Pls remove me from this list. Thank you. On Jul 19, 2013, at 6:04 AM, John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Points most valid. Public discourse on national security > is deficient. It has become a vast racket concealed by > secrecy and ample economic rewards. > > As global threats dwindle there is more openness > until the next threats, then return to greater secrecy than > before as the national security racket further advances > more than it retreated. > > The greater the racket the greater chances it will become > corrupt, suffer from gigantism, internal fractures and factions, > overweaning leaders and their supporting infrastructure of > contractors and lobbyists, and disaffected minions who get > fed up with the corruption of their bosses and a few bravely > go public. > > As we see lately from a tiny number of honorable grunts. > Amazing that there are not thousands among the several > million of natsec feeders, perhaps only 1% of which contribute > significantly to protection of the nation -- for the rest it is > job protection, no joking matter, or for top natsec firms > officers fortune protection, many of whom are ex-officials, > a sick joke which should be criminal except lawmakers > are beneficiaries. This is amply reported, customarily to > no effect. > > DIY national security is no joke. Now impossible due to > secrecy bloat and exclusion of the public from participation > in meaningful ways. NatSec is now a bastion of scoundrels, > and natsec news coverage is complicit. The worst offenders > are the pundits, essayists, apologists and opportunists in > academic and policy institutions who are actually covert > contractors. > > Corrpution of insufficiently-checked power is well documented > in historical studies of the rise and fall of powerful states. Secrecy > is essential to preventing democracy. > > Anybody who has been a grunt in any of these anti-democratic > organizations, mil, com, edu, org, is acutely aware of abuses and > threats of punishment for disclosures -- insiders always the > greatest threat to power. Let us hope the abused grunts will > continue to now and then let us in on the latest iteration of > public opinion manipulation. But expect, by "human nature," > most will pitifully believe they have a shot at upward mobility > so long as national threats endure. > > This is not to ignore that disclosing natsec corruption can > be a successful shot at upward mobility. Natsec industry > rewards critics who do not go too far with disclosures and > castigates those who do -- ie, compliant media constitutionally > blessed in contrast to "conspiracy theorists." So we have a > small sub-set of the industry which briefs selected outsiders > with insider golddust at lunches, by leaks, by FOIA, by anonymous > sources, by security confabs, by securitized contracts, by > whatever means assures friendly oversight is as cooperative > as loyal opposition. > > At 08:02 AM 7/19/2013, you wrote: >> On 7/18/2013 7:59 PM, John Young wrote: >>> ...its greatest enemy is its hyper-paranoia. >>> >>> National security is not about protecting the nation, its aim >>> is to generate fear of its inevitable failure. >> John, perhaps you are too pessimistic. I don't like the panopticon or the >> surveillance state. But with 7 billion people on the planet and the >> inglorious history of human nature, parts of the security programs may be >> needed. I would prefer that people prevent abuses of the National Security >> state and surveillance, rather than calling for its abolition. >> >> Constructive criticism is needed and pointed questions must be raised. But >> in the end, it is not the nature of the State that is our primary concern; >> it is human nature itself. But both the behavior of both the State and the >> People give reasons for great concern. >> >> > > >