Yeah, and lack of a public version (even if the classified version was already produced) makes people inclined to distrust AARO even more suspicious, which is somewhat understandable. I would think their workload for the last year has increased from the UAP Caucus requests behind closed doors and the PURSUE work for the last six months.
These are just my opinions, and perhaps they're more feelings than anything else, so please consider them as such. I can't help feeling some empathy for the people tasked with investigating all of this and the release of AARO's second historical report. Perhaps it's a combination of institutional self-preservation, genuine concern for the people involved, legal complications, and an understandable reluctance to open another enormous can of worms.
Take Sean Kirkpatrick, for example. He has publicly acknowledged that he didn't particularly want the job in the first place. In an
interview with Peter Bergen and its leading someone turning up at his home.
External Quote:
Peter Bergen: Were you volun-told, then, to run the office?
Sean Kirkpatrick: Yeah, basically.
External Quote:
"I even had some guy show up at my house. It makes it very difficult to do this job.
When Bergen asked him to explain, Kirkpatrick said:
External Quote:
And unfortunately, my wife came across him
He's
spoken about threats against his wife and daughter, attempts to compromise their online accounts,
External Quote:
I've had people threaten my wife and daughter, and try to break into our online accounts
That's an appalling situation for somebody simply trying to do their job.
I believe this was all an unofficial, elaborate hazing ritual and a disinformation campaign carried out by individuals who genuinely believed they were doing the right thing. But that's hardly a comfortable discovery for these individuals/institutional. If this is the case, we're potentially dealing with something much more consequential than a practical joke. I struggle to imagine there being much institutional enthusiasm for bringing all of this into the open.
Because what happens next? Let's suppose the investigation identifies the individuals involved.
There would almost certainly be demands for accountability. Some people might call for disciplinary action or even criminal prosecution, depending on what actually happened and whether any laws were broken.
But beyond the potential legal consequences, there's also the personal dimension. What if those names eventually become public, whether through the report itself or Freedom of Information Act requests? I suspect some of the same people who have relentlessly targeted Kirkpatrick would turn their attention towards these individuals and their families.
So where does that leave the people responsible for writing and releasing this report?
They're almost caught in a catch-22. This reminds me of the empathy I sometimes feel for people working in classification reviews or handling Freedom of Information requests. It's almost a Type I versus Type II error problem, in the sense that the costs of making one kind of mistake may be perceived as vastly greater than the costs of making the other. The potential benefits of disclosure might seem very abstract, while the potential consequences are painfully concrete.
I wonder whether all of this is why we're seeing the continued absence of Volume II.
Personally, I think they should make a clean breast of the whole situation. They should withhold the names of the individuals involved, handle any disciplinary issues internally, and introduce some in-house training to address whatever went wrong. They should also publicly acknowledge that they're taking these steps.
If the concerns I've outlined are genuinely part of the reason for the delay, I think they should come out and say so in plain language. Something along the lines of: "This shouldn't have happened. We're going to handle it internally, and we're taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. But we're also concerned about the possibility of reprisals against the individuals involved and their families from some members of the UFO believer community."
Notwithstanding the fact that it's easy for those of us on the outside to demand disclosure, it's quite another thing to be the person who has to sign off on releasing material that could have serious consequences for real people. And I do wonder whether we're giving that side of the equation enough consideration.
