Your meaning of national security, their meaning of National Security
Those in power- from the White House to the war fetishers at the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, are up in arms at another “leak” by Wikileaks, saying that the leak of these documents is a breech of federal law and must be punished. Julian Assange, the effective leader of Wikileaks, is being called a “partisan left-wing terror-apologist” by typical right-wingers who think everything is a partisan fight. From all sides the fiasco is being called an irresponsible endangerment of “National Security”.
“National Security” is the phrase evoked by the ruling class and those who listen to them as justification for the violation of rights in this situation and many others. The misunderstanding of this term is what I believe is standing in the way of many otherwise critical individuals from critiquing the State’s actions.
When most people contemplate the term “National Security”, they imagine it to mean something along the lines of the protection of and ultimately a net increase in the safety and well being of individual citizens within a nation, a protection of their rights; a worthy concern.
But unfortunately that is not what the phrase really means, and as individual citizens and patriots looking out for our own safety, what the term really means is quite alarming.
“National Secuirty” means the security of the existence of the National government in power. In other words, the entity that deems itself to be the sole legitimate wielder of force decides that, in order to preserve itself against those who wish to challenge it’s perfect authority, it will suspend or eliminate individual rights. Thus, “National Security” can be invoked to strip individuals of this or that right “guaranteed” by the Bill of Rights, because the nation will always put it’s existence above the individual. "National Security" is the requirement to maintain survival of the Nation State. It’s security is paramount, your security is second.
Just to further elaborate a point for those who care, this is obviously not about party. It is about power. And sadly when it comes to National Security it seems the one thing that both parties agree on is that one must not question the powers that be. But as patriots, we should know better. Especially when it comes to national security, as most understand it to mean, we must have the courage to continuously examine the justice of what we are doing. Are we respecting our country by holding up the ideal of the Bill of Rights, or are we allowing the current government to protect its decisions from scrutiny, thereby consolidating their power?
One can forgive Barack Obama, since he is the one who’s comfortable reign is being threatened by the questioning of his decisions, such as the decision to expand the war in Afghanistan. Him and those like him seem pretty upfront about their detest for fidelity to the spirit and letter of the Bill of Rights, anyway. So at least we can applaud him for consistency in that, if not consistency in his views of American Empire (he seemed so critical of the subject before being seated in the power of the presidency).
I have much less sympathy for Rush Limbaugh conservatives like those at the Heritage Foundation who, on so many issues, pick and choose their reliance on the supposed law of the land to which the military and elected officials pledge adherence (the Constitution). More on this later.
But I have the least amount of sympathy for the Tea Party conservatives, who are following lockstep in calling for the head of the leader of Wikileaks. These activists say they are sick and tired of an out-of-touch ruling class in Washington. They say that we need to kick the drunken power hungry bums out of office. They say We the People need to ensure the leaders of our country know that they work for us, and if they voilate the Constitution, we'll make 'em pay.
And yet, the minute these power-crazed criminals in Washington use the term “National Security” it seems that even the Fox News loving Tea Partiers shut up and bow down in unquestioning submission to the wisdom of the State.
No wonder the term “National Security” is used so often.
Our leaders wasted no time in declaring the leak by Wikileaks a threat to "National Security". No matter, it seems, that the Bill of Rights in our U.S. Constitution protects organizations that publish classified material if they did nothing to influence obtaining it (according to Constitutional experts). No matter, because protecting and enshrining those rights is not what "National Security" is about.
In their ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the Supreme Court interpreted the first amendment in the Bill of Rights to mean that the Nixon Administration had no authority to prevent news outlets from printing classified material. And one thing that is agreed on is that this situation is very closely analguous to the Pentagon Papers release in the early seventies. So I am not claiming that I believe the Supreme Court is any kind of perfect interpreter of the US Constitution, but certainly the Heritage Foundation should consider their ruling superior to some statute that says the the release of classified material is treasonous.
The Heritage Foundation goes on in their absurdity, calling the Afghan War Diaries composed of 91,000 documents “selective exposure” and impling that Wikileaks selectively picked only things promoting their political agenda. Um, I don’t think releasing 91,000 documents can in any way be called being selective.
Who is promoting their political agenda, rather than the Constitutional government they claim to promote? I'd say the Heritage Foundation.
What about the New York Times? Should they be a target of the White House for choosing to publish details of the leaked documents? What about the bloggers that peruse the documents and synthesize information into something more readable? Should they be gone after too, for helping to expose state secrets? Are they treasonous traitors too?
In cases of serious threats to "National Security" such as this, should the State have the power to shut down the internet, to prevent the threatening information from spreading further?
Lastly, I want to note that I understand the fear that this leaked news somehow put our troops into danger. But please take time to review what we know about these documents. What they seem to show is that our troops are in danger because of stupid and failed policy such as funding Pakistan, who uses that same funding to help perpetuate the war. It is not Julian Assange putting our troops in danger- it is our War Administration. If we care at all about real security of our rights and our way of life, we'll bring our brothers and sisters home. And if anyone should be tried for treason, it's the national leaders who put their power above individual rights.
Comments