Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Who Defines What Is Legal

An interesting discussion with Noam Chomsky that questions the assumption that the state defines when an action is illegal.  Very relevant to the revelations from Snowden.


Sheldon said...

The French man questioning him is the famous post-structuralist philosopher Focoult.

Examinator said...

In a march 1990 Chomsky gave a speech that is more relevant to the topic of Snowden. He pointed to the clear evidence that (and still remains today) that legality is defined by the 'political elites' (including executive government the military and 'security' apparatus.) He also noted that The US is a stand out at the UN in that it alone, among its members wont recognise international law and courts.

He described how words in the US Political lexicon have alternative (read duplicitous) “technical meanings”. Words like 'democracy' 'peace (sic) talks' and 'legality' meant what ever 'they' wanted it to mean at the time.
I'd also point out that this redefining of terms extends to everyday political definitions as an on going propaganda technique designed to blunt criticism by eliminating the most appropriate (strongest) words.

He went on to describe how successive governments simply ignored its own congressionally passed guidelines for the benefit of the corporations US (Corporate) Colonialism. (see this morning's Wapo the al the listings of the NSA breaches of legislated guidelines etc.)
If true then it shows a profound underpinning of Arrogance and impunity to both the people of the US and the Congress . Chad note THIS is 'arrogance'.

Specifically he showed how Bush 2 was both well implicated and surrounded by the worst offenders (Rumsfell, Wolferwictz, Cheney, et al). And how they redefined Europe into 'old' and 'new' Europe. The distinction was by those 'new' not democratic states did as they were told. And yet those who did the majority of their populations will and not what US wanted (go to war) were bad i.e. “Old” Europe.

He challenge the audience to find mention of criticism of this in the US press or the US “intellectuals” (commentariate?). The general acceptance and compliance to this

He noted international press not US controlled i.e. Murdoch's News (very) Limited were not so much. He also highlighted the 'targeting' and deliberate excluding of Al Jazeera by the US (independent news might report their dirty linen [Iraq]... note Bradley Manning's Show trial (making an example there of).

The You Tube part of this speech is under 'media propaganda and government'

Examinator said...

Well spotted.
I didn't know who he was.
It has been said before that I have arrived at independently a philosophy somewhere close to post-structualism and Focoult.

I hope that unwilling admission casts some light (label wise) on my fundamental world view.