Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban

Oh, I get it. The existence of a propaganda ban is part of the propaganda.

I had the same thought when I saw that headline.

when reading the headline..

lol

not fox news specifically...
but rather..
'wait, theres a ban on propaganda?!'

definitely coulda fooled me

by repeating things over and over again. And Rumsfeld told us he was going to deliberately misinform us.

Not in conjunction with the federal govt.

It's not like we believe anything the Government says anyway. They have been lying to us for my entire life. I still have a pamphlet that they handed out ( when i was a kid ) that says Rock and Roll causes the degradation of moral values.

And also a very good thing when those morals were based on lies.

I Chomsky!

This is the 2013 NDAA right?

And it also still includes the indefinite detention for anybody accused of aiding terror, same as the 2012 NDAA.

sucks.

Propaganda Bill Drops “Propaganda” Amendment

The version of the defense appropriateions bill that passed through markup in the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday afternoon does not include an amendment to "strike the current ban on domestic dissemination" of propaganda says Glen Caplin, Communicaitons Director for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who is a member of the committee.

The move marks a setback for the approval of Reps. Mac Thornberry and Adam Smith’s controversial amendment to the House version of the bill, which repeals the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. The House amendment’s press release states that it will “help counter threats in the information age” by lessening restrictions on how foreign information campaigns are shared with U.S. citizens...

Even though the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that passed through Senate committee includes no mention of altering the Smith-Mundt Act, it remains possible for an amendment allowing for domestic propaganda to be introduced on the Senate floor, or added when the House and Senate versions of the bill are reconciled...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rebeccaelliott/senate-bill-drops-propaganda-amendment

Note: There are several spelling errors in the article according to DU spell check, but I didn't correct them.

Nothing is written in stone, call your representatives and senators and raise hell.

I'll take it. Thanks freshwest.

PS. They may want to invest in spellcheck over at buzzfeed.com...

Rep. Smith Clarifies the Intent and Impact of the Thornberry-Smith Amendment
Posted by Rep. Adam Smith on May 23, 2012

I have heard from several constituents regarding an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) I co-sponsored with Congressman Mac Thornberry that would modernize the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. Unfortunately, recent articles have misinterpreted the intent and impact of the Thornberry-Smith amendment to the NDAA and I would like to take this opportunity to clarify misconceptions about what the amendment does.

First let me say, that the Thornberry-Smith amendment does not authorize any U.S. government agency to develop propaganda for a domestic audience nor is that our intent... As the NDAA continues to make its way through the Senate and then conference between the House and Senate, if there is a possibility this language could be misinterpreted to allow a U.S. government agency to develop propaganda for a domestic audience please be assured, changes will be made to make sure it does not happen...

This amendment is intended to provide greater transparency and to ensure the U.S. government can get factual information out to foreign audiences in a timely manner for many reasons including countering extremist misinformation and propaganda. It does not and is not in any way intended to ‘legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences,’ it does not neutralize or repeal Smith-Mundt and, in fact, it specifically ensures that the content to be rebroadcast or republished domestically by the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) shall not influence public opinion in the U.S. It clearly states, no funds authorized to be appropriated to State Department or BBG for any activity shall be used to influence public opinion. Further, beyond the scope of the State Department and BBG, restrictions are passed into law each year that would prevent taxpayer dollars from being spent by the U.S. government for propaganda purposes...


Am summarizing to meet the three paragraph rule, but he cites cases where Somalians and Haitians in the US asked for updates about conditions in their homelands. But they were denied them as the radio stations cited Smith-Mundt and would not allow the news to be broadcast as it was foreign, per the link below.

I'm hoping this will give greater presence of foreign news in many instances where Americans need to get out of the news bubble that the corporate media has us isolated in. There are other solutions that we've been effectively kept in the dark about by corporate forces on issues such as healthcare and other views. IMHO, that would be a good thing, although his explanation is complicated. We're already subjected to real misinformation and non-stop propaganda from FOX and others who only report what the energy giants, GOP and MIC allow them to do now. There is a much broader view of how to solve our problem than theirs.

http://adamsmith.house.gov/Blog/?postid=296708

And tell EVERYONE about this, because it isn't exactly making the headlines on CNN.

... in the last decade or so, I've never seen a "law" or "ban" that stopped the Federal Govt from doing whatever the #$%^ it wanted anyway.

The Bush Administration did whatever the fuck it wanted, including injecting misinformation and propaganda into the public debate (in violation of previous laws) via the foreign press, because it worked better than simply lying (which they also did every day).

Since colluding with foreign entities to sway public opinion in the US comes dangerously close to something like espionage or treason, the Bush people are about to find their asses hanging in the breeze should they lose control of Congress. That could get far worse if, say, the financial relationship between the Bush 2000 campaign and Saudi Arabia were ever to be disclosed.

I'll put money on it that if this issue persists, sooner or later it will come out that the "bipartisan" nature of this bill is a sham and the Democratic co-sponsor(s) all have identifiable ties to--or are being coerced by--Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

Still more depressing is the idea that it is probably better to let them try this than to pry up the rock and see what is squirming underneath. The bill won't get through the Senate, and as long as the people who were willing to end the lives of a million innocents to start a war think that this is an effective approach, maybe they won't call up the Americans who oversaw to the demise of those million innocents... but they will. They'll do that, too.

I think your right on the money.

is one of the sponsors.

just to give some kind of a focus to the Bush II administration. I don't see what further legal basis the gov't needs to do almost anything. Although maybe they would use it to do something that was actually useful, like conservation, clean air, re-impowerment of the citizenry, bring jobs back to the the USA. ...... nah, ... they wouldn't do something like that.

He was a Radioman aboard a US Navy ship in the Western Pacific. He was listening to a radio broadcast put out by the Japanese. It was a woman speaking in English giving an account of a Naval battle in which the US had taken a beating.

My dad turned to the ship's commanding officer and said "Those Japanese sure put out a lot of propaganda. That's all BS, isn't it?"

The captain said "Sailor, just because it's propaganda doesn't mean it's not true."

the flavor of the month tactic is the use of NDAAs and congressional traitors to move police state legislation.

been doing for decades.

If the big people can lie, there's little rational reason to tell the little people they have to tell the truth.

...is beyond absurd.

jeeesh.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/singleton/

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/regulatory_affairs/default/ where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false “conspiracy theories,” which they define to mean: “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” Sunstein’s 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/got-fascism-obama-advisor-promotes.html , and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story‘s Daniel Tencer. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/01/13/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/

There’s no evidence that the Obama administration has actually implemented a program exactly of the type advocated by Sunstein, though in light of this paper and the fact that Sunstein’s position would include exactly such policies, that question certainly ought to be asked. Regardless, Sunstein’s closeness to the President, as well as the highly influential position he occupies, merits an examination of the mentality behind what he wrote. This isn’t an instance where some government official wrote a bizarre paper in college 30 years ago about matters unrelated to his official powers; this was written 18 months ago, at a time when the ascendancy of Sunstein’s close friend to the Presidency looked likely, in exactly the area he now oversees. Additionally, the government-controlled messaging that Sunstein desires has been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions over the last decade, including in some recently revealed practices of the current administration, and the mindset in which it is grounded explains a great deal about our political class. All of that makes Sunstein’s paper worth examining in greater detail.


Initially, note how similar Sunstein’s proposal is to multiple, controversial stealth efforts by the Bush administration to secretly influence and shape our political debates. The Bush Pentagon employed teams of former Generals to pose as “independent analysts” in the media while secretly coordinating their talking points and messaging about wars and detention policies with the Pentagon. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/10/analysts/index.html Bush officials secretly paid supposedly “independent” voices, such as Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher, http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0204-31.htm to advocate pro-Bush policies while failing to disclose their contracts. In Iraq, the Bush Pentagon hired a company, Lincoln Park, which paid newspapers to plant pro-U.S. articles while pretending it came from Iraqi citizens. http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/21/i_was_a_propaganda_intern_in In response to all of this, Democrats typically accused the Bush administration http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/04/letters-from-rep-rosa-delauro-to.html of engaging in government-sponsored propaganda — and when it was done domestically, suggested this was illegal propaganda. Indeed, there is a very strong case to make that what Sunstein is advocating is itself illegal http://www.prwatch.org/node/7261 under long-standing statutes prohibiting government ”propaganda” within the U.S., aimed at American citizens:

snip

-----------------------------------------




Sunstein's wife, btw is the horrid Samantha Power, who is one of the architects of the NATO butchery and subsequent ongoing disaster in Libya. She was recently appointed as the head of the new Atrocities Prevention Board, which codifies http://warisacrime.org/content/obama%E2%80%99s-new-%E2%80%9Catrocity-prevention-board%E2%80%9D-reasons-skepticism that empiric wars of aggression will continue on. Quite the busy little couple they are.

It is the future of the MSM

Like the ones that keep on spamming "TEH LIST".

and have already been accused there of promoting a third party.

This is how they win. *Anything goes* - lying to Americans, indefinite detention, targeted assassination - as long as someone with a D after the name supports it.

The one percent, by buying into both parties, have figured out how to break a unified opposition, even to fascism. This is how they win.

and it is us.

Honeywell and so forth.

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...."
or
"I swear to tell the story, the whole story, and nothing but the story...."
or
"I swear to nothing"

"Yeah, I'm voting for that. We need more propaganda."

WTF?

eom

And start declaring that anyone who doesn't believe what the government tells them is an enemy of the state...

I'm sure that would make a lot of people happy.

that congress spreads is believed by most braindead people already. These republicans are always ruining bills by adding these little provisions and then they blame Democrats when they get vetoed. It's just the dirty rotten way republicans learned from the "Crook" Nixon. The GOP keeps Nixon's playbook at hand all the time.

Eom

and it just keeps getting worse, with no hope of a significant change anywhere in sight.

Occupy. It is more and more our only hope.

Angry yet? Is it serious enough yet?

Hey, has anyone asked Obama about this one?

"bipartisan amendment"
"bipartisan amendment"
"bipartisan amendment"

You cannot solve a problem if you refuse to acknowledge it.

It doesn't mean that both parties agree with the bill. Republicans will. Democrats won't minus the DINOs that we were soooooo happy to accept into the party back in 2008 and idiots like this turd Adam Smith who come from Republican districts.

Rep. Adam Smith (D): "He has been a leader in moderate, "New Democrat" organizations. He serves as the chair of the political action committee of the New Democrat Coalition.

On October 10, 2002, Adam Smith was among the 81 Democratic members of the House voting in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_%28politician%29

We have lately seen little evidence of any clout, at least on war, economic, or police state issues, by any Democrats other than DINOs.

On civil rights, indefinite detention, drone wars, warrantless surveillance and massive spy centers, internet spying and censorship, Internet ID's, trade policy, bailouts and settlements for criminal banks, tax cuts for billionaires and austerity for the rest of us, assaults on social programs, strip searches, TSA groping, the Patriot Act, etc., coordinated assaults on protestors... there has been a hell of a lot of bipartisanship.

I see no evidence whatsoever that we should not worry about bipartisanship on this issue, too.

I just pointed out that the one Democrat supporting it so far is a DINO. We should all call our Senators and Congresspersons to denounce this bill!

Sorry I misunderstood.

This is how the "superior people" justify their mind-control tactics used on Americans.

This is a step from just restricting access to information, they want to set us up so we won't believe the truth when we see it.

How could there be a "propaganda" ban? Who is going to decide what is "propaganda." The only way to fight speech is more speech.