Difference between revisions of "US/National security"
(Stub) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{concept | {{concept | ||
|description= | |description= | ||
| + | |image=us_national_security.jpg | ||
|type=legal, fraud | |type=legal, fraud | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | 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 [[USA]], 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 | + | 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 [[USA]], 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 by the [[CIA]] to arm [[terrorist]] groups<ref>http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09/17/obama-bypasses-terrorism-rule-to-give-weapons-to-syrian-rebels/</ref> and by the [[FBI]] to avoid explain why they turned a blind eye (or worse) to the [[Dallas occupy plot]] to [[assassinate]] leaders of the peaceful protests. |
| − | ==Legal 'Get Out Of Jail Free'== | + | ==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 government]]s have resort. | "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 government]]s have resort. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
==Withholding information== | ==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). 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. 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> | 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). 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. 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> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Vaccines== | ||
| + | ''The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists'', an article published in 2011 in the ''[[New England Journal of Medicine]]'' used national security in a novel context, stating that "anti[[vaccination]]ist" activities resulted in a high cost to society, "including damage to individual and community well-being from outbreaks of previously controlled diseases, withdrawal of vaccine manufacturers from the market, compromising of national security (in the case of anthrax and smallpox vaccines), and lost productivity".<ref name=AgeOld>{{cite journal |author= Poland GA, Jacobson RM |title= The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists |journal= N Engl J Med |volume= 364 |issue= 2 |pages= 97–9 |date= 13 January 2011 |pmid= 21226573 |doi= 10.1056/NEJMp1010594|url=http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1010594}}</ref> | ||
==Rahinah Ibrahim case== | ==Rahinah Ibrahim case== | ||
| − | 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> | + | 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> |
{{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>}} | {{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>}} | ||
Revision as of 15:20, 18 April 2015
 US/National security  | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Type | legal, fraud |
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 USA, and that they would not use it to hide to hide "administrative error", to "prevent embarrassment" or hide illegal government programs.[1] 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".[2] It has been used by the CIA to arm terrorist groups[3] and by the FBI to avoid explain why they turned a blind eye (or worse) to the Dallas occupy plot to assassinate leaders of the peaceful protests.
Contents
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.
Arming terrorists
In the USA, the Arms Export Control Act "prohibit[s] sending weaponry to countries... [if] that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism," however, the president is allowed "to waive those prohibitions if he “determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States.”" This clause was used by Barack Obama in 2013 to send arms to Syrian rebels linked to Al Qaeda. [4]
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). 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. 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.[5]
Vaccines
The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists, an article published in 2011 in the New England Journal of Medicine used national security in a novel context, stating that "antivaccinationist" activities resulted in a high cost to society, "including damage to individual and community well-being from outbreaks of previously controlled diseases, withdrawal of vaccine manufacturers from the market, compromising of national security (in the case of anthrax and smallpox vaccines), and lost productivity".[6]
Rahinah Ibrahim case
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.[7]
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[8]
References
- ↑ 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/
- ↑ http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09/17/obama-bypasses-terrorism-rule-to-give-weapons-to-syrian-rebels/
- ↑ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/state-secrets/
- ↑ Poland GA, Jacobson RM (13 January 2011). "The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists". N Engl J Med. 364 (2): 97–9. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1010594. PMID 21226573.Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css must have content model "Sanitized CSS" for TemplateStyles (current model is "Scribunto").
- ↑ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/
- ↑ http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/02/ibraruling.pdf
