Difference between revisions of "National security"
(Expand on CPS) |
m (t) |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
|url=http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=rowe&sessionid=3387897&skin=hudoc-en }}</ref> | |url=http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=rowe&sessionid=3387897&skin=hudoc-en }}</ref> | ||
− | The | + | The [[Attorney General for England and Wales]] leads the [[Crown Prosecution Service]], a purportedly largely independent body, but which has an exception for "national security". In 2015, [[The Mirror]] quoted a detective sergeant as saying in the 1980s that a major child abuse investigation shut down by the CPS regarding a royal and an MP, as it was not in the public interest because it "could destabilise national security".<ref>http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-cop-claims-royal-paedophile-ring-5379159</ref> |
==See Also== | ==See Also== |
Revision as of 14:36, 24 March 2015
Contents
Official Narrative
In 2013, this was stated to be the "primary function" of the FBI. It is often invoked to justify some form of censorship. The "national security" dogma should not be used to cover up malfeasance by those within the power structure.
Problems
If "national security" were really about defending citizens, it would address the risks somewhat proportionately. In fact, road accidents kill around 390 times more people than international terrorism, yet have not been subject to the same attention.[1]
Abuse
It is an open secret that the "state secrets privilege", and the vaguer term of "national security" are widely used by those in positions of power - perhaps especially USA - to cover up governmental corruption. For example, the Edward Snowden Affair has made it obvious to anyone with the emotional readiness to face the fact that even when illegal conduct (in this case, unconstiutional mass surveillance) by those in power is exposed, legal action is not necessarily forthcoming in any case.
An Alternative Interpretation
Mark Gorton writes about the cabal that organised the JFK Assassination that "In order to escape justice for their heinous crimes, the Cabal needed to build a number of capabilities for themselves. The Cabal needed to be able to kill with impunity anyone who threatened to expose them. They needed to be able to control the press, and they need to control the presidency, federal law enforcement agencies, and the intelligence community. Operating under the secret cover of “national security” from within intelligence agencies (CIA, ONI, military intelligence, etc.), the Cabal has (been) able to systematically destroy threats to itself."[2]
Legal 'Get Out Of Jail Free'
"National security" is increasingly being codified into law as a kind of legal "Get Out Of Jail Free" card - i.e. a sovereign immunity, a way to avoid being prosecuted under the law to which only national governments have resort.
Withholding information
Many nations have some official form of 'State Secrets Privilege', a legal doctrine allowing the government to withhold information during legal proceedings which they would otherwise have to disclose (such as, for example, the source of information, or answers to questions from the defence). The official narrative is that this is used only for (scarce) matters of "National Security", something which is increasingly belied by the facts.
US
- Full article: “US/National security”
- Full article: “US/National security”
In 2009, US Attorney General Eric Holder explicitly stated that lawyers would only invoke the privilege when there was a possibility of "significant harm" to the country, and that they would not use it to hide to hide "administrative error", to "prevent embarrassment" or hide illegal government programs.[3] This is an ever more blatant lie. The US government cited national security to withhold information a record 8,496 times — a 57 percent increase over a year earlier and more than double Obama’s first year".[4] It has been used to arm terrorist groups[5] and avoid explaining why the FBI turned a blind eye (or worse) to the Dallas occupy plot to assassinate leaders of the peaceful protests.
UK
In the UK, the equivalent is Public-interest immunity, which allows courts to allow one litigant (e.g. the state) to refrain from disclosing evidence to the other litigants where disclosure would be damaging to the public interest. The European Court of Human Rights has held that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to protect the "right to a fair trial" is not an absolute right and that measures such as Public-interest immunity certificates are lawful if "strictly necessary".[6]
The Attorney General for England and Wales leads the Crown Prosecution Service, a purportedly largely independent body, but which has an exception for "national security". In 2015, The Mirror quoted a detective sergeant as saying in the 1980s that a major child abuse investigation shut down by the CPS regarding a royal and an MP, as it was not in the public interest because it "could destabilise national security".[7]
See Also
Related Quotations
Page | Quote | Author | Date |
---|---|---|---|
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 | “This report makes no attempt or claim to prove that the large low flying jet plane seen over Kudahuvadhoo that fateful early morning was MH 370. It merely sets the record straight that the jet plane that overflew Kudahuvadhoo has not yet been identified. The Maldives government first claimed there was "no plane", then the plane was a "private jet", then fifteen months later a "domestic propeller plane flight", then back to "no plane", then finally to say it cannot be discussed due to "national security".” | Blaine Gibson | 2016 |
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/Blaine Alan Gibson's research | “This report makes no attempt or claim to prove that the large low flying jet plane seen over Kudahuvadhoo that fateful early morning was MH 370. It merely sets the record straight that the jet plane that overflew Kudahuvadhoo has not yet been identified. The Maldives government first claimed there was "no plane", then the plane was a "private jet", then fifteen months later a "domestic propeller plane flight", then back to "no plane", then finally to say it cannot be discussed due to "national security".” | Blaine Gibson | 2016 |
Elon Musk | “In the distant future, people may outlaw driving cars because it's too dangerous. You can't have a person driving a two-ton death machine” | Elon Musk | 2015 |
Harold Thorby | “We the government have vital information which we cannot disclose. It is upon this knowledge that we make decisions. You, who are merely private citizens, have no access to this information. Any criticism you make of our policy, any controversy about it in which you may indulge, will therefore be uninformed and valueless. If, in spite of your ignorance, you persist in questioning our policy, we can only conclude that you are disloyal.” | Harold Thorby | 1938 |
Related Documents
Title | Type | Publication date | Author(s) | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
Document:Beyond Conspiracy Theory | paper | February 2010 | Lance deHaven-Smith | The article posits a new framework for the analysis of Deep political events and Conspiracy Theories. The term SCAD (State crime against democracy) is explained and developed as a way of connecting the dots across multiple suspect events. |
Document:Britain’s secret state | article | 5 March 2020 | Katharine Gun | Britain’s secret state and the need for whistle-blowing explained by 2003 Iraq War whistleblower Katherine Gun |
File:Security Terrorism and the UK.pdf | briefing paper | 1 July 2005 | Chatham House Lloyds of London | A quintessentially UK Establishment view on Security and Terrorism in the UK. |
File:WikiLeaks-Australian-suppression-order.pdf | legal document | 19 June 2014 | Australia Supreme Court | Australian Supreme Court secret super-injunction preventing the publication of information about a corruption case involving 17 named individuals including senior Malaysian, Indonesian, Vietnamese politicians and Reserve Bank of Australia directors |
An official example
Name |
---|
COVID-19/Lockdown |
Rating
References
- ↑ Document:Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety - Evaluating the Risks
- ↑ Document:Fifty Years of the Deep State by Mark Gorton
- ↑ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/state-secrets/
- ↑ http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/the_u_s_governments_creeping_war_on_journalists_partner/
- ↑ http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09/17/obama-bypasses-terrorism-rule-to-give-weapons-to-syrian-rebels/
- ↑ Rowe and Davies v. UK, (2000) 30 EHRR 1 (ECtHR). Text
- ↑ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-cop-claims-royal-paedophile-ring-5379159