
“The Cuban embargo demonstrated one of the core principles of the national-security state: that the end, which was the preservation of ‘national security,’ justified whatever means were necessary to achieve it. If national security required the government to inflict great suffering on the Cuban people, then that’s just what would have to be done. Nothing could be permitted to stand in the way of protecting national security, whatever that term meant. What mattered was that the national-security establishment — i.e., the military and the CIA — knew what national security meant and had the ultimate responsibility for protecting it.”
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1205a.asp
Related posts:
How to End the Wars - It really is easy and it's been done before
Economic Darwinism and the Next Financial Crisis
The Management-free Organization
Broken Links: Fed Policy and the Growing Wall Street-Main Street Gap
Henry Magee, John Quinn, and the "Right of Resistance"
Using Metadata to Find Paul Revere
Secession: Armed vs. Peaceful
Is Size Overrated?
Murray Rothbard: Fighting for Oil? [1990]
Licensed to Kill: Growing Phenomenon of Police Shooting Unarmed Citizens
The US and China: A Difference in Approaches
A territorial tax system would help U.S. exports, jobs and prosperity
Jim Bovard: The Sordid History of IRS Political Abuse
Exploding Sunni-Shia Conflict: Impact on Oil, Stocks, and More
Glenn Greenwald: from MLK to Anonymous, the state targets dissenters