The National Security Excuse

I've heard and read about this excuse being used quite frequently over the past few years, especially after 9/11. Sibel Edmonds knew some secrets regarding the tragic incident, but her words wouldn't get any further than the courtroom, because these words would threaten our national security. A man who claimed he was taken away by the U.S. after 9/11, imprisoned and tortured for months, wanted to press charges, but again, the proceedings couldn't go any further, because it'd threaten our national security. There have been numerous rantings about the New York Times threatening our national security with some information that was leaked in articles.

Notice a trend here? I most certainly do. Whenever an illegal activity occurs and someone high up in the U.S. government could face punishment for these actions, then they pull out the get out of jail free card, or in this case, the "it will threaten our national security" card. Some also pull out the neo-conservative false dilemma card, labeling the New York Times and others like it as "Jihadists" or Al-Qaeda sympathizers, and the like.

I think some of these people need bifocals, because their vision is obviously blurry. The Bush administration ignored warnings of the 9/11 attacks months in advance. They captured, beat, sent away, imprisoned, and tortured numerous innocents. They spied on people, including peace groups, to "protect" our freedoms. They waged war in Afghanistan, Iraq, are now getting involved in the Israel-Lebanon ordeal, and have mentioned possible wars with the likes of Iran, North Korea, and Syria. The original reason for the Iraq War was because they had weapons of mass destruction. These weapons were never found, so the original premise of the war was a lie and over 2,500 U.S. soldiers have died as a result, with another 8,000+ being wounded. This doesn't even include the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who've died as well. So, all of these decisions, actions, and more (I didn't even mention Guantanamo, for example) doesn't threaten our national security, but the truth being known does? Ahh, I see. It's just like if we all believed the world to be flat, but a scientist had proof of it actually being round, he or she would be put on a gag order, because that would endanger our national security.

The more I see and hear this administration use the secrets privilege and claim that any sort of truth that is leaked from the press and others that is leaked will endanger our national security, the more I will come to believe that they're hiding a few things that they don't want anyone to ever know about. The more this happens, the more I may buy into some conspiracy theories. When they say "national," they really only mean "personal." Do you think Bill Clinton's ordeal with Monica Lewinsky was a "national" security threat and that's why he didn't want to come out with it? No, he didn't want to come out with it, because he knew he did something wrong and it'd be a "personal" security threat. The same logic holds true in these other cases. It's obvious that someone(s) did something that they don't want us to know about, or else why would they keep hiding themselves behind this "national" security excuse? It's fortunate for them that a war is going on (a war on "terror," at that), because they can now claim anything to be a "national" security risk. Clinton didn't have that to hide behind. All he had was his attempt at philosophizing the situation and asking, "What is is?" What "is" a "national" security risk? Anything that'll prove the guilt of those higher up in the government.