America’s Intelligence Budget Black Hole

CIA: The President’s Pretorian Guard & Private Army

On August 29, the Washington Post headlined “US spy network’s successes, failures and objectives detailed in ‘black budget’ summary,” saying:

Post-9/11, US spy agencies “built an intelligence-gathering colossus. (It) remain(s) unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats, according to the government’s top-secret budget.”

Its budget totals $52.6 billion for FY 2013. WaPo obtained it “from intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.”

It discusses a “bureaucratic and operational landscape.” It was never before subjected to public scrutiny.

It shows a dominant CIA role. It reveals significant cyberoperations. It discloses important knowledge gaps about targeted countries.

It tells nothing about how funds are used. It doesn’t disclose how effectively it achieves administration or congressional goals.

Washington Post obtained the 178-page budget summary. It’s “sensitive” and “pervasive.” It published a portion of what it got.

It detailed “successes, failures and objectives of” America’s 16 spy agencies. They have 107,035 employees.

Summary information discusses “cutting-edge technologies, agent recruiting and ongoing operations.”

It’s concealing what intelligence officials say poses risks to their sources and data collection methods.

According to Director of National Intelligence

(DNI) James Clapper:

“The United States has made a considerable investment in the Intelligence Community since the terror attacks of 9/11, a time which includes wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology, and asymmetric threats in such areas as cyber-warfare.”

“Our budgets are classified as they could provide insight for foreign intelligence services to discern our top national priorities, capabilities and sources and methods that allow us to obtain information to counter threats.”

Information WaPo disclosed includes:

(1) The CIA spends far more than other spy agencies. In FY 2013, it requested $14.7 billion. It exceeds NSA spending by 50%.

Actual amounts spent may be much more. Spy agency operations are secret. Great pains are taken to conceal them. Information revealed may be the tip of the iceberg. WaPo didn’t explain.

It obtained one black budget. At issue is do others exist? How many? Does each agency have its own? Are supplemental funds allocated on request?

CIA drone operations are enormously expensive. So is its involvement in America’s global torture prison network. Dozens are active worldwide.

(2) CIA and NSA aggressively hack into foreign computer networks. They conduct espionage. They sabotage enemy systems.

They conduct what budget language calls “offensive cyber operations.”

(3) Long before Snowden’s leaks, intelligence agency officials worried about “anomalous behavior.”

They’re concerned about employees and contractors with access to classified material.

NSA began investigating 4,000 individuals this year. They hold high level security clearances. Potentially they can compromise sensitive information. They can replicate Snowden revelations.

(4) Intelligence agencies target friends and foes. Pakistan’s called an “intractable target.”

Counterintelligence operations focus on China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Israel and other countries.

Israel notoriously spies intensively on America. The CIA calls it Washington’s main regional spy threat.

Israeli operatives have close ties to foreign military, criminal and intelligence sources. They steal everything they can get their hands on. It includes military and commercial secrets.

They hack into computers for information. Washington’s Government Accountability Office (GAO) said Israel “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally.”

The Pentagon accused Israel of “actively engag(ing) in military and industrial espionage in the United States.”

It’s hard knowing if Israel is more foe than friend. In response to billions of dollars annually in aid, the latest weapons and technology, and numerous other special privileges, it steals US state and civilian secrets.

(5) Intelligence agencies claim they focus on terrorism. They call it the gravest threat to national security. They lied saying so. No domestic terror threat exists.

US state terror creates whatever exists abroad. Spying is about control. It’s about advancing imperial priorities. It wants threats challenging it eliminated.

It’s about espionage. It’s for economic advantage. It’s to be one up on foreign competitors. It’s for information used advantageously in trade, political, and military relations.

(6) China, Russia and Iran are hard to penetrate. North Korea may be hardest of all. It’s “opaque.”

Analysts know little about five “critical” gaps in its nuclear and missile programs. They practically known nothing about Kim Jong Un.

Formally, America’s spy “blueprint” is called the Congressional Budget Justification for the National Intelligence Program. It’s classified “top secret.”

It describes 16 known spy agencies. They track millions of targets. Operations conducted include hundreds of lethal strikes.

“They are organized around five priorities: combating terrorism, stopping the spread of nuclear and other unconventional weapons, warning U.S. leaders about critical events overseas, defending against foreign espionage, and conducting cyber-operations.”

According to Clapper, threats “virtually defy rank-ordering.” He warned about “hard choices.”

Information WaPo revealed explains how US intelligence expanded post-9/11. Over half a trillion dollars was spent.

Perhaps it was double or more that amount. Black budgets don’t say. Claiming it’s to prevent another catastrophic domestic terror attack doesn’t wash.

So-called terrorists had nothing to do with 9/11. WaPo didn’t explain. It said America has “an espionage empire with resources and a reach beyond those of any adversary.”

Cold War spending isn’t known. Inflation adjusted it is much higher today. Advanced technology involves great expense. Supercomputers et al aren’t cheap.

Current spending’s separate from $23 billion more. It’s for military related intelligence. Perhaps it’s double or more what’s reported.

It bears repeating. Black budgets are secret. Getting any information isn’t easy. According to Federation of American Scientists’ Steven Aftergood:

“It was a titanic struggle just to get the top-line budget number disclosed, and that has only been done consistently since 2007.”

“But a real grasp of the structure and operations of the intelligence bureaucracy has been totally beyond public reach.”

“This kind of material, even on a historical basis, has simply not been available.”

Defense spending is 10 times more than on spying. At least according to what’s published. Information revealed may fall far short of reality. Only selected top secret cleared individuals know for sure.

According to WaPo, CIA’s dominant position surprised experts. It “was transformed from a spy service struggling to emerge from the Cold War into a paramilitary force.”

The late Chalmers Johnson was a CIA consultant years earlier. He knew how the agency functioned. He said we’ll:

“never again know peace, nor in all probability survive very long as a nation, unless we abolish” it.

It’s the president’s Pretorian guard. It’s his private army. It works the same way as in ancient Rome.

It produces fake intelligence to justify policy. It’s loyal by being willing to lie. It does lots more than that.

It operates extrajudicially. Originally it had five missions. Four involved collection, coordination and dissemination of intelligence.

The fifth is vague. It lets operatives perform other missions. They include overthrowing sovereign independent governments, assassinating foreign leaders and key officials, propping up friendly dictators, and targeting individuals for extraordinary rendition.

CIA personnel run America’s drone command centers. They operate worldwide. They’re instruments of state terror. They sanitize killing on the cheap.

Johnson wanted CIA intelligence transferred to State Department operations. He advocated removing all but purely military functions from the Pentagon.

According to WaPo, the agency spent billions recruiting and training a new generation of case officers. It’s staff numbers 21,575.

“US spy agencies’ long-standing reliance on technology remains intact,” said WaPo.

“If anything, their dependence on high-tech surveillance systems to fill gaps in human intelligence has intensified.”

It doesn’t surprise. The more sophisticated the tools, the more they’re used. The more they’re relied on. The more spent on them.

A section on North Korea says it’s surrounded by surveillance platforms. Others target Iran. Previously unknown nuclear sites undetected by satellite images were discovered, said WaPo.

Alleged Syrian “unencrypted communications” were monitored. Claims about what’s gotten are easily twisted for political advantage.

Budget information disclosed “includes a lengthy section on funding for counterintelligence programs designed to protect against the danger posed by foreign intelligence services as well as betrayals from within the U.S. spy ranks,” said WaPo.

Documents describe programs to “mitigate insider threats by trusted insiders who seek to exploit their authorized access to sensitive information to harm U.S. interests.”

This year’s budget promised a renewed “focus on safeguarding classified networks.” It reviews “high-risk, high-gain applicants and contractors.”

They have needed skills. Snowden was the type computer specialist NSA needs. He was trained to circumvent computer network security.

Extra measures are now taken to prevent other employees replicating his revelations.

US spy agencies have no constraints on what’s spent. It’s to advance America’s imperium. Doing it matters most. The sky’s the limit to reach planned goals.

# # # #

Stephen Lendman- BFP Contributing Author & Analyst
Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. He received a Harvard BA in 1956 and a Wharton MBA in 1960. Since 2005, Mr. Lendman has been writing on vital world and national topics, including war and peace, American imperialism, corporate dominance, political persecutions, and a range of other social, economic and political issues. He hosts The Progressive Radio News Hour on The Progressive Radio Network. Visit Mr. Lendman’s blog site here. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net


This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

Comments

  1. I wonder which books show the opium money and misappropriated funds. How would those amounts compare to what we see here?

  2. Umm…so the CIA and NSA, and every other intelligence agency in the world, engages in spying, surveillance, and does dirty jobs. Why is this news?

    Everyone
    wants
    to
    know
    everything.
    Knowledge
    is
    power.
    People
    doing
    sneaky
    stuff
    tell
    lies
    about
    what
    they
    are
    doing
    and
    how
    much
    it
    costs.

    Wow, who would have guessed?

    Now, post-Snowden, we act all shocked to find out they, and I mean most of them, foreign and domestic, collect electronic data on US! Ordinary schmoes! And here we thought the Constitution is a magic privacy shield which gives us an impenetrable privacy bubble around every aspect of our lives.

    That’s an editorial “we”. Most of you probably were not so naive, and I don’t have a mouse in my pocket.

    But just in case, here is a cold slap of reality: when your life is digitized and sent ’round the world in non-encrypted packets, those packets are apt to be stored and indexed in multiple locations. Your data will be used for aggregation at the very least, but if you become a particularly interesting, annoying or important person, that data will be dug out and used for whatever leverage someone might want to apply. On you.

    Privacy does not beam down on us like sunshine. Whatever level of privacy you want or need must be carefully crafted and diligently protected. Doing this will require learning the full dimensions of how your privacy is compromised and learning the skills and tactics to minimize your vulnerability. It will perhaps mean spending a bit of money, having your social life circumscribed to some degree, and exercising daily discipline.

    You will have to make conscious choices about the balance between giving nothing away and exercising natural rights. Such as the natural right to make a post like this, on a website like this, which is a compromise of my privacy to some extent.

    No one will protect you, in the end, except yourself. You do not have the slightest chance of improving your privacy by finding out what the actual operating budget of the total CIA is, because it is compartmentalized, and some of the compartments are linked with criminal syndicates and generate funds completely off the books. There is probably no one person in the world who knows the actual yearly outlay of the CIA, or where all the funds come from. Ditto for the NSA.

    Writing letters to your congress-person might generate some ripples on the surface of the pond, but those huge three-letter catfish swimming along the bottom and sucking up your data will take no heed.

    The agencies are not the root of the problem. Human nature, lust for power, ruthlessness, and all these “qualities” given full latitude for those with power to make themselves invisible while controlling this compartment or that one….there you have the problem.

    In this information age, there has materialized the possibility for people to share information and compare notes, and others of conscience to patriotically leak information without hindrance. This process holds out the hope of defining the outlines of what has previously been invisible. There will always be the problem, naturally, of signal-to-noise, because there are talented spreaders of misinformation beavering away. It’s their job.

    They are well-trained, but that training can actually be their weakness. Whatever names they use, you can eventually detect a common cadence and pattern in their reasoning, and the tell-tale tactic of attacking messengers instead of the message.

    Spotting them is worth the effort, because once misinformation is discerned as such, it actually becomes useful information. Think about it.

  3. The elite brag about how advanced their science is: how capable computers are to “predict” things. What we now learn is that they only trust what is the most rude methods – earsdropping on friends and enemies. That is middle-age area politics. Next will be killing and torture?

  4. Well said, Knarf.

    (except there are no natural rights; rights don’t beam down on us like sunshine either)

  5. It’s the president’s Pretorian guard. It’s his private army. It works the same way as in ancient Rome.

    It produces fake intelligence to justify policy. It’s loyal by being willing to lie. It does lots more than that.>>

    Yeah, it also kills US presidents from time to time. Just like the Roman Pretorians did.

  6. Hal, thanks.

    Naturally, I disagree about human rights. Even if in the purest technical sense we don’t have them because there is nothing special about being a human, we should behave as if there is. The most reliable mental shortcut to reflexively remembering to treasure other humans, is to let yourself believe they are worth it.

    It’s hard to see the downside to believing we have human rights, even if we actually don’t. But that’s just me, to be sure. If the act of gassing hundreds of children stood between me and my heart’s desire to prevail above all others, a belief in human rights would handicap me greatly. I would falter, and fall underfoot to others lacking my handicap.

    I think I pretty much just explained why the world is the way it is.

  7. “Washington Post obtained the 178-page budget summary. It’s “sensitive” and “pervasive.” It published a portion of what it got.”

    My impression is they sensored the report, it was too revealing? Any relation CIA-drugs will never be published. “Black budget” is defined as clean money, not drug money for sure.

    ““They are organized around five priorities: combating terrorism, stopping the spread of nuclear and other unconventional weapons, warning U.S. leaders about critical events overseas, defending against foreign espionage, and conducting cyber-operations.””

    What BS!

  8. When reading the organisational structure of CIA I see it was a replica of Adam Weishaupt’s thoughts from the very start. Adam Weishaupt was commisioned by Rothschild according to one source. That makes sense.

    A big question is: Is CIA a zionist organisation? That should be researched here. The simple solution is to count how many of CIA chiefs were zionists?

  9. Video confirming what Sibel has been talking about:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqK2PucKrsk

    I thought Sibel was maybe out on the limb … but now Gordon Duff is on board. The whole thing is at first sight unbelievable: these globalists are running a huge drug business – involving a previous US president! Renditioning is also used as cover.

    :(

  10. Rose Mary,

    Never easy to understand exactly what your meaning is in your posts, you seem to have an aversion to making your communications clear. I don’t know whether that is intentional or not. It often seems you don’t want to invest the time to fully explain your point.

    In any case, in response to your last post above, I want to say that Gordon Duff is not even in the same league as Sibel Edmonds. Sibel Edmonds is a serious person who has demonstrated her integrity on multiple occasions. I stopped paying attention to Gordon Duff some time ago because he made so many unsubstantiated claims, i.e. he proved to be untrustworthy. I suspect you are a fan of Gordon because he is so staunchly anti-Zionist. But then again, I can’t tell whether your post is meant to be serious or sarcastic.

  11. Without a dialog.. having to deal with text from someone who does not answer questions is painstaiking interpretation. A dialog is 90% about understanding what the other part means.

    And what happen here? No respons as a rule … even when the proposion is outragous. People pretend they understand everything without questions
    :(
    Now we have 3-4 diffent “explanations” for the war in Syria, Corbett 2+ alone – and none here reacts to that mess. None understand the implications of what they are reading ?? There is a big controvers on the net about Alex Jones | Gordon Duff. I side with Gordon Duff.

    Let us start a dialog..

  12. “I want to say that Gordon Duff is not even in the same league as Sibel Edmonds.”

    There is no conflict between then regarding Afgan drug traffic – and you want to know who is right? Sure that will be a problem to decide ..

  13. Knarf,

    “Naturally, I disagree about human rights.”
    I’m open to the possibility there are natural rights; there just isn’t any evidence they exist.

    “Even if in the purest technical sense we don’t have them because there is nothing special about being a human, we should behave as if there is.”

    Let me connect this statement to another one you made:

    “It’s hard to see the downside to believing we have human rights, even if we actually don’t. ”

    Here is the danger my friend: one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor. Your list of natural rights is going to be different from the next guy’s list. And that is because there are no natural rights. If these rights were truly natural, we would not have to constantly remind people what they are.

    Rights only come into existence by agreement among people. When you claim a right is “natural” you are creating a lie, a deception, and a potential justification to enlarge the freedom of one individual or group at the expense of another. And when the disadvantaged individual or group says “Wait a minute, that doesn’t seem fair” the advantaged group says “it is natural”, or “it is God’s will”, or some other conjured justification.

    Some of the founders of the United States thought they had a natural right to take land and other resources from native Americans by force and other means because the natives were savages. Some thought they were doing God’s work. Whatever the basis of this right, the natives did not have it because the founders refused to recognize it. Thus the founders claimed a natural right that they did not respect as natural for other people. Obviously, slaves were another example of this hypocrisy. I need not recount the “downside” that this assertion of natural rights by our founders had upon native Americans and slaves.

    Today most Americans claim that humans have inalienable rights, yet they have no real problem denying those rights to people outside the borders of the USA. I guess they don’t consider people outside the USA to be “people.” Likewise, devout members of different religious faiths have some very different notions of the natural rights that come from their God. I don’t have to tell you what has been the historical downside of these beliefs in natural rights.

    Yes, there has been a very big downside to belief in natural human rights justified by race, religion, nationality, class, or a rationalization to serve the economic interests of a particular group. If a right is claimed as natural, then it may be exercised without exception or limit. Consequently, it is but a matter of time before two parties find their “natural” rights in conflict, and each party may feel justified in exercising their rights at the expense of the other. History has shown that these conflicts are often asserted, settled, and maintained by violence.

    Rights should be arrived at by generations of trial and error, revised as needed by the wisdom of experience. And the explanation of those rights should always be given in terms of that human experience not some arbitrary natural origin, so that each new generation might truly understand the purpose and protections of those rights.

  14. Embracing natural rights is of course hollow if you assign others less-than-human status. Manifest Destiny and slavery hinged on race superiority.

    Whatever evil lurked in the Founder’s hearts, they refrained from enshrining racial or religious superiority in our founding documents. The framework they constructed ultimately led to abolition, which started as a religious movement. Free religious expression ultimately fostered more freedom.

    No, they did not fix everything before they died. Neither shall we.

    I’m willing to bet we could easily agree on a set of rights which are inalienable. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that which flows from there. It’s not rocket science.

    The assertion that there are no natural rights whatever is destroyed if even one right is self-evident. “All crows are black”, disproved by one white crow.

    I do not have the right to deny your humanity. Nor you, mine. Done.

  15. Ownership seems to be a requisite for surviving. When we grow crops we have ownership to that crops. If that is not respected we becomes slaves.

  16. Knarf,

    “Embracing natural rights is of course hollow if you assign others less-than-human status.”

    So I guess we agree that the existence of natural rights depends on whether they are recognized (agreed upon) and that many of the founders did not embrace them.

    “Whatever evil lurked in the Founder’s hearts, they refrained from enshrining racial or religious superiority in our founding documents.

    Not true, you need to read the Constitution.

    It is true that in most cases they did not announce they were going to “deny the humanity” of others – rather, they just did it. And the “leaders” of the USA do the same thing today. They don’t say they are going to deny the humanity of others, they just do it and claim it is done to protect humanity in some way (Why is it that the founders of the USA are judged by their words instead of their actions, while those who lead today are judged by their actions instead of their words? Why the double standard? If it was OK for the founders to pay lip service to human rights in speeches and documents while denying them in practice, why is it not OK for Bush or Obama to do the same?).

    “The framework they constructed ultimately led to abolition, which started as a religious movement. Free religious expression ultimately fostered more freedom.”

    Precisely, for many people, these so called “natural” rights did not come into existence until trial and error – human experience – compelled people to agree upon their form and application. This was the process of revision I mentioned earlier. However, these rights still do not exist for native Americans and some others.

    “I’m willing to bet we could easily agree on a set of rights which are inalienable. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that which flows from there.”

    That’s my point, these rights don’t exist naturally, they exist by agreement only. Furthermore, the devil is in the details, Knarf. Even if “life” and “liberty” and “the pursuit of happiness” were natural rights, what do they mean? What actions are justified in the exercise or protection of such inalienable rights? The answer to those questions will depend on who you ask and when. People have to agree upon the meaning before any of these rights exist.

    “I do not have the right to deny your humanity. Nor you, mine.”

    Yet it happens everyday. Our founders denied humanity to others in their day, and it still happens today. How is it that a natural right is routinely unrecognized? Until we reach an agreement on the meaning of humanity, how will I know when or if I have denied your right to it?

    I’ll keep looking for that white crow.

  17. You can say many purported rights are invented, and I will agree. People who say they have a right to something which must be seized from another, such as wealth or health care or housing, are inventing a right from thin air for their own narrow interests. In this upside-down notion of a right, an act of omission on the part of another can be defined as a violation of right. If, for example, I omit to give wealth to someone who claims the circumstance of their birth has disadvantaged them, I can be accused of a violation of their “rights”. This is the path to open-ended hell, because there is no limit to what others may lay claim to, including my very existence and freedom of conscience if they claim a right to either my submission or my life. There are millions who would in fact make that claim.

    Yet I will say true fundamental rights can only be discovered, and they are invariably universal and require nothing from others except to refrain from an evil act of commission performed upon another. Negative rights have no slippery slope, because no one can do less than nothing. These negative rights are finite and amenable to precise definition, much like the fundamental laws of nature, which we are discovering and better defining, but not inventing by any means.

    That many claimed rights do not exist fundamentally, has no impact on the self-evident truth that some rights are fundamental, if we hold humanity to be something worthy of them.

    People are not up in arms because the CIA and their ilk are threatening their supposed right to free stuff from others, are they? No, they are upset because they instinctively understand their fundamental right to not be screwed with, screwed over, and screwed into the ground, is what’s being threatened and trampled.

    Like I said, it’s not rocket science.

  18. There are no “truths” that are above context.

    What the founders believed was “universal truths” was belief at that time. No “universal truths” will survive history. Same with science. That does not mean there are no “universal truths”, but any declarations of “universal truths” will be an historic document, and will change with time.

    “Truth” is within our language, it is not something that exists outside language … like some “objective laws”.
    “Truth” is a simple relation, it has little to do with academic lessons about what “truth” is. That is just babble.

  19. “an evil act of commission”

    I can give you examples of two groups of people who both believe in natural rights, yet each will view the same act differently; one as a natural right, the other as an evil act of commission. Again, what is an evil act of commission? We will have to come to some agreement before we can use this term to define a natural right. Now we are right back where we started – rights come into existence only by agreement.

    “These negative rights are finite and amenable to precise definition, much like the fundamental laws of nature, which we are discovering and better defining, but not inventing by any means.”

    There is a very real difference between discovering laws of nature and claiming natural rights. We are discovering laws of nature through an investigative process based in observation and evidence, not arbitrary assertions. By all means, use the scientific process to investigate the existence of natural rights. We have centuries of evidence and observation that make it clear they do not exist, which is why no one has applied the scientific method to the question of natural rights.

    “the self-evident truth that some rights are fundamental”

    This is a claim without foundation and contrary to centuries of human experience. What can I say? You are free to believe whatever you choose. And thus, this discussion has reached its endpoint for me. You have come full circle and gone nowhere. In one paragraph you make analogy between the discovery of natural rights and the discovery of the laws of nature by scientific investigation, while in the next paragraph you make an assertion that is utterly anathema to scientific investigation: self-evident truth.

    Look, there’s a lot more I could say here, but it all just boils down to faith – your belief in natural rights is founded upon your personal conviction, or faith, that they exist. I do not want to be subject to rights that others claim by faith. I should not be subject to rights without foundation in reason, experience, and evidence. It may be that all the rights you claim as natural are rights to which I would readily agree. But it is a deception to say they are “natural” or “inherent,” so they should not be justified on that basis. They should be justified by reason, experience, and evidence. And each generation should be educated as to their rights and the reason, experience, and evidence upon which they are based, rather than be told such rights are natural, self-evident, or granted by God. Doing the latter teaches them nothing about how to hold onto to freedom, which is why we find ourselves in the mess we are in right now.

    I have no illusions that I am going to change your mind about anything. So I’ll let you have the last word.

  20. To say something is self-evident is not necessarily to equate it with blind faith. Science itself must start from “a priori” postulates which are virtually universally agreed to be self-evident. Such as; math works and 1 + 1 always = 2; an acceptable theory must be self-consistent; an acceptable theory must be falsifiable (capable of being proven wrong if it is in fact wrong); an acceptable theory must be universal and properly controlled tests of it must yield repeatable results. These principles are simply not open to debate.

    You cannot base your objection simply on the term “self-evident”, if you want to make an acceptable case. You will need to get down to something concrete. Attack a fundamental negative right, such as the right to be not be treated without regard to your humanity (i.e., not to have your life taken from you willfully by another solely for his profit or pleasure), and tear it down. Explain why it is questionable, and in so doing undermine the entire concept of the “a priori” principle in regards to human rights. If you can.

    So far you have spoken in generalities, and brought in irrelevancies such as widespread violations of fundamental rights to question their validity. As if their validity hinges on how consistently they are respected in this mad, mad world.

    If the majority in our locale become murderers, we have a problem indeed, but the problem is not that our right to not be murdered never existed in the first place.

  21. “There is a very real difference between discovering laws of nature and claiming natural rights.”

    Agree. There is a very real difference between science (instrumental knowledge) and legal rights (values). Values are the easy part. Everyone have values. A basic one is: humans are not like animals, something you grow and eat afterwards.

    Example of “evil act” = false flag operation (murdering, then falsifying the evidences so someone else will be blamed)

  22. Might is not right.

    Today: A government cannot spy on the citizens it represents. That will be like a CEO spying on the board members to make sure he is not sacked next meeting (Stalin type CEO)

Speak Your Mind