Silence: The Legal Aspects of UFO Disclosure

The legal landscape surrounding UFO disclosure is complex, rooted in powerful mechanisms designed to protect national security, maintain government functionality, and honor commercial agreements. According to the source, the secrecy surrounding the UFO mystery, described as the "biggest hot potato in government," is not necessarily illegal but rather stems from highly controlled and constitutionally permissible classification structures.

The source suggests that the government’s continued silence across fourteen presidential administrations is legal because the UFO program is shielded by executive authority and specific classification rules. The program is thought to be controlled through Special Access Programs (SAPs) or Special Compartmented Information (SCI), which are safeguarded from most members of Congress and the Senate via a restrictive "bigot list".

Crucially, access is dictated by the "need-to-know" principle, not curiosity. Curiosity is explicitly deemed insufficient to access the information, effectively eliminating "99% plus of the people" seeking disclosure.

Former CIA official Jim Semivan posits that the legal arrangement for the UFO secret was likely established in the late 1940s or early 1950s under a Presidential Emergency Action Document (PEAD). PEADs are highly classified executive drafts that, when activated during an emergency (like perceived danger to the Republic), can exempt the program from normal congressional oversight. Furthermore, security for UFOs falls under security regulations created by executive order of the President, not U.S. laws written by Congress. This powerful structure explains why officials like Admiral Wilson, Head of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were told they did not have a "need-to-know" when trying to investigate the program.

The legal necessity of maintaining silence is often tied to economics and security. The government justifies secrecy by protecting its corporate partners from espionage and honoring existing sole source contracts involving confidential material.

The current legislative push, such as the Schumer-Rounds amendment, proposes using eminent domain to force private contractors to return recovered UFO technology to the government. Eminent domain allows the state to take private property for public use, provided fair compensation is given to the owner. However, forcing companies to yield technology they may have invested in for decades, violating sole source contracts, risks immense legal and financial upheaval. The compensation required could potentially be worth "a trillion dollars, 20 trillion dollars, or 100 trillion dollars" if the recovered technology includes things like free energy. Breaking these contracts could prompt multibillion-dollar lawsuits.

Finally, the release of classified data, even small pieces, poses a major risk: it could allow foreign intelligence services, like Russia and China, to connect the dots and put together enough information to "solve the mystery," granting them "absolute dominance over negotiations". This threat to national security remains a primary legal justification for withholding the data.

Ultimately, while members of Congress may assert their right to know under the First Amendment, the source suggests that the proper legal route is for Congress to exercise its chief responsibility: writing new laws to change the existing legal framework of classification, rather than complaining about the legal execution of current security regulations.

Grant Cameron Bookshttps://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B00EFGCJRC