| "National security" |
• Business Executives for National Security|
• Lamont Colucci
• George C. Marshall Institute
• Institute of World Politics
• Sven Kraemer
• Le Cercle
• Henry Rowen
• Thomas Schelling
• United States Homeland Security Council
|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.|
"National security" is a piece of doublespeak commonly associated with deep state projects such as the "war on terror". It is such a part of modern discourse that even when denouncing abuse of the "state secrets privilege", the ACLU have used it uncritically.
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 generally invoked to justify some form of censorship.
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.
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) — 
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. 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.
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.
- Full article: “US/National security”
- 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.
- 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".
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.
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."
|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.|
|File:Security Terrorism and the UK.pdf||briefing paper||1 July 2005||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||High Court of Australia||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|
- 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
- Rowe and Davies v. UK, (2000) 30 EHRR 1 (ECtHR). Text
- "The Resource Part II: Human Rights in Times of Emergencies". United Nations. Retrieved December 31, 2007.
|Description||Like the idea of 'Patriotism', the notion … |
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 government.opaqueness in the workings of government. +
|Display docType||WikiSpooks Page +|
|Display image||File:National security.jpg +|
|GlossaryDescription||Like the idea of 'Patriotism', the notion … |
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 opaqueness in the workings of government.opaqueness in the workings of government. +
|Has fullPageName||National security +|
|Has fullPageNamee||National_security +|
|Has image2||File:National security.jpg +|
|Has noRatings||0 +|
|Has objectClass||Concept +|
|Has objectClass2||Concept +|
|Has revisionSize||8,798 +|
|Has revisionUser||Robin +|
|Has sourcewatch||http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_security +|
|Has wikipediaPage||https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security +|
|Has wikipediaPage2||https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security +|
|Is not stub||true +|
|So called||true +|
"Has subobject" is a predefined property representing a container construct that allows to accumulate property-value assignments similar to that of a normal wiki page.
|National security +|