Editing Plausible deniability (section)

==Flaws==
* It is an open door to the abuse of authority by requiring that the parties in question to be said to be able to have acted independently, which, in the end, is tantamount to giving them license to act independently.<ref>[[Church Committee]] II. Section B Page 11; IV. Findings and Conclusions Section C Subsection 1 Page 261:
::''An additional possibility is that the President may, in fact, not be fully and accurately informed about a sensitive operation because he failed to receive the "circumlocutious" message.... The Committee finds that the system of Executive command and control was so inherently ambiguous that it is difficult to be certain at what level assassination activity was known and authorized. This creates the disturbing prospect that assassination activity might have been undertaken by officials of the United States Government without its having been incontrovertibly clear that there was explicit authorization from the President of the United States.''</ref>
* The denials are sometimes seen as plausible but sometimes seen through by both the media and the populace.<ref>[[Church Committee]] IV. Findings and Conclusions Section C Subsection 5  Page 277:
::''It was naive for policymakers to assume that sponsorship of actions as big as the [Bay of Pigs] invasion could be concealed. The Committee's investigation of assassination and the public disclosures which preceded the inquiry demonstrate that when the United States resorted to cloak-and-dagger tactics, its hand was ultimately exposed.''</ref>
* Plausible deniability increases the risk of misunderstanding between senior officials and their employees.<ref>[[Church Committee]] IV. Section C Subsection 5  Page 277:
::''"Plausible denial" increases the risk of misunderstanding. Subordinate officials should describe their proposals in clear, precise, and brutally frank language; superiors are entitled to, and should demand, no less''</ref>