"National security"
Contents
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.[1]
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) [2]
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."[3]
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.[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). 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”
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.[5] 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".[6] It has been used to arm terrorist groups[7] 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
- 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".[8]
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".[9] Since 2008, the CPS has argued that "national security" grounds justify secret trials.
Australia
The Australian government has cited "national security" as a pretext for counter-terrorism laws including internet censorship.[10]
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."[11]
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:To Wreck A State - The New International Crime
- ↑ Document:Fifty Years of the Deep State by Mark Gorton
- ↑ http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/us-usa-sept11-saudi-idUSKCN0RT2ZP20150930
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 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
- ↑ "The Resource Part II: Human Rights in Times of Emergencies". United Nations. Retrieved December 31, 2007.Page Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css must have content model "Sanitized CSS" for TemplateStyles (current model is "Scribunto").
