In my previous post, ‘UFO Crash Retrievals: Demanding Accountability from our Intelligence Committees,’ we navigated the intricate web of allegations woven by David Grusch, a former combat officer with a storied career in the U.S. intelligence community. The shadow of such profound government secrecy, as outlined by Grusch, may stretch beyond the imagination of some, stoking doubts and disbelief. But if we dust off the annals of history, we find startling precedents of covert programs brought into the harsh light of scrutiny through relentless oversight. These triumphs of truth didn’t happen in a vacuum. They were set into motion not just by political will, but by the tireless outcry of an informed public, demanding accountability. As we sift through these chapters from the past, we aim to glean insights that could illuminate our path forward in the quest for transparency around Grusch’s disturbing revelations.

The Church Committee: Unmasking the Shadows

U.S. Sen. Frank Church holds an Electric Dart gun during Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearings on Sept. 9, 1975. (Keystone Press/Alamy Stock Photo)

Picture it: the year is 1975. Post-Watergate, the nation is still reeling from the shock of systemic deceit by those at the highest echelons of power. This climate of distrust sets the stage for a groundbreaking investigation — the Church Committee. Led by Idaho Senator Frank Church, this senate committee launched a full-scale probe into the clandestine activities of the intelligence community, unearthing a startling web of deceit, illegal surveillance, and assassination plots. It was an unprecedented endeavor, revealing, among other things, that the CIA and FBI had been running illegal domestic operations, shattering the illusion of governmental innocence. It’s critical to remember, however, that these revelations were not purely the result of tenacious politicians flexing their oversight muscles. Public demand for accountability, fueled by journalistic exposés and rampant suspicion of the Nixon administration, became the propellant for this momentous investigation. This public pressure, coupled with the political will of committed leaders like Senator Church, led to the unmasking of deeply embedded systemic corruption.

Let’s rewind the clock a little to provide some context. Even before the Church Committee swung into action, certain events were already causing tremors in the nation’s collective consciousness. In 1974, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh blew the lid off illegal CIA activities within the United States, sending shockwaves through the public and the government alike. His explosive reporting in The New York Times uncovered a clandestine CIA operation, dubbed Operation CHAOS, which was spying on American citizens, blatantly overstepping the agency’s mandate. The fallout was immediate and intense. This news, barely a year after the Watergate scandal, added more fuel to the mounting public distrust of the government. It was clear to many that things could not continue as they were. An investigation was imminent, and with the establishment of the Church Committee in January 1975, it finally arrived.

The hearings, when they began, were a spectacle that commanded the nation’s attention. Top intelligence officials were called to testify, and their interrogations were broadcast to millions of households. And what the committee uncovered during its investigation was more shocking than most had imagined.

Impact of Church Committee and Its Relevance to the Current Situation

Members of the Church Committee met with several of President Gerald Ford’s legal counsels in June 1975. (The Intercept)

In the course of the Church Committee’s investigation, the American public learned of Project SHAMROCK — a massive surveillance program that intercepted telegrams en masse — and Operation CHAOS, which involved the CIA monitoring and infiltrating domestic anti-war and civil rights groups. It is important to note these programs were not always run solely by government entities, although this has proven to be hard to corroborate. Of the three companies involved in Project SHAMROCK: RCA Global, ITT World Communications, and Western Union International, no one could find any record of an agreement with the National Security Agency (NSA) or the United States Army Security Agency (ASA) setting forth the terms of the operation. Only RCA Global was able to produce a witness who had been involved in establishing the arrangement after World War II; the other two companies were able to produce a few witnesses — mid-level executives — who had become aware of the arrangement over the course of its existence.

Furthermore, shocking revelations came to light about assassination plots against foreign leaders, testing of drugs on unsuspecting subjects, and rampant abuses of power, all hidden behind the veil of national security. These illicit activities, once exposed, led to significant reforms, including the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to provide ongoing oversight.

These seismic shifts in intelligence oversight did not occur solely due to political will; they were propelled by a public incensed by a series of journalistic exposés and disillusioned by rampant governmental deception. A relentless press and an informed public demanded action, and their elected officials responded. The Church Committee’s work was a testament to the power of public outcry in driving institutional change.

The relevance of this historical episode to our current circumstance is clear. The allegations by David Grusch, while distinct in their specifics, are similarly suggestive of potentially grave abuses of power shrouded in secrecy. Grusch’s claims are undeniably serious, and, much like the scandalous operations of the mid-1970s, they deserve thorough investigation.

In the face of these unsettling allegations, the lessons of the Church Committee are more pertinent than ever. The necessary ingredients for effective oversight — a resolute press, a vocal public, and courageous political leadership — must coalesce once again to prompt a thorough and unflinching examination of the claims that the United States government is in possession of multiple “spacecraft” of non-human origin and have been actively working to reverse engineer these craft with the assistance of military and intelligence contractors. It is only through such a rigorous process that we can hope to restore trust in our institutions and ensure that the lessons of the past continue to illuminate our path forward.

Now, let’s shift our gaze to another defining moment in the history of oversight.

Iran-Contra Affair: Unveiling Hidden Agendas

House Iran-Contra committee chairman Lee H. Hamilton swears in former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter, July 15, 1987. To Hamilton’s right is ranking member Dick Cheney (R-WY); to Hamilton’s left is Senate Iran-Contra committee chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI). (Byrne, Iran-Contra, Wally McNamee/CORBIS)

Fast forward to the mid-1980s. Beneath the veneer of a nation healing from past scandals and grappling with geopolitical tensions, a new conspiracy was taking root. This was a time of covert arms deals, clandestine operations, and a dizzying web of deceit that spanned continents: the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

In 1986, a Lebanese news outlet published a story, then picked up by the New York Times, that would ignite a firestorm in Washington D.C. The article exposed a covert operation in which the U.S. government was selling weapons to Iran — a country under an arms embargo — and using the proceeds to fund anti-Sandinista rebels (Contras) in Nicaragua, a direct violation of the Boland Amendment, which prohibited the U.S. government from funding the Contras.

The public outrage was swift and palpable. Protests erupted across the country, demanding answers and accountability. The media, ever vigilant, amplified these demands, thrusting the issue into the spotlight and prompting swift action from Congress.

In the subsequent hearings, high-ranking officials were brought before the congressional committees, their testimonies broadcast nationwide, mirroring the spectacle of the Church Committee hearings a decade prior. Figures like Lt. Col. Oliver North were put under intense scrutiny, and their claims were dissected and deliberated in the public eye.

The Iran-Contra affair underscores the fundamental role of public awareness and outcry in unveiling the truth. Yet, the lessons from this episode go beyond the power of the press and public opinion. This affair serves as a reminder that the veil of secrecy can shield not only national security interests but also illicit activities and political maneuvers.

Guiding the Present: The Iran-Contra Affair and the UAP Inquiry

Intel chiefs Ronald Moultrie (R) Scott Bray (L) prepare to testify before a subcommittee of the House Intelligence Committee (EPA)

Following the uncovering of the Iran-Contra affair, there were significant repercussions. In 1989, several high-ranking officials were indicted, including Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and National Security Advisor John Poindexter. While some of these convictions were later overturned or pardoned, the trials served as a stern reminder of the potential for legal accountability even at the highest echelons of government.

Furthermore, the affair led to a re-evaluation of oversight procedures within the intelligence community. The Intelligence Authorization Act, enacted in 1991, required that Congress be given timely and detailed information about all covert operations. This significant reform marked a reaffirmation of Congress’ oversight role, aiming to prevent such an abuse of power from happening again.

In the context of David Grusch’s allegations, the Iran-Contra affair reiterates the urgent need for rigorous oversight. As with the arms deals and covert operations of the 1980s, Grusch’s claims suggest a possibility of deeply entrenched and covert operations that stretch beyond the immediate purview of any single governmental department. The call for accountability, then, is not simply a demand for transparency, but a critical step toward upholding the principles of justice and democratic governance.

As we navigate the convoluted landscape of the current UAP investigation, we can draw strength and guidance from these chapters of our past. Let them serve as a reminder that public demand for truth, coupled with relentless journalistic inquiry and resolute political leadership, has the power to bring even the most shadowy of operations to light.

The question remains, will history repeat itself once more? Will our collective demand for truth and accountability be enough to uncover what lies behind Grusch’s disturbing allegations? Only time will tell. But if the past is any indication, we hold more power than we might think.

And it is up to us to use it.