19-02-2018, 02:28 AM
It is sad, sad, sad that we as a country cannot imagine a discussion about whether we still need a National Security State, since the Cold War (its justification) is long since over.
During the recent go-around between Trump and the FBI, there was a talking head who I watched on the cable news who actually said that our untrustworthy elected officials should not question the actions of the truly patriotic men of the CIA and the FBI. How dare they?
It is significant that in his memoirs "Honorable Men," former CIA director William Colby discussed a policy question whereby the CIA would have been forbidden by law to interfere with any "Democratic" government. He stated that it would be impossible to legally define a "Democratic" government. At first, that argument sounded absurd to me. But after pondering the issue, I finally, in my head, agreed with him.
So we can't define in writing which governments we should interfere with and which ones we shouldn't. It's apparently true. So if we can't decide that in writing, then on what basis do we decide upon which governments with which we will interfere? If you can answer that, you're smarter than I am.
England, of course, has three branches of government. The Parliament is elected, but the Queen and the House of Lords is not. The Queen appoints the Governor General of Canada. When World War II broke out, the Canadian Parliament was not consulted. The Governor General merely sat down and wrote out a declaration of war all by himself.
The US has three "co-equal" branches of Government: the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court has the right to overrule the other two. And we blindly swear that they are all three "co-equal" (NOT)!
So how do the people of the five Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland) all wind up in the top twelve richest countries in Europe, per capita, and they don't have a National Security State? How do they sleep at night? (I'm pretty sure they sleep pretty well).
At last count, we have 17 "Security Agencies" yet we really don't get any security from them, (beyond Military Intelligence which we have always had).
There are only two countries which have always had a civilian spy establishment. Those two are Russia and England. (This is according to General Reinhard Gehlen in his memoir "The Service"). Apparently, all the other countries have gotten along o.k. without them.
Although Trump has racist tendencies, every student of the "deep state" should give him some credit. Unlike Nixon, Trump has apparently faced down the FBI and won. According to the talking-heads, the FBI has suffered at least a temporary blow to its reputation. It's telling that in a contest of "reputability" against Trump, the FBI has come out second-best. When you think about that, it's not a very good testament about the FBI. And Nixon had to plead "I'm not a crook".
At least Trump should deserve lots of credit for saying that the CIA lied about the WMD's in Iraq. He also suggested that the father of Ted Cruz was tangled up in the JFK assassination. (He probably was, in some way or another, through the Bush family if the truth were known).
The extended 7 year honeymoon between Trump and the National Security State should prove interested. If anyone happens to be looking for a strong opinion about the National Security State, I would eagerly take an amateur's shot, although I've only come into this interest very recently. But, like many researchers, I try to be objective (and overlook the racism of Trump when necessary). I don't think researchers into the National Security State should involve their current partisan political allegiances. To me, it's much more fun when one leaves one's personal political baggage at the front door.
People interested in the National Security State may not know everything about it, but we are way, way, way ahead of the talking heads on TV and frankly, probably way ahead of the 99% of Americans. People in our country apparently believe that the National Security State is like apple pie, patriotism and motherhood all wrapped up into one.
It's sad and pathetic when you think about it. I try not to think about it. But it's an annoyance any way you slice it. Oh, well.
James Lateer
During the recent go-around between Trump and the FBI, there was a talking head who I watched on the cable news who actually said that our untrustworthy elected officials should not question the actions of the truly patriotic men of the CIA and the FBI. How dare they?
It is significant that in his memoirs "Honorable Men," former CIA director William Colby discussed a policy question whereby the CIA would have been forbidden by law to interfere with any "Democratic" government. He stated that it would be impossible to legally define a "Democratic" government. At first, that argument sounded absurd to me. But after pondering the issue, I finally, in my head, agreed with him.
So we can't define in writing which governments we should interfere with and which ones we shouldn't. It's apparently true. So if we can't decide that in writing, then on what basis do we decide upon which governments with which we will interfere? If you can answer that, you're smarter than I am.
England, of course, has three branches of government. The Parliament is elected, but the Queen and the House of Lords is not. The Queen appoints the Governor General of Canada. When World War II broke out, the Canadian Parliament was not consulted. The Governor General merely sat down and wrote out a declaration of war all by himself.
The US has three "co-equal" branches of Government: the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court has the right to overrule the other two. And we blindly swear that they are all three "co-equal" (NOT)!
So how do the people of the five Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland) all wind up in the top twelve richest countries in Europe, per capita, and they don't have a National Security State? How do they sleep at night? (I'm pretty sure they sleep pretty well).
At last count, we have 17 "Security Agencies" yet we really don't get any security from them, (beyond Military Intelligence which we have always had).
There are only two countries which have always had a civilian spy establishment. Those two are Russia and England. (This is according to General Reinhard Gehlen in his memoir "The Service"). Apparently, all the other countries have gotten along o.k. without them.
Although Trump has racist tendencies, every student of the "deep state" should give him some credit. Unlike Nixon, Trump has apparently faced down the FBI and won. According to the talking-heads, the FBI has suffered at least a temporary blow to its reputation. It's telling that in a contest of "reputability" against Trump, the FBI has come out second-best. When you think about that, it's not a very good testament about the FBI. And Nixon had to plead "I'm not a crook".
At least Trump should deserve lots of credit for saying that the CIA lied about the WMD's in Iraq. He also suggested that the father of Ted Cruz was tangled up in the JFK assassination. (He probably was, in some way or another, through the Bush family if the truth were known).
The extended 7 year honeymoon between Trump and the National Security State should prove interested. If anyone happens to be looking for a strong opinion about the National Security State, I would eagerly take an amateur's shot, although I've only come into this interest very recently. But, like many researchers, I try to be objective (and overlook the racism of Trump when necessary). I don't think researchers into the National Security State should involve their current partisan political allegiances. To me, it's much more fun when one leaves one's personal political baggage at the front door.
People interested in the National Security State may not know everything about it, but we are way, way, way ahead of the talking heads on TV and frankly, probably way ahead of the 99% of Americans. People in our country apparently believe that the National Security State is like apple pie, patriotism and motherhood all wrapped up into one.
It's sad and pathetic when you think about it. I try not to think about it. But it's an annoyance any way you slice it. Oh, well.
James Lateer