Is American "conservatism" and the President's Oath of Office, Incompatible? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 12-23-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html
Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Our history:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/wa...gewanted=print
December 23, 2007
Hoover Planned Mass Jailing in 1950
By TIM WEINER

A newly declassified document shows that J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had a plan to suspend habeas corpus and imprison some 12,000 Americans he suspected of disloyalty.

Hoover sent his plan to the White House on July 7, 1950, 12 days after the Korean War began. It envisioned putting suspect Americans in military prisons.

Hoover wanted President Harry S. Truman to proclaim the mass arrests necessary to “protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage.” The F.B.I would “apprehend all individuals potentially dangerous” to national security, Hoover’s proposal said. The arrests would be carried out under “a master warrant attached to a list of names” provided by the bureau.

The names were part of an index that Hoover had been compiling for years. “The index now contains approximately twelve thousand individuals, of which approximately ninety-seven per cent are citizens of the United States,” he wrote.

“In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus,” it said.

Habeas corpus, the right to seek relief from illegal detention, has been a fundamental principle of law for seven centuries. The Bush administration’s decision to hold suspects for years at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has made habeas corpus a contentious issue for Congress and the Supreme Court today.

The Constitution says habeas corpus shall not be suspended “unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” The plan proposed by Hoover, the head of the F.B.I. from 1924 to 1972, stretched that clause to include “threatened invasion” or “attack upon United States troops in legally occupied territory.”

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush issued an order that effectively allowed the United States to hold suspects indefinitely without a hearing, a lawyer, or formal charges. In September 2006, Congress passed a law suspending habeas corpus for anyone deemed an “unlawful enemy combatant.”

But the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of American citizens to seek a writ of habeas corpus. This month the court heard arguments on whether about 300 foreigners held at Guantánamo Bay had the same rights. It is expected to rule by next summer.

Hoover’s plan was declassified Friday as part of a collection of cold-war documents concerning intelligence issues from 1950 to 1955. The collection makes up a new volume of “The Foreign Relations of the United States,” a series that by law has been published continuously by the State Department since the Civil War.

Hoover’s plan called for “the permanent detention” of the roughly 12,000 suspects at military bases as well as in federal prisons. The F.B.I., he said, had found that the arrests it proposed in New York and California would cause the prisons there to overflow.

So the bureau had arranged for “detention in military facilities of the individuals apprehended” in those states, he wrote.

The prisoners eventually would have had a right to a hearing under the Hoover plan. The hearing board would have been a panel made up of one judge and two citizens. But the hearings “will not be bound by the rules of evidence,” his letter noted.

The only modern precedent for Hoover’s plan was the Palmer Raids of 1920, named after the attorney general at the time. The raids, executed in large part by Hoover’s intelligence division, swept up thousands of people suspected of being communists and radicals.

Previously declassified documents show that the F.B.I.’s “security index” of suspect Americans predated the cold war. In March 1946, Hoover sought the authority to detain Americans “who might be dangerous” if the United States went to war. In August 1948, Attorney General Tom Clark gave the F.B.I. the power to make a master list of such people.

Hoover’s July 1950 letter was addressed to Sidney W. Souers, who had served as the first director of central intelligence and was then a special national-security assistant to Truman. The plan also was sent to the executive secretary of the National Security Council, whose members were the president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state and the military chiefs.

In September 1950, Congress passed and the president signed a law authorizing the detention of “dangerous radicals” if the president declared a national emergency. Truman did declare such an emergency in December 1950, after China entered the Korean War. But no known evidence suggests he or any other president approved any part of Hoover’s proposal.

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actio...ointelpro.html
Within one year of the formation of the Black Panther Party, the FBI established a special counter-intelligence program called COINTELPRO, to neutralize political dissidents. Between the years 1956 and 1971, the FBI used the COINTELPRO program to investigate "radical" national political groups for intelligence that would lead to involvement of foreign enemies with these groups. This of course meant that the FBI specifically targeted American citizens. According to COINTELPRO documents, 5 groups were singled out for investigation - the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers' Party, White Hate Groups, Black Nationalist Hate Groups and the New Left. The Black Panther Party was specifically targeted and bore the brunt of the most damage.

According to FBI documents, one of the purposes of the COINTELPRO program was to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of the Black nationalists". They wanted to prevent the rise of a black "messiah" and Martin Luther King Jr. had been amongst the candidates until his assassination in 1968 when the attention shifted to Huey P. Newton. Of the 295 documented actions taken by COINTELPRO to disrupt Black groups, 233 were directed against the Black Panther Party.

In his doctoral thesis, War Against The Panthers: A Study of Repression in America, Newton accuses J. Edgar Hoover and COINTELPRO of: fostering a split between Eldridge Cleaver and himself through false letters and documents; creating discord between the BPP and other Black groups such as Ron Karenga's group United Slaves [US], which led to the murders of Alprentice "Bunchy" Carter and John Huggins at the University of California; and involvement in the murder of Fred Hampton, leader of the Chicago Chapter of the Black Panther Party in 1969.

A description of what THEY are planning, and who they are entrusting "IT" with:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
FBI Prepares Vast Database Of Biometrics
$1 Billion Project to Include Images of Irises and Faces

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 22, 2007; Page A01

CLARKSBURG, W. Va. -- The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad.

Digital images of faces, fingerprints and palm patterns are already flowing into FBI systems in a climate-controlled, secure basement here. Next month, the FBI intends to award a 10-year contract that would significantly expand the amount and kinds of biometric information it receives. And in the coming years, law enforcement authorities around the world will be able to rely on iris patterns, face-shape data, scars and perhaps even the unique ways people walk and talk, to solve crimes and identify criminals and terrorists. The FBI will also retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks so the employers can be notified if employees have brushes with the law.

"Bigger. Faster. Better. That's the bottom line," said Thomas E. Bush III, assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, which operates the database from its headquarters in the Appalachian foothills.

The increasing use of biometrics for identification is raising questions about the ability of Americans to avoid unwanted scrutiny. It is drawing criticism from those who worry that people's bodies will become de facto national identification cards. Critics say that such government initiatives should not proceed without proof that the technology really can pick a criminal out of a crowd.....

....The FBI is building its system according to standards shared by Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

At the West Virginia University Center for Identification Technology Research (CITeR), 45 minutes north of the FBI's biometric facility in Clarksburg, researchers are working on capturing images of people's irises at distances of up to 15 feet, and of faces from as far away as 200 yards. Soon, those researchers will do biometric research for the FBI.

Covert iris- and face-image capture is several years away, but it is of great interest to government agencies.

Think of a Navy ship approaching a foreign vessel, said Bojan Cukic, CITeR's co-director. "It would help to know before you go on board whether the people on that ship that you can image from a distance, whether they are foreign warfighters, and run them against a database of known or suspected terrorists," he said.

Skeptics say that such projects are proceeding before there is evidence that they reliably match suspects against a huge database. .....

Considered in the framework of this study's conclusions, and in the experiences under "republican rule" over the last seven years, why is it unreasonable to believe that the beliefs, actions, and goals of this president and his party are contradictory to the pressident's oath of office?

Quote:

http://www.wam.umd.edu/%7Ehannahk/reply.pdf
Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 383–393 0033-2909/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.383

Exceptions That Prove the Rule—Using a Theory of Motivated Social
Cognition to Account for Ideological Incongruities and Political
Anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003)

A meta-analysis by J. T. Jost, J. Glaser, A. W. Kruglanski, and F. J. Sulloway (2003) concluded that
political conservatism is partially motivated by the management of uncertainty and threat. In this reply
to J. Greenberg and E. Jonas (2003), conceptual issues are clarified, numerous political anomalies are
explained, and alleged counterexamples are incorporated with a dynamic model that takes into account
differences between “young” and “old” movements. Studies directly pitting the rigidity-of-the-right
hypothesis against the ideological extremity hypothesis demonstrate strong support for the former.
Medium to large effect sizes describe relations between political conservatism and dogmatism and
intolerance of ambiguity; lack of openness to experience; uncertainty avoidance; personal needs for
order, structure, and closure; fear of death; and system threat.

The US constitution is a statement of the rights and authority reluctantly ceded by the people to permit a functioning federal government. Are the penchant for "order" and "certainty" compatible with "reluctantly ceded"?

Isn't it possible that the republicans in authority are psychologically incapable of serving to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ?

Ustwo · 12-23-2007, 12:41 PM

Care to elaborate what a unused plan by Hoover with a democrat as president has to do with your limited posting?

What does this have to do with republicans again?

You are wasting time, I am wasting time too but reading is quicker than posting.

host · 12-23-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Care to elaborate what a unused plan by Hoover with a democrat as president has to do with your limited posting?

What does this have to do with republicans again?

You are wasting time, I am wasting time too but reading is quicker than posting.

We live in the now, influenced by our history. The FBI's history is one of abuse of process, and the DOJ and the FBI are busily engaged in it today...see "national security letters". Nixon responded to a perceived political enemy by approving the burglary of patient records at the man's psychiatrist's office.

The problems outlined in the OP are that the FBI is assembling a "scan tool" that justifies "targets" as "terrorists", based on dubious, unproven technology, and before any judicial check/balance is inserted between use of force, and any hearing to defend oneself, or to assess the government's case.

If, as described in the WaPo article, our "forces" can scan the crew of possible enemy ship to pick out "terrorists", how long would it be, after that, when the scan would be directed at the occupants of domestically operated motor vehicles.

You've missed the irony..."science" says that it seems that conservatives prioritize security over individual rights, motivated by an outsized "fear of death", and of "disorder". If "science" justifies a FBI remote determination, actionable intelligence as to who is or isn't a "terrorist", why isn't it equally legitimate to use what has been obtained by scientific discovery and analysis to determine who is or isn't suitable to uphold the president's oath of office?

dc_dux · 12-23-2007, 01:37 PM

I dont think its necessarily a "conservative" v oath of office issue.

It is a Bush v oath of office issue and the danger that it may set a precedent of expanded presidential powers in a manner that many Constitutional scholars believe was not envisioned.

Bush has operated under a policy, based on some nebulous interpretation by Ashcroft and Gonzales, that Article II of the Constitution gives the President the authority to determine the powers of the President under Article II....sorta like "I get to determine what my own powers are."

"they promoted an overall view of executive power that a president should be able to interpret the Constitution independently — and direct the activities of the executive branch without interference from Congress."

More from a recent article in Congressional Quarterly....Bush's policy/practices and the serious question if the current crop of candidates may continue this shift away from the system of checks of balances:

Quote:

For the past seven years, George W. Bush has expanded presidential power in ways that no one could have predicted when he took office.

He and Vice President Dick Cheney have worn their independence — from oversight by either lawmakers or judges — as a badge of honor, necessary to keep the nation safe from another terrorist attack and restore what they have regarded as a weakened presidency. But the cost has been a poisonous friction with Congress and a growing public perception that they simply weren’t interested in checks and balances.

Bush administration officials launched a secret warrantless surveillance program that operated outside the federal law that governs spying programs. They refused to ask Congress to authorize military commissions to try suspected terrorists, although the Supreme Court later forced them to do so. They declared that the president alone could decide how to detain suspected terrorists and which interrogation techniques to use.

They decided that the president alone could pull the United States out of treaties such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which Bush renounced in 2001. They maintained that administration officials don’t necessarily have to testify in an investigation just because Congress subpoenas them, a view that has driven Democrats in the House and Senate to launch contempt proceedings against officials who defied them in their probe of the firings of U.S. attorneys.

And they promoted an overall view of executive power that a president should be able to interpret the Constitution independently — and direct the activities of the executive branch without interference from Congress.

So members of Congress and constitutional experts had been looking for signs that the 2008 campaign would be the start of a backlash — with a varied group of presidential candidates from both parties who might scale back executive power and welcome, or at least tolerate, congressional oversight. “The lesson I hope the candidates have learned is, your power is enhanced when you work with the Congress,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “You’re more likely to be upheld by the courts. and you’re more likely to get things done.”

However, the records and statements of the eight major candidates — the three Democrats and five Republicans who have had double-digit support in the most recent national polls — show that the 2008 presidential election is not likely to start a huge shift in the balance of power away from the White House.

That doesn’t mean the top candidates would continue all of the Bush administration’s practices, and most aren’t likely to take the same kind of deliberately confrontational approach to Congress. Also, an upset victory could still go to one of the few candidates whose victory would represent a clear rejection of Bush’s overall policies. But there is enough evidence of a preference for strong executive power in the backgrounds of most of the field to suggest that, more likely than not, there will be no U-turn under the next president.

full article:
http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?do...t-000002643955

Question for TFP politicos:
Do you want to see future administrations continue to wear this Bush/Cheney "badge of honor" of expanded presidential powers at the expense of cutting off the legs of the other two branches of government?
(Ask yourself....Do you want Hillary to have the same power?....or Gulliani or Huckabee?)

samcol · 12-23-2007, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I dont think its necessarily a "conservative" v oath of office issue.

It is a Bush v oath of office issue and the danger that it may set a precedent of expanded presidential powers in a manner that many Constitutional scholars believe was not envisioned in the Constitution.

Bush has operated under a policy, based on some nebulous interpretation by Ashcroft and Gonzales, that Article II of the Constitution gives the President the authority to determine the powers of the President under Article II....sorta like "I get to determine what my own powers are."

"they promoted an overall view of executive power that a president should be able to interpret the Constitution independently — and direct the activities of the executive branch without interference from Congress."

More from a recent article in Congressional Quarterly....Bush's policy/practices and the serious question if the current crop of candidates may continue this shift away from the system of checks of balances:

Question for TFP politicos:
Do you want to see this Bush/Cheney "badge of honor" for the executive branch continue to cut-off the legs of the other two branches of government in future administrations?
(Ask yourself....Do you want Hillary to have the same power?....or Gulliani or Huckabee?)

Exactly, that's the whole problem many neo-cons don't understand. These powers won't simply go away when Hillary gets elected. I dunno why they continue to support the idea of a unitary executive.

Elphaba · 12-23-2007, 03:58 PM

I believe the only support for a unitary president rests with the neocons, whose influence has been weakened. However, their influence will continue to be felt if another Republican becomes president. I don't think independents and progressives would allow a Democratic president to assume unitary powers. Corporatist Democrats such as Clinton may think otherwise.

Thanks for the info, host. I knew Hoover was behind a lot of dirty business, but this bit is new to me.

dc_dux · 12-23-2007, 09:07 PM

The Boston Globe asked all the candidates a series of questions around their positions on the expanded power of the president as practiced by Bush...the use of wiretapping without a court warrant, use of force without specific Congressional authority, ignoring US treaty obligations on treatment and rights of prisoners, excessive use of signing statements, use of executive privilege when beyond private conversations between the Pres and staff.....

Romney made it clear in his responses that he will continue all of Bush's practices. Guilliani did not respond to the questions, but issued a statement through its spokesperson Ted Olsen (who was Bush's solicitor general and defending all of Bush's practices) so I think we know where Rudy stands. Huckabee refused to respond.

The leading Democrats were more circumspect in their responses and only the second tier Dems and Ron Paul answered in absolutes.

Quote:

Republican John McCain says that if he is elected president, he would consider himself bound to obey treaties because they are "the law of the land." But Mitt Romney says he would consider himself free to bypass treaties if they "impinge" on his powers as commander in chief.

Democrat Hillary Clinton says "in very rare instances," she might attach a so-called signing statement to a bill reserving a right to bypass "provisions that contradict the Constitution." But Bill Richardson says if a president thinks that parts of a bill are unconstitutional, then "he should veto it," not issue a signing statement.

These contrasts are found in the answers to a Globe survey of the presidential candidates about the limits of executive power. The study is the most comprehensive effort to date to get the candidates to declare in specific terms what checks and balances they would respect, and whether they would reverse the Bush administration's legacy of expanded presidential powers.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...full_spectrum/

Based on the responses of wannabee conservatives Romney and Guilliani pandering to the conservative base, I take back what I said about the incompatibility of excessive power v oath of office not being limited to conservatives. It could very well be an inherently Republican trait if the public chooses to let that happen.

roachboy · 12-24-2007, 09:41 AM

well, if you want to connect the neocons to a logner-term historical backdrop, why not go with the formation of the "national security state" in the earliest phase of the cold war? this context enables one to make sense of iraq because positioning the nature and interests of the nss behind the project for a new american century highlights the extent to which the war in iraq was about both the suspicion of multi-lateral agreements as a way to shape globalizing/americanising capitalism (with the un as the signifier of all things multi-lateral therefore bad) and about the assertion of the americans as military super-power over and above such multi-lateral agreements. for example. behind that lay a project to make the post-coldwar world safe for radical nationalist by way of assertions of military power--economic activity might be transnationalizing, but with a military, you still have the basis for mobilizing around the notion of the nation-state, and without the nation-state there is no conservatism at all.

the nss is not elected directly. it is predicated on a military=style command system (the argument was--i cant remember who made it--that democratic processes were too slow, that an alternative mechanism had to be developed to enable fast decisive responses from authoritarian regimes--think stalin, for example--that were no "encumbered" by "democracy")--much of the policy of the bush people links to this command system, its assumptions, its logic.

so if the neocons are a faction of the right that is most directly beholden to the overall interests of the security apparatus--the network of contractors/suppliers and institutions that buy from them---it kinda follows that something like bushworld would be an outcome---with all its attending problems in principle--which are compounded by the mind-boggling ineptness of these particular people.

this is a potted summary of the way i would think about the question posed in the op--more on the lines of dc's posts, but tweaked in another direction.

as for the candidates and the bush redefinition of the role of the presidency--i find the ambivalences amongst these folk concerning maintenance of the bush terms for the office of president to be alarming on the one hand, but indicative on the other--indicative of a sense of class interest shared by these representatives of various factions within the oligarchy.

pan6467 · 12-24-2007, 10:10 AM

We get the government we deserve. In 1992 the Dems had it all..... what did they accomplish? Losing the Congress in 1994 is what. So the Dems bitched and the GOP bitched. The Dems blamed Clinton and let him swing... the GOP looked saw Clinton was vulnerable and went after him.... weakening the presidential office and giving Congress more power.

In 2000, the GOP won everything.... and didn't know what to do until 9/11.

Since then, the Conservatives say Bush isn't conservative enough, the Dems say Impeach, he has too many powers...... yadda yadda yadda and proceeded to lose the Congress in 2006 after domestically being very ineffective and damaging while taking the goodwill of the world from 9/11 and shoving it back at them and spitting in their faces.

It is all in how you look at it and which side you are on.

What this country does need to elect in 2008 is a unifier, healer and teacher someone who will unify this country, heal the rifts and teach us how to be proud to be American and what it means to be free and the greatest country this world has ever seen. We need a leader that enters the international landscape showing what our freedom can do, showing how the right balance of goodwill, government, capitalism, socialism and republican democracy can lead to better lives and a more educated, healthier and caring nation it leads to.

If we get another divider....we will be divided and eventually we will lose any hope of being able to unify and stay free.

Seaver · 12-24-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

What this country does need to elect in 2008 is a unifier, healer and teacher someone who will unify this country, heal the rifts and teach us how to be proud to be American and what it means to be free and the greatest country this world has ever seen. We need a leader that enters the international landscape showing what our freedom can do, showing how the right balance of goodwill, government, capitalism, socialism and republican democracy can lead to better lives and a more educated, healthier and caring nation it leads to.

If we get another divider....we will be divided and eventually we will lose any hope of being able to unify and stay free.

True, unfortunately none of the candidates fit that description. None.

roachboy · 12-24-2007, 11:20 AM

what exactly is the relation between unity and freedom?

n0nsensical · 12-24-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what exactly is the relation between unity and freedom?

inversely proportional, at least since Washington.

Seaver · 12-24-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

what exactly is the relation between unity and freedom?

Tied together when we have a common enemy.

host · 12-24-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Tied together when we have a common enemy.

RE: "a common enemy"

Do doubts ever creep in, Seaver? Ever, ever?

Can anyone recall, or post an example of when the US mainland was ever commonly, or familiarly referred to frequently, before these guys, as "the homeland"?

Quote:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/034...g,47830,1.html
The Widening Crusade
Bush's War Plan Is Scarier Than He's Saying
by Sydney H. Schanberg
October 15 - 21, 2003

.....yet if the Bush White House is going to use its preeminent military force to subdue and neutralize all "evildoers" and adversaries everywhere in the world, the American public should be told now. Such an undertaking would be virtually endless and would require the sacrifice of enormous blood and treasure.

With no guarantee of success. And no precedent in history for such a crusade having lasting effect......

...For those who would dispute the assertion that the Bush Doctrine is a global military-based policy and is not just about liberating the Iraqi people, it's crucial to look back to the policy's origins and examine its founding documents.

The Bush Doctrine did get its birth push from Iraq—specifically from the outcome of the 1991 Gulf war, when the U.S.-led military coalition forced Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait but stopped short of toppling the dictator and his oppressive government. The president then was a different George Bush, the father of the current president. The father ordered the military not to move on Baghdad, saying that the UN resolution underpinning the allied coalition did not authorize a regime change. Dick Cheney was the first George Bush's Pentagon chief. He said nothing critical at the time, but apparently he came to regret the failure to get rid of the Baghdad dictator.

A few years later, in June 1997, a group of neoconservatives formed an entity called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and issued a Statement of Principles. "The history of the 20th Century," the statement said, "should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire." One of its formal principles called for a major increase in defense spending "to carry out our global responsibilities today." Others cited the "need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values" and underscored "America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles." This, the statement said, constituted "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."

Among the 25 signatories to the PNAC founding statement were Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff), Donald Rumsfeld (who was also defense secretary under President Ford), and Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's No. 2 at the Pentagon, who was head of the Pentagon policy team in the first Bush presidency, reporting to Cheney, who was then defense secretary). Obviously, this fraternity has been marinating together for a long time. Other signers whose names might ring familiar were Elliot Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, and Norman Podhoretz.

Three years and several aggressive position papers later—in September 2000, just two months before George W. Bush, the son, was elected president—the PNAC put military flesh on its statement of principles with a detailed 81-page report, <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf">"Rebuilding America's Defenses."</a> The report set several "core missions" for U.S. military forces, which included maintaining nuclear superiority, expanding the armed forces by 200,000 active-duty personnel, and "repositioning" those forces "to respond to 21st century strategic realities."

The most startling mission is described as follows: "Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." The report depicts these potential wars as "large scale" and "spread across [the] globe."

Another escalation proposed for the military by the PNAC is to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions."

As for homeland security, the PNAC report says: "Develop and deploy global missile defenses <h3>to defend the American homeland</h3> and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world. Control the new 'international commons' of space and 'cyberspace,' and pave the way for the creation of a new military service—U.S. Space Forces—with the mission of space control."

Perhaps the eeriest sentence in the report is found on page 51: "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, <h3>absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."....</h3>

Quote:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=798
On Crackpot Realism: An Homage to C. Wright Mills
February 18, 2003
Robert Higgs

....Between those two volumes, however, he wrote a little book called The Causes of World War Three (Simon and Schuster 1958). In that passionate and ideologically inspired tract, Mills explicated a concept that I have called to mind frequently over the years—never more however than in the past year and a half—the concept of “crackpot realism.”

For Mills, this signified a frame of mind characteristic of what another elite theorist, Thomas R. Dye, has called “the serious people” of the governing circles. Such people are to be distinguished from the glad-handing, back-slapping buffoons who seek and gain election to public office. The electoral office seekers are specialists: they know how to get votes, but as a rule they know nothing about how to “run a railroad,” whether that railroad be a business, a government agency, or any other sort of large operating organization. So, after the election, the elected office holders always turn to the serious people to run the show—the Dick Cheneys and the Donald Rumsfelds, to pick not so randomly from the current corps.....

Among the more timeless of his insights, I believe, is his understanding of crackpot realism. I extract a few lines here to illustrate his thinking about this matter (taken from pp. 86–88 of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0873323572/theindepeende-20">The Causes of World War Three</a>). <h2>As you read these thoughts, consider whether they might be as applicable today as they were forty-five years ago:</h2>

In crackpot realism, a high-flying moral rhetoric is joined with an opportunist crawling among a great scatter of unfocused fears and demands. In fact, the main content of “politics” is now a struggle among men equally expert in practical next steps—which, in summary, make up the thrust toward war—and in great, round, hortatory principles. (p. 86)

. . . The expectation of war solves many problems of the crackpot realists; it also confronts them with many new problems. Yet these, the problems of war, often seem easier to handle. They are out in the open: to produce more, to plan how to kill more of the enemy, to move materials thousands of miles. . . . So instead of the unknown fear, the anxiety without end, some men of the higher circles prefer the simplification of known catastrophe. (p. 87)

. . . They know of no solutions to the paradoxes of the Middle East and Europe, the Far East and Africa except the landing of Marines. Being baffled, and also being very tired of being baffled, they have come to believe that there is no way out—except war—which would remove all the bewildering paradoxes of their tedious and now misguided attempts to construct peace. In place of these paradoxes they prefer the bright, clear problems of war—as they used to be. For they still believe that “winning” means something, although they never tell us what. (p. 88)

. . . Some men want war for sordid, others for idealistic, reasons; some for personal gain, others for impersonal principle. But most of those who consciously want war and accept it, and so help to create its “inevitability,” want it in order to shift the locus of their problems. (p. 88)

Besides Mills’s own writings, readers interested in his ideas may wish to read the well-done biography by Irving Louis Horowitz, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029149703/theindepeende-20">C. Wright Mills: An American Utopian</a> (The Free Press 1983).

Seaver · 12-24-2007, 05:42 PM

Host, having something unifying to fight against is not the same as having an immediate threat to national existence.

host · 12-25-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Host, having something unifying to fight against is not the same as having an immediate threat to national existence.

I hear you, Seaver, and we do have something "unifying" to fight against.

It is an enemy that has infiltrated and undermined our governent, spending our money, successfully convincing you, that it is doing the opposite of undermining. The military and the executive branch it takes orders from, that so many have so much faith in as protectors of "our freedom", and "our rights", are hard at work attempting to gain lawful authority to try to control what we know and how we come to know it!:

Quote:

[PDF]
Public Diplomacy: A Review of Past Recommendations
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
[http://www.rand.org/pubs/. occasional_papers/2004/RAND_OP134.pdf] ..... modifyoutdated legislation, such as the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act that ...
italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL33062.pdf -

Quote:

[PDF]
Enlisting Madison Avenue: The Marketing Approach to Earning ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
from www.rand.org as a public service of. the RAND Corporation. ..... should include looking at the implications of the Smith-Mundt Act, ...
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/..._MG607.sum.pdf

Heritage is pushing for government domestic disinformation distribution:

Quote:

http://mountainrunner.us/2007/12/her...mithmundt.html

Heritage on Smith-Mundt
By MountainRunner on December 10, 2007

I read through <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bg2089.cfm">Juliana Geran Pilon's Smith-Mundt article</a> and I agree with <a href="http://kimelli.nfshost.com/index.php?id=2887">Kim Andrew Elliott's assessment</a> that it has little to do with Smith-Mundt (for background on Smith-Mundt, see my post at <a href="http://kimelli.nfshost.com/index.php?id=2887">Small Wars Journal</a>... part one and one-half is <a href="http://mountainrunner.us/2007/12/off_the_cuff_part_15_of_what_t.html">here</a>, part II is forthcoming).

While her intentions are laudable, her examples miss the point and her arguments conflate description of action with the action itself. In the end, she ironically she seems to be making the same arguments that brought about Smith-Mundt in the first place.

Most of what Pilon describes as caused by Smith-Mundt simply aren't. She raises the issue of fighting the information war within the U.S., but provides little evidence or argument on how Smith-Mundt has limited the domestic conversation. Indeed, she ignores the propaganda values of the Sunday talk show circuit and the Press Secretary's twice-daily pulpit.....

The military and the Bush administration want to "modify" the law to warp and shape (control) ALL INFORMATION that is passed off to us as "news", and they do it outside the US, and to a degree, inside and now they openly are attempting to do it legally, domestically too.

Quote:

http://www.prweekus.com/Comms-pros-c...article/57436/
Comms pros consult on US military report
Ted McKenna
July 30, 2007

ARLINGTON, VA: The RAND Corporation consulted with a number of top PR and marketing experts when creating a recently released report urging the US military to think of itself as a brand that must ensure its communications are met with appropriate actions.

The $400,000 report, <a href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG607.pdf">"Enlisting Madison Avenue: The Marketing Approach to Earning Popular Support in Theaters of Operation,"</a> which was commissioned by the US Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) and is available at www.rand.org, discussed how the military could effectively use corporate branding and communications strategies and techniques for operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

Executives from Burson-Marsteller, Weber Shandwick, J.D. Power, the Rendon Group, and the Lincoln Group, among others; marketing professors at NYU and Northwestern; and various military experts aided the report.

The key message of the report, said lead author Todd Helmus, who is a clinical psychologist by training, but has spent the past three years studying lessons learned by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that like any corporate brand, the US military must make sure its actions match its words. Otherwise, it won't receive the trust or support of the ever-critical civilian population on which military operations ultimately depend.

"Our point in the report is that actions speak louder than words," Helmus said. "You can't build positive relationships with people in war zones by just saying good things. You have to do good things."

The report coincides with Congressional discussions over the 2008 defense appropriations bill, including debate over continued funding for the controversial Guantanamo military prison.

In practice, that means being as up-front as possible about, for instance, accidental civilian casualties or other mistakes that can potentially be used for propaganda purposes by the adversary. With the prevalence and immediacy of the Internet, that means a focus on online communications, which the report, as well as a number of PR experts, says has not been utilized as effectively as possible by the US military.

WS chairman Jack Leslie, who was consulted for the report, said the US government is increasingly willing to study best practices from the corporate world.

"Especially now, given the radical changes going on in the marketing world, there are all sorts of innovations happening in corporate marketing that the government would like to access," he added. "This is a convenient way to do it, and it doesn't require a big contract with individual agencies."

DBD Worldwide chairman Keith Reinhard, also consulted for the report, agreed that government agencies are embracing corporate communications principles, but he said funding for their adoption remains generally too low.

While insurgent forces in Iraq and elsewhere have done a good job projecting or "shaping" their global image via the use of multimedia online, including videos of "jihadis," cell phone messages, and even video games, US policies such as the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act - <h3>which prohibits the government from directing propaganda at US audiences - prevent the US military from engaging as extensively and effectively as it could with an online audience, </h3> said the report.

<h3>Paige Craig, ex-president and now a board member of the Lincoln Group</h3>, which is conducting polls in Iraq to study the attitudes and perceptions of Iraqis on rule of law, support for violent groups, and other issues, said US military adversaries have great propaganda.

"It doesn't look as flashy as something you'd find on Madison Avenue, but it's very effective," he said. <h2>"It's almost embarrassing to sit here and realize we've got the talent and ability to counter what the adversary makes; it's simply a matter of policy."</h2>

Helmus said that the new report, like others commissioned by the USJFCOM, will enter a process of evaluation to determine its merits and how recommendations can be tested and put into action.

A spokesperson for USJFCOM, which is tasked by the US Defense Department with "transforming" the US military through new technologies and practices, said officials were not immediately available to comment on the report.

<h2>I, and others like me who find "stuff" like this and put it in front of your eyes are "The Adversary", that DOD paid propagandist, Paige Craig of the Lincoln Group was referring to, Seaver. Are you going to "unify" with me, or with Paige Craig, Lincoln Group, Rendon Group, George and Dick, and the republican party and the Council for National Policy?</h2>....because, this is it, Seaver, they're doing it, their admitting it, and you've swallowed their bullshit, up unitl now. Do you want to keep accepting/defending it, or do you want to join the opposition?

Quote:

http://www.prwatch.org/node/6306#comment-2324
Jul 31, 2007
Military Takes Aim at U.S. Propaganda Ban

Source: PR Week, July 30, 2007

In preparing its marketing study commissioned by the U.S. military, the RAND Corporation sought the advice of PR advisers including Burson-Marsteller, Weber Shandwick, J.D. Power, the Rendon Group, and the Lincoln Group.....

Watch the video: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucini...erup_0801.html

Read the transcript:

Quote:

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/Docum...cumentID=70646
Kucinich Challenges Rumsfeld on News Management of Iraq War;Raises Questions of Outside Contractors Painting A False Picture

Washington, Aug 1 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich aggressively challenged former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at an Oversight and Government Reform Committee Hearing today. Kucinich confronted Rumsfeld in cross-examination on the Department of Defense’s management of war news and raised questions about the role outside contractors have in shaping the war message.

Kucinich first called into question whether or not there was a Department of Defense press strategy with respect to the war in Iraq.

Kucinich: Was there a Department of Defense press strategy with respect to the war?
Rumsfeld: If there was, it obviously wasn’t very good.
Kucinich: Well you know maybe it was very good, because you actually covered up the Tillman case for a while, you covered up the Jessica Lynch case, you covered up Abu Ghraib, so something was working for you. Was there a strategy to do it Mr. Rumsfeld?
Rumsfeld: Well Congressman, the implication that you said you covered up—that’s just false. You have nothing to base that on. You have not a scrap of evidence or a piece of paper or a witness that would attest to that. I have not been involved in any cover-up whatsoever and I don’t believe there is an individual at this table who I know well and observed at close quarters in very difficult situations who had any role in a cover-up on this matter.
Kucinich: Well thank you for acquitting yourself. I was speaking of the Department of Defense. And I was speaking of things that are manifest and obvious. We held a hearing on the Tillman case. We’ve held hearings on Abu Ghraib. In the hearing on this, you have not been able to establish how is it that this news could get out? No one managed it, no one communicated it to the American public. It just happened? I mean, you haven’t really given this committee a good explanation as to how it happened, Mr. Rumsfeld.

Kucinich then raised the question as to whether or not the Department of Defense used a public relations firm to communicate false information to the general public.

Kucinich: Was the Rendon Group involved in communicating a press strategy on behalf of the Department of Defense with respect to the war in Iraq?
Rumsfeld: You would have ask the people in the department.
Kucinich: You have no knowledge of this whatsoever?
Rumsfeld: I am aware that there have been over the years, contracts with that organization from various entities within the department and outside of the department. Whether there was in a manner that would fit your question, I am not in a position to answer.
Kucinich: You just said you have some awareness of it. Can you elaborate on that, sir?
Rumsfeld: I elaborated to the extent of my ability. I know that there are some entities in the department that have used contractors for some things of that type, over the years. And you would have to ask experts on that subject, not me.

<h3>Kucinich asked that the committee look further into the role played by the Rendon Group and Lincoln Group in shaping news accounts justifying the war in Iraq.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.prwatch.org/node/6306#comment-2324
Military Propaganda in the US
Submitted by The Walsh Wire on Thu, 08/02/2007 - 16:19.

Two most important elements of a fascist state are an all-controlling wealthy/corporate class working in concert with a permanent political class and a sophisticated public brainwashing mechanism. We now have the former,if we are not careful,we soon have the latter.

<h2>The fact that the military would be so confident as to even consider such a path should be evidence enough to show how far along we have come in throwing away our liberty.......</h2>

Quote:

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/us_...ry/164081.html
War.com: The Internet and Psychological Operations
by Angela Maria Lungu

Angela Maria Lungu, Major

US Army

A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the requirements of the Department of Joint Military Operations.

The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy.

......3. PSYOP AND THE LAW

Despite this growing interest, there are still significant legal boundaries constraining PSYOP. Currently, both U. S. policy and law prohibit military forces from conducting PSYOP against American citizens, 14 in addition to restrictions imposed by international law.

This becomes a crucial point since today's public diplomacy messages are increasingly delivered to both domestic and foreign audiences by many of the same media (CNN, the World Wide Web, and international wire services) and can be accessed on the Internet from anywhere, which in turn have a significant impact on PSYOP forces' dissemination means.

Domestic Law

There are several laws that govern public diplomacy which, because many PSYOP products and their dissemination constitute a form of public diplomacy, also govern military PSYOP. The Smith-Mundt Act 16 was introduced in 1948 as an outgrowth of President Wilson's Committee on Public Information 17 and President Truman's "Campaign of Truth" programs. 18 It was passed unanimously by Congress, becoming the basic charter for postwar public diplomacy policy, and established of the U. S. Information Agency (USIA), whose two-fold mission was to "[ project] an accurate image of American society and [explain] to foreign audiences the nature, meaning, and rationale of our foreign policies." 19 The Foreign-Relations Act of 1972 amended the Smith-Mundt Act to include a ban on disseminating within the U. S. any "information about the U. S., its people, and its policies" 20 prepared for dissemination abroad, and the Zorinksy Amendment further restricted public diplomacy by prohibiting any funds to be used "… to influence public opinion in the [U. S.], and no program material … shall be distributed within the [U. S.]." 21 Additionally, the 1998 Foreign Relations Restructuring Act merged several agencies, to include the USIA, under the Department of State (DOS), and authorized the DOS to conduct Foreign Public Diplomacy. 22

The point of contention rests on the difficulty of sending one message to international audiences while sending another to domestic media, particularly when viewed through the legal lens. 23 The charter of Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 68, International Public Information, focused on this point, making clear that international public information (IPI) activities "are overt and address foreign audiences only," while at the same time noting that domestic information should be "deconflicted" and "synchronized" so as not to send a contradictory message. As one administration official said, "In the old days, the [USIA] and State were the main agencies for communicating internationally. With the information revolution, all agencies now have the ability to communicate internationally and interact with foreign populations. IPI is a mechanism that has been established to make sure that these various actors are working in a coordinated manner." 24.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072002163.html
The Pentagon Gets a Lesson From Madison Avenue
U.S. Needs to Devise a Different 'Brand' to Win Over the Iraqi People, Study Advises

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 21, 2007; A01

In the advertising world, brand identity is everything. Volvo means safety. Colgate means clean. IPod means cool. But since the U.S. military invaded Iraq in 2003, its "show of force" brand has proved to have limited appeal to Iraqi consumers, according to a recent study commissioned by the U.S. military.

The key to boosting the image and effectiveness of U.S. military operations around the world involves "shaping" both the product and the marketplace, and then establishing a brand identity that places what you are selling in a positive light, said clinical psychologist Todd C. Helmus, the author of "Enlisting Madison Avenue: The Marketing Approach to Earning Popular Support in Theaters of Operation." The 211-page study, for which the U.S. Joint Forces Command paid the Rand Corp. $400,000, was released this week.

Helmus and his co-authors concluded that the "force" brand, which the United States peddled for the first few years of the occupation, was doomed from the start and lost ground to enemies' competing brands. While not abandoning the more aggressive elements of warfare, the report suggested, a more attractive brand for the Iraqi people might have been "We will help you." That is what President Bush's new Iraq strategy is striving for as it focuses on establishing a protective U.S. troop presence in Baghdad neighborhoods, training Iraq's security forces, and encouraging the central and local governments to take the lead in making things better.

Many of the study's conclusions may seem as obvious as they are hard to implement amid combat operations and terrorist attacks, and Helmus acknowledged that it could be too late for extensive rebranding of the U.S. effort in Iraq. But Duane Schattle, whose urban operations office at the Joint Forces Command ordered the study, said that "cities are the battlegrounds of the future" and what has happened in Baghdad provides lessons for the future. "This isn't just about going in and blowing things up," Schattle said. "This is about working in a very complex environment."

In an urban insurgency, for example, civilians can help identify enemy infiltrators and otherwise assist U.S. forces. They are less likely to help, the study says, when they become "collateral damage" in U.S. attacks, have their doors broken down or are shot at checkpoints because they do not speak English. Cultural connections -- seeking out the local head man when entering a neighborhood, looking someone in the eye when offering a friendly wave -- are key.

The most successful companies, the Rand study notes, are those that study their clientele and shape their workplace and product in ways that incorporate their brand into every interaction with consumers.....

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...82D85F4C8385F9
When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled "made in Germany"; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, "Americanism,"

Quote:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

“I Was a Propaganda Intern in Iraq”

By Willem Marx & Amy Goodman, Counter Currents, 22 August 2006

We speak with Willem Marx, a former intern with the Washington-based government contractor, the Lincoln Group. He spent a summer in Baghdad paying to plant pro-American articles secretly written by the U.S. military in the Iraqi press.

He held a loaded submachine gun while being driven through Baghdad by two Kurdish security men. He had three million dollars in cash locked inside his bedroom in the Green Zone.

Armed with a gun, he interrogated Iraqi employees about whether they were doing their job.

He spent a summer in Baghdad paying to plant pro-American articles in the Iraqi press that were secretly written by the US military.

He was just 22 years old and he was an intern at the Lincoln Group, the Washington-based government contractor. The company gained notoriety last November after the Los Angeles Times first revealed it was being paid by the Pentagon to plant stories in the Iraqi press as part of a secret military propaganda campaign. A subsequent Pentagon investigation in March cleared the Lincoln Group of any wrongdoing.

Today, we speak with that former intern of the Lincoln Group. Willem Marx is a freelance writer and a graduate student in journalism at New York University. His article detailing his experience is published in the latest issue of Harpers Magazine. It’s titled “Misinformation Intern: My summer as a military propagandist in Iraq.” He joins us on the line from Uzbekistan.

AMY GOODMAN: Today, we speak with that former intern of the Lincoln Group—his name, Willem Marx. He joins us on the line from Uzbekistan. He’s a freelance writer and a graduate student in journalism at New York University. His piece—his latest piece appears in Harper’s magazine, detailing his experience. It’s called “Misinformation Intern: My Summer as a Military Propagandist in Iraq.” Willem Marx, thank you for joining us.

WILLEM MARX: Hi, Amy. Good to be with you.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, why don’t you start out just explaining, how did you get this job?

WILLEM MARX: Well, it started when I was approaching my final exams at Oxford just over a year ago, and a cousin of mine who lived in New York told me about a company that was offering internships in Baghdad. I had a place to study at NYU the following September, and I thought that a summer working in Iraq would be a very good experience for me as a burgeoning young reporter. And I sent off my resume. I saw a sort of position offered as a media intern. It didn’t give a huge amount of detail. And it seemed like an opportunity that very few people my age would get. And having sent off my resume, I was contacted by the company, went through a few telephone interviews, and soon found myself flying over to D.C. to pick up a military identification card and then, a few days later, landing in Baghdad.

AMY GOODMAN: When you came to this country, you met the founders of the Lincoln Group?

WILLEM MARX: Yes, I did. Two men—one called Christian Bailey, who is a Brit like me, and another former Marine called Paige Craig, who—they have their headquarters in Washington, D.C.

AMY GOODMAN: And can you tell us any more about them and about that part of—

WILLEM MARX: Absolutely. Absolutely. I arrived in D.C., having not been there for a few years, since I visited a cousin at a university there. I didn’t know the city very well. They put me up in a hotel near their office, and the morning after I had arrived, I walked up there. It was on K Street, the heart of the lobbying industry. And I was introduced to both of them. Paige Craig was very military, not particularly friendly, and just, you know, muttered a few words to me, whereas Christian Bailey had also gone to Oxford, and so we chatted about that for a while.

Neither of them were very forthcoming really about what I would be doing out in Iraq. Pretty sort of sketchy on details. But both, you know, were telling me there were great opportunities for young people like me. They were a company that was growing rapidly. And they welcomed me on board and wished me good luck.

AMY GOODMAN: Willem Marx, we’re going to break, and then we’re going to come back to hear about your time in Iraq, your time in the Green Zone and out. Willem Marx, former intern with the Lincoln Group. Stay with us.

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Willem Marx. We’re speaking to him now in Uzbekistan, a freelance writer and graduate student, spent the summer, last summer, in Iraq as an intern with the Lincoln Group and has written a piece about it in the latest edition of Harper’s magazine called “Misinformation Intern: My Summer as a Military Propagandist in Iraq.” Willem Marx, had either man who founded the Lincoln Group been to Iraq?

WILLEM MARX: Yes. Paige Craig, the former Marine, had certainly spent a lot of time there, I think after the initial invasion in March 2003, and from what I understood, he went out there to try and facilitate business opportunities for foreign investors and in a very roundabout way ended up with a contract for, I think, what they call “strategic communications” with the U.S. military.

The other, the Brit, Christian Bailey, had never, when I first met him, been out to Iraq, and he explained to me that every time he meant to go out there, something would come up in D.C., and he was needed to stay behind. Just after I left, at the end of August, I think he made a trip out there for a few days, but as far as I’m aware, that’s the only time he’s been there.

AMY GOODMAN: So you got on a plane and went to Baghdad. Describe your experience there.

WILLEM MARX: Well, I arrived in Baghdad airport and was taken to a villa in the Green Zone via Camp Victory. After about a week of twiddling my thumbs and not really doing a lot, I became rather impatient and emailed people back in D.C., saying, you know, “What am I doing here? I thought I was going to be doing some work.” And within a day or two, I was taken to lunch by another employee, and he explained to me in detail what exactly it was the Lincoln Group was doing. And I was going to take over his position, because he was going on holiday, so—on vacation, I should say.

And what he was doing was receiving English-written articles by soldiers in a certain unit inside Camp Victory, the major U.S. base just south of Baghdad. He was choosing which of those articles would be published in Iraqi newspapers. He was sending them to Iraqi employees, getting them translated into Arabic, getting them okayed by the command back at Camp Victory and then having other Iraqi employees run them down to Iraqi newspapers, where they would pay editors, sub-editors, commissioning editors to run them as news stories in the Iraqi newspapers. And that was the role, you know, after about a week or ten days of me being there, that I took

over click to show

Willem Marx has written a piece in the latest edition of Harper’s magazine called “Misinformation Intern: My Summer as a Military Propagandist in Iraq.”
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/09/0081195

Atreides88 · 12-31-2007, 03:53 PM

For all of the talk of Bush taking away our Civil and Constitutional Rights(One might even argue that these are one in the same) for the sake of national security, no one seems to realize that this has been happening since the beginning of the United States, as well as history. It is not uncommon for the government of any country to suspend the rights of the people when it is deemed that these rights will interfere with the country's interests. For further proof look up the Sedition Act of 1798 and it's many iterations since then. The Patriot Act was not the first to suspend the Rights of the citizenry in order to protect the United States.

It is a necessary evil, like it or not. Bush was not the first, nor will he be the last. It is not an issue of Republican and Democrat.

dc_dux · 12-31-2007, 05:22 PM

Atreides....in the past, the taking away of constitutional rights was done through enactment of laws like the Sedition Act or formally suspending habeas as Lincoln did....with the participation,to some degree, of all three branches of government. It was not done through a unilateral interpretation of the Constitution by the Executive Branch to decide the powers of the Executive Branch.

If Bush felt the need for expanded warrantless wiretaps for national security purposes, he should have asked Congress to amend FISA before authorizing such surveillance on citizens...not acting outside the law for 2+ years and hiding it from Congress and then requesting a new FISA bill when he was caught...or if he wanted to expand the powers of the FBI to use "national security letters," he should have asked Congress to amend the Patriot Act first.

If he wanted to ignore US obligations under international treaties like the Generva Conventions, he should have sought Congressional approval.

Not to mention Bush's excessive use of executive signing statements to interpret laws enacted by Congress, mostly on domestic, non-security related bills

.....or classifying White House visitor records as "national security" to avoid disclosure of visits by convicted lobbyists like Jack Abramoff or those under investigation like Grover Norquist.

.... or claiming executive privilege for conversations between two WH staff members on the firing of US attorneys...when in the past, executive privilege has been limited to conversations between the President and an aid.

It is not necessarily a Republican/Democrat issue...but it is an issue of Bush/all past Presidents of either party and using the "threat to national security" to justify any and all questionable practices.
***
In any case, welcome to the politcal forum!

Atreides88 · 12-31-2007, 05:47 PM

Still, as I interpreted it, the argument was in the form of the government as a whole curtailing our liberties. At least we only have about 13 more months of dealing with him, and then we get to see what the next guy brings about.

loquitur · 01-01-2008, 06:46 PM

.. ............ deleted

dc_dux · 01-01-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

.. ............ deleted

Good point....I forgot about the more than 5 million e-mails the White House deleted or lost, potentially in violation of the Presidential Records Act.

12-23-2007, 12:41 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Care to elaborate what a unused plan by Hoover with a democrat as president has to do with your limited posting? What does this have to do with republicans again? You are wasting time, I am wasting time too but reading is quicker than posting. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-23-2007, 03:58 PM	#6 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I believe the only support for a unitary president rests with the neocons, whose influence has been weakened. However, their influence will continue to be felt if another Republican becomes president. I don't think independents and progressives would allow a Democratic president to assume unitary powers. Corporatist Democrats such as Clinton may think otherwise. Thanks for the info, host. I knew Hoover was behind a lot of dirty business, but this bit is new to me. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

12-24-2007, 09:41 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, if you want to connect the neocons to a logner-term historical backdrop, why not go with the formation of the "national security state" in the earliest phase of the cold war? this context enables one to make sense of iraq because positioning the nature and interests of the nss behind the project for a new american century highlights the extent to which the war in iraq was about both the suspicion of multi-lateral agreements as a way to shape globalizing/americanising capitalism (with the un as the signifier of all things multi-lateral therefore bad) and about the assertion of the americans as military super-power over and above such multi-lateral agreements. for example. behind that lay a project to make the post-coldwar world safe for radical nationalist by way of assertions of military power--economic activity might be transnationalizing, but with a military, you still have the basis for mobilizing around the notion of the nation-state, and without the nation-state there is no conservatism at all. the nss is not elected directly. it is predicated on a military=style command system (the argument was--i cant remember who made it--that democratic processes were too slow, that an alternative mechanism had to be developed to enable fast decisive responses from authoritarian regimes--think stalin, for example--that were no "encumbered" by "democracy")--much of the policy of the bush people links to this command system, its assumptions, its logic. so if the neocons are a faction of the right that is most directly beholden to the overall interests of the security apparatus--the network of contractors/suppliers and institutions that buy from them---it kinda follows that something like bushworld would be an outcome---with all its attending problems in principle--which are compounded by the mind-boggling ineptness of these particular people. this is a potted summary of the way i would think about the question posed in the op--more on the lines of dc's posts, but tweaked in another direction. as for the candidates and the bush redefinition of the role of the presidency--i find the ambivalences amongst these folk concerning maintenance of the bush terms for the office of president to be alarming on the one hand, but indicative on the other--indicative of a sense of class interest shared by these representatives of various factions within the oligarchy. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-24-2007, 10:10 AM	#9 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	We get the government we deserve. In 1992 the Dems had it all..... what did they accomplish? Losing the Congress in 1994 is what. So the Dems bitched and the GOP bitched. The Dems blamed Clinton and let him swing... the GOP looked saw Clinton was vulnerable and went after him.... weakening the presidential office and giving Congress more power. In 2000, the GOP won everything.... and didn't know what to do until 9/11. Since then, the Conservatives say Bush isn't conservative enough, the Dems say Impeach, he has too many powers...... yadda yadda yadda and proceeded to lose the Congress in 2006 after domestically being very ineffective and damaging while taking the goodwill of the world from 9/11 and shoving it back at them and spitting in their faces. It is all in how you look at it and which side you are on. What this country does need to elect in 2008 is a unifier, healer and teacher someone who will unify this country, heal the rifts and teach us how to be proud to be American and what it means to be free and the greatest country this world has ever seen. We need a leader that enters the international landscape showing what our freedom can do, showing how the right balance of goodwill, government, capitalism, socialism and republican democracy can lead to better lives and a more educated, healthier and caring nation it leads to. If we get another divider....we will be divided and eventually we will lose any hope of being able to unify and stay free. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

12-24-2007, 11:20 AM	#11 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what exactly is the relation between unity and freedom? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-24-2007, 05:42 PM	#15 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Host, having something unifying to fight against is not the same as having an immediate threat to national existence. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

12-31-2007, 03:53 PM	#17 (permalink)
Atreides88 Insane Location: The South.	For all of the talk of Bush taking away our Civil and Constitutional Rights(One might even argue that these are one in the same) for the sake of national security, no one seems to realize that this has been happening since the beginning of the United States, as well as history. It is not uncommon for the government of any country to suspend the rights of the people when it is deemed that these rights will interfere with the country's interests. For further proof look up the Sedition Act of 1798 and it's many iterations since then. The Patriot Act was not the first to suspend the Rights of the citizenry in order to protect the United States. It is a necessary evil, like it or not. Bush was not the first, nor will he be the last. It is not an issue of Republican and Democrat. __________________ "There is no need to suppose that human beings differ very much one from another: but it is true that the ones who come out on top are the ones who have been trained in the hardest school." -- Thucydides

12-31-2007, 05:22 PM	#18 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Atreides....in the past, the taking away of constitutional rights was done through enactment of laws like the Sedition Act or formally suspending habeas as Lincoln did....with the participation,to some degree, of all three branches of government. It was not done through a unilateral interpretation of the Constitution by the Executive Branch to decide the powers of the Executive Branch. If Bush felt the need for expanded warrantless wiretaps for national security purposes, he should have asked Congress to amend FISA before authorizing such surveillance on citizens...not acting outside the law for 2+ years and hiding it from Congress and then requesting a new FISA bill when he was caught...or if he wanted to expand the powers of the FBI to use "national security letters," he should have asked Congress to amend the Patriot Act first. If he wanted to ignore US obligations under international treaties like the Generva Conventions, he should have sought Congressional approval. Not to mention Bush's excessive use of executive signing statements to interpret laws enacted by Congress, mostly on domestic, non-security related bills .....or classifying White House visitor records as "national security" to avoid disclosure of visits by convicted lobbyists like Jack Abramoff or those under investigation like Grover Norquist. .... or claiming executive privilege for conversations between two WH staff members on the firing of US attorneys...when in the past, executive privilege has been limited to conversations between the President and an aid. It is not necessarily a Republican/Democrat issue...but it is an issue of Bush/all past Presidents of either party and using the "threat to national security" to justify any and all questionable practices. *** In any case, welcome to the politcal forum! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-31-2007 at 05:47 PM..

12-31-2007, 05:47 PM	#19 (permalink)
Atreides88 Insane Location: The South.	Still, as I interpreted it, the argument was in the form of the government as a whole curtailing our liberties. At least we only have about 13 more months of dealing with him, and then we get to see what the next guy brings about. __________________ "There is no need to suppose that human beings differ very much one from another: but it is true that the ones who come out on top are the ones who have been trained in the hardest school." -- Thucydides

01-01-2008, 06:46 PM	#20 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	.. ............ deleted