, 10:56 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you better watch out. The NASA people that were going to erase Danny > Dot's mind might be after you next Typically incoherent troll-babble, JTM. > Is this a general, philosophical question SBU has been treated loosely that way until now. See: <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31845.pdf> or <http://tinyurl.com/3tyuyo> (abbreviated, HTML) "SBU has not been defined in statutory law. When using the term, some agencies refer to definitions for controlled information, such as "sensitive," in the Computer Security Act, and to information exempt from disclosure in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. The identification of information to be released pursuant to these laws may be discretionary, subject to agency interpretation and risk analysis." JTM |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.