|
House Select Committee On Intelligence Propaganda
In the United States Congress the House Select Committee On Intelligence is "the primary committee in the U.S. House of Representatives charged with the oversight of the United States Intelligence Community". The committee is the elected legislative part of the government which set and controls the limits of the executive.
It is currently holding a open hearing about the recent disclosures of various activities and programs of the National Security Agency.
Congress hearings have titles. What is the title of the currently ongoing hearing?
a. To Evaluate Recently Disclosed NSA Activities, and The Necessity Of Intelligence Gathering Reform
b. Structure And Legal Limits Of Domestic Signal Intelligence Activities
c. How Disclosed NSA Programs Protect Americans, and Why Disclosure Aids Our Adversaries
d. Role And Limits Of The NSA Within The Intelligence Community
e. Why Data Protection Is Hindering Intelligence Collection, and How More Data Collection Will Expand Our Freedoms
The correct answer is c. How Disclosed NSA Programs Protect Americans, and Why Disclosure Aids Our Adversaries
Issuing such propaganda even in the title of the hearing is certainly not "oversight". It is pandering to the executive agency in question. It is therefore no wonder that the Senate Intelligence Committee even prohibits a former staffer to explain the oversight process to the media. The way we do, or don't do, our job is secret. Trust us and give us your money (and data). One wonders what those agencies the committees are supposed to control and investigate have in their vaults about each of those committee members and their families.
Aside from that the purpose of this post is to point you to a piece which looks a bit deeper into the whole intelligence nonsense. Why do we have these agencies and why have they grown into such enormous beasts?
Go read The NSA and the One Percent
Also good:
The implications of this surveillance are enormous: they suggest that every one of the liberties that has allowed civilisation to develop through debate, critical thought and creativity, is in danger of being erased. The very idea of Justice, the institutions of trial by jury and the public testing of evidence are obsolescent. – bevin.
Important, yes. Adding: The surveillance is used as a threat and a means of control. (…see the Stasi for ex. etc.) In the US, the threat acts directly and insidiously on opinion – and here I mean not public opinion for gain or other, or fake allegiance, but true, heartfelt opinion. Which is formed by the media, peers, superiors in the work place, family members, etc. The schisms are becoming more stark, and a ragmataggle of divided heretics is slowly taking shape. Which increases the surveillance / analysis of the data. Who, where, what?
Politically speaking, in the US, and somewhat similarly in other countries, such as France, one can note a moving away from economic questions, framed as capitalism agains socialism, to fundamental issues such as the rule of law, foreign interference, war, privacy, equality, anti-corruption, etc. Which imho is good news, but implies marriages of a political type that are against nature. As in for ex. in the US semi-libertarians (ex. Ron Paul) with paleo-Republican-conservatives and a nationalist hard left (MIA or terminally muted in the US but present in a minor role in F) as well as official opponents to the regime who are at heart all social democrats (Chris Hedges, Chomsky, Occupy, etc. because that is the most acceptable stance.)
The PTB do everything to keep these different strands divided and incapable of coalescing and are succeeding. One of the reasons they prevail is that ppl must, to get together, genuinely oppose on a narrow common platform, and give up adherence to say, anarchy, or universal med care, social issues like gay marriage, enviro stances like the protection of animal rights, etc. Ppl must identify what is rotten, illegitimate, destructive, and take on priorities.
Ex: US prison system and judiciary is sadistic, socially destructive, a scamming horror – but which factions will agree that is the case? (As an example. Gitmo serves as the emblem, the symbol.)
Non-authoritarian societies cannot survive without free opinion and free debate, even if it is bounded by taboos, politeness rules, or strict legislative channels. These can be accepted up to a point, provided that ppl agree on them, it has always been so.
Posted by: Noirette | Jun 19 2013 15:16 utc | 39
|