House lawmakers demand transparency from leaders on UAP amendment’s inclusion in Defense bill | The Hill (thehill.com)

submitted 11 months ago by dm_me_your_boobs@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Some quotes from the article.

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers made a public appeal for transparency over reports of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) Thursday, after it was reported top leaders in both chambers were attempting to kill legislation related to the effort.

Interest in UAP sightings and has exploded since a July House hearing when three former Defense Department officials gave testimony on their experience with the phenomena, warning that the sightings could pose national security risks.

Included in that effort is a UAP-related amendment in the Senate’s version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a provision introduced by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.).

The UAP Disclosure Act would require the release of government records on UAP no more than 25 years after their creation unless they are found to be of enough risk to national security that they require further classification. The act would also create an official UAP Records Collection and establish a review board for the office.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

UFO conspiracists demanding transparency remind me of crypto people demanding regulatory clarity: They've gotten it but they don't like the answers so they pretend they haven't.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Exactly. They want congress to tell them there are aliens when congress can't do that because they don't have the evidence of aliens.

this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023

23 points (89.7% liked)

politics

19104 readers

2030 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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

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

Example:

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

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

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

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News