I gave my supporting argument and debate.Org deleted it. Noam Chomsky has plenty on the subject of how folks are controlled. If I simulate drowning on someone it is called torture, when the government initially done it it was waterboarding. There is no such thing as an eco-terrorist. Globalizing first world and third-world countries share the same media. What is an electoral college?
Here are some question that you can research for yourself to assume your own position on the issue of what might be considered intent to confuse and control the masses: What does globalization mean? How is it accomplished? What is a third-world country and how do they fit into globalization? What is a private sector and where do they get their funding? NSA? CIA? What is a propaganda model? What is a think tank? What is an eco-terrorist? What happened to the word torture in U.S. media? What is waterboarding?
I do believe that the complex language used by the goverment is used to confuse people because they don't want you to completely grasp what is going on. The issue is they want you to have a brief idea of what is going on but they do not want you to realize the cruel reality of what the system does. I agree with this because when you watch the news they do not base the way they speak on a general level it is based in a more educated manner and some people who do not have the education the politicans or president has will not be able to understand the issue fully.
No, the use of complex language by governments is meant to be ambiguous for legal reasons and not to confuse the citizens. If the government would use language that was plain and straight to the point with no wiggle room, it would be challenge from a legal aspect by any opponent and be shot down. Nothing would ever get done. Ambiguous language is naturally confusing to most people because it is not black and white. That does not mean that is its intent.
The notion that language can be classified as complex is a subjective one. Legal-speak is necessary to create and enforce laws, and although the number of people who can read and interpret said language may be small, that does not mean it is complex to everyone, much less confusing. There are many ways in which governments work antagonistically towards their populations, but using language determined by some to be complex is not a primary one. There are outlets by which citizens can synthesize and understand language they find to be complex or confusing, and the freedom that we have in first-world countries to obtain information is not inhibited by complicated language.
In internal documents and in laws, the government uses industry standards in order to be professional and to communicate with the relevant industries, but in press releases, the language is often meant to be as simple as humanly possible without reducing the vocabulary to completely lose all meaning of what is being said.
I don't think that complex language used by governments is meant to confuse citizens. It may be an offshoot of the language but not the purpose. I think the complex language is more built on tradition. It used to be written in Latin and used formal language and it has simply stayed that way.