"There are indeed cases in which merely confirming or denying the existence of certain records would reveal a classified fact, such as whether a particular person is a covert intelligence agent or the current target of lawful surveillance.
Those cases, however, are far less common than the C.I.A.’s increasingly frequent reliance on the Glomar doctrine would suggest. A study by the National Security Archive shows that federal court opinions cited the doctrine three times as often in the decade after 9/11 as in the quarter-century preceding it.
There has been a qualitative shift, too. Most of the cases before 2001, including the 1976 Glomar case, involved relatively narrow intelligence-gathering programs that were plainly within the C.I.A.’s mandate. More recently, the agency has used the Glomar doctrine to shield exceptionally controversial programs, and even unlawful conduct, including the torture and rendition of terrorism suspects."
People have this perception that the agency has become somehow not as corrupt as its historically accepted its been. That all its actions are acceptable due to the need for counter terrorism methods
It also occured to me today that many people who themselves have something to hide are the ones who stand by such things nowadays as being in line with patriotism.
Often you want to kill people off who if they testified could reveal information that would screw you. It could be that is why so many people are being killed off without a trial.
From what I have seen personally theres alot going on to cover up.
Dude Flush Gangstalking Tactics
3 hours ago