"Although policies of 'need-to-know' and 'compartmentalized knowledge' can sometimes cause more trouble than they're worth, there are very sensible reasons for them; there are many things which do require highest levels of secrecy. If a careless word at an embassy cocktail party were to reveal how successful Britain was at intercepting and decrypting another country's communications, a simple change of cypher equipment or cypher key generator could throwaway years of painstaking work at GCHQ. Another careless word could cause life of a long-term, well-established British agent abroad to be threatened, or at very to be bust open.

Lord George-Brown, a former Foreign Secretary (1966-68), raises a disturbing point about security, and trustworthiness or otherwise of members of security services and Diplomatic Service - and, by extension, MPs and Ministers of State. If someone is under suspicion, he writes,

‘Inevitably, much of evidence in such cases is hearsay or almost unprovable deduction, and one must reckon with natural wish of colleagues to protect, as it were, a fellow-member of club, especially when they don't know, and can't really be told, full extent of matter. This clearly happened in case of Burgess and Maclean. (60)

MPs themselves are a club; very senior civil servants - 'the Whitehall mandarins' - are a club, members of MI5 and MI6 are a club; British establishment, whether in public office or not, is a club. Most of these people also belong to various gentlemen's clubs; some belong to that huge but secretive club, Freemasons. Without casting any aspersions against any of these organizations, or their rules, regulations, restrictions, customs or obligations regarding 'mutual support' and 'members in need', it is not in slightest surprising if individual members look out for interests of each other, especially if they are friends and dinner and drinking companions. Over years favours, large and small, are traded; when someone is potentially in trouble, fellow 'club' members are likely - rightly or wrongly - to help them out.

By Punkerslut

When a person commits an act today that relies on force or violence, without being condoned by a government or established rule, itis commonly call a "terrorist act," committed by "terrorists" or "militants." When a person commits a forceful or violent act, though, under rule and order of a government or established rule, condoned by leaders of that government, it is called a "militaristic act." Prior to election of National Socialist Party in pre-Nazi Germany, few secluded violent acts committed by anti-semites were considered vulgar acts of injustice, committed by political and religious militants, or "terrorists." Once National Socialist Party occupied majority positions in legislature and executive branches of German government, violence committed against Jews was no longer considered a "terroristic act," -- in fact, it was considered a "militaristic act," accepted, supported, even funded and led by government. Once Nazi Party was in power, all acts that supported liberation and welfare of persecuted Jews was considered an act of terrorism; such people who do this being called "terrorists," "vandals," and even "traitors." Harriet Tubman was also considered a terrorist, whose acts of force were directed towards liberating enslaved black race. The government would change. Individuals now whose actions are towards murdering or harming blacks are considered "terrorists." To call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist is equally justified as calling Harriet Tubman a terrorist, as much as it may displease people and their cultural prejudice, since government and media has done all that it can to convince us that terrorism opposes liberty, when one of greatest terrorists was also oneof greatest liberators. Perhaps best example to illustrate point I am making is to describe Adolf Hitler in this way: "A terrorist, until he became accepted -- then just a ruler of a nation."

Understand here, that I am making no pardoning plea for Adolf Hitler and his ways. This is not a pardoning plea for Nazis; it is an indictment of government.

The initial response of anyone to these string of facts is that term "leader" versus "terrorist" is neither positive or negative, but completely neutral. The only thing these terms can indicate is that an individual does not use passive acts of resistance to accomplish change they desire in society. The government's claims that Osama Bin Laden is a "terrorist" and not a "leader" is not different from stalin's regime calling freedom fighters "terrorists" and not "leaders." Similarly, governments' claims that George Bush is a "nation leader" and not a "terrorist" are no different thank claims that Mussolini is "just a military leader" and not a terrorist. The only differente between terms is that one is popularly accepted while other is not.

The unfortunate fact of matter is that governments have committed just as horrible acts against innocent and peaceful as terrorists have, and even worse, reverse is true. Terrorists have liberated, freed millions, doing all in their power to break chains of bondage to everyone in any unjust slavery -- as some government's have. It quite simply is a meaningless term.

All of this being understood, we must consider modern acts of "terrorism." While any act committed by popular group, using force, is known as a military act, any act committed by an unpopular, underground group, through force is known as a terroristic act (the underground French army that revolted against German Nazis, for example). So, by wwhat method is one group effectively established? The methods by which a government is chosen hav varied through ages and diversified through regions. There is typical method of a leader gaining his support through military power, as a king, monarch, despot, or dictator. The other method of establishing power is through election, wheret he people choose their king, only he is called a president, chancellor, or prime minister. In some cases, these systems are combined, or diversified, or both. A house of representatives or two, may have two ways of being elected (such as U.S. has a Congress and House of Representatives), but central executive power may be a king.