portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

media criticism | political theory

National Security Versus CIA Ethics

The National Security of the United States is plagued by several deep-rooted problems that lead to expectations on intelligence personnel that are unjustified and highly corrupting.
National Security Versus CIA Ethics

The National Security of the United States is plagued by several deep-rooted problems that lead to expectations on intelligence personnel that are unjustified and highly corrupting.

One such problem, which would probably take up several chapters of a book, is the "character" of the American people, who too often seem both naïve and spoiled. Many Americans don't want to explore the intellectual issues of running a government, or for that matter, things like foreign invasions (knowing practically nothing of history or other cultures such as those of Arabs and Persians). Rather they prefer simplistic explanations, and or being outright lied to with demagoguery so that they can enjoy empire—that is the economic splendors of the good life by pursuing leisure rather than the engaging the rigors of complex thought. Their attitude is let others do whatever is necessary to keep the standard of living intact—they just don't want to think or know about it. Escapism.

Another influence that has become highly corrupting is the "socialist" welfare system of the military industrial complex that constantly tries to sell hardware and services to tax payers whether real National Security needs such products and aid or not. These companies actual have cause to advocate for war whether it is necessary or not. One can imagine that such corporate powers find ways to get think tanks and news personal to engage in expensive operations of belligerence on behalf of profits for the minority of investors against the well being of the nation at large.

Thirdly another highly corrupting influence is the expectation that government employees should support the rogue politics of laissez faire capitalism—that extreme form of capitalism that values nothing but corporate freedom and property rights—normally of the very wealthy. Laissez faire capitalism basically demands that there be no, or few, rules or laws for businesses—id est., it is an argument for business anarchy.

Yet what is especially striking about this "republican" and "libertarian" party attitude is that otherwise republicans rhetorically claim to big sticklers for law and order? But not when it comes to business executives, that think they ought to be able to do whatever they want in the name of expediency and profit. Expediency of profit has become a real form of worship in the United States—that is many seem to feel that no other value should over-ride the right to make money and own property.

Yet this is not to argue that property ownership is a bad thing. Nor is this an argument that big government is a good thing. Surely property has an important place in society. But the fact remains that there are many social values that are competing for a place in the sun—besides the right to make money however one chooses, and whatever the consequences.

More importantly, the idealization of extreme neo-liberalism, that is taking liberalism's goals of maximal freedom of choice for the individual while still maintaining individual rights, has created a creed akin to the notion that every human ego is like a God—that is all decisions are based on what is good for the self. And this egocentric point of view presumes, of course, that man is "rational" and will willingly make the best decisions—no doubt with the greatest of maturity and wisdom. But still the creed for many is: "Ask what your country can do for you."

Nor should we be hesitant to realize "any" ideology can be a form of religious worship attracting fanatics and their mindsets—some who go into politics or public service. After all what is fanaticism if not irrational worship and patriotism to some ideological creed? And as traditional religions have lost influence over the mind and soul of modern man he has taken to worshipping other forms of ideology, such as political or economic ideologies—usually with glib arguments that sound good on newspaper, as theory, but when examined closely in practice to do prove themselves so venerably positive in outcome.

But more to the point the corporation is too now God, which has come to equate to a potentially "legalized" form of criminality. (See the multiple award-winning documentary The Corporation by Mark Achbar for a "rational" explanation of how corporations have been given legal rights, via our court systems, to engage psychopathic behavior.) Then realize it is primarily corporate entities, and their interests issues, that contribute the greatest share of political lobby money to politicians (which is basically a legal form of bribery) and you then know you have a cocktail for a nation state that has legalized the criminal mind to take control of a country and its political priorities for federal agencies. Take for example that resources, time, and energy, not to mention tax dollars used to kill and torture people in Guatemala because the United Fruit Company and its owners had land confiscated.

Nor does it need mentioning that criminal rackets and mafias have found cultures with extreme forms of capitalism to be more favorable places to exist and carry out there own enterprises.

Therefore it would be a lie to suggest that we are not in Iraq because of oil and other resources such as gas. But we are also in Iraq because 9-11 made it possible for belligerent changes to our foreign policy such as advocating the invasion of Iraq, and to destroy its current economic and political arrangements, and then to attempt to help create a Constitution centered on laissez fair capitalism in which outsiders could come in and literal own the place—which they could not previously own and control.

Or how come no American newspaper has bothered to reprint the various editions of the Iraq constitution as work in progress that Americans and westerners have tried to help create—that is if we are really exporting democracy?

Supposedly everything is legally centered around our constitution—at least it once was. We Americans were once proud of our constitution and bill of rights—it was considered sacred—that is until George W, in his best attempt at Julius Caesar, called it just a piece of paper. So where are all the Senators lauding what a fine work of mastery is Iraq's Constitution?

Another corrupting force on the intelligence services is that lack of leadership in the Senate and House. Why does not Congress do its job, such as control when we declare war, or control the money rather than give such power to the bankers (another socialist welfare recipient), or why does not Congress oversee intelligence matters like leaders rather than like dependent kids? Is it because Congress does not represent the people of this nation—that they are mostly a financial elite concerned with getting cozy with their sources of money? Why did not Congress lead to establish sane strategies for energy back in the 1970s' energy crisis—rather than letting business do whatever they want?

Lastly a form of corruption affecting the real National Security of the U.S. is the idea that we have some duty to protect Judeo-Christian dominance in a world that has basically evolved from religious colonialism. Before Christianity and Islamism there was but one sliver of a culture that believed in Judaism—a fanatical form of religion to be sure.

Then with the murdering Constantine, and his admiration of Christian fanaticism, he made it the official religion of the Roman Empire. Meanwhile Arabs and Persians were not to be left out of the picture of fanaticism—so they invented their own version of an Abrahamic religion. Their proselytizing of course is history. Meanwhile popes and Byzantine empire could not get along about things like icons being worshipped, so a schism split the East and West in which Germans and the French came up with the Holy Roman Empire to counter the Eastern orthodoxy of Turkey, the Balkans and Russia. Pretty soon much of the planet was infected with one of these three authoritarian religions all wanting to go to war and do all kinds of nasty stuff to each other.

Nevertheless the fountainhead of these Abrahamic religions is Judaism, that is clearly based on mythological delusion and quite frankly—not exactly of high moral principle. Imagine a God, we are told, commanded for the death and destruction of thousands of peoples to be killed off Canaan, and of course various kinds of punishments whenever he felt displeased—a tyrant in the modern sense of the word—somebody who rules by the force of a dictator.

And yet how telling it is modern man is still disturbed by the idea of torture; and yet he has naively allowed himself, over the centuries and millennia, to believe in a kind of God who would condemn souls and bodies to suffer "eternal" torture in his own gulag prison of hell? Wasn't there something inordinately pathological in this idea of a judgmental God who needed to use so much of a stick to motivate his people to do things—such as to obey laws, respect other people within one's community, and obey whoever claimed divine wisdom? Perhaps it is time for historians to address the pathological elements of Abrahamic religions that have so affected much of history and continue to do so to this very day?

Equally maybe it is time to look into the eyes of the devil of disinformation and perform the appropriate exorcism to expel evil as spirit? The devil, traced back in history, was the accuser (like a politician—take for example the sly French one that asks: "Is he tough enough?"—that is referring to Obama, as various right-wing Jews continue to put pressure via "their" propagandist version of Iran's delinquencies—never mind Israel's). The devil was the deceiver—that is he was the liar.

Yet how ironic that governments have given intelligence services the right to deceive and do basically whatever they want to do—irrespective of any ethic or morality. Is this not the ultimate status of being Gods—that one can sin and get away with it—presumable for a higher moral purpose? But there is little of moral purpose while working under all these corrupting influences. And yet the best the sycophantic mainstream media can come up with is David Ignatius apologetic homilies at the Washington Post?

What is in the national interests of national security? Well it is certainly not allowing a wealthy minority the right to ruin other peoples' livelihoods, and it is certainly not supporting religious projects that are bigoted. Perhaps if Senators and Representative did there job and worked for real values of security this country could get its head of its armpit?

And just maybe President Obama is tough enough Mr. Jim Hoagland. Maybe he will tell the Israeli government and France's Nicolas Sarkozy (who asked: "Ist-il-faible?" or "Is he weak?") that he doesn't need their votes or approval rating, and just maybe he, and the rest of the American government, will do what is best for the people of the Unites States while ethnocentric Israelis and right-wing Jews take a back seat for a change?