National security
| 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. |
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
It is an open secret that use of 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 corruption. The Edward Snowden Affair has established as public knowledge that even when illegal conduct by those in power is exposed legal action is not necessarily forthcoming in any case.
State Secrets Privilege
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.
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.[1]
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.[2]
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[3]
See Also
References
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 |
