"not in the national interest."

[Questioninggeller]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/abu_ghraib_cover_up_040521-1.html

Continuing the Cover-Up?
Military Takes Action Against Key Witness in Abu Ghraib Abuse Scandal

By Brian Ross and Alexandra Salomon

May 21, 2004 — A witness who told ABCNEWS he believed the military was covering up the extent of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison was today stripped of his security clearance and told he may face prosecution because his comments were "not in the national interest."

I believe justice and free speech are national interests.

and still

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/19/iraq/main594228.shtml

Several members of Congress said Mr. Bush expressed his determination to stick to a June 30 date for handing partial governing authority to Iraqis.

I'm thinking of LBJ who said, “I just don’t think it’s worth fighting for, and I don’t think we can get out. It’s just the biggest damn mess” as he tells the public he sees the light at the end of tunnel.

 

[Bjorn]

.... was stripped of his security clearance and told he may face prosecution because his comments were "not in the national interest."

Provance said he was told he will face administrative action for failing to report what he knew at the time and for failing to take steps to stop the abuse.

I wonder if his comments would have been "in the national interest" if he had made them earlier?