48

Congress Orders U.F.O. Records Released but Drops Bid for Broader Disclosure

A newly passed measure directs the National Archives to collect documents related to U.F.O.s and disclose confidential records within 25 years but stops short of ordering more transparency.

Congress passed legislation on Thursday that directs the government to eventually tell the public at least some of what it knows about U.F.O.s but stops short of more aggressive steps lawmakers sought to force greater transparency around unidentified phenomena and extraterrestrial activity.

The measure, which was tucked into the annual defense policy bill that won final approval with a bipartisan vote, directs the National Archives to collect government documents about “unidentified anomalous phenomena, technologies of unknown origin and nonhuman intelligence.”

Under the provision, which President Biden is expected to sign into law, any records not already officially disclosed must be made public within 25 years of their creation, unless the president determines that they must remain classified for national security reasons.

Lawmakers in both chambers have ratcheted up efforts to increase government transparency surrounding U.F.O.s and extraterrestrial matters as conspiracy theories proliferate and suspicions persist that the government is concealing information from the public. They have said Congress has reason to believe that the executive branch has concealed information about U.F.O.s that should be made public.

“This is a major, major win for government transparency on U.A.P.s, and it gives us a strong foundation for more action in the future,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, using the acronym for “unidentified anomalous phenomena,” the government term for U.F.O.s and unidentified objects.

But the measure is far weaker than what Mr. Schumer and other lawmakers in both parties had sought. Mr. Schumer succeeded over the summer in attaching a bipartisan measure to the defense bill that would have established a presidential commission with broad power to declassify government records on U.F.O.s, modeled after the panel that reviewed and released documents related to President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

The Republican-led House added a proposal by Representative Tim Burchett, Republican of Tennessee, that would have skipped any review and simply ordered the Defense Department to declassify “records relating to publicly known sightings of unidentified aerial phenomena that do not reveal sources, methods or otherwise compromise the national security of the United States.”

Unable to reconcile the two competing approaches, negotiators who hammered out a bipartisan compromise between the House and Senate on the defense policy bill ended up dropping both Mr. Schumer’s measure and Mr. Burchett’s.

“We got ripped off,” Mr. Burchett said. “We got completely hosed. They stripped out every part.”

Mr. Burchett said the “intelligence community rallied” to kill his proposal and tamp down more aggressive ones to compel broader disclosure. Another person familiar with the talks who insisted on anonymity to describe them noted that the Defense Department also had pushed back forcefully on wider measures.

The measure that ultimately was included in the defense bill grants government agencies wide latitude to keep records classified.

It permits government agencies to determine whether public release of certain records would pose a national security threat that outweighs the public interest of disclosure. Records whose release would “demonstrably and substantially impair the national security of the United States” or “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” for instance, would be exempted from disclosure. Classified records must be periodically reviewed for declassification.

“It is really an outrage the House didn’t work with us on adopting our proposal for a review board,” Mr. Schumer said. “It means that declassification of U.A.P. records will be largely up to the same entities that have blocked and obfuscated their disclosure for decades.”

Senator Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota and a co-sponsor of Mr. Schumer’s proposal, echoed his disappointment on the Senate floor Wednesday, just before the defense bill passed.

“We are lacking oversight opportunities, and we are not fulfilling our responsibilities,” Mr. Rounds said.

The Pentagon has begun stepping up the number of explanations it provides for recent videos showing unidentified phenomena, suggesting that pressure from Congress for greater transparency has had some early results.

Those videos of unidentified phenomena, captured by military sensors and released in recent years, and reports by naval aviators of strange objects have fueled speculation about U.F.O.s and extraterrestrial activity. Some of those videos have been explained as optical illusions or drones, but others remain unexplained and have become the subjects of wide and conspiratorial interest.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 6 points 11 months ago

I thought the main problem this bill was meant to address was that it was found there were tons of DoD funds being diverted into classified "UFO projects" which were then classified forever. The complete lack of accountability and obfuscation really means they could be channelling that money into literally anything. Someone in the department could be giving it all to their grandma and there would be zero paper trail or oversight.

So it's not exactly far removed from keeping the government in check. Downplaying it as "just silly UFO stuff" is exactly what they want here.

[-] osarusan@kbin.social -2 points 11 months ago

So... you're saying someone in NASA has an alien for a grandma? Because that's all I heard.

[-] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 1 points 11 months ago

NASA isn't part of the DoD, so this has nothing to do with them.

this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
48 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3016 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS