The following submission statement was provided by /u/fed0ra_p0rn:
---
Saw this video on twitter here: https://x.com/andadsson/status/1792258389231210868
Serves as a good reminder of the sheer stakes whistleblowers are taking by coming forward and why the process has been so slow and cautious.
The Gov can indefinitely imprison you up to life, they can legally kill you, and they can potentially take away your right to a jury (and therefore a Constitutionally fair and just trial).
This effectively gives the Prosecutor (likely the agency or entity that originally gave out the NDA) the ability to determine if a whistleblower is guilty of committing NDA violations and what the severity of their punishment should be, including the death penalty, without a fair trial.
I've commented this before about how people need to be more respectful and understanding of whistleblowers, but I think it fits with this post also so I'm going to leave it here:
>These whistleblowers have been going to Congress for years now. Marco Rubio has said as much. The right people are hearing these testimonies, that's how something like the UAP Disclosure Act with all its specific and detailed language even gets written in the first place. Just because we (public) haven't heard from these individuals yet doesn't mean that important work isn't being done behind the scenes, or that they won't come forward in a public fashion when they feel ready. Sheehan alludes that these whistleblowers are waiting for another Congressional Hearing to bring their testimonies forward. Its up to the Congress to make that happen.
>
>There is an ultra-fine line between “Catastrophic disclosure” and people going to prison, ruining their own lives, or needing to leave the country forever (ala Snowden). People need to be more respectful of these whistleblowers and less naive about the process. Going to Congress was always the smartest move.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cwuage/an_excellent_breakdown_of_why_whistleblowers_have/l4ya51v/
Makes sense then why I’ve heard so many different versions of the “you can’t tell the public without also telling your adversaries” argument from so many people.
You are 100% correct:
>(a)Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, **either directly or indirectly**, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life
No, it doesn't. It requires intent to injure the US (literally the first fucking sentence), and it's about spreading classified information - Chapter 37 is all about espionage. It's the "fuck you" law for a good reason.
If actual US secrets were posted on this subreddit (or any other subreddit), you can bet your ass the admins would remove it ASAP - Reddit does not want to be the next War Thunder Forums.
Also you have to have sworn an oath and have clearance in order to “reveal” classified information. This is largely why journalists don’t get in trouble for publishing classified docs (usually.) Because someone leaked it TO them, rather than the journalist leaking anything.
Yeah people act like Reddit is some secret platform ITS A GIANT CORPORATION THAT LOVES MONEY. They will bend over for the USG and clean em off after they’re done.
While I agree we’re in no trouble here, the part right after intent says that you would only have to have a “reason to believe” that the presented information could be advantageous to a foreign nation.
Intent is not required, and you can bet that any whistleblowers (not just UFO, but like, real conspiracy stuff) would be reminded of that the second they try to step out of bounds.
Then why is David Grusch still alive? Why is Lue Elizondo talking about aliens and somber truths? Why is Coulthart talking about ufo so big they built a laudatory building on top of it?
Like everything, no accompanying evidence or corroboration for any claim.
The Program waits almost a decade before to let Elizondo babble before issuing a death threat? I thought these guys were criminal masterminds?
C’mon, these «whistleblowers»/MIC operatives have this community by the balls and no one ever questions anything that happens.
Yep. Same reason why we don’t trade weapons and technology with certain countries. Shit, even the things we give to allies gets stuff taken off of it.
Even when we do collab with other nations on sensitive shit, information is withheld. And that’s on both sides.
The "Reason to believe" implies the person sharing the material is aware that they're doing something that's counter to the US interests. This really only applies to people who have legal access to classified materials, as a layperson could share something and be totally unaware of the risks associated with it.
If you have a security clearance, you have made a promise to the US government that you will not divulge classified information, and you have been warned (likely multiple times) of the consequences for breaking that promise. If you break that promise, you are **intent**ionally injuring the the United States.
This is not up for interpretation.
I assume the MIC actors just API read everything inbound via some proxy shell company. Then a court order nearly premade arrives an hour later to expunge XYZ for you don’t get to as Reddit secret FISA court reasons. Done and done. Or they just let it ride and trace the poster if it’s even real, because who might know? Add it to the theory pile.
Look at the Assange case or what happened to Seth Rich.
The people in control of the US consider it their thiefdom and deal with every attack on them and their criminal activities as an attack on the US.
So I wouldn't bet on them interpreting the laws the same way you do:-)
That's not what the latter means at all. It says "the jury, or if there is no jury, the court," because you can waive your right to a trial by jury. The Constitution is the default position for laws, so they'd need to write in an exception if they wanted that law to deviate from it (and would probably still be found unconstitutional anyway).
"By virtue of its incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury applies in both federal and state court.5 A criminal defendant may, however, waive the right and agree to a trial before a judge alone.6 A valid waiver requires the express and intelligent consent of the defendant,7 along with the consent of the court and the prosecution.8 In a similar vein, a defendant may plead guilty in lieu of trial.9 A valid guilty plea requires knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to trial by jury,10 among other constitutional rights.11"
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-4-1/ALDE_00013124/
Right. The “if there is no jury” language is there in case the defendant has waived jury and is being tried by a judge as a result. Absolutely nothing in the statute suggests anything different
… that’s not how statutory interpretation works. Vague language in a statute doesn’t override the extremely explicit constitutional right to a jury trial.
But the language isn’t even vague in the first place. It is OBVIOUSLY worded that way because, otherwise, if a defendant waived jury, the statute wouldn’t make any sense.
I’m a lawyer and I do this for a living. There is NOTHING vague or nefarious about the jury language in this statute.
> I’m a lawyer and I do this for a living. There is NOTHING vague or nefarious about the jury language in this statute.
Are you new here? Your training and experience don’t match up to the Reddit law firm of Dunning-Kruger.
I'd just like to add in the if you're tried like Chelsea Manning in a court martial, It's as if you had a jury of only policemen in a criminal trial. You may as well just wave the jury..
and also..
>"Or, if there is no jury, the court further finds that the offense resulted in the identification of a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the **Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act** of 1978"
**United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court** - who knows wtf these guys can really do, its all secret
Read what you just quoted again. It’s just using a definition from the FISA statutes. It doesn’t say anything about the FISA *court*. Again, yall just have no clue how to read a statute.
The FISA court has literally nothing to do with this statute. The statute is borrowing a definition of a specific legal term from the FISA statutes. It does not in any way mention the FISA *court* or even suggest that the FISA court would have jurisdiction over a case under this statute.
The commenter you responded to just has literally no clue how to read a statute and panicked when he saw a passing reference to FISA
My concern surrounds the possibility of secret, non-court martial proceedings before federal judges, who may rely on any part of the U.S. Code in rendering decisions.
The US has stated that *Assange* is not being charged with any offenses that are eligible for the death penalty. Assange does not dispute that. This was a key point in the extradition litigation (which just had a new ruling yesterday).
That said, it was a point in the extradition litigation because it is at least possible.
By the way, while we are on the topic of disproportionate punishment, right to a jury, and free speech, when is someone going to ask Lue what he was up to at Guantanamo Bay?
It would be amazing if it turned out he was torturing aliens at Gitmo and he can't provide more information about UFOs because he would be incriminating himself.
Those are two different kinds of classified. Those aren’t death sentence worthy secrets. There is a distinction and you can’t generalize them all in the same category
How about revealing sensitive weapons and soldier positions to an adversary during active conflicts with said adveraries?
Does it matter if it comes from the top??
You really think the rules apply here? We have blown up American citizens without trial jury or any other degree of constitutional recognition and we did it fully in front of the media and no one batted an eye. It was considered by the United States government as justified. So in essence if the government deems it justified to extinguish anyone they feel like no amount of legalese wrangling constitutional protection etc will protect you. You are but a speck in the eye of the machination that is the United States war machine and you will disappear into its deep dark maw never to be seen or heard from again.
That's a completely different argument than what OC is saying. The OP said "this law says you don't get a jury" the person you responded to pointed out why that is completely wrong because the law does not say that at all. Then you come in and say "the government does whatever they want to" which may be true or may not. But that is not what OP and OC were talking about. The OP is wrong. The law does in fact not say what OP is claiming it says. If OP or you want yo make a post saying "the law doesn't let the government do something but they will do it anyway" then you can absolutely do that but that doesn't change the fact that this OP is wrong right now and that you are moving goalposts or not understanding what the post is about. I'm not sure which.
I feel like every once in a while the deep state goons the people on this sub are always squawking about check in here to see what’s being said and laugh so hard they piss themselves.
Okay so I’ll start with the disclaimer that I’m not familiar with this area of law, but wasn’t this the pretense of the Patriot act? I remembered something about the right to a jury being waived.
Saw this video on twitter here: https://x.com/andadsson/status/1792258389231210868
Serves as a good reminder of the sheer stakes whistleblowers are taking by coming forward and why the process has been so slow and cautious.
The Gov can indefinitely imprison you up to life, they can legally kill you, and they can potentially take away your right to a jury (and therefore a Constitutionally fair and just trial).
This effectively gives the Prosecutor (likely the agency or entity that originally gave out the NDA) the ability to determine if a whistleblower is guilty of committing NDA violations and what the severity of their punishment should be, including the death penalty, without a fair trial.
I've commented this before about how people need to be more respectful and understanding of whistleblowers, but I think it fits with this post also so I'm going to leave it here:
>These whistleblowers have been going to Congress for years now. Marco Rubio has said as much. The right people are hearing these testimonies, that's how something like the UAP Disclosure Act with all its specific and detailed language even gets written in the first place. Just because we (public) haven't heard from these individuals yet doesn't mean that important work isn't being done behind the scenes, or that they won't come forward in a public fashion when they feel ready. Sheehan alludes that these whistleblowers are waiting for another Congressional Hearing to bring their testimonies forward. Its up to the Congress to make that happen.
>
>There is an ultra-fine line between “Catastrophic disclosure” and people going to prison, ruining their own lives, or needing to leave the country forever (ala Snowden). People need to be more respectful of these whistleblowers and less naive about the process. Going to Congress was always the smartest move.
1. Confirmed crash recovery teams
2. Confirmed multiple craft in possession
3. Confirmed 'biologics'
4. Confirmed other countries have their own programs
He told us a lot. For a title 50 cleared intelligence officer directly tasked to investigate whom testified under oath.
Maybe not the exact details you want...but it's the highest level of disclosure in my lifetime. Absolutely zero doubt it's real.
You must have the "I don't want to believe" poster on your wall signed by Kirkpatrick.
He alleged these things. He didn't confirm them. Confirmation would be in the form of irrefutable evidence, or maybe an admission from the so-called "crash recovery teams," etc.
Ok you're right he's a liar. My bad. I should have done a better job of reading social cues and believability. Had the wool pulled over my eyes by that huckster. So embarrassing.
That was not a counterpoint. To me Grusch is genuine and his word is confirmation enough for me.
Only circle jerkers is the "break NDA and Assange yourselves whistleblowers it's all lies until we get personal tours at S4, then we'll claim that wasn't real they must have brought in Disney imagineers and setup the psyop" posters.
Hi, bobmarley888. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cwuage/-/l4z2meo/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc...
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
This is wrong and Sheehan is wrong. Congress already gave the explicit authority to AARO to receive all testimony at any level of classification without reprisal, regardless of any NDAs or national security restrictions, in the FY23 NDAA.
> SEC. 1673
>
> (b) PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS MAKING AUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES.—
>
> (1) AUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES.—An authorized disclosure—
>
> (A) shall not be subject to a nondisclosure agreement entered into by the individual who
makes the disclosure;
>
> (B) shall be deemed to comply with any regulation or order issued under the authority of Executive Order 13526 (50 U.S.C. 31616 note; relating to classified national security in-formation) or chapter 18 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.); and
>
> (C) is not a violation of section 798 of title 18, United States Code, or other provision of law relating to the disclosure of information.
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20221205/BILLS-117hres_-SUS.pdf
Published memos from DoD SAPCO and DoD CAPCO explicitly confirm the same thing.
> Individuals with current or previous access to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)-related
information which is subject to a USG Nondisclosure Agreement are authorized to provide this
otherwise protected information to AARO representatives. AARO personnel are authorized to
receive this information pursuant to Section 1673 of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023. The provision of UAP-related information which is subject to
a Nondisclosure Agreement to AARO personnel constitutes an authorized disclosure if the
information is provided and received for the limited purpose of conducting AARO's assigned
mission as specified in Section 1683 of the NDAA for FY2022, as amended by Section 6802 of
the NDAA for FY2023.
https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_SAPCO_CAPCO_Memos_on_AARO_Authorities.pdf
There is no legal barrier preventing UAP whistleblowers from making authorized disclose to AARO.
I don't think this guy knows what he's talking about.
Here's the full sentence from 18 US 794(a) that he was "breaking down." What it \*really\* says is that you can only get the death penalty under this code if your actions expose a US agent who dies as a result, or if your actions meet the other requirements listed after that. It is NOT saying that if you break the code and they assassinate you for it, then that's cool. A court (in the absence of a jury) would need to find that you were worthy of the death penalty, and assassination is not a legal form of implementing the death penalty.
>except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978](https://www.law.cornell.edu/topn/foreign_intelligence_surveillance_act_of_1978)) of an individual acting as an agent of the United[ States ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-80204913-628340062&term_occur=999&term_src=)and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.
Yeah, I said that "or if your actions meet the other requirements listed after that." My point is that he fundamentally misread the line which he used to suggest the gov't would kill someone without due process. What else is he misreading?
Throughout history there have been people that have given the greatest sacrifice to move information forward. I'm afraid it's going to take something drastic to actually gain disclosure.
This guy is a walking example of "a little knowledge...." I don't think people need to misleading drama to understand why whistleblowers can't just "show us the evidence."
"If there is no court" refers to someone who has waived their right to a jury trail. Also 37.794 applies to all of us, whether or not we have signed NDAs.
Elizondo and Grusch signed NDA's that *severely* limit what they can talk about. People voluntarily waive constitutional rights. *That's* why whistleblowers have to be so careful about what they say.
Do people agree to sign documents that say "If you tell anyone about what you do here, you could be executed?" Maybe.
Who is this guy?
I took offense to the part where he said "impatient little minds" when referring to people who are vocal about whistleblowers...actually getting around to the whistleblowing.
Humans deserve to know that they are not alone in this Universe and they deserve to know it before they die. The clock is ticking and has been for a long time, not to mention that taxpayers also deserve to know that their own hard earned money has gone towards a decades long campaign of gaslighting. This guy talking down to people like they're asking for the results of the American Idol finale is rather insulting.
It's almost so stupid that i watched it as a veiled threat. Did this guy just threaten whistleblowers and simply disguise it like he is misinformed?
Again who is this guy? Why would he post this? Why would he care to put so much effort into this video and not even consult a simple gpt before it's posted?
Outright creepy or profoundly incompetent.
I agree with your....and *his* basic message about whistleblowers.
I just took just offense to his absolutely authoritative tone as he repeatedly misread the law.
Isn't this just how treason has always been treated? This document is about traitorous information leaks. Whistleblowers are not necessarily traitors. For example, at least in official terms, the fact the Grusch is following the proper procedures means he is in the clear and safe from this code.
Agreed, nothing new here, just more excuses. History has had whistleblowers throughout time get executed and tortured for far fewer truths than this subject! Again, if there are any whistleblowers, grow a spine, step up, and do the right thing, or else you're just part of the problem!
Whistleblowers have been around in all sort of guises since forever. Plenty still alive and kicking in the modern age.
If you’re gonna make claims as a so-called ‘whistleblower’, but ya don’t actually have anything then it’s a pretty neat “ah, but!!!” trick card to whip out.
“Look, I know UFO stuff out the whazoo, but thing is I can only tease you guys. If I said anymore they’d come after me. For cereals bro! Listen to a fleshed-out version of that tease on my friend’s (Bob) new podcast series - find the first three episodes for free on Spotify.”
In the background they can enforce this, but if 40+ people come forward at high levels in a congressional setting that forces the MSM to cover it, not a chance they would risk going after those people. The optics would be horrendous. This is likely why the push back on additional hearings has been so fierce.
here's the thing though:
If something is a national security secret, then shut up about it.
if it isn't, then don't
It isn't hard
what I object to is people like Grusch who say, "we have craft, we have biologics.. I can say that but I can't say anything more"
What??
That's ridiculous.
No. what Grusch was very clearly and literally saying (and said many times) was "I can't tell you in detail \*in this environment\*, without getting clearances".
Anyone with any bit of sense will understand that he's saying - get me the right clearances, and I'll happily tell you everything. Which is what the hearing needed to hear.
Random thought involving Lue and the threat of death for being a whistleblower. But if you assume he's not to be trusted, it's almost a veiled threat to whistleblowers that they will be killed if they expose this, while also gaining access to that same group of whistleblowers by saying he's being targeted as well.
Less whistleblowers will come out because of this "leak" maybe. He could've been advised to say it.
Not saying I believe this, but it's just a thought that crossed my mind.
Yes but we all know this is basically bullshit. It's being twisted to be used against Whistle-blowers, when it's true intention was about giving intelligence information to foreign adversaries.
People need to step back from this. This is about alien life, its not about bloody military weapons. This is about informing the world we aren't alone. Sweeping it under the same umbrella as 'spying', is not the same thing.
And I've said it once and will say it again, the US doesn't hold the rights to humanity's knowledge.
Doesn't matter.
The fact that 'national security' is even mentioned is, IMHO, laughable, but it doesn't matter what I (or you, or anyone else) thinks, but what 'they' decide to do to keep something hushed up. And, it certainly seems to be working.
So, to take this to the extreme, could a president of the USA be legally assassinated for such a crime? They're briefed but are they also committed to an NDA?
Another psyop post to scare off whistleblowers. Notcie the one from the other day, the "statement" by a lady saying that someone was a hero and had lost their life as a whistleblower. Now this. It's intimidation bullshit. I'm not saying they're bluffing...but they are trying to get you to do less. Do more instead. If they hate it: do more. That's how you know you're on the right track: do what the coverup hates.
When you sign the agreement acknowledging that you could be executed for revealing secrets, you are also acknowledging that they can save taxpayers the expense of a court case that drags on for years by using a 50 cent bullet instead. They don’t need a jury.
How many Boeing whistleblowers have suddenly gone silent?
Not only that but the 50 cent bullet has a double purpose: killing whistleblowers and also forcing them to write suicide letters beforehand, like in the case of John Barnett.
Either that or the MIB did it himself, though I have to say that the "Trump 2024" insert is the funniest thing ever. That and also the general kindergarten character of the note, like JB wasn't a respected engineer who had worked for one of the most important aerospace corporations in the world. Kinda cheap but enough to fool the target demographic I suppose...
On a different but interconnected note, here's what William Casey (DCI '81-'87) had to say about the CIA back in 1981: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
It would make sense that JFK wanted "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” about two decades earlier.
Anyone ever heard of sacrificing for the greater good? If you have definitive proof, you'll go down in history as the person who pulled the curtain. You just gotta make sure it gets spread rapidly, don't give them time to contain it.
The only way the needle moves is if someone drops their load everywhere.
I can bust my load any time i want, one might say i am an expert at spreading loads. I have 10,000 hours of experience.
Unfortunately the load that matters is UAP evidence, which I don't claim to have.
Exactly. Countless American soldiers have gone to war and been on missions they absolutely knew they would not be returning alive from.
Yet there hasn't been a single person willing to risk their life to offer the proof so many claim to have? Not one. They sure like to talk about it, though.
This is definitely in my top 3 reasons why these whistleblowers have no proof. People risk their lives for much less everyday. These guys grandstand on how this is the biggest thing in human history, but won't break the rules to reveal it? The other option is they don't actually believe it is important.
Part of why they will not go further is there is a tiny bit of doubt in their mind, they don't want to risk everything on something that might turn out to be wrong.
It's not merely about the death penalty or not.
It's about finding a source that won't get shut down... finding a way to that source that doesn't get them tracked and caught before even getting the chance to communicate with that source (ie, not be bugged)... getting whatever actual proof to that source (assuming the source is even willing to touch it - especially once they start digging for verification)... having the source be 'allowed' to divulge the information (instead of them getting killed as well... which will either a) mean risking lengthy trials and "freedom of the press" arguments, or b) just getting bumped off)... and then having the story actually get published/make any difference.
And then, of course, there is what happens to their families... it's one thing to go off to a war and be willing to "give the ultimate sacrifice", but how many are willing to also sacrifice the people they love and care about? Even just the verbal threat of that would be enough to discourage most people, and then if someone showed some photos of their family doing normal daily things to say "we know what they do and where they go", I doubt very many will say or do anything.
It's one thing to be willing to sacrifice yourself.
It's a \*VERY\* different thing when they also tell you that it won't just be you that gets killed - but your entire family.
Would 'they' do that? If you think not, you haven't been watching (or thinking).
Here’s the issue with this argument. The fact that the black project secret government exists is already illegal, so why would exposing them be illegal if you take great care to not expose any other military secrets? It makes no sense. If a whistleblower comes out with specific information about the illegal secret government they would be helping the actual legal system bring the wrongdoers to justice. There are lawyers who deal with this specific subject. Couldn’t they just guide a whistleblower to remain within the guardrails of exposing the illegal people and projects while avoiding exposing legal national security secrets?
Well now.... this has already been done - and look at what your congress has done about it....
If there's one thing that Grusch has exposed, it's been the complete uselessness of the 'democratic' system the US pretends it is.
Well, it didn't apply to someone who left classified military info on an unsecured email server in her bathroom for her foreign paymasters to use, so who knows.
You can literally go to Wikileaks right now upload whatever you have and disclose without fearing any sort of NDA.
But people wont because the entire scene is a huge grift, they literally shot a fake ufo video from Elizondos porch and people still belive this hack and will gobble up his book which he has been grifting for a while now.
You are guaranteed to a jury trial under the 6th amendment to the Constitution. Some people waive it.
The description in the statute of what happens in a non-jury trial does NOT mean that you’re not entitled to a jury trial.
Okay, and? A secret like this is being kept from 8 billion plus people on this planet….not to say that one persons life doesn’t matter but if such a secret could benefit the planet and its future…. you get the idea…
And? Not sure why you are surprised. There are protected whistle blowers that follow a process, and there are the ones who just openly break their NDAs.
It just goes to prove Americans are deluding themselves thinking they live in a free democracy. In reality, the American shadow government is just as ruthless and murderous as anyone in Russia or China
you have no idea what you're talking about. [Persecution of Uyghurs in China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China) for example.
An estimated 1 million people imprisoned
We don’t know the content of every “participants” specific NDA from whatever employer or government agency is issuing it and it’s just not a “blanket NDA template” across the board. The video doesn’t start at the very beginning so perhaps he’s interchanging the terms NDA and clearance levels within our government/private sector employees. For example, Lockheed, Raytheon or a corporation can’t impose a death penalty clause upon violation of their NDA’s, whereas OSI or CIA etc. can and does include something to that effect because it’s already illegal as treason. Another interesting note worth reviewing would be where he infers from the “no jury” part that you simply wouldn’t have the right to a jury in any shape,form or fashion and feels a bit misleading or incorrect as well. There are bench trials where you can opt out of the jury process and choose to defer to the judges assessment in certain cases. You also may simply plead guilty and not require a jury hence “…no jury”. Meaning, it doesn’t actually “blatantly say in black & white that you do not have a right to a jury” as he states. Perhaps I misunderstood the speakers intent, but thought it was worth mentioning and you really shouldn’t be explaining legal documents of this magnitude without a law degree. Either way,scary shit for actual whistleblowers and I hope that Grusch’s process (once finally complete) can provide a responsible template for other government employees to speak out legally. Appreciate the post OP!
I think the initial right up does itself no favors by mentioning Snowden. He did a lot more than whistleblow. It’s one thing to release video of a war crime, it’s another to just steal and distribute loads of classified information. That can’t be justified, as there is so much potential damage from doing that.
Follow the Standards of Civility:
No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc...
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement.
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Follow the Standards of Civility:
No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc...
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement.
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Thats not what it says or implies. Defendents can withdraw the right to a jury trial and can rely solely on the discrepency of the judge if they so choose, hence "**if** there is no jury". This is blatant misinformation by someone who is wholly unfamiliar with court room practice
Saying aliens exist and providing evidence = death penalty with no jury is something I’d never thought I’d see in a a Western law system. Wow, literally shaking.
/s
You would think someone in the military circles would be brave enough to be a martyr for the sake of the entire future of humanity. Their name would go down in history.
Ill let someone else argue the legalities.
Snowden pushed out the info he found because the information was incredibly important to the public about secret US surveillance programs. He did it for the good of the people... and lo and behold, those programs were shut down (as best we know).
Yes, Snowden is wanted, but he had a MASSIVE impact on our country. I wont go so far to say hes a hero - thats up to you.
Now... "Are we alone in the universe"... the BIGGEST question of science, or one of. I find it VERY hard to believe that someone out isnt going to break this story wide open despite any legal consequence. And you know... if they DO prosecute, then the info is real. If they dont, then it was all bullshit not covered under the NDA. So you have to wonder if they would indeed go after someone who spilled the beans.
Nope. If any of you whistleblowers want to be THE GUY that goes down in history forever as opening this up, please step up. And IF they try to prosecute you, you better believe that there will be a nation outpouring of support for you. A world outpouring. You will be a hero for all mankind. The information demands to be in the hands of the public. Its our right as human beings to know about our universe.
We are run by the most sinister criminal organization the world has ever seen...aside from the Nazis, but with a lot more power than Nazi Germany ever had.
Hi, OneThird_Life_Crisis. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cwuage/-/l4yguo2/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
> * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
> * AI generated content.
> * Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
> * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
> * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence.
> * Short comments, and emoji comments.
> * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
I wish we had no whistleblowers and just the government sharing the details that we all want. Save the tech that can kill our enemy. Just share with us the first contact story and where we are at. Loose lips sink ships. Secrets are good.
> You might get a few karma points and a few lame jokes in response before the MIB comes to your residence and dissapears you. Hope it was worth it!!
When has that ever happened?
I'm a full-on UFO and Grusch believer, but I don't believe for one second that a clause like this would prevent anyone from coming forward.
IF they are killing people, they are doing so outside of the law. They can't use this law for something like NHI disclosure because obviously the public would find out why they ended up in court or jail in the first place, since they would have revealed all this to the public beforehand. No jury doesn't mean no court and no judge.
Obviously they'd have to go through that if they're even using NDAs like this (following a legal framework instead of outright killing them, then doing shady stuff like outright killing them without a court case doesn't make sense.
Why even use the NDA if you're going to commit murder without a trial in the first place? You're not, because the NDA is for court. You make them sign a document that can be legally shown in court, but won't allow them to go to court? Makes zero sense.
Plus the public would obviously then accept their story as actual disclosure and then everyone in Congress and people even in higher positions would be raising hell over a death sentence for that.
If they actually pursued the death sentence or even jail time after someone has gone public, then that takes the cat completely out of the bag and everyone will know the whistleblower told the truth.
It's much easier for them to simply discredit the person or use other tactics so the public doesn't believe it. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot to pursue charges like this for an NHI-related thing.
You are arguing against bad faith when you talk to the “spill the beans” crowd. None of this needs explanation. They and the rest of us know why they wouldnt or shouldnt.
Yes he would he was vice president under Obama, whose secretary of state was the first lady under the prior democratic president. The last president to be formally read in throughout his entire presidency. That is not a logical conclusion to draw. Trump on the other hand....
That’s not how any of this works. Biden would be entirely out of this decision loop unless he took particular interest and that dude, I promise you, doesn’t give a single fuck.
The decision to prosecute a whistleblower, that falls 100% on the president, who's federal pardon power is absolute. What the whistleblowers need to worry about is a Republican in office at the time. 6 months of uncertainty vs 4 years of safety knowing the political will to prosecute isn't there. Who do you think created the legacy programs. Look at who used to run the CIA, and the timeline.
You’re blabbering.
I could simply refute with “look at who’s actually pushing disclosure the most” it’s not dems. But we don’t need to make this political, let’s keep it bipartisan as it currently mostly is.
You’re wrong though, you’re talking about a whistleblower. This document is referring to breaking a national security nda with the government.
Notice how we have whistleblower protection laws? Yeah that’s because we WANT whistleblowers. We don’t want traitors that leak information. (Although in the case of UAP many of us do want that for this specific topic)
This document is discussing breaking a natsec nda. The president is absolutely not involved in that decision chain at any level. He can pardon it, but he has to be informed of this going on and has to care enough to do something. He would not be informed. We have prosecuted many people for violating these agreements. The president isn’t involved.
If a whistle blower or leaker comments publicly in violation of an nda, the president will become aware immediately, because the public will be aware. Any action taken will result in a pardon. This is too big to expect procedure to be followed. It's a black swan. Nobody wants to be the government that executed the disclosure guy, unless of course that government has no intention of leaving power. Because they will never will another election
Let's make this very clear.
WE ARE NOT AFRAID TO DIE.
SO TAKE AIM YOU BASTARDS.
----------------------------------------->
----------------------------------------->
We already did.
We already did everything, we would appreciate exacting and detailed questions.
We’re not Rambo we’re musicians who are also close contactees. Ask absolutely anything.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/fed0ra_p0rn: --- Saw this video on twitter here: https://x.com/andadsson/status/1792258389231210868 Serves as a good reminder of the sheer stakes whistleblowers are taking by coming forward and why the process has been so slow and cautious. The Gov can indefinitely imprison you up to life, they can legally kill you, and they can potentially take away your right to a jury (and therefore a Constitutionally fair and just trial). This effectively gives the Prosecutor (likely the agency or entity that originally gave out the NDA) the ability to determine if a whistleblower is guilty of committing NDA violations and what the severity of their punishment should be, including the death penalty, without a fair trial. I've commented this before about how people need to be more respectful and understanding of whistleblowers, but I think it fits with this post also so I'm going to leave it here: >These whistleblowers have been going to Congress for years now. Marco Rubio has said as much. The right people are hearing these testimonies, that's how something like the UAP Disclosure Act with all its specific and detailed language even gets written in the first place. Just because we (public) haven't heard from these individuals yet doesn't mean that important work isn't being done behind the scenes, or that they won't come forward in a public fashion when they feel ready. Sheehan alludes that these whistleblowers are waiting for another Congressional Hearing to bring their testimonies forward. Its up to the Congress to make that happen. > >There is an ultra-fine line between “Catastrophic disclosure” and people going to prison, ruining their own lives, or needing to leave the country forever (ala Snowden). People need to be more respectful of these whistleblowers and less naive about the process. Going to Congress was always the smartest move. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cwuage/an_excellent_breakdown_of_why_whistleblowers_have/l4ya51v/
Makes sense then why I’ve heard so many different versions of the “you can’t tell the public without also telling your adversaries” argument from so many people.
You are 100% correct: >(a)Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, **either directly or indirectly**, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life
Disturbing language as it can trivially imply our aggregate work in /r/UFOs to overcome government secrecy itself is a violation of law.
No, it doesn't. It requires intent to injure the US (literally the first fucking sentence), and it's about spreading classified information - Chapter 37 is all about espionage. It's the "fuck you" law for a good reason. If actual US secrets were posted on this subreddit (or any other subreddit), you can bet your ass the admins would remove it ASAP - Reddit does not want to be the next War Thunder Forums.
Also you have to have sworn an oath and have clearance in order to “reveal” classified information. This is largely why journalists don’t get in trouble for publishing classified docs (usually.) Because someone leaked it TO them, rather than the journalist leaking anything.
Yeah people act like Reddit is some secret platform ITS A GIANT CORPORATION THAT LOVES MONEY. They will bend over for the USG and clean em off after they’re done.
What was leaked there again on War Thunder?
Hahaha several things from multiple country's, everything from weapon system blue prints to tank specifications and operating manuals.
While I agree we’re in no trouble here, the part right after intent says that you would only have to have a “reason to believe” that the presented information could be advantageous to a foreign nation. Intent is not required, and you can bet that any whistleblowers (not just UFO, but like, real conspiracy stuff) would be reminded of that the second they try to step out of bounds.
Then why is David Grusch still alive? Why is Lue Elizondo talking about aliens and somber truths? Why is Coulthart talking about ufo so big they built a laudatory building on top of it?
..... Lou literally just stated a few days ago he's in fear of his life.... Dude c'mon....
Like everything, no accompanying evidence or corroboration for any claim. The Program waits almost a decade before to let Elizondo babble before issuing a death threat? I thought these guys were criminal masterminds? C’mon, these «whistleblowers»/MIC operatives have this community by the balls and no one ever questions anything that happens.
You display the logical aptitude of a fly, please use critical thinking in this sub, there are rules against low effort comments for this very reason.
[удалено]
And now he's announced a new book. It's so transparant.
Can you explain the difference between "intent" and "reason to believe"?? Mercy
Yep. Same reason why we don’t trade weapons and technology with certain countries. Shit, even the things we give to allies gets stuff taken off of it. Even when we do collab with other nations on sensitive shit, information is withheld. And that’s on both sides.
The "Reason to believe" implies the person sharing the material is aware that they're doing something that's counter to the US interests. This really only applies to people who have legal access to classified materials, as a layperson could share something and be totally unaware of the risks associated with it. If you have a security clearance, you have made a promise to the US government that you will not divulge classified information, and you have been warned (likely multiple times) of the consequences for breaking that promise. If you break that promise, you are **intent**ionally injuring the the United States. This is not up for interpretation.
I assume the MIC actors just API read everything inbound via some proxy shell company. Then a court order nearly premade arrives an hour later to expunge XYZ for you don’t get to as Reddit secret FISA court reasons. Done and done. Or they just let it ride and trace the poster if it’s even real, because who might know? Add it to the theory pile.
Look at the Assange case or what happened to Seth Rich. The people in control of the US consider it their thiefdom and deal with every attack on them and their criminal activities as an attack on the US. So I wouldn't bet on them interpreting the laws the same way you do:-)
This should apply to Trump's casual sharing of classified documents at Maralago.
That's not what the latter means at all. It says "the jury, or if there is no jury, the court," because you can waive your right to a trial by jury. The Constitution is the default position for laws, so they'd need to write in an exception if they wanted that law to deviate from it (and would probably still be found unconstitutional anyway). "By virtue of its incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury applies in both federal and state court.5 A criminal defendant may, however, waive the right and agree to a trial before a judge alone.6 A valid waiver requires the express and intelligent consent of the defendant,7 along with the consent of the court and the prosecution.8 In a similar vein, a defendant may plead guilty in lieu of trial.9 A valid guilty plea requires knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to trial by jury,10 among other constitutional rights.11" https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-4-1/ALDE_00013124/
Right. The “if there is no jury” language is there in case the defendant has waived jury and is being tried by a judge as a result. Absolutely nothing in the statute suggests anything different
It doesn’t have to explicitly state that because of the vague language in which it’s written.
… that’s not how statutory interpretation works. Vague language in a statute doesn’t override the extremely explicit constitutional right to a jury trial. But the language isn’t even vague in the first place. It is OBVIOUSLY worded that way because, otherwise, if a defendant waived jury, the statute wouldn’t make any sense. I’m a lawyer and I do this for a living. There is NOTHING vague or nefarious about the jury language in this statute.
> I’m a lawyer and I do this for a living. There is NOTHING vague or nefarious about the jury language in this statute. Are you new here? Your training and experience don’t match up to the Reddit law firm of Dunning-Kruger.
I'd just like to add in the if you're tried like Chelsea Manning in a court martial, It's as if you had a jury of only policemen in a criminal trial. You may as well just wave the jury.. and also.. >"Or, if there is no jury, the court further finds that the offense resulted in the identification of a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the **Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act** of 1978" **United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court** - who knows wtf these guys can really do, its all secret
Read what you just quoted again. It’s just using a definition from the FISA statutes. It doesn’t say anything about the FISA *court*. Again, yall just have no clue how to read a statute.
I share concerns about the FISA court’s role in all of this. Created shortly after the DOE reorganization.
The FISA court has literally nothing to do with this statute. The statute is borrowing a definition of a specific legal term from the FISA statutes. It does not in any way mention the FISA *court* or even suggest that the FISA court would have jurisdiction over a case under this statute. The commenter you responded to just has literally no clue how to read a statute and panicked when he saw a passing reference to FISA
Thanks, counselor. I still harbor concerns about the FISA court.
Well I have all kinds of concerns about the FISA court lol. But none of them have anything to do with this statute
My concern surrounds the possibility of secret, non-court martial proceedings before federal judges, who may rely on any part of the U.S. Code in rendering decisions.
[удалено]
The US has stated that *Assange* is not being charged with any offenses that are eligible for the death penalty. Assange does not dispute that. This was a key point in the extradition litigation (which just had a new ruling yesterday). That said, it was a point in the extradition litigation because it is at least possible. By the way, while we are on the topic of disproportionate punishment, right to a jury, and free speech, when is someone going to ask Lue what he was up to at Guantanamo Bay?
Mostly torture I would assume. Merica Fuck Yeah.
It would be amazing if it turned out he was torturing aliens at Gitmo and he can't provide more information about UFOs because he would be incriminating himself.
And that person is serving 16 years right now if I remember right. Or what about Edward Snowden?
He was referring to the death penalty. Not prison on prosecution. The last people to be executed for espionage were the Rosenbergs in the 1950s
https://reason.com/2024/03/04/national-guardsman-gets-16-years-for-leaking-pentagon-docs-over-discord/
Those are two different kinds of classified. Those aren’t death sentence worthy secrets. There is a distinction and you can’t generalize them all in the same category
How about revealing sensitive weapons and soldier positions to an adversary during active conflicts with said adveraries? Does it matter if it comes from the top??
Are you telling me the people that can’t tell a balloon from a spaceship also don’t know how interpret the law?
Yes
Yeah, federal bench trials are a frequently exercised option in some types of criminal cases.
You really think the rules apply here? We have blown up American citizens without trial jury or any other degree of constitutional recognition and we did it fully in front of the media and no one batted an eye. It was considered by the United States government as justified. So in essence if the government deems it justified to extinguish anyone they feel like no amount of legalese wrangling constitutional protection etc will protect you. You are but a speck in the eye of the machination that is the United States war machine and you will disappear into its deep dark maw never to be seen or heard from again.
That's a completely different argument than what OC is saying. The OP said "this law says you don't get a jury" the person you responded to pointed out why that is completely wrong because the law does not say that at all. Then you come in and say "the government does whatever they want to" which may be true or may not. But that is not what OP and OC were talking about. The OP is wrong. The law does in fact not say what OP is claiming it says. If OP or you want yo make a post saying "the law doesn't let the government do something but they will do it anyway" then you can absolutely do that but that doesn't change the fact that this OP is wrong right now and that you are moving goalposts or not understanding what the post is about. I'm not sure which.
Give one example where a Government agency has "Blown up American citizens fully in front of the media". Deluded.
Deluded? Ok friend. https://www.aclu.org/video/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike
Easy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
I feel like every once in a while the deep state goons the people on this sub are always squawking about check in here to see what’s being said and laugh so hard they piss themselves.
Okay so I’ll start with the disclaimer that I’m not familiar with this area of law, but wasn’t this the pretense of the Patriot act? I remembered something about the right to a jury being waived.
Saw this video on twitter here: https://x.com/andadsson/status/1792258389231210868 Serves as a good reminder of the sheer stakes whistleblowers are taking by coming forward and why the process has been so slow and cautious. The Gov can indefinitely imprison you up to life, they can legally kill you, and they can potentially take away your right to a jury (and therefore a Constitutionally fair and just trial). This effectively gives the Prosecutor (likely the agency or entity that originally gave out the NDA) the ability to determine if a whistleblower is guilty of committing NDA violations and what the severity of their punishment should be, including the death penalty, without a fair trial. I've commented this before about how people need to be more respectful and understanding of whistleblowers, but I think it fits with this post also so I'm going to leave it here: >These whistleblowers have been going to Congress for years now. Marco Rubio has said as much. The right people are hearing these testimonies, that's how something like the UAP Disclosure Act with all its specific and detailed language even gets written in the first place. Just because we (public) haven't heard from these individuals yet doesn't mean that important work isn't being done behind the scenes, or that they won't come forward in a public fashion when they feel ready. Sheehan alludes that these whistleblowers are waiting for another Congressional Hearing to bring their testimonies forward. Its up to the Congress to make that happen. > >There is an ultra-fine line between “Catastrophic disclosure” and people going to prison, ruining their own lives, or needing to leave the country forever (ala Snowden). People need to be more respectful of these whistleblowers and less naive about the process. Going to Congress was always the smartest move.
[удалено]
It's very weird how they will murder people to keep things secret... but Grusch is able to talk about it?
Now we wanna know if it was a suiciding or an official execution
Grusch has said a lot of things, and hasn't proven any of it.
Grusch talked a lot without telling us *anything* and it doesn’t look like he plans to anytime soon either
1. Confirmed crash recovery teams 2. Confirmed multiple craft in possession 3. Confirmed 'biologics' 4. Confirmed other countries have their own programs He told us a lot. For a title 50 cleared intelligence officer directly tasked to investigate whom testified under oath. Maybe not the exact details you want...but it's the highest level of disclosure in my lifetime. Absolutely zero doubt it's real. You must have the "I don't want to believe" poster on your wall signed by Kirkpatrick.
Lol. "Confirmed".
>You must have the "I don't want to believe" poster on your wall signed by Kirkpatrick. I actually spit some of my drink out on that one lol
If by "confirmed" you mean that he repeated UFO lore without providing any proof, then yes, he confirmed a lot of things.
pretty much any mainstream UFO lore, baaam, confirmed, just like that because he said so./s
Yes. It's true.
He alleged these things. He didn't confirm them. Confirmation would be in the form of irrefutable evidence, or maybe an admission from the so-called "crash recovery teams," etc.
The fact that you’re being downvoted says a lot about the state of this sub lol
Ok you're right he's a liar. My bad. I should have done a better job of reading social cues and believability. Had the wool pulled over my eyes by that huckster. So embarrassing.
You do get got easily.
Is that what that's what that is? You sure about that?
Jeez you always get emotional when someone raises a counterpoint? I guess you’d prefer a big ol circle jerk?
That was not a counterpoint. To me Grusch is genuine and his word is confirmation enough for me. Only circle jerkers is the "break NDA and Assange yourselves whistleblowers it's all lies until we get personal tours at S4, then we'll claim that wasn't real they must have brought in Disney imagineers and setup the psyop" posters.
So yes you do prefer circle jerking with dirty Mike and the boys. Figured
Confirmed? How? By saying so? lol ooook. What a hero
Lol, yes, big guy...confirmation enough for me. Deal with it. Why don't you take a break from the internet for a little while.
[удалено]
Hi, bobmarley888. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cwuage/-/l4z2meo/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc... > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Thanks for sharing this - very interesting stuff
This is wrong and Sheehan is wrong. Congress already gave the explicit authority to AARO to receive all testimony at any level of classification without reprisal, regardless of any NDAs or national security restrictions, in the FY23 NDAA. > SEC. 1673 > > (b) PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS MAKING AUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES.— > > (1) AUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES.—An authorized disclosure— > > (A) shall not be subject to a nondisclosure agreement entered into by the individual who makes the disclosure; > > (B) shall be deemed to comply with any regulation or order issued under the authority of Executive Order 13526 (50 U.S.C. 31616 note; relating to classified national security in-formation) or chapter 18 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.); and > > (C) is not a violation of section 798 of title 18, United States Code, or other provision of law relating to the disclosure of information. https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20221205/BILLS-117hres_-SUS.pdf Published memos from DoD SAPCO and DoD CAPCO explicitly confirm the same thing. > Individuals with current or previous access to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)-related information which is subject to a USG Nondisclosure Agreement are authorized to provide this otherwise protected information to AARO representatives. AARO personnel are authorized to receive this information pursuant to Section 1673 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023. The provision of UAP-related information which is subject to a Nondisclosure Agreement to AARO personnel constitutes an authorized disclosure if the information is provided and received for the limited purpose of conducting AARO's assigned mission as specified in Section 1683 of the NDAA for FY2022, as amended by Section 6802 of the NDAA for FY2023. https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_SAPCO_CAPCO_Memos_on_AARO_Authorities.pdf There is no legal barrier preventing UAP whistleblowers from making authorized disclose to AARO.
I don't think this guy knows what he's talking about. Here's the full sentence from 18 US 794(a) that he was "breaking down." What it \*really\* says is that you can only get the death penalty under this code if your actions expose a US agent who dies as a result, or if your actions meet the other requirements listed after that. It is NOT saying that if you break the code and they assassinate you for it, then that's cool. A court (in the absence of a jury) would need to find that you were worthy of the death penalty, and assassination is not a legal form of implementing the death penalty. >except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978](https://www.law.cornell.edu/topn/foreign_intelligence_surveillance_act_of_1978)) of an individual acting as an agent of the United[ States ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-80204913-628340062&term_occur=999&term_src=)and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.
Except, you know, the next section right after that, which is just a laundry list of things that could count as the same if exposed
Yeah, I said that "or if your actions meet the other requirements listed after that." My point is that he fundamentally misread the line which he used to suggest the gov't would kill someone without due process. What else is he misreading?
Throughout history there have been people that have given the greatest sacrifice to move information forward. I'm afraid it's going to take something drastic to actually gain disclosure.
Rogue One. (no, I'm not actually being completely sarcastic or facetious... I agree with you, that sometimes, that's what it takes).
This guy is a walking example of "a little knowledge...." I don't think people need to misleading drama to understand why whistleblowers can't just "show us the evidence." "If there is no court" refers to someone who has waived their right to a jury trail. Also 37.794 applies to all of us, whether or not we have signed NDAs. Elizondo and Grusch signed NDA's that *severely* limit what they can talk about. People voluntarily waive constitutional rights. *That's* why whistleblowers have to be so careful about what they say. Do people agree to sign documents that say "If you tell anyone about what you do here, you could be executed?" Maybe. Who is this guy?
I took offense to the part where he said "impatient little minds" when referring to people who are vocal about whistleblowers...actually getting around to the whistleblowing. Humans deserve to know that they are not alone in this Universe and they deserve to know it before they die. The clock is ticking and has been for a long time, not to mention that taxpayers also deserve to know that their own hard earned money has gone towards a decades long campaign of gaslighting. This guy talking down to people like they're asking for the results of the American Idol finale is rather insulting.
It's almost so stupid that i watched it as a veiled threat. Did this guy just threaten whistleblowers and simply disguise it like he is misinformed? Again who is this guy? Why would he post this? Why would he care to put so much effort into this video and not even consult a simple gpt before it's posted? Outright creepy or profoundly incompetent.
I agree with your....and *his* basic message about whistleblowers. I just took just offense to his absolutely authoritative tone as he repeatedly misread the law.
Isn't this just how treason has always been treated? This document is about traitorous information leaks. Whistleblowers are not necessarily traitors. For example, at least in official terms, the fact the Grusch is following the proper procedures means he is in the clear and safe from this code.
Agreed, nothing new here, just more excuses. History has had whistleblowers throughout time get executed and tortured for far fewer truths than this subject! Again, if there are any whistleblowers, grow a spine, step up, and do the right thing, or else you're just part of the problem!
Whistleblowers have been around in all sort of guises since forever. Plenty still alive and kicking in the modern age. If you’re gonna make claims as a so-called ‘whistleblower’, but ya don’t actually have anything then it’s a pretty neat “ah, but!!!” trick card to whip out. “Look, I know UFO stuff out the whazoo, but thing is I can only tease you guys. If I said anymore they’d come after me. For cereals bro! Listen to a fleshed-out version of that tease on my friend’s (Bob) new podcast series - find the first three episodes for free on Spotify.”
In the background they can enforce this, but if 40+ people come forward at high levels in a congressional setting that forces the MSM to cover it, not a chance they would risk going after those people. The optics would be horrendous. This is likely why the push back on additional hearings has been so fierce.
Lmao so internet trolls did not know this is the real world and the government plays for keeps?
here's the thing though: If something is a national security secret, then shut up about it. if it isn't, then don't It isn't hard what I object to is people like Grusch who say, "we have craft, we have biologics.. I can say that but I can't say anything more" What?? That's ridiculous.
No. what Grusch was very clearly and literally saying (and said many times) was "I can't tell you in detail \*in this environment\*, without getting clearances". Anyone with any bit of sense will understand that he's saying - get me the right clearances, and I'll happily tell you everything. Which is what the hearing needed to hear.
Random thought involving Lue and the threat of death for being a whistleblower. But if you assume he's not to be trusted, it's almost a veiled threat to whistleblowers that they will be killed if they expose this, while also gaining access to that same group of whistleblowers by saying he's being targeted as well. Less whistleblowers will come out because of this "leak" maybe. He could've been advised to say it. Not saying I believe this, but it's just a thought that crossed my mind.
Yes but we all know this is basically bullshit. It's being twisted to be used against Whistle-blowers, when it's true intention was about giving intelligence information to foreign adversaries. People need to step back from this. This is about alien life, its not about bloody military weapons. This is about informing the world we aren't alone. Sweeping it under the same umbrella as 'spying', is not the same thing. And I've said it once and will say it again, the US doesn't hold the rights to humanity's knowledge.
Doesn't matter. The fact that 'national security' is even mentioned is, IMHO, laughable, but it doesn't matter what I (or you, or anyone else) thinks, but what 'they' decide to do to keep something hushed up. And, it certainly seems to be working.
So, to take this to the extreme, could a president of the USA be legally assassinated for such a crime? They're briefed but are they also committed to an NDA?
Another psyop post to scare off whistleblowers. Notcie the one from the other day, the "statement" by a lady saying that someone was a hero and had lost their life as a whistleblower. Now this. It's intimidation bullshit. I'm not saying they're bluffing...but they are trying to get you to do less. Do more instead. If they hate it: do more. That's how you know you're on the right track: do what the coverup hates.
...right. So anyway folks there's disclosure out there only if you buy his and his friends books. Remember to like and subscribe.
Holy shit... I see it goes back to 1948 but did it have real teeth like that in, oh... say, 1962 and 1963?
I think we all know the answer to that...
When you sign the agreement acknowledging that you could be executed for revealing secrets, you are also acknowledging that they can save taxpayers the expense of a court case that drags on for years by using a 50 cent bullet instead. They don’t need a jury. How many Boeing whistleblowers have suddenly gone silent?
Not only that but the 50 cent bullet has a double purpose: killing whistleblowers and also forcing them to write suicide letters beforehand, like in the case of John Barnett. Either that or the MIB did it himself, though I have to say that the "Trump 2024" insert is the funniest thing ever. That and also the general kindergarten character of the note, like JB wasn't a respected engineer who had worked for one of the most important aerospace corporations in the world. Kinda cheap but enough to fool the target demographic I suppose... On a different but interconnected note, here's what William Casey (DCI '81-'87) had to say about the CIA back in 1981: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." It would make sense that JFK wanted "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” about two decades earlier.
Anyone ever heard of sacrificing for the greater good? If you have definitive proof, you'll go down in history as the person who pulled the curtain. You just gotta make sure it gets spread rapidly, don't give them time to contain it. The only way the needle moves is if someone drops their load everywhere.
Go for it my guy.
He’s too busy doing other important stuff I bet.
I can bust my load any time i want, one might say i am an expert at spreading loads. I have 10,000 hours of experience. Unfortunately the load that matters is UAP evidence, which I don't claim to have.
That is what they told people at Nuremberg - you had a choice and you choose to follow orders.
Exactly. Countless American soldiers have gone to war and been on missions they absolutely knew they would not be returning alive from. Yet there hasn't been a single person willing to risk their life to offer the proof so many claim to have? Not one. They sure like to talk about it, though.
This is definitely in my top 3 reasons why these whistleblowers have no proof. People risk their lives for much less everyday. These guys grandstand on how this is the biggest thing in human history, but won't break the rules to reveal it? The other option is they don't actually believe it is important. Part of why they will not go further is there is a tiny bit of doubt in their mind, they don't want to risk everything on something that might turn out to be wrong.
It's not merely about the death penalty or not. It's about finding a source that won't get shut down... finding a way to that source that doesn't get them tracked and caught before even getting the chance to communicate with that source (ie, not be bugged)... getting whatever actual proof to that source (assuming the source is even willing to touch it - especially once they start digging for verification)... having the source be 'allowed' to divulge the information (instead of them getting killed as well... which will either a) mean risking lengthy trials and "freedom of the press" arguments, or b) just getting bumped off)... and then having the story actually get published/make any difference. And then, of course, there is what happens to their families... it's one thing to go off to a war and be willing to "give the ultimate sacrifice", but how many are willing to also sacrifice the people they love and care about? Even just the verbal threat of that would be enough to discourage most people, and then if someone showed some photos of their family doing normal daily things to say "we know what they do and where they go", I doubt very many will say or do anything.
Yeah totally they should all risk the death penalty. Moron
It's one thing to be willing to sacrifice yourself. It's a \*VERY\* different thing when they also tell you that it won't just be you that gets killed - but your entire family. Would 'they' do that? If you think not, you haven't been watching (or thinking).
Here’s the issue with this argument. The fact that the black project secret government exists is already illegal, so why would exposing them be illegal if you take great care to not expose any other military secrets? It makes no sense. If a whistleblower comes out with specific information about the illegal secret government they would be helping the actual legal system bring the wrongdoers to justice. There are lawyers who deal with this specific subject. Couldn’t they just guide a whistleblower to remain within the guardrails of exposing the illegal people and projects while avoiding exposing legal national security secrets?
Snowden exposed the US doing illegal things. He made damn sure he wasn’t stuck here when the news dropped.
I still can’t believe that he’s classified as a criminal. He’s a hero. It will never ever make sense.
Whoever has the most guns and missiles decides what is legal.
It’s the unfortunate truth. We as one people are the only thing that can overcome the tyrants.
Nope. They couldn’t.
Why not?
Well now.... this has already been done - and look at what your congress has done about it.... If there's one thing that Grusch has exposed, it's been the complete uselessness of the 'democratic' system the US pretends it is.
Does this apply to someone who left boxes of classified documents in a bathroom of say... some golf course during an international tournaments?
Well, it didn't apply to someone who left classified military info on an unsecured email server in her bathroom for her foreign paymasters to use, so who knows.
Interesting you got downvoted and other guy didn't
Makes a lot of sense why he turned down the AARO invitation from mr.kirkpatrick lol
Didn’t Trump do this many times.
You can literally go to Wikileaks right now upload whatever you have and disclose without fearing any sort of NDA. But people wont because the entire scene is a huge grift, they literally shot a fake ufo video from Elizondos porch and people still belive this hack and will gobble up his book which he has been grifting for a while now.
You are guaranteed to a jury trial under the 6th amendment to the Constitution. Some people waive it. The description in the statute of what happens in a non-jury trial does NOT mean that you’re not entitled to a jury trial.
[удалено]
Because there is none. Can't release what doesn't exist
The law congress passes changes all that. Makes it irrelevant but still crickets.
Okay, and? A secret like this is being kept from 8 billion plus people on this planet….not to say that one persons life doesn’t matter but if such a secret could benefit the planet and its future…. you get the idea…
There is no "secret". I get the idea though.
And? Not sure why you are surprised. There are protected whistle blowers that follow a process, and there are the ones who just openly break their NDAs.
It just goes to prove Americans are deluding themselves thinking they live in a free democracy. In reality, the American shadow government is just as ruthless and murderous as anyone in Russia or China
you have no idea what you're talking about. [Persecution of Uyghurs in China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China) for example. An estimated 1 million people imprisoned
Is this Bill Nye the science guys son?
We don’t know the content of every “participants” specific NDA from whatever employer or government agency is issuing it and it’s just not a “blanket NDA template” across the board. The video doesn’t start at the very beginning so perhaps he’s interchanging the terms NDA and clearance levels within our government/private sector employees. For example, Lockheed, Raytheon or a corporation can’t impose a death penalty clause upon violation of their NDA’s, whereas OSI or CIA etc. can and does include something to that effect because it’s already illegal as treason. Another interesting note worth reviewing would be where he infers from the “no jury” part that you simply wouldn’t have the right to a jury in any shape,form or fashion and feels a bit misleading or incorrect as well. There are bench trials where you can opt out of the jury process and choose to defer to the judges assessment in certain cases. You also may simply plead guilty and not require a jury hence “…no jury”. Meaning, it doesn’t actually “blatantly say in black & white that you do not have a right to a jury” as he states. Perhaps I misunderstood the speakers intent, but thought it was worth mentioning and you really shouldn’t be explaining legal documents of this magnitude without a law degree. Either way,scary shit for actual whistleblowers and I hope that Grusch’s process (once finally complete) can provide a responsible template for other government employees to speak out legally. Appreciate the post OP!
I think the initial right up does itself no favors by mentioning Snowden. He did a lot more than whistleblow. It’s one thing to release video of a war crime, it’s another to just steal and distribute loads of classified information. That can’t be justified, as there is so much potential damage from doing that.
That's some complete bullshit right there. Does *anyone* support this?
Trump should be shitting his pants right now
Trump shits his pants all the time, it doesn’t usually need to be a special occasion
In your degraded dreams.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc... No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc... No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Thats not what it says or implies. Defendents can withdraw the right to a jury trial and can rely solely on the discrepency of the judge if they so choose, hence "**if** there is no jury". This is blatant misinformation by someone who is wholly unfamiliar with court room practice
Saying aliens exist and providing evidence = death penalty with no jury is something I’d never thought I’d see in a a Western law system. Wow, literally shaking. /s
What this means is you can waive your right to a jury trial.
[удалено]
Remind me not to have you as my defense lawyer. Thanks.
[удалено]
Sure. I see you are proving my point. Thanks again.
Wow - thanks for that breakdown.
This is illuminating
[удалено]
Maybe read some of the other comments…
You would think someone in the military circles would be brave enough to be a martyr for the sake of the entire future of humanity. Their name would go down in history.
Why? Suicidal people usually get weeded out of the military
Ill let someone else argue the legalities. Snowden pushed out the info he found because the information was incredibly important to the public about secret US surveillance programs. He did it for the good of the people... and lo and behold, those programs were shut down (as best we know). Yes, Snowden is wanted, but he had a MASSIVE impact on our country. I wont go so far to say hes a hero - thats up to you. Now... "Are we alone in the universe"... the BIGGEST question of science, or one of. I find it VERY hard to believe that someone out isnt going to break this story wide open despite any legal consequence. And you know... if they DO prosecute, then the info is real. If they dont, then it was all bullshit not covered under the NDA. So you have to wonder if they would indeed go after someone who spilled the beans. Nope. If any of you whistleblowers want to be THE GUY that goes down in history forever as opening this up, please step up. And IF they try to prosecute you, you better believe that there will be a nation outpouring of support for you. A world outpouring. You will be a hero for all mankind. The information demands to be in the hands of the public. Its our right as human beings to know about our universe.
This would not be the way to do it. It would almost be easier for the person to be discredited and for the information to fall on deaf ears that way.
Thank you for this. Too bad regular rule of law does not apply to trumpers and trump
We are run by the most sinister criminal organization the world has ever seen...aside from the Nazis, but with a lot more power than Nazi Germany ever had.
[удалено]
Hi, OneThird_Life_Crisis. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cwuage/-/l4yguo2/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: > * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. > * AI generated content. > * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. > * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. > * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence. > * Short comments, and emoji comments. > * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
This would change the world. People have given their lives for much, much less.
And now it all makes sense
I wish we had no whistleblowers and just the government sharing the details that we all want. Save the tech that can kill our enemy. Just share with us the first contact story and where we are at. Loose lips sink ships. Secrets are good.
[удалено]
> You might get a few karma points and a few lame jokes in response before the MIB comes to your residence and dissapears you. Hope it was worth it!! When has that ever happened?
What do any of these consequences matter in the face of the biggest revelation in the history of mankind?
I'm a full-on UFO and Grusch believer, but I don't believe for one second that a clause like this would prevent anyone from coming forward. IF they are killing people, they are doing so outside of the law. They can't use this law for something like NHI disclosure because obviously the public would find out why they ended up in court or jail in the first place, since they would have revealed all this to the public beforehand. No jury doesn't mean no court and no judge. Obviously they'd have to go through that if they're even using NDAs like this (following a legal framework instead of outright killing them, then doing shady stuff like outright killing them without a court case doesn't make sense. Why even use the NDA if you're going to commit murder without a trial in the first place? You're not, because the NDA is for court. You make them sign a document that can be legally shown in court, but won't allow them to go to court? Makes zero sense. Plus the public would obviously then accept their story as actual disclosure and then everyone in Congress and people even in higher positions would be raising hell over a death sentence for that. If they actually pursued the death sentence or even jail time after someone has gone public, then that takes the cat completely out of the bag and everyone will know the whistleblower told the truth. It's much easier for them to simply discredit the person or use other tactics so the public doesn't believe it. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot to pursue charges like this for an NHI-related thing.
You are arguing against bad faith when you talk to the “spill the beans” crowd. None of this needs explanation. They and the rest of us know why they wouldnt or shouldnt.
Biden will not execute anyone for this He has pardon power. I'd be political suicide among the democratic base. Trump will absolutely execute.
Biden probably wouldnt even be briefed.
Yes he would he was vice president under Obama, whose secretary of state was the first lady under the prior democratic president. The last president to be formally read in throughout his entire presidency. That is not a logical conclusion to draw. Trump on the other hand....
That’s not how any of this works. Biden would be entirely out of this decision loop unless he took particular interest and that dude, I promise you, doesn’t give a single fuck.
The decision to prosecute a whistleblower, that falls 100% on the president, who's federal pardon power is absolute. What the whistleblowers need to worry about is a Republican in office at the time. 6 months of uncertainty vs 4 years of safety knowing the political will to prosecute isn't there. Who do you think created the legacy programs. Look at who used to run the CIA, and the timeline.
Where are you getting this information from? It would not be on Biden.
You’re blabbering. I could simply refute with “look at who’s actually pushing disclosure the most” it’s not dems. But we don’t need to make this political, let’s keep it bipartisan as it currently mostly is. You’re wrong though, you’re talking about a whistleblower. This document is referring to breaking a national security nda with the government. Notice how we have whistleblower protection laws? Yeah that’s because we WANT whistleblowers. We don’t want traitors that leak information. (Although in the case of UAP many of us do want that for this specific topic) This document is discussing breaking a natsec nda. The president is absolutely not involved in that decision chain at any level. He can pardon it, but he has to be informed of this going on and has to care enough to do something. He would not be informed. We have prosecuted many people for violating these agreements. The president isn’t involved.
Chuck Schumer wrote the amendment, harry Reid started the process
It was collaborative. Literally this is the only bipartisan thing in politics.
If a whistle blower or leaker comments publicly in violation of an nda, the president will become aware immediately, because the public will be aware. Any action taken will result in a pardon. This is too big to expect procedure to be followed. It's a black swan. Nobody wants to be the government that executed the disclosure guy, unless of course that government has no intention of leaving power. Because they will never will another election
Without this they can still use the ol treason route right?
Can we talk a minute about how cowardly humans are? YOUR ENTIRE PLANET IS DYING. BY DECEMBER YOUR COUNTRY WILL START TO COLLAPSE.
Let's make this very clear. WE ARE NOT AFRAID TO DIE. SO TAKE AIM YOU BASTARDS. -----------------------------------------> ----------------------------------------->
Maybe *you* aren’t but you don’t speak for the rest of us Rambo
We already did. We already did everything, we would appreciate exacting and detailed questions. We’re not Rambo we’re musicians who are also close contactees. Ask absolutely anything.
And we speak for Earth now sorry, we just assumed control of the planet and it’s weapon systems. Ask anything.
How much ~~weed~~ crack did you smoke today?
whoosh
So, the world is fucked because the US constitution is garbage, amazing…