“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:
Expatriation Can Save You From the Not-So-Free America
Scheuer: Ten questions worth pondering on Obama, Syria, and Interventionism
How to Self-Publish a Bestseller: Publishing 3.0
Bernanke "The Only Game in Town": Really?
Doug Casey at Libertopia 2012
Ron Paul: Meaningless Words in Politics
David Graeber, DEBT: The First 5,000 Years [2012]
Why Are Cops Acting Like Soldiers?
War Becomes Perpetual When It Is Used As Rationale For Peace
John Hussman: On the Completion of the Current Market Cycle and Beyond
Shares in Incorporated Co-op Cities Might Be the Next Big Thing
Murray Rothbard: Fighting for Oil? [1990]
Should You Be Forced to Vote?
Why I Charge $1,000 For An Hour Of My Time
The Security State: An Ever Bigger and Dumber Dinosaur