Seems like "national security" has become a phrase that can be used to circumvent many laws, facts, and balance checks. Just like the word "terrorist." It seems like if these ever get challenged to the Supreme Court the current judges will rule with something like it being at the president's discretion.

So obviously the government can spend some of that $1T military budget on fixing their coastal radar.

I thought Massachusetts just won in court to get their money or construction resumed, wonder if this means they have to go back to court.

▲

dylan604 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Seems like "national security" has become a phrase that can be used to circumvent many laws

By has become, you mean always has been, right?

▲

bakies 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I guess I think it used to be more believable that it was used for security, but maybe I wouldn't if I knew better history.

	▲	zmgsabst 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I’m inclined to believe always — as the case establishing “state secrets” for national security was actually about covering up negligence. https://www.cato.org/commentary/48-crash-us-hid-behind-natio...

▲

BLKNSLVR 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Since 2001 at least.

▲

_aavaa_ 2 days ago | parent [-]

Since WWII and the bomb. See Bomb Power by Garry Wills

	▲	shimman 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Behind the Bastards had a great series about this too (it was either that book, or another).

▲

sowbug 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don't forget "war on" something that isn't a nation state.

	▲	abirch 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think the Washington Generals have a better record than the USA on “wars on” non nation states

▲

GolfPopper 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>It seems like if these ever get challenged to the Supreme Court the current judges will rule with something like it being at the president's discretion.

Given that this is the same Supreme Court that ruled Biden (or Trump) could have them all shot[1], it seems near-certain that you're correct.

1. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf (JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR dissent, pages 29-30)