I know nothing!

Many people throughout history have always used silence as a way to protect themselves. America's version would be the Fifth Amendment. But this is used many times in a dishonesty way to further their agenda. This is very prevalent in politics. The most recent example of this would have to be Nancy Pelosi's testimony that she knew nothing of the harsh interrogation of prisoners under the Bush Administration after 9/11. But it is always very tricky to figure out whether someone is lying or not. So, further research was needed. In the editorial, http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/05/todays-debate-congress-and-the-cia.html#more, I found that current speaker of the house had "struggled to offer a consistent theory" for whether she was appraised of the situations regarding the interrogations or not. Nancy Pelosi was trying to create a truth commission to investigate the interrogating procedures tolerated by the Bush Administration. What was exposed was that she had known of these procedures as early as 2002, making no protest about them until years later. I believe that Nancy Pelosi did keep quiet and knew about these procedures. However there is some evidence that the CIA was not briefing entire committees as an oversight law requires. In some cases they had briefed as few as four lawmakers. This would give little support to Nancy Pelosi's position but help in criticizing the Bush Administration. This USA today editorial offered good insight into how information is communicated or not communicated to congress. However how congressmen or women use this information might backfire as with Nancy Pelosi. Giving an inconsistent testimony will only strengthen the case for its defendants.

Exceeding the Investigation Line

In today's war-time community, it is hard not to make a judgement on suspicious looking people. Escpecially foreigners. So, it is extremely practiced by the government when presented with employee applicants. In a recent article I found from Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,802922,00.html, John Jones was "inspected" by his potential employer. He claims, "that FBI and Civil Service investigators-asked his friends and neighbors: 'Has Jones ever agitated for labor unions? . . . Does he seem to have too many Jewish friends?- ... Is it true that he reads The Nation and The New Republic? . . . Does his face light up when the Red Army is mentioned?'" If these allegations are proved to be true, then these agencies are unfairly checking backgrounds of potential employees. There would be a concern for national security, but the applicant's privacy must be recognized and respected. A line must be drawn.