National security

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 opaqueness in the workings of government.

"National security"
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 government.

Official Narrative

The phrase "national security" crops up without a very tight definition in a variety of contexts - particularly in laws explaining why they apply to ordinary people one one way, but not necessarily to establishment organs or employees. 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 often invoked to justify some form of censorship.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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”

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. 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". It has been used to arm terrorist groups 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

Full article: UK/National security

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".

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". Since 2008, the CPS has argued that "national security" grounds justify secret trials.

International

The phrase "national security" occurs in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a reason why human rights may be limited or even pushed aside 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."

See Also

• ACLU on State Secrets Privilege

 

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

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.