|
|
| Chomsky: Elections & Change: A Talk by Noam Chomsky on the 2008 Elections |
|
|
| Chomsky: We Own the World |
| Chomsky: All Who Matter |
|
|
| Chomsky: Imminent Crises |
|
|
| Chomsky: Imperial Grand Strategy |
The Declassified Record
Z Sustainer: I'm not really clear about what you mean when you refer to the "declassified record." Whatever it is that you're referring to is obviously an unbelievably valuable resource. Again and again, I've seen you expose amazing and very enlightening facts, citing this "declassified record." I realize it's not a single source (e.g., all memoranda from any secretary of state to any president). I have no idea how many documents are classified by the U.S. government in an average year, but I'm guessing that it would take a single person more than a lifetime to read even one year's worth. It can't be that you just read everything that the federal government ever declassifies. How do you know what to read? How do journalists, academics, etc. know what to ask for in FOIA requests, when they (as a matter of logic) don't what's in a specific document or even that it exists? Does everything just get declassified after a generation or two? What about the Bush administration's (illegitimately?) reclassifying documents?
Noam Chomsky: There is an official declassification procedure, run by historians in connection with the State Department. They review documents of all government agencies that allow it (the CIA, for example, often does not), and decide which ones to release. Theoretically, it's supposed to be after 30 years. In practice, a bit longer. The record is called Foreign Relations of the United States. It's available in any good research library (like universities), and by now a lot is online.
In addition, the government regularly declassifies documents. There is, at least used to be, a regular publication listing declassified documents.
One can also obtain documents through the Freedom of Information Act, or by research in presidential libraries and other archival sources. That's a lot of work
Administrations differ in what they are willing to release. The so-called "conservatives," more accurately statist reactionaries, are the worst. The Reagan administration caused a major scandal by refusing to release, perhaps destroying, documents on the overthrow of the governments of Iran and Guatemala in the early 50s. That actually led to the resignation of the (quite conservative) State Department historians, and blasts in the professional journals and sometimes even the press. I think the Bush administration may be the first to "reclassify" documents, and have been charged (I haven't checked carefully) with refusing to release documents of the Johnson years.
99% of it is quite boring, but there are nuggets. How do you know what to read and look for? It's rather like asking a chemist what to look for in the thousands of technical papers that pour out, or of the innumerable experiments that can be done? We're all overwhelmed by a deluge of data, and can find out what's important only by developing a framework of insight and understanding, whether it's in the hard sciences or daily life. There aren't any special tricks.
Z Sustainer: I'd like it if you could also answer me more broadly as well, not just restricted to the "declassified record." Where do you find out about, for example, and this is only an example, the details about diplomatic proposals that were made between the U.S. and the Milosevic government, not now but at the time the crisis was actually going on?
Noam Chomsky: What I reported was public information, right at the time, which the press refused to report, e.g., about the Serbian proposals for diplomatic settlement on the eve of the bombing, but a lot more. There's plenty available in the public record, but one has to search to find it.
Z Sustainer: I understand that you are heavily plugged into a network of like-minded academics, activists and journalists. I'm not referring to that (mostly). I'm talking about primary sources that disclose facts embarrassing to the establishment, actually admitted to on paper by the establishment; the best example I know of is the set of early National Security Council memoranda.
Noam Chomsky: It's true that over the years one develops personal contacts, but no need to exaggerate it. The network I'm plugged into overlaps extensively with what you can read on Znet. The early NSC memoranda were declassified, usually after something like the 30-year gap. But they are not studied much, even in scholarship often, and they rarely make it to the general public. Just to give an example, one of the most important questions about the post-war period is the record of documents concerning China. They're public up through the 60s, for the most part, but the first really serious book about the "NSC culture" as revealed in the documents is just coming out, a fascinating study by James Peck, a fine China scholar, called Washington's China.
Z Sustainer: Is all of this stuff available in any decent university library in the U.S.?
Noam Chomsky: The most important parts, or they can be obtained by interlibrary loan or by now, on the internet.
Comment viewing options
First of all, I saw the movie "Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause," and in that, Carol Chomsky, who's been Noam's life-partner (and woman) for a long, long years says ever so of it is simply extremely hard sheeting by Noam. And, of course, whatever the netlion, how could this not be? defensible if you thin out a world-class netsecond job of datarmation suppliers, what happens to the incidental releasermation, if you don't prioritize your own filiation of it?
Personally, I am inspired by Noam Chomsky's long-standing wire service of his own motives and roosts. If you conjecture the world's as messed up/able to be better as Chomsky does, then you underestimate a chaste inevitability to populate hard to increase the dissimilarity munitions with total dedication get better. Certainly, if the voyeuristic and masterful do unworthy, then befuddlement is the inheritance, as that is quite indubitably the major key material philosophy of "our" societies.
Meanwhile, it is a big gun question. In circumstance, does anybody the scoop of declassified documents in connection with the state-corporate planning of the automotive infrastructures with which we're now murderously stuck? I'm concludeing as things go about records of Eisenhower finagling with the businesses involved, but and Roosevelt, Truman, and cyclic post-Eisenhower allay...
Muchas gracias in advance...
The George Washington University has a website called National Security Archive
I'll just read you the last paragraph of this chapter;
“Chomsky's recommendation that people practice intellectual
self-defense is well taken, but, how many could dream that the person
warning you is one of the most perilous against whom you'll need to
defend yourself? That he is the Fire Marshall who wires your house to
burn down? The Lifeguard who drowns you. The doctor with the disarming
bedside manner who administers a fatal injection. If Noam Chomsky did
not exist, the diaboligarchy would have to invent him. To the New World
Order, he is worth 50 armored divisions.”
This is rediculous. You really have no counter argument to the Chomsky attacks, and you also attempt to slyly imply that Chomsky himself is bought out or owned by some large corporation, though when reading through it more closely, it is clear he is not. All you do is belittle him as an intellectual bully. I got news for you, he can't bully you without ammo, and he has plenty. Chomsky coming out against 9/11 conspiracy theories is a deathnail to your cute little movement. Unless you can come up with some pretty good facts to rebuff his rebuke, which is both more factual and logical than any 9/11 conspiracy I have ever heard. What do you come back with? Namecalling, and an implication of his status as a corporate man that is disgusting. This blog epitomizes your "movement." You make things up that seem crazy, but when a person actually looks into it, its clear that it is an exagerration or misleading fact. You make the left look stupid, and give republicans creedence when they call global warming a conspiracy theory.
I'm going to revisit this site, and if my comment is deleted, we'll see who really wants the whole truth out
This is rediculous. You really have no counter argument to the Chomsky attacks, and you also attempt to slyly imply that Chomsky himself is bought out or owned by some large corporation, though when reading through it more closely, it is clear he is not. All you do is belittle him as an intellectual bully. I got news for you, he can't bully you without ammo, and he has plenty. Chomsky coming out against 9/11 conspiracy theories is a deathnail to your cute little movement. Unless you can come up with some pretty good facts to rebuff his rebuke, which is both more factual and logical than any 9/11 conspiracy I have ever heard. What do you come back with? Namecalling, and an implication of his status as a corporate man that is disgusting. This blog epitomizes your "movement." You make things up that seem crazy, but when a person actually looks into it, its clear that it is an exagerration or misleading fact. You make the left look stupid, and give republicans creedence when they call global warming a conspiracy theory.
I'm going to revisit this site, and if my comment is deleted, we'll see who really wants the whole truth out
This is rediculous. You really have no counter argument to the Chomsky attacks, and you also attempt to slyly imply that Chomsky himself is bought out or owned by some large corporation, though when reading through it more closely, it is clear he is not. All you do is belittle him as an intellectual bully. I got news for you, he can't bully you without ammo, and he has plenty. Chomsky coming out against 9/11 conspiracy theories is a deathnail to your cute little movement. Unless you can come up with some pretty good facts to rebuff his rebuke, which is both more factual and logical than any 9/11 conspiracy I have ever heard. What do you come back with? Namecalling, and an implication of his status as a corporate man that is disgusting. This blog epitomizes your "movement." You make things up that seem crazy, but when a person actually looks into it, its clear that it is an exagerration or misleading fact. You make the left look stupid, and give republicans creedence when they call global warming a conspiracy theory.
I'm going to revisit this site, and if my comment is deleted, we'll see who really wants the whole truth out
Browse recently declassified documents:
The original link doesn't work anymore
I have to agree that whoever was behind the WTC attacks, the purpose before us is still to understand and change the fundamentals of a system of governance and distribution which allow and cause such attacks. If the US government (or elements therein) planned and carried out the attacks, then it needs changing, but if private individuals linked with overseas groups attacked the WTC, it remains to be seen why, and what productive measure can be taken to prevent future occurrences. That cannot happen in an environment of secrecy and exploitation, which is certainly what the US government has always promoted. So, either way, it really doesn't matter who did it, what matters is how we deal with the underlying causes.
Victor I wish I could. I have a good idea on motion to dismiss because i download lots of stuff from the net. ( i am also stuck fighting legal Labour road blocks to obtain natural justice against two faulty unions, hoepefully one more year of fighting will do..)
Any Chance you could write one of those for Emperor Bushie and minions?