Difference between revisions of "National security"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(subsection)
(clarify quote)
 
(62 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{SMWData
+
{{concept
−
|Description=Like the idea of 'Patriotism', the notion of 'National Security' is one designed to bind all members of a society together. By evoking fear of its opposite it creates a suitable psychological frame for the abdication of personal responsibility to the nation state. In the 21st century, the concept is endlessly repeated as a justification for the ever more opaque workings of government.
+
|description=Like the idea of 'Patriotism', the notion of 'National Security' is one designed to bind all members of a society together. By evoking [[fear]] of its opposite it creates a suitable psychological frame for the abdication of personal responsibility to the nation state. In the 21<sup>st</sup> century, the concept is repeated like a mantra in en effort to justify ever more opaqueness in the workings of governments tired of legal restrictions such as rights of their citizens.
 +
|so_called=1
 +
|titular_logo=1
 +
|image=National security.jpg
 +
|wikipedia=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security
 +
|glossary=Like the idea of 'Patriotism', the notion of 'National Security' is designed to bind all members of a society together. It evokes a psychological frame for the abdication of personal responsibility to the [[nation state]]. In the 21<sup>st</sup> century, the concept is repeated like a mantra in en effort to justify ever more opacity in the workings of government.
 +
|sourcewatch=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_security
 +
|constitutes=doublespeak, Orwellian language‎
 +
|wikiquote=http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/National_security
 +
}}'''"National security"''' is a long established piece of [[doublespeak]] used as a pretext for [[censorship]] and as a legal dead end to prevent exposure of [[deep state]] operations or operatives. In the 21<sup>st</sup> century, it is most associated with the "[[war on terror]]" - so for example, [[Shyam Sunder]] stated that the government's computer model of the [[collapse of WTC7]] must stay secret for this reason. It is such a part of modern discourse that even when denouncing abuse of the "state secrets privilege", the [[ACLU]] have used it uncritically.<ref>https://www.aclu.org/other/background-state-secrets-privilege?redirect=national-security/background-state-secrets-privilege</ref>
 +
 
 +
==Etymology==
 +
The concept of "national security" became an official guiding principle of [[foreign policy]] in the [[United States]] when the [[National Security Act]] of [[1947]] was signed by U.S. President [[Harry S. Truman]]. Originally conceived to describe actions taken in order to avert military attack, today it include also non-military dimensions, including the security from "[[terrorism]]", minimization of crime, economic security, energy security, environmental security, food security, [[cyber-security]], etc.
 +
 
 +
==Official Narrative==
 +
The phrase "national security" crops up, generally without a tight definition, in a variety of contexts - particularly in laws explaining why they apply to ordinary people one way, but not necessarily to [[establishment]] organs or [[deep state operatives]]. Officially, the "national security" dogma is only used when absolutely necessarily and is ''not'' be used to cover up establishment malfeasance. In 2013, this was stated to be the "primary function" of the [[FBI]]. It is generally invoked to justify some form of [[censorship]]. In February 2019, the [[DSMA-Notice]] website reported that "It has been the long tradition of successive UK governments not to define national security."<ref>http://dsma.uk/frequently-asked-questions/</ref>
 +
 
 +
===Problems===
 +
If "national security" were really about defending citizens, it would address risks proportionately. In fact, road accidents kill around 390 times more people than international "[[terrorism]]", yet have not been subject to the same attention.<ref>[[Document:Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety - Evaluating the Risks]]</ref>
 +
 
 +
===Abuse===
 +
It is an open secret that in direct contradiction of the {{on}}, 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, unconstitutional [[mass surveillance]] or flat out lies to [[US Congress]]) by those in power is exposed, legal action is not to be expected in any case.
 +
 
 +
{{SMWQ
 +
|text=We need to insist, as we insisted at [[Nuremberg]], that no raison d'état is off-limits to public scrutiny, public criticism and public wrath.
 +
|authors=Amy Baker Benjamin
 +
|subjects=National security, information, transparency
 +
|source_name=Document:To Wreck A State - The New International Crime
 +
|date=27 Sep 2015
 +
}}
 +
 
 +
In 2015, [[Andy Burnham]] (the UK [[Shadow Home Secretary]]) asked the government to release papers about the "politically motivated show trial" of the [[Shrewsbury 24]], which the government was withholding on grounds of "national security", asking {{SMWQ
 +
|text=What possible justification can there be, 43 years on, for information about it [the trial of the [[Shrewsbury 24]]], to be withheld on national security grounds? The failure to disclose has less to do with national security and much more to do with the potential for political embarrassment.
 +
|source_name=BBC
 +
|source_URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35047872
 +
|subjects=Shrewsbury 24, national security, cover-up
 +
|authors=Andy Burnham
 +
|format=inline
 +
|date=2015
 +
}}
 +
 
 +
===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 [[assassination|kill with impunity]] anyone who threatened to expose them. They needed to be able to [[Corporate media/Control| control the press]], and they need to control the [[US President|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."<ref>[[Document:Fifty Years of the Deep State]] by [[Mark Gorton]]</ref>
 +
 
 +
==Legal 'Get Out Of Jail Free'==
 +
"National security" is increasingly being codified into national laws 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 government]]s have resort. In September 2015, a US Judge ruled that [[Saudi Arabia]] had "[[sovereign immunity]]" from prosecution for the [[9-11 attacks]], notwithstanding a 2011 decision that withheld such privilege from the government of against [[Afghanistan]].<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/us-usa-sept11-saudi-idUSKCN0RT2ZP20150930</ref>
 +
 
 +
===Withholding information===
 +
[[UK Police]] withheld data about the movements of [[Andrew Windsor]] on the night on which he was alleged to have had sex with [[Virginia Roberts]], since sharing this data would constitute a “threat to national security.”<ref>https://themindunleashed.com/2020/08/records-of-prince-andrews-location-on-night-of-molestation-destroyed-by-police.html</ref> Later they asserted that this had been destroyed.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8584291/Met-Police-destroyed-records-Prince-Andrews-Pizza-Express-alibi.html</ref>
 +
 
 +
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.
 +
 
 +
{{SMWQ
 +
|subjects=MICC, Arms dealing, conspiracy, national security, Pentagon, Chuck Spinney
 +
|text=Human nature being what it is, the [[MICC]] comprises avaricious individuals who seek to gain private  benefit at public cost. But the idea that all the players knowingly conspire to mastermind so intricate a system is difficult to prove, and unnecessary. Instead corruption among defence contractors, Representatives in [[US/Congress|Congress]] and the military brass is standard operating procedure camouflaged by an incestuous labyrinthine system and the primacy of '[[national security]]'. Not only do the corrupt actors need to be held to account but, as importantly, the system needs to be untangled.<ref>Jarecki, ''American Way of War'', p. 193</ref>
 +
To further understand this entanglement. I met [[Chuck Spinney]], a life-long [[Pentagon]] insider who experienced this labyrinth on a daily basis for over two decades. He produced a vast body of work explaining how the Pentagon really operates. His efforts culminated in the wrath of all the participants in the MICC but saw him featured on the cover of ''[[Time magazine|Time]]'' magazine.
 +
|authors=Andrew Feinstein
 +
|date=2011
 +
|source_name=The Shadow World
 
}}
 
}}
  
−
==Official Narrative==
+
==National jurisdictions==
−
In 2013, this was stated to be the "primary function" of the [[FBI]].  
+
 
 +
===Australia===
 +
The Australian government has cited "national security" as a pretext for [[counter-terrorism]] laws including [[internet censorship]].<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-delicate-balance-between-freedom-and-security-may-have-to-shift-tony-abbott-20140922-10kdz7.html</ref>
 +
 
 +
===Finland===
 +
In 2017, [[Finnish]] Police raided the house of [[Laura Halminen]], after she co-authored a story about a Finnish covert [[mass surveillance]] project. Her newspaper, the ''[[Helsingin Sanomissa]]'' pretested that the police had no warrant to search the house. The Finnish police replied that, under Finnish law, search warrants are not required in cases of "national security".<ref>https://intelnews.org/2017/12/19/01-2233/</ref>
 +
 
 +
===UK===
 +
{{FA|UK/National security}}
 +
 
 +
In 2018, the [[UK police]], the [[Home Office]], and the [[UK Information Commissioner]] claimed due to “safeguarding national security” they could not give any statistics on  how many anti-[[fracking]] protesters had been referred to the Channel programme. After 2 years a tribunal determined that it was "stretching credulity to contend that such confirmation would be of material assistance to terrorists or potential terrorists”.<ref>https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/06/11/a-civil-liberties-group-just-won-a-huge-legal-victory-over-five-police-forces-and-the-home-office/</ref>
 +
 
 +
In the [[UK]], a related concept is [[Public-interest immunity]], which means that in UK courts the state may 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".<ref>{{cite court
 +
|litigants=Rowe and Davies v. UK
 +
|pinpoint=(2000) 30 EHRR 1
 +
|court=ECtHR
 +
|url=http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=rowe&sessionid=3387897&skin=hudoc-en }}</ref>
 +
In 2017 [[Scotland Yard]] announced their decision not to proceed with charges in the case of the murder of [[Yvonne Fletcher]] on grounds of "national security".<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/16/yvonne-fletcher-inquiry-dropped-over-national-security-fears</ref>
 +
 
 +
====Protection of VIPaedophiles====
 +
The [[Attorney General for England and Wales]] leads the [[Crown Prosecution Service]], a nominally independent body, but which has an exception for "national security". In 2015, [[The Mirror]] quoted a detective sergeant as saying that in the [[1980s]] that a major child abuse investigation shut down by the CPS regarding a royal and an MP, since it "could destabilise national security" and was therefore not in the public interest.<ref>http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-cop-claims-royal-paedophile-ring-5379159</ref> Since 2008, the CPS has argued that "national security" grounds justify [[secret trial]]s.
 +
 
 +
===US===
 +
{{FA|US/National security}}
 +
The [[9/11 commission]] claimed that it created a computer model of the [[collapse of WTC7]], but did not release it, citing "national security" as the reason why not.
 +
 
 +
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.<ref>http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/state-secrets/</ref> 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".<ref>http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/the_u_s_governments_creeping_war_on_journalists_partner/</ref> It has been used to arm [[terrorist]] groups<ref>http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09/17/obama-bypasses-terrorism-rule-to-give-weapons-to-syrian-rebels/</ref> and avoid explaining why the [[FBI]] turned a blind eye (or worse) to the [[Dallas occupy plot]] to [[assassinate]] leaders of the peaceful protests.
  
−
==State Secrets Privilege==
+
==International==
−
Many nations have some official form of 'State Secrets Privilege' - allowing them 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). This is intended to be used only for (scarce) matters of "National Security". It is (often explicitly) ''not'' to be used to cover wrongdoing, although ever more blatantly -- in [[USA]] particularly -- it is being used to do exactly that.
+
The concept of "national security" occurs in the [[UN]]'s [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] as a legal loophole for government use in times of need:
  
−
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.<ref>http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/state-secrets/</ref>
+
===Human rights===
 +
In section 10, it is used to allow government to ignore "[[human right]]s" during times of "[[national emergency]]". It does specify that "the emergency must be actual, affect the whole population and the threat must be to the very existence of the nation. The declaration of emergency must also be a last resort and a temporary measure."<ref name=resourceII>[http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp210.htm#10.2 The Resource Part II: Human Rights in Times of Emergencies] - [[United Nations]]</ref> This appears never to have been used with the US suspension of the constitution that is [[COG]].
  
−
===Rahinah Ibrahim case===
+
===Freedom of Speech===
−
In February 2014 Rahinah Ibrahim became the first person ever to successfully get themselves removed from a US government [[no fly list]], after a decade of legal battles in which lawyers give millions of dollars of legal help. The ruling was made after a five-day, non-jury trial conducted largely behind closed doors. The [[US Justice Department]] was unavailable for comment.<ref>http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/</ref>
+
Article 19 states that ''"Everyone has the right to [[freedom of opinion and expression]]; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."'' Article 19 mentions that these rights may "be subject to certain restrictions... [when necessary] [f]or the protection of [[national security]] or of public order, or of public health or morals"''.<ref>[http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976</ref>
−
{{QB|At long last, the government has conceded that plaintiff poses no threat to air safety or national security and should never have been placed on the no-fly list. She got there by human error within the [[FBI]]. This too is conceded. This was no minor human error but an error with palpable impact, leading to the humiliation, cuffing, and incarceration of an innocent and incapacitated air traveler. That it was human error may seem hard to accept — the FBI agent filled out the nomination form in a way exactly opposite from the instructions on the form, a bureaucratic analogy to a surgeon amputating the wrong digit — human error, yes, but of considerable consequence. ''Judge Alsup's ruling''<ref>http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/02/ibraruling.pdf</ref>}}
 
  
−
==See Also==
+
{{SMWDocs}}
−
* [https://www.aclu.org/national-security/background-state-secrets-privilege ACLU on State Secrets Privilege]
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{Reflist}}
 
{{Reflist}}
−
 
−
{{SMWDocs}}{{Stub}}
 

Latest revision as of 14:52, 13 September 2022

Like the idea of 'Patriotism', the notion of 'National Security' is designed to bind all members of a society together. It evokes a psychological frame for the abdication of personal responsibility to the nation state. In the 21st century, the concept is repeated like a mantra in en effort to justify ever more opacity in the workings of government.

Concept.png "National security" Glossary.png 
(doublespeak,  Orwellian language‎) SourcewatchRdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png 4
National security.jpg
Interest of• Alliance for Securing Democracy
• Australia/National COVID-19 Coordination Commission
• Battelle
• Thomas Bossert
• Yves Boyer
• Business Executives for National Security
• Jack Caravelli
• Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure
• Lamont Colucci
• Martin Edmonds
• Stewart Eldon
• Fritz Ermarth
• George C. Marshall Institute
• Glen Grant
• Michael J. Green
• Institute of World Politics
• Stefan Kirchner
• Karen Kornbluh
• Sven Kraemer
• Le Cercle
• Jeff McCausland
• H. R. McMaster
• National Security Archive
• Alexa O'Brien
• Tara O'Toole
• Mark Phythian
• Mike Pompeo
• Matthew Puttick
• Henry Rowen
• Elaine Birch Ruffell
• Philip Rutnam
• Thomas Schelling
• School of the Americas
• Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies
• Rianne Siebenga
• Jerry Sullivan
• Richard Titley
• United States Homeland Security Council
• Mark Winlow
• Joseph Wood
• John Young
Like the idea of 'Patriotism', the notion of 'National Security' is one designed to bind all members of a society together. By evoking fear of its opposite it creates a suitable psychological frame for the abdication of personal responsibility to the nation state. In the 21st century, the concept is repeated like a mantra in en effort to justify ever more opaqueness in the workings of governments tired of legal restrictions such as rights of their citizens.

"National security" is a long established piece of doublespeak used as a pretext for censorship and as a legal dead end to prevent exposure of deep state operations or operatives. In the 21st century, it is most associated with the "war on terror" - so for example, Shyam Sunder stated that the government's computer model of the collapse of WTC7 must stay secret for this reason. It is such a part of modern discourse that even when denouncing abuse of the "state secrets privilege", the ACLU have used it uncritically.[1]

Etymology

The concept of "national security" became an official guiding principle of foreign policy in the United States when the National Security Act of 1947 was signed by U.S. President Harry S. Truman. Originally conceived to describe actions taken in order to avert military attack, today it include also non-military dimensions, including the security from "terrorism", minimization of crime, economic security, energy security, environmental security, food security, cyber-security, etc.

Official Narrative

The phrase "national security" crops up, generally without a tight definition, in a variety of contexts - particularly in laws explaining why they apply to ordinary people one way, but not necessarily to establishment organs or deep state operatives. Officially, the "national security" dogma is only used when absolutely necessarily and is not be used to cover up establishment malfeasance. In 2013, this was stated to be the "primary function" of the FBI. It is generally invoked to justify some form of censorship. In February 2019, the DSMA-Notice website reported that "It has been the long tradition of successive UK governments not to define national security."[2]

Problems

If "national security" were really about defending citizens, it would address risks proportionately. In fact, road accidents kill around 390 times more people than international "terrorism", yet have not been subject to the same attention.[3]

Abuse

It is an open secret that in direct contradiction of the official narrative, 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, unconstitutional mass surveillance or flat out lies to US Congress) by those in power is exposed, legal action is not to be expected in any case.

“We need to insist, as we insisted at Nuremberg, that no raison d'état is off-limits to public scrutiny, public criticism and public wrath.”
Amy Baker Benjamin (27 Sep 2015)  [4]

In 2015, Andy Burnham (the UK Shadow Home Secretary) asked the government to release papers about the "politically motivated show trial" of the Shrewsbury 24, which the government was withholding on grounds of "national security", asking “What possible justification can there be, 43 years on, for information about it [the trial of the Shrewsbury 24], to be withheld on national security grounds? The failure to disclose has less to do with national security and much more to do with the potential for political embarrassment.” [5]

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."[6]

Legal 'Get Out Of Jail Free'

"National security" is increasingly being codified into national laws 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. In September 2015, a US Judge ruled that Saudi Arabia had "sovereign immunity" from prosecution for the 9-11 attacks, notwithstanding a 2011 decision that withheld such privilege from the government of against Afghanistan.[7]

Withholding information

UK Police withheld data about the movements of Andrew Windsor on the night on which he was alleged to have had sex with Virginia Roberts, since sharing this data would constitute a “threat to national security.”[8] Later they asserted that this had been destroyed.[9]

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.

“Human nature being what it is, the MICC comprises avaricious individuals who seek to gain private benefit at public cost. But the idea that all the players knowingly conspire to mastermind so intricate a system is difficult to prove, and unnecessary. Instead corruption among defence contractors, Representatives in Congress and the military brass is standard operating procedure camouflaged by an incestuous labyrinthine system and the primacy of 'national security'. Not only do the corrupt actors need to be held to account but, as importantly, the system needs to be untangled.[10] To further understand this entanglement. I met Chuck Spinney, a life-long Pentagon insider who experienced this labyrinth on a daily basis for over two decades. He produced a vast body of work explaining how the Pentagon really operates. His efforts culminated in the wrath of all the participants in the MICC but saw him featured on the cover of Time magazine.”
Andrew Feinstein (2011)  [11]

National jurisdictions

Australia

The Australian government has cited "national security" as a pretext for counter-terrorism laws including internet censorship.[12]

Finland

In 2017, Finnish Police raided the house of Laura Halminen, after she co-authored a story about a Finnish covert mass surveillance project. Her newspaper, the Helsingin Sanomissa pretested that the police had no warrant to search the house. The Finnish police replied that, under Finnish law, search warrants are not required in cases of "national security".[13]

UK

Full article: UK/National security

In 2018, the UK police, the Home Office, and the UK Information Commissioner claimed due to “safeguarding national security” they could not give any statistics on how many anti-fracking protesters had been referred to the Channel programme. After 2 years a tribunal determined that it was "stretching credulity to contend that such confirmation would be of material assistance to terrorists or potential terrorists”.[14]

In the UK, a related concept is Public-interest immunity, which means that in UK courts the state may 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".[15] In 2017 Scotland Yard announced their decision not to proceed with charges in the case of the murder of Yvonne Fletcher on grounds of "national security".[16]

Protection of VIPaedophiles

The Attorney General for England and Wales leads the Crown Prosecution Service, a nominally independent body, but which has an exception for "national security". In 2015, The Mirror quoted a detective sergeant as saying that in the 1980s that a major child abuse investigation shut down by the CPS regarding a royal and an MP, since it "could destabilise national security" and was therefore not in the public interest.[17] Since 2008, the CPS has argued that "national security" grounds justify secret trials.

US

Full article: “US/National security”

The 9/11 commission claimed that it created a computer model of the collapse of WTC7, but did not release it, citing "national security" as the reason why not.

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.[18] 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".[19] It has been used to arm terrorist groups[20] and avoid explaining why the FBI turned a blind eye (or worse) to the Dallas occupy plot to assassinate leaders of the peaceful protests.

International

The concept of "national security" occurs in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a legal loophole for government use in times of need:

Human rights

In section 10, it is used to allow government to ignore "human rights" during times of "national emergency". It does specify that "the emergency must be actual, affect the whole population and the threat must be to the very existence of the nation. The declaration of emergency must also be a last resort and a temporary measure."[21] This appears never to have been used with the US suspension of the constitution that is COG.

Freedom of Speech

Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Article 19 mentions that these rights may "be subject to certain restrictions... [when necessary] [f]or the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals".[22]


 

Related Quotations

PageQuoteAuthorDate
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 Gibson2016
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 Gibson2016
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 Musk2015
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 Thorby1938

 

Related Documents

TitleTypePublication dateAuthor(s)Description
Document:Beyond Conspiracy TheorypaperFebruary 2010Lance deHaven-SmithThe 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 statearticle5 March 2020Katharine GunBritain’s secret state and the need for whistle-blowing explained by 2003 Iraq War whistleblower Katherine Gun
File:Security Terrorism and the UK.pdfbriefing paper1 July 2005Chatham House
Lloyds of London		A quintessentially UK Establishment view on Security and Terrorism in the UK.
File:WikiLeaks-Australian-suppression-order.pdflegal document19 June 2014Australia Supreme CourtAustralian 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

4star.png 11 February 2019 Robin  A helpful expose
An introduction to this piece of Orwellian language.
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.



References

  1. ↑ https://www.aclu.org/other/background-state-secrets-privilege?redirect=national-security/background-state-secrets-privilege
  2. ↑ http://dsma.uk/frequently-asked-questions/
  3. ↑ Document:Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety - Evaluating the Risks
  4. ↑ Document:To Wreck A State - The New International Crime
  5. ↑ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35047872 BBC , 2015
  6. ↑ Document:Fifty Years of the Deep State by Mark Gorton
  7. ↑ http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/us-usa-sept11-saudi-idUSKCN0RT2ZP20150930
  8. ↑ https://themindunleashed.com/2020/08/records-of-prince-andrews-location-on-night-of-molestation-destroyed-by-police.html
  9. ↑ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8584291/Met-Police-destroyed-records-Prince-Andrews-Pizza-Express-alibi.html
  10. ↑ Jarecki, American Way of War, p. 193
  11. ↑ The Shadow World
  12. ↑ http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-delicate-balance-between-freedom-and-security-may-have-to-shift-tony-abbott-20140922-10kdz7.html
  13. ↑ https://intelnews.org/2017/12/19/01-2233/
  14. ↑ https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/06/11/a-civil-liberties-group-just-won-a-huge-legal-victory-over-five-police-forces-and-the-home-office/
  15. ↑ Rowe and Davies v. UK, (2000) 30 EHRR 1 (ECtHR). Text
  16. ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/16/yvonne-fletcher-inquiry-dropped-over-national-security-fears
  17. ↑ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-cop-claims-royal-paedophile-ring-5379159
  18. ↑ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/state-secrets/
  19. ↑ http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/the_u_s_governments_creeping_war_on_journalists_partner/
  20. ↑ http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09/17/obama-bypasses-terrorism-rule-to-give-weapons-to-syrian-rebels/
  21. ↑ The Resource Part II: Human Rights in Times of Emergencies - United Nations
  22. ↑ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976
Retrieved from "https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?title=National_security&oldid=251384"