|
|
| Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban (943178) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (943178) | |
Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by dand124 on Sat May 19 23:18:18 2012 http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to-lift-propaganda-banAn amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill, BuzzFeed has learned. The amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the Pentagon, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee's official website. The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns. The bi-partisan amendment is sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State. In a little noticed press release earlier in the week — buried beneath the other high-profile issues in the $642 billion defense bill, including indefinite detention and a prohibition on gay marriage at military installations — Thornberry warned that in the Internet age, the current law “ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way.” The bill's supporters say the informational material used overseas to influence foreign audiences is too good to not use at home, and that new techniques are needed to help fight Al-Qaeda, a borderless enemy whose own propaganda reaches Americans online. Critics of the bill say there are ways to keep America safe without turning the massive information operations apparatus within the federal government against American citizens. “Clearly there are ways to modernize for the information age without wiping out the distinction between domestic and foreign audiences,” says Michael Shank, Vice President at the Institute for Economics and Peace in Washington D.C. "That Reps Adam Smith and Mac Thornberry want to roll back protections put in place by previously-serving Senators – who, in their wisdom, ensured limits to taxpayer–funded propaganda promulgated by the US government – is disconcerting and dangerous." “I just don’t want to see something this significant – whatever the pros and cons – go through without anyone noticing,” “ says one source on the Hill, who is disturbed by the law. According to this source, the law would allow "U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population." The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. “It removes the protection for Americans,” says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.” According to this official, “senior public affairs” officers within the Department of Defense want to “get rid” of Smith-Mundt and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies—like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Critics of the bill point out that there was rigorous debate when Smith Mundt passed, and the fact that this is so “under the radar,” as the Pentagon official puts it, is troubling. The Pentagon spends some $4 billion a year to sway public opinion already, and it was recently revealed by USA Today the DoD spent $202 million on information operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last year. In an apparent retaliation to the USA Today investigation, the two reporters working on the story appear to have been targeted by Pentagon contractors, who created fake Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in an attempt to discredit them. (In fact, a second amendment to the authorization bill — in reaction to the USA Today report — seeks for cuts to the Pentagon’s propaganda budget overseas, while this amendment will make it easier for the propaganda to spread at home.) The evaporation of Smith-Mundt and other provisions to safeguard U.S. citizens against government propaganda campaigns is part of a larger trend within the diplomatic and military establishment. In December, the Pentagon used software to monitor the Twitter debate over Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing; another program being developed by the Pentagon would design software to create “sock puppets” on social media outlets; and, last year, General William Caldwell, deployed an information operations team under his command that had been trained in psychological operations to influence visiting American politicians to Kabul. The upshot, at times, is the Department of Defense using the same tools on U.S. citizens as on a hostile, foreign, population. A U.S. Army whistleblower, Lieutenant Col. Daniel Davis, noted recently in his scathing 84-page unclassified report on Afghanistan that there remains a strong desire within the defense establishment “to enable Public Affairs officers to influence American public opinion when they deem it necessary to "protect a key friendly center of gravity, to wit US national will," he wrote, quoting a well-regarded general. The defense bill passed the House Friday afternoon. |
|
|
| (943180) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat May 19 23:24:58 2012, in response to Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by dand124 on Sat May 19 23:18:18 2012. Oh boy! Olog gets a JOB! :) |
|
|
| (943189) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 03:05:45 2012, in response to Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by dand124 on Sat May 19 23:18:18 2012. This is a right-wing wet dream. It's like FOX on steroids .Your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (943203) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun May 20 04:57:41 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 03:05:45 2012. Some of your cohorts on the left (such as Bingbong, Smaz & Co) are some of the biggest spreaders of propaganda here. |
|
|
| (943214) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 07:15:10 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun May 20 04:57:41 2012. And it comes from the Pentagon like the post I responded to?your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (943219) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 09:03:22 2012, in response to Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by dand124 on Sat May 19 23:18:18 2012. Interesting on several accounts.Propaganda has been associated with lies but that's not necessarily true. So would the Pentagon and State Department be able to provide true but POV material now prohibited, or would they be able to outright lie. We see propaganda all the time. Newspaper articles and especially editorials; political ads can be pretty extreme. "Editorial judgment" is often used to propagate particular opinions. It was noted that whitehouse,gov has added "Did You Know" material to the previous neutral biographies of American Presidents, talking about how Obama is carrying on the legacy of various former presidents, including Reagan. Is it true? Perhaps. Is it POV? Definitely. Is it propaganda? Yes, by definition. But we know the source, and can judge accordingly. Do I trust that the Pentagon and the State Department would disseminate only true material? I do not, but I would also like access to their writing. Remember that the "Pentagon Papers," probably the most accurate single source on U.S. thinking and involvement on the Vietnam War, was written by the Pentagon for its own use. Remember that in the same era, I.F. Stone's Weekly, which I subscribed to back in the day, had interesting and mostly true material, but the man was also a propagandist for the Soviet Union, which we learned when the USSR fell. This betrayed a POV that would have been useful if we had known about it at the time. The main thing I would look for is that the material disseminated is identified as to source. |
|
|
| (943222) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 09:07:50 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 03:05:45 2012. It's a wet dream for the organizations involved. You believe that propaganda only comes from the right, huh? Yeah, it was that Republican right-winger LBJ who lied about Tonkin and used it justifying escalating a war of which Americans were largely ignorant.And the State Department, like other foreign services in the Western World, is traditionally an organization that sets its own course. |
|
|
| (943226) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 09:29:29 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 09:07:50 2012. There you go again, bringing up the 1960's as an example of what's going on today. The world has significantly changed twice since LBJ was President.I don't believe that propaganda only comes from the right, but when it supports warmongering, the right owns it. your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (943229) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 09:30:49 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 09:29:29 2012. Those who don't learn from history post on the internet.your pal, SLRT |
|
|
| (943231) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 09:52:00 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 09:30:49 2012. And monger for war in Iraq and Iran.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (943232) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sun May 20 10:39:16 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun May 20 04:57:41 2012. Prove that. |
|
|
| (943233) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 10:39:53 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 09:52:00 2012. War mongering literally means "war selling." Are you a pacifist? Or do you designate "good wars" and "bad wars"?I notice that you didn't mention Obama in Afghanistan, which he campaigned on that Afghanistan was the good war and Iraq the bad. Mind you, even though I was a registered Democrat from 1969 to 1998, I was aware that Democrats sold quite a few wars, large and small, but I made excuses for them, just like the lefties here. your pal, SLRT |
|
|
| (943235) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 10:53:47 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 10:39:53 2012. I'm a pacifist in that America should only go to war as last resort. Iraq doesn't pass that test, nor does Iran at today's point in history. Afganistan to me does, but not completely and only if I overlook the incompetence of the Bush administration.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (943236) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 10:54:47 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 10:53:47 2012. That's not a pacifist. |
|
|
| (943237) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 10:56:57 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 10:54:47 2012. It is if you're German :)your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (943239) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Sun May 20 11:12:17 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 10:39:53 2012. Look for the gun and the uniform. That's where you NEED to cut spending. |
|
|
| (943240) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Sun May 20 11:14:03 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 09:03:22 2012. I wish you Nazis would research where the Yellow Ribbon REALLY came from. Hint: it has NOTHING to do with the military. |
|
|
| (943241) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Sun May 20 11:16:05 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 09:30:49 2012. Those who don't learn from history support insane levels of military spending in peacetime. |
|
|
| (943242) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 11:18:28 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by Rockparkman on Sun May 20 11:14:03 2012.  your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (943323) | |
Re: Kongressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 20 17:58:17 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by SLRT on Sun May 20 10:39:53 2012. I notice that you didn't mention Obama in Afghanistan, which he campaigned on that Afghanistan was the good war and Iraq the badAh, the "war of necessity". Only seems to be serving the Taliban's purpose though. |
|
|
| (943399) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 21 03:32:41 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by bingbong on Sun May 20 10:39:16 2012. All your facts are "facts", taken from leftist blogs, opinion op-eds, and left wing propaganda. You than call the "facts", facts. |
|
|
| (943400) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 21 03:34:12 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by Fred G on Sun May 20 10:56:57 2012. Hahahaha! |
|
|
| (943442) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon May 21 06:36:57 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 21 03:32:41 2012. But you yourself claim you don't read them, so how do you know if they're facts or not?your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (943448) | |
Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 21 07:32:41 2012, in response to Re: Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban, posted by Fred G on Mon May 21 06:36:57 2012. When presented from either side (yes either) in the form of blogs, op eds, and the like, they take the statistics they like, ignore the ones they don't, and skew the ones that are left. THIW. |
|
|