1 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY
Chapter One
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
"Mind Control" is to be catalogued with space travel, wrist radios and ray-guns; yesterday’s fantasy becoming today’s reality. Certainly, it goes without saying, that "Mind Control" is more accurately addressed as "Behavior Control;" one leads to the other. Accommodating simplicity and common understanding, the term "Mind Control" will be used as a synonym for "Behavior Control."
The topic of "Mind Control" has been the subject of university laboratories, Madison Avenue marketing firms, intelligence services, warfare planning (psyops), pharmaceutical developments, electronic experimentation, psychiatry and medical advances. In brief, "Mind Control" is as factual as the TV set; alive, functional and ever- evolving.
The topic of "Mind Control" is understandably complex. Few doubt the effect of simple propaganda, as evidenced in various wars. Unfortunately, one of the success elements of "Mind Control" is the disdain of those who resist thinking about the topic. Yet, with such horrors as the Nazi applications during W.W. II, the topic of "Mind Control" is highly pertinent to the general public. Specifically, the general public repeatedly asks how a civilized people could possibly commit such well-documented atrocities.
Current (2006) American politics and warfare confront the "Mind Control" issue, head-on. Ignorance, apathy and denial are a deadly combination. "Mind Control" is a function of a variety of descriptors and applications. Most commonly, the term "Psyops" (Psychological Operations) is used.
However repugnant, the history of the W.W. II Nazis is the most common association of the horrors against the human race. The Nazi horrors were not unique in history, simply the most advertised. As an example of Mind Control," Israel, depends on that particular advertisement, for U.S. foreign aid. Yet, the "Nazi" issue remains the best example, by virtue of it’s popularly known history.
Comment on this Article
2 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF AUTHORITY AND PERCEPTION, VERSUS RESPONSE
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
In order to understand the mystery of seemingly blind compliance to authority, there is perhaps no better sample of human nature than the 1961 experiments on "Obedience to Authority," conducted by Dr. Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. His studies were spawned by the recent trial and execution of Adolph Eichmann. The results were posted in Milgram's "Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View" (1974).
Milgram focused on the propensity for obedience to authority, versus the role of personal conscience. His work was in consequence of the rationalizations and justifications for the Nazi acts of genocide – as offered by the accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Crime trials. The perpetrators’ defense was typically based on "obedience" - claiming that they were "… just obeying orders" under the authority of their superiors. However weak the claim may have appeared, it was firmly believed, by the accused. In particular, the Nazi perpetrators were well educated and members of the German aristocracy.
The Eichmann trial stirred the question as to how easy it would be for ‘good’ and educated (American) people (college degree) to be conditioned to commit even murder – in exchange for simple "acceptance and approval." What if Eichmann, and his accomplices were, in fact, "….just following orders."
More directly, the Milgram study demonstrated the propensity for people to submit to even ‘mild,’ even "presumed" authority – let alone threat or even internal fears. (Not even notable amounts of money were required.) The psychiatrists of the day forecast that 2% of any population would be compliant – the ‘sickos;’ the Milgram Study demonstrated 65%!
The setup of the experiment called for so-called "teachers" (unknowing subjects of the experiment) to be recruited by a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work. The ‘price’ is worth noting. The recruits all had college degrees. It is also worth noting that the setup time was remarkably brief; there was no extensive ‘conditioning’ required. Both of these factors attest to an apparent pre-disposition for submission to "perceived" authority. The experiments would remind most of the TV series, "The Twilight Zone."
The volunteer ‘teachers’ thought that they were recruited to take part in a psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. The recruits were introduced to a stern looking "experimenter," dressed in a white lab coat; as well as an ordinary and pleasant co-subject (actor, in fact) who was presumably recruited via the same newspaper ad. The true subject ("teacher") was assigned to direct the ‘learning’ of the other ‘volunteer; using electric shocks as a learning motivator.
The teacher-recruit was led to believe that he/she had been chosen randomly, to be a scientific ‘teacher.’
Both the actor and the ‘teacher’ were given a ‘sample’ 45-volt electric shock, to set the realism of the ‘stage.’ The "teachers" were told that the experiment was designed to explore the effect of punishment, to prompt correct responses for manufacturing learning behavior.
The ‘teachers’ were advised that the electric shocks were to be of increased by 15 volts, for each mistake that the ‘student’ made during the experiment.
The ‘teachers’ control panel had 30 switches, clearly labeled in 15 volt increments; ranging from 15 volts, up to the maximum of 450 volts. Each switch also had a rating label, incrementing from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches were additionally labeled "XXX". Thus, the subject could not be the least bit ignorant of the potential consequences of his/her deeds.
The experiment environment had the ‘student’ in another room; with the ‘teacher’ made aware of the "actor-student's" discomfort by poundings on the wall.
The actors ("students") pretended to be stupid, seemingly requiring (deserving) increasing shocks – feigning pain, misery and unconsciousness. The "teachers" abided by the background ‘authority’ until they were doing the deeds of sadists & murderers – a convincing simulation, of course.
In reality, no further shocks were actually delivered. Again, the ‘teacher’ was unaware that the ‘student’ in the study was actually an actor who would use his talents to fake increasing levels of discomfort; as the ‘teacher’ administered what he/she assumed were increasingly severe electric shocks, for the supposed mistakes made by the "student".
The ‘experimenter,’ with the white lab coat, was in the same room as the ‘teacher.’ Whenever the ‘teachers’ asked whether the increased shocks should be delivered, he or she was verbally encouraged by the experimenter to continue.
Amazingly, the test subjects didn’t question as to why the ‘experimenter’ needed a surrogate, in the first place.
Using actors as the student-victims, the actual test subjects ("teachers") were directed to ask questions of a presumed "student," sitting in a sealed booth, with the "teacher" delivering increasing electrical shocks, if the ‘student’ got the wrong answer. A presumed torturous-fatal electric shock was incrementally delivered, by 65% of the unwitting "teachers," punishing the student to the very end of the 450-volt scale! No ‘teacher’ stopped before reaching 300 volts!
Worried ‘teachers’ did question the ‘experimenter,’ asking who was responsible for any harmful effects. It is worth noting that the primary concern was personal accountability, versus the welfare of the perceived victim. The ‘experimenter’ assumed full responsibility, with the ‘teachers’ accepting the response as adequate; then continued shocking their ‘student,’ even though some of the ‘teachers’ were obviously extremely uncomfortable with their deeds.
Return to another fact of life – cultures hide the fact that in times of crisis, people have a third choice, beyond ‘fight-or-flight; specifically, "Submission." (Consider the rape victim!)
In the Milgram study, the test subjects were unwittingly submitting to rather mild coercion of their ‘handlers.’ They assumed that they were factually torturing – even killing – the ‘students,’ preferring the acceptance-approval of their handlers, to their basic personal values and even morality, itself. They questioned, but with mild coercion, they complied with ‘authority.’
From Milgram’s "The Perils of Obedience" (1974), it is learned that Milgram solicited predictions on the outcome, from various ranges of people; including psychiatrists, faculty in the behavioral sciences, graduate students, college sophomores and even middle-class adults. Those polled reliably predicted that virtually all of the chosen subjects (‘teachers’) would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrists, predicted that most subjects would not go beyond 150 volt level, when the actor-victim made the first explicit demand to go free. The psychiatrists expected only 4 percent of the ‘teachers’ to continue to the simulated 300 volt level, estimating that only a pathological personality (one in a thousand) would administer the highest voltage.
The Milgram Experiment was continued in a number of variable scenarios; such as the ‘student’ indicating discomfort by way of voice feedback (versus pounding on the walls of his ‘chamber’) – starting at the "150 volt" level. At that point, the ‘actor-victim’ requested that the experiment be ended. The ‘teacher’ was consistently told by the experimenter that - "The experiment requires that you continue. Please go on." or verbiage, to that effect. In that scenario, the percentage of ‘teachers’ who were prepared to administer the maximum of 450 volts, dropped slightly - to only 62.5%. Desperate verbiage, versus pounding on the walls, made little difference.
The environment of the experiment was considered, as well. The surroundings of the experiments seemed to cast an "aura of authority," as well. When the environment of the experiment was conducted in a nondescript office building – versus within the walls of a prestigious and ornate hall on Yale's campus - the percentage of ‘teachers’ who were prepared to administer the maximum voltage dropped to 47.5%.
Immediate environment also played a key role, demonstrating the ‘personal’ role of authority "proximity," In one environment, the "experimenter" was at end of a phone line; versus being present in the same room as the ‘teacher. In this scenario, the percentage of ‘teachers’ who were prepared to administer the 450 volt shock dropped to 20.5%. In another scenario, the ‘teacher’ could independently elect the magnitude of the shock level; in that scenario, the percentage of ‘teachers’ who were prepared to continue to the extreme of the scale dropped to 2.5%.
That scenario, in particular, clearly demonstrated the role of "authority," as the major influence over the behavior of the subjects, given that the test subjects’ performance otherwise fell into the predicted range of the psychiatrists.
Return to another idea – that the radical majority of any population lives in response to their "Sacred Illusions." The spouse would NEVER cheat, one’s child could NEVER grossly misbehave. We all have such illusions.
Thus in the Milgram Experiment, the "Sacred Illusion" was that once agreeing to take on the task, the subject was committed/compelled to submit to authority – and not much of it – even to the extreme of presumed sadism/murder.
What is not addressed, to any adequate degree, is the role of "accountability" – factual or ‘assumed.’ By any account of history, the subservience contained the assumption that ‘authority’ served as a firewall, between the deeds of the performer, versus such accountability as criminal prosecution. The seeming ‘chain-of-command,’ obviously pre-supposes a ‘chain-of-accountability.’
In particular, in the Milgram experiments, the presumed "authority" to commit sadism and even murder, was a simple verbal assertion, "I am responsible; you are not." To the ordinary person, it staggers the imagination that college educated people could be that naïve/compliant. Clearly most are.
Milgram’s experiments tested how much pain an ordinary, well educated, citizen would inflict on another person; upon being ordered to so, by an experimental scientist. In those experiments, "apparent authority" was tested against the strongest moral imperatives forbidding hurting another.
Even with the ‘teachers' hearing screams of the ‘victims,’ authority won more often than not – 65% of the time, in optimum conditions. The experiments demonstrated the willingness of ordinary and educated adults to comply with the command of "perceived authority."
Next one must ask what the uneducated person might do, as well as those with a known history of social deviance.
Ironically, the Milgram "obedience to authority" experiments preceded the Viet Nam War, with its bizarre rationalizations, and millions of American soldiers "…just following orders." Tragically, the American soldiers suffered the fate of lepers, when returning home. More tragically, no lessons were learned by the American public, versus the nefarious minds of the American military and related corporate players.
Milgram had plenty of company. The "Milgram Experiment" has been repeated around the world with similar results.
It must be particularly noted that there is an implied risk-reward factor in such cases. 65% of Milgram’s subjects essentially murdered for $4.50!
The significance of that figure indicates implies that money is GENERALLY a minor concern. However, money can be made to be a factor. As starving graduate student may ‘hurry-up’ if $100 was offered, if the experiment was concluded in ½ hour; with verbal taunting by his ‘experimenter.’ What is the reasonable estimate of an ‘experimenter’ asking, "Do you want to ask questions, or do you want to get paid – and how much? The clock is ticking."
Thus, it must be observed that if the ‘65% percentile can be rather easily stirred into sadism & murder, what does it take to get 95% of a given population to submit to the acceptance of propaganda – and a mandate for just ‘silence?’
Where do such experiments lead?
Comment on this Article
3 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY
THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
Stanford psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo, said to be a high school classmate of Milgram, took the issue of simple "authority" to the level of "power over others," in his 1971 "Experimental Prison" study.
The essence of that experiment demonstrated the propensity for ‘normal’ people to succumb to primal deviant behavior. Of particular note is that the director of that experiment, Professor Philip Zimbardo, fell prey, as well. It took his soon-to-be wife, to shock him back to a civilized mindset.
While the ‘experiment’ was intended to be a simple role-playing observation platform; the players - and the researchers - ‘psycho-morphed’ into a deviant mindset, as though passing through a time-warp; into another solar system. Again, the primary mechanism was "Perception Control."
In the "Stanford Prison Experiment," the distinction must be made between ‘externally incited’ perception, versus spontaneous self-perception. As with the Milgram experiments, environment played a dominant role.
Zimbardo's stated reason for conducting the experiment was to examine the ‘power’ of such variables as roles, regulations, group identities, symbols and "…situational validation of behavior," which would probably repulse and disgust the ordinary individual.
In the background of the "prison" experiment, Zimbardo previously conducted research on what he described as "…de-individuation, vandalism and dehumanization;" in an attempt to illustrate how easily that ordinary people could be incited to engage in anti-social acts. The associated environment of the earlier experiments embraced situations where the participating individual felt anonymous, or wherein they could perceive others to be less than ‘human,’ as ‘enemies’ or even ‘objects.’
In the subsequent/consequent "prison" experiment, 70 young men were "arrested." Most were college students, paid $15 a day for two weeks.
The brief duration of the experiment is highly significant, relative to the noted transformation of character.
The participants volunteered as subjects for an experiment on prison life; advertised by a local paper. They were put through the expected interviews and a battery of psychological tests. Twenty-four of those ‘arrested,’ deemed to be the most normal, average and healthy, were selected. They were assigned randomly, as either ‘guards’ or ‘prisoners.‘ The "prisoners" were booked at a real jail, blindfolded and driven to the college campus makeshift prison.
Bear in mind, that the players (test subjects) ALL were consciously aware that the mission was role-playing; not reality. Yet, in the fashion of "Lord of the Flies," they devised their own social value system.
The ‘guards’ were issued uniforms; instructed not to use violence. They were told that their job was to maintain control over the prison.
On the second day of the experiment, the ‘prisoners’ staged a revolt. Once the ‘guards’ had crushed the rebellion, the ‘guards’ spontaneously increased coercive aggression tactics, against the ‘prisoners.’ Their tactics included the humiliation and dehumanization of the ‘prisoners.’ In consequence, the college staff had to frequently admonish the ‘guards’ against such tactics.
In particular, the worst noted instances of abuse took place in the middle of the night, when the guards believed that the college staff was not watching over the experiment. The treatment of the prisoners went to such tactics as forcing the ‘prisoners’ to clean out toilet bowls with their bare hands; acting out degrading scenarios. The ‘guards’ also urged the ‘prisoners’ to become snitches. The loss of control caused the college staff to note the extreme stress reactions, forcing the release of five prisoners, one per day, prematurely.
PERSONALITY DIVERGENCE
During the experiment, Zimbardo’s fiancé, Dr. Christina Maslach, began her observation of the experiment, starting the evening of the fifth day. Her role was to conduct subject interviews. In her words, she initially found it "dull and boring."
During her assignment, she encountered what was described as a pleasant conversation with a "charming, funny, smart" young man awaiting the start his guard work shift. Independently, other researchers had previously advised her that they were watching a particularly sadistic ‘guard,’ nicknamed by both prisoners and the other guards as "John Wayne." Dr. Maslach later discovered that "John Wayne" was the same young man that she had previously talked with.
The "compartmentalization" was extreme. In his "John Wayne" role, the person radically transformed; even speaking with a Southern accent. Even his body motions were different, as was his interaction with the ‘prisoners.’ She said, "It was like [seeing] Jekyll and Hyde. . . . It really took my breath away."
It was clear that this ‘guard’ had gone to the adaptive extreme of inventing his own mythology, even in a known ‘make-believe’ world. His dissociative adaptation served as a firewall, between his actions and his conscience; even in a known time-limited environment. That, in turn, empowered his actions. Again, he was consciously aware that he was in a role-playing experiment – only.
Christina described that several prisoners engaged "John Wayne" in a debate; accusing him of enjoying his job. He claimed that he wasn't really like that; that he was just playing his assigned role. One ‘prisoner’ challenged "John Wayne" on the matter, citing the history that he had tripped him earlier, as he was taking the prisoner down the hall to the bathroom. The ‘prisoner’ addressed the fact that no researchers were around to witness the treatment, indicating that the act came out of "John Wayne’s" true character and disposition. "John Wayne" defended himself, insisting (rationalizing) that that if he let up, his role wouldn't remain powerful.
Maslach described that she became sick to her stomach, while observing the ‘guards’ marching ‘prisoners,’ with paper bags over their heads, to the bathroom. She reported that her fellow researchers teased her about her reaction. Given the nature of the experiment and the credentials of the researchers, the divergence in ‘professional’ attitude is no small indicator.
After a later emotional encounter with her fiancé, Zimbardo was forced back to reality, becoming aware of the transformation of the researchers, ‘guards’ and ‘prisoners,’ alike. Thus, the experiment was terminated, given Maslach’s illumination of the matter of "professional accountability."
Maslach married Zimbardo in 1972.
Automatically, one’s mind goes to the Iraq Abu Grhaib scandal; questioning how such events could happen, against such well-known studies as Milgram and Zimbardo; let alone the known Nazi horrors of W.W. II. There is a reasonable presumption that such would be far beneath the dignity of American troops.
However, it should not be lost that the deeds were not only admitted by the Pentagon and White House (with extreme reluctance), but were defended, with an insistence that the U.S. forces had a unique "right" to conduct torture, certainly levels of coercion, which clearly violated the Geneva Conventions. The world ignored the Geneva Conventions’ prohibition on the military use of penitentiaries; the prison use continued.
It should be noted, also, that Abu Grhaib was not the first, nor the exclusive location of such atrocities. Among other matters, the U.S. forces had bombed an Afghan POW facility, during the Johnny Spann / John Walker Lindh debacle, at Mazir I Sharif. Such was a grievous violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Yet, what does the global public believe?
EXTREME CONDITIONING
Next, go to the study of W.W. I "shell shock" and the near-zombies which that effect produced – as studied by the Tavistock Institute. Next, visit the LSD and amphetamine studies of the CIA’s "MKULTRA" project. Move onward, to the sciences of Propaganda, Psychological Operations and "Coercive Persuasion" (Jonestown tactics).
One quickly arrives at the ease of manufacturing a "Manchurian Candidate!" Oswald, Ruby, Sirhan, James Earl Ray, McVeigh; there are plenty of examples in the USA, alone. However, these will be more astutely observed as "Manchurian Patsies."
The suggestion is that a reliable transformation process is available, which begins with the "shock" of hallucinogens; followed by a regimen of amphetamines, hypnosis and reinforcement methods; possibly to the extreme of drug addiction to amphetamines, in particular.
Comment on this Article
4 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY
THE ROLE OF "PERCEPTION CONTROL"
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Mind Control"
"Control" is the operative term. Is information presented with frequent repetition and passion? Or; is information kept totally secret - or prejudicially enshrouded with shame ("A ‘good’ person wouldn’t go there")?
Is the "controlled" information factual, or has an illusion been created? The American media re-packaged the Muslims in the Balkan region as "Ethnic Albanians," ignoring the Islamic role and their association with both bin Laden and the CIA. No one of prominence questioned the descriptor. Overnight a previously unheard of organization, "The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe" (OSCE) "recognized" new Balkan countries – instantly admitted into NATO. Thereafter, Yugoslavia’s put-down of an internal rebellion was re-packaged as an attack against a NATO member & the Balkan War was on. The "Serbs" were attempting to return to their traditional Balkan homes, in the fashion of Jews returning to modern Israel. The media re-packaged their attempts as some form of invasion & the war progressed against Yugoslavia.
In the end, the ‘new’ nations borrowed billions from the International Funds & all sins were forgiven. The illusions worked! It was all a matter of "Controlled Perception." The ‘new’ nations were now ‘controlled’ through the banking system.
America was content to believe (perceive) that they had rescued the deserving and victimized "Ethnic Albanians," who made a good living smuggling heroin out of Afghanistan. America didn’t figure out the last part. By any rational logic, when the Taliban shut down the associated opium production; 9-11 was "on."
"Perception" implies "impressionability;" does factually presented information penetrate the psyche of the intended audience? If American War Crimes are broadcast in Swahili; will the message ‘reach’ the exposed American audience? Extremely unlikely – even when translated into English.
Perception is also a function of "registration," or "depth of consciousness." Senator Warner reported on "Larry King" that the Afghan high-altitude food drops were practiced for nearly a year, before taking place over Afghanistan. How many spotted the time-line, asking why the drops were practiced for nearly a year PRIOR to 9-11? The presented information didn’t "register."
"Perception" is also a function of resistance to ‘registration,’ - "denial." All the clues in the world point to 9-11 being an inside-job; yet, few on the planet will tolerate the information to penetrate their belief system. Just the suspicion alone, results in global "shell shock" being effected.
The sum of trustworthy post 9-11 information points to American War Crimes, in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The thought is too horrible for most to tolerate – "denial" takes the day; "registration" will be minimal. The elements of ‘time,’ ‘distance’ and ‘shielding’ protect against the exposure to horrible facts.
"Perception Control" also relies on the element of "identification." A tribal leader in Africa commits genocide on a rival tribe – to the tune of millions of deaths. "America" can’t ‘identify’ with the problem; little is said or done. With racial apartheid being reversed in Africa; war, civil war, starvation and the AIDS epidemic deny Caucasian ‘identification;" Africa has been cleared to die, save some profitable enterprises, benefiting American corporations - whether drug companies, diamond & mineral companies or arms dealers.
Conversely, with the coverage of 9-11, and the associated propaganda, America "identified" with the supposed threat of Saddam Hussein – per the media presentations. The factual non-connection of Saddam to 9-11 made little difference; fear ruled. "Perception Control" and "authority" took command of the American psyche. The UN reported that no viable evidence of Saddam’s alleged WMDs could be found. That information came from ‘boots-on-the-ground’ inspectors. The media didn’t report that finding to any appreciable degrtee; the war was on.
In Hermann Goerings famous description:- "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." It was all in the "perception" and "authority."
"Perception Control" additionally implies the element of "pertinence" and "regard." If the media reports a tree falling in a forest; does anyone care? If an expose’ cites the media for NOT reporting that tree falling, does anyone care?
In the fashion of "..the dog that didn’t bark," when something representing a major concern is methodically unreported, what pertinence and regard goes with that non-reporting carry – if any? Silence can be constructively ‘deafening.’ In the aftermath of 9-11, it was reported that the NSA furnished the FBI with only useless information. With second thought, it is worth asking whether that data, instead, represented the fact that the purported ‘terrorists’ simply didn’t exist, in the first place. Certainly, the last premise is more easily supported, than the ‘official’ version of 9-11.
As of the end of 2005, globally, somewhere around 160 people were killed over three years by the "Bird Flu." The common cold and ‘regular’ flue kill radically more, with associated pneumonia. Yet, the American media keeps reporting the "Bird Flu" information, as though it was an airborne variant of HIV. To date, the American public is trying to discover the importance of such a minor killer, oblivious to the fact that the American tax coffers are being drained, as though there was a viable "Bird Flu" threat to America. The media won’t track the "research" money, nor report on the low element of "pertinence" to the safety of Americans.
The media does NOT report the associated methodical draining of the U.S. tax coffers by war or other "government" expenses. The Pentagon, alone, hasn’t accounted for trillions of dollars – but the media won’t report information which is ‘pertinent’ to the American worker, or allow for adverse ‘regard’ for that information.
Similarly, the media evades the "pertinence" and "regard" behind the fact that $40 billion American tax dollars haven’t rebuilt a single "Katrina" home in New Orleans. Those who got rich on the "Katrina" money come under the ‘authority’ banner of "Don’t ask; don’t tell."
"Perception Control" allows "distortion." The media doesn’t report the incremental shutdown of the Medicaid and Social Security System – ignoring the fact that the affected Americans PRE-PAID their own benefits. The recipients are, instead, treated as parasites. Imagine being labeled a ‘parasite’ for collecting on an automobile insurance policy, following a bad car crash.
"Perception" is a function of specific focus (control). In the current time frame, the NSA domestic spying scandal is the "American uproar" – ignoring the fact that the Pentagon had a comparable domestic spying program – both being illegal as hell. With the media being ‘focused’ on the NSA domestic spying scandal, America is distracted from the most important of the two issues, inadvertently ignoring the Pentagon domestic spying scandal – and the related "Posse Comitatus" law.
Applying "Perception Control," the media authenticated "authority," by relaying the ‘opinions’ of White House Lawyers – one of whom was conveniently made head of the Bush Justice Department. The "perception" is that attorney opinions somehow cancel laws and judicial rulings. America overlooks the fact that attorneys render only ‘opinions;’ courts render interpretations.
Psyops tactics aside, lying with passion in your voice doesn't manufacture truth.
Anything approaching "Gestapo" is as Anti-American as it can get. So, how does one sort out the domestic "spy" business?
1. Attorneys render legal OPINIONS: Courts render legal INTERPRETATIONS. Yet, a team of White House Lawyers is cited as the spying ‘authority’ to bypass the FISA law. Attorneys are constructively enacting laws.
2. The Iraq campaign didn't involve a "Declaration of War." The authority was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force." (AUMF) There is a radical difference between the two. [Note the term "military"]
3. If the AUMF is cited as the "spy" authority, then note the AUMF provision - "....- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution." (15 days, max on warrantless wiretapping.)
4. If the NSA isn't considered to be 'military;' then FISA mandates warrants.
5. If the NSA is considered to be 'military,' then the "Possee Comitatus" statute and the associated military guidance additionally prohibit the "search and seizure" MILITARY authority, that Bush claims.
6. Remember that the Pentagon had an independent and illegal domestic spying program. While the military can leagally receive domestic intelligence, as an act of opening its own mail, Title 18 mandates the relay of the information to the appropriate law enforcement agency (FBI). Failure to do so is "Misprision of a Felony," under Title 18.
7. With the White House keeping the Mexican border as wide-open, as possible, how much factual "terror" can there possibly be?
PERCEPTION OF AUTHORITY
In a broader ‘perception’ horizon, examine Stanley Milgram’s 1960s experiments on authority vs. obedience. The key factor being the associated "perceptions," relative to that "authority." Milgram studied the rationalizations and justifications for the Nazi acts of genocide – as offered by the accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Crime trials. The perpetrators’ defense was typically based on "obedience" - claiming that they were "… just obeying orders" under the authority of their superiors. However weak the claim may have appeared, it was firmly believed, by the accused. Such was their "perception."
Certainly, the "Stanford Prison Experiment" elaborated on the matter.
Perception is essentially a trinity – the self perception "…how I think of the matter," the espoused perception, "…how I would like everyone else to view the matter;" and the public perception, "…how the preponderance of the public views the matter."
The idea essentially goes back to the old adage, "There are three sides to every story, yours, mine and the facts."
The difference in the three is a matter of ‘filters;’ is the matter clear to all? If not; why not? Does anyone even know what actually happened? If not; why not? How is the "perception" filtered and/or directed?
How many times has an airplane disappeared – with no discoverable clue as to what happened? Was it hijacked? Was it stolen, did the pilot get lost, crash into a high mountain glacier, or at sea?
Is the factual information "controlled?" Ron Brown’s B-737 was reported to have crashed in the "…storm of the decade." History records that the factual weather wasn’t particularly bad. Yet, what did/does the preponderance of America believe? The "Controlled Perception" ruled the matter.
Most importantly, the FIRST presented perception controlled the matter.
Disregarding intense propaganda, there is no viable evidence that a 757 crashed at the 9-11 Pentagon or in Pennsylvania. What does the preponderance of the entire world believe? Thereafter, it’s a matter of "Plausible Assertion" or "Plausible Denial."
If one reads the Vince Foster documents, he killed himself with three different weapons, with his ghost later driving his car to the nearby parking lot.
In such cases, one is forced to formulate an estimate of probable history, based on available information, or reasonable assumptions.
"Perception" is obviously sometimes a unique function of "authority." The Christian Crusaders went off to commit atrocities, under the "Church" message, "God wills it!" Nazi Storm Troopers did the same, being advised, "Gott mit uns!" ("God is with us!") The role of "authority" was to serve as a perceived reliable barrier against possible accountability and punishment; even unto God.
However, the "perception" and "authority" have to be credible. George Bush Jr. is more selfish. According to him, God told him, personally, to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. He later stated that God acted through him. Given the media "dropping" the matter (Perception Control), no one cares to talk about those claims. Bush’s claims exceeded the assertions of Hitler!
Hitler’s Nazis serve as a classic example of the extremes of human behavior – and how it comes about; how "perception" blended with "authority."
A typically unmentioned part of nefarious deeds is the matter of "accountability." When ‘institutionalized’ authority takes a wrong turn, where does the issue of accountability fall, relative to time. Had Hitler won, for example, his leaders and soldiers would have had no accounting. Yet, in the immediate time of a nefarious decision-making, the issue of accountability takes on the aura of context, relative to time.
History often frames "context;" convicted criminals are routinely put to death as ‘historic’ villains – by the "authority" of the State. The Nuremberg trials executed ‘deserving’ criminals. Many cases of raw street revenge are overlooked, given the ‘context’ (perception) of history – versus personally estimated probability of accountability.
It is no secret that the Nazi "obedience" was commonly motivated by fear of execution, prison internment; or at least a transfer to the dreaded Russian Front. Few verified the potential consequence of questioning or refusing, versus "…just following orders." The extended concern is the fate of the affected individual’s family, for better or worse. One can only ponder what they might do, under similar fear levels. Openly or subtly, "authority" controlled "perception."
The S.S. executioner had to evaluate the effect of time, as a factor in his accountability. If he was certain that his side would win, he proceeded with minimal interference of human conscience. Or, he may have been uncertain of victory, but he may have been quite certain of his own fate on the Russian front, if he disobeyed – or questioned - an order to kill. Add the fate of his family. "Authority" assured him that he was on the winning side.
The ‘conscience test’ of all time seems to be in the personal estimation of "…what people will say." (AND – the estimate as to whether or not "they" may never find out; or figure it out?)
Another factor which is rarely addressed, is the matter of "stakes;" personal risk or actual expenditure. In current times, the religious zealots are betting their life and their fate in all of eternity, to perform suicide bombings – even against innocent women and children. The implication is that the bombers perversely view themselves as ‘holy’ martyrs, favored by God; no sacrifice being too great for God.
There also exists a "personal identification gap" between those who monstrously committed the Nazi atrocities, of their own accord, and those who did the same, under extreme duress. The Nazi monsters had their share of conscience-driven suicides.
However unpopular (and little-known) the issue may be, it is also necessary to objectively observe the history of Jews participating in such organizations as the "Jewish Committees," who selected other Jews for the Nazi death camps; add the "Jewish Police" of the Nazi ghettos. Those participants continued to live amongst their own; their ‘authority’ was remote, however reliable. Certainly, they had to think it terms of their fate; and that of their family.
In modern times, a little-known driver behind the modern corporation is the fact that a high percentage of employees are as positively responsive to a letter of commendation from ‘authority’ in their personnel file, as they would be to a sizeable check.
Taking that idea further, the ‘value’ in such letters is often reduced by ‘authority’ employing impotent descriptors as "acknowledge," versus "recognize," "applaud" or "congratulate."
Obviously, pay levels, benefits and retirements are a huge determining factor. ‘Authority’ determines whether a military General abides by White House insistence, with an associated promotion, or retires two pay grades early.
Thus, it is also necessary to observe the dynamic of authority, versus propensity for subservience.
One of the major lessons of Hitler’s Nazism was that the true ‘force’ behind that monster was the "perception" of the populace – asking, "What does the Fuhrer want?" The key was in controlling the associated "perception."
Thinking to the electric battery, what happens when a "political battery" (potential energy – with positive and negative terminals) of Nazi methodologies is ‘hooked-up’ to a given populace?
The world should never forget that Hitler nearly won. Currently, the world is compelled to think to the forces behind this re-designed version of Nazism, referred to as the "New World Order."
"Those who refuse to think outside the proverbial ‘box’ are imprisoned in it; and destined to be buried in it."
Comment on this Article
5 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY
PSYOPS AND 9-11
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
Except for two aircraft hitting the WTC towers, try to think of a single officially claimed fact, or an ‘official’ position on 9-11 which has turned out to be true.
1. The FBI’s Robert Mueller cited the fact that no documentation linked al Qaeda to 9-11. Later phony al Qaeda "assertions" didn’t hold up under scrutiny.
2. There is no documented record of the purported 9-11 terrorists making a plane reservation; there is no “record locator,” complete with details.
3. There is no documented record of the purported 9-11 terrorists buying or using a ticket. (IDs required)
4. There is no hard-copy of a printed ticket ‘copy.’
5. There is no record of the purported 9-11 terrorists on any of the passenger manifests, with all legitimate passengers being accounted for.
6. There is no record of the purported 9-11 terrorists in the autopsies.
7. There is not as much as a suggestion that the purported 9-11 terrorists had the needed pilot skills - but rather the contrary.
8. At least seven of the purported 9-11 terrorists are known to be still alive - with no questions being asked.
9. No rational person can believe that the supposed lead hijacker’s passport could survive the WTC strikes, let alone be ‘immediately discovered’ in the 9-11 rubble.
10. The presented ‘security’ pictures of the 9-11 hijackers don't match the purported terrorists.
11. Despite the origins of the alleged hijackers, there was no in-country (Saudi Arabia & Pakistan) follow-up on the alleged hijackers’ links to terrorists. In some fashion, the alleged hijackers either disappeared, or were alleged to have used the names of seven living persons (with no identity ‘discovery’ follow-up.)
12. Bush’s frantic escape via Barksdale Air Force Base went un-explained, as it emerged that the ""…real, specific and credible" threats turned up as imaginary – and methodical.
13. The convenient ‘bureaucratic fog" – alleged to have allowed 9-11 to happen - went unexplained and un-investigated, as the American segment of the bin Laden family was immediately whisked away on private aircraft – amidst "instant" bureaucratic efficiency. Certainly, the 'convenient' failures went unpunished - if not rewarded.
14. For the first time in history, not one, but THREE steel-framed buildings were taken down by fire; magically falling onto their own footprint. The events involved two different architectural design styles, two different causes, but owned/controlled by a single entity. NO QUESTIONS ASKED & NO ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATION!
15. A stopwatch says that THREE buildings at the WTC came down as controlled demolition. Add the video captures of the sequenced controlled-demolition blasts.
16. There is no way to account for the purported WTC ‘collapse’ temperatures alleged by the 'official' line.
17. There is no viable evidence of a plane crash at the 9-11 Pentagon or in Pennsylvania - versus salted wreckage pieces. In the case of the Pentagon, they were even the wrong color! NO QUESTIONS ASKED & NO ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATION!
18. Despite the alleged failures of Airport Security, the situation methodically deteriorated to a Gestapo joke, as huge amounts of tax dollars were insanely spent on the TSA.
19. For all the failures, no official has been punished for 9-11. (with trivia such as a general who had an affair being sacked, in the background.)
20. The "official" 9-11 investigation was grossly under-funded, producing approximately 800 pages of documents after the White House censorship and interference.
21. In the end, the 9-11 Commission also failed to identify foreign terrorists as the perpetrators of 9-11. The so-called "investigation" was so much political rhetoric - hardly anything more.
22. That left the Afghan and Iraq invasions as blatant War Crimes. America fell into an identical "denial" mind-set of 1939 Nazi Germany. That was no coincidence of history!
23. There were no WMDs. Prior to the invasion, the 'boots-on-the-ground' UN teams reported no significant findings. Saddam has been long deposed. Iraq had no possible connection to 9-11. For all the horrors of the USA-made Saddam, his crimes are dwarfed by the tribal genocide of Africa. How did Saddam become the ‘humanitarian’ priority?
24. Given the above, Bush's invasions continue as War Crimes!
25. For all the "terror" threat levels posted, the Mexican border has been forced wide open from the White House; a "terrorist’s" dream-come-true. How much “terror threat” can possibly be factual?
Yet, repeatedly, the world is SUCCESSFULLY inundated with the assertions of "terrorism."
One is left to question, with so many inescapable indicators of 9-11 being a "Reichstag Fire," why nothing was said, for all intents & purposes? Because the nefarious science of PSYOPS was cleverly and effectively foisted upon America – and the world – by the mass media!
The harsh truth behind the obvious "mission" is hiding in plain sight! It's to be discovered in such books as Brezinski's "The Grand Chess Board," Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map," and the documentation of the so-called "Project for a New American Century." (PNAC) In essence, "Amerika Uber Alles!" No denial is possible!
America's legacy is destined to be found in the mental- emotional wilderness between "Don’t ask; don’t tell" and "We didn't WANT to know!"
Comment on this Article
6 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY
PSYOPS TECHNIQUES
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Behavior Control."
WHY?
Lord Acton probably answered that question in the most simple terms - "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts – absolutely!" The experienced attest that in "power" environments, there is a mysterious and overwhelming aura which seemingly 'posseses' the individual.
As with the physical weapons of war, psychological operations have legitimate uses. But, when those means are used on a domestic population, what then? To give a wartime pistol to a policeman, telling him to keep the domestic peace is effective. When that same pistol is then used to coerce, intimidate or threaten the domestic populace, something has to be done. It starts with knowing how that pistol operates.
ABOUT PSYOPS
It may seem strange to suggest that the study of propaganda has relevance to contemporary domestic politics and issues. When most people think about propaganda, they think of the enormous campaigns waged by Hitler and Stalin in the 1930s – or McCarthy in the 1950s. Since nothing comparable is being disseminated in our society today, many believe that propaganda is no longer a pertinent issue. WRONG!
Propaganda can be as blatant as a ‘peace symbol’ or as subtle as a song or poem. Propaganda’s persuasive techniques are regularly applied by politicians, advertisers, journalists, radio personalities, and others who are interested in influencing human behavior. Propaganda messages can be used to accomplish positive social ends, as in campaigns to reduce drunk driving, but they are also used to win elections and to sell beer. Propaganda isn’t inherently nefarious or suspect. Often, as in typical advertising or political campaigns, propaganda is totally expected!
"Propaganda" is an advantageous presentation of information – factual or otherwise.
"Psyops" takes unfair advantage of human psychology. Therein lays the difference – "INTENT."
The propagandist is a clever researcher and writer. The disinformationist has the added background of a psychologist – to some extent – as well as being a ‘resourceful’ and ‘surgical’ communications specialist. He operates from a time-constrained mission.
Whether we want to admit it or not, PSYOPS is in our daily life – it is a serious threat. Thus, we are in a comparable position of a banker. He knows that there will always be robbers and swindlers. The gimmick is in being smarter and more resourceful than the robber-swindler. The chief effort is to let the would-be robber-swindler know that the defense mechanisms are too strong; add the risks and probability of getting caught.
PSYOPS is generally about the control of human emotions; the resulting ‘processed emotions’ translating into desired intellectual (logical) decisions and subsequent actions. Think to the statement "Nobody can MAKE you feel a certain way; each person has to DECIDE how they feel about something – decide for themselves."
Great logic! Now, go to the major sales corporations & ask them why they spend millions per year on advertising!
OR; call an "ethnic" type by their least-favorite name and see what decision is made – over the span of a split second!
The reality is that we all have the ability to inspire or persuade thoughts or emotions in others. The trick is to inspire advantageous decisions. Ask the husband/boyfriend who brought home the flowers to his lady. Were some ‘results’ forthcoming? Of course they were, whether romance – or forgiveness. Emotions = action.
The technical advance of communication tools such as the Internet, accelerate the flow of persuasive messages - dramatically. For the first time ever, citizens around the world are participating in uncensored conversations about their collective future. This seems like a wonderful development; but there is a risk.
"Information overload" is often the result of people being regularly confronted with hundreds of intense messages, each day. Common sense and personal experience dictates that many people respond to the induced pressure by processing messages as quickly as possible and, when possible, by taking mental short-cuts.
That kind of response leaves the modern propagandist or disinformationist with a mandate to devise accommodating short-cuts, so as to be effective in dealing with typical thought or emotional processing. The disinformationist reacts with an effort to effectively control/agitate emotions, exploit insecurities, capitalizing on language ambiguity – inherent or induced - and by bending or re-manufacturing the rules of logic. History demonstrates that the disinformationist can be quite successful. Gaining attention and controlling perception is the disinformationist’s first priority, in the modern mind-control equation –
"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Behavior Control."
That leaves specialists and even common people with the task of detecting and analyzing the disinformation and/or propaganda, so as to create the needed awareness of the tricks which disinformationists employ. The secondary obligation is to devise ways of readily recognizing and resisting the subsequent short-cuts that the disinformationists promote. In brief, disinformation/propaganda analysis is the best immediate antidote to the nefarious excesses of the Information Age. Just as the military deals with "Information Warfare" as a major munition in their arsenal, the civilian world is comparably involved in the topic – like it or not.
As an example of the seriousness associated with the modern application of domestic propaganda, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) published a series of books, including:
§ The Fine Art of Propaganda
§ Propaganda Analysis
§ Group Leader's Guide to Propaganda Analysis
§ Propaganda: How To Recognize and Deal With It
The IPA centers its illustrations on seven basic propaganda devices: Name-Calling, Sparkling Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon.
In "The Fine Art of Propaganda," the IPA makes the point that "It is essential in a democratic society that young people and adults learn how to think, learn how to make up their minds. They must learn how to think independently, and they must learn how to think together. They must come to conclusions, but at the same time they must recognize the right of other men to come to opposite conclusions. So far as individuals are concerned, the art of democracy is the art of thinking and discussing independently - together."
Another interesting book was written by Richard Brodie, "The Virus of the Mind." The book carefully describes the creation and conditioning of certain social and political values, logic processes and seeming behavioral mandates in the mind of the American culture. The essence of the book cites the automatic mental and emotional reflexes which have been methodically conditioned into the ‘norms’ of the American society. How many times in American society has the statement "You can’t say that" successfully stopped a conversation? It’s quite common. Imagine that statement being controlling in the proverbial ‘land of the free.’ Certainly the constraining descriptor, "Politically Correct" has been dramatically effective, amidst often mandated "diversity training."
The book describes the "reflexive" intellectual, emotional and social reactions in terms of "memes." While the term seems to distract, the content of the book is otherwise quite good.
SALAMI EFFECT -
Imagine the traditional American society being taken away, one slice at a time. Those old enough can testify that America has seen just that. In one secretly planned operation, "Operation Northwoods," the comparable description is "time-phased changes." Rather like the alcoholic asking, "Oh, what is one more drink going to hurt?" Take enough pennies away from a dollar, and the dollar is totally gone!
Conversely, the effect can be equally dramatic. Compare the tax rate of the Korean War era to today’s world! Then note the tax-dollar rip-off programs – if you can spot them!
The incremental increase of tax rates leaves America working for the ‘government,’ not themselves. Yet, Americans are worse off, by far, than the early 1950s.
Common techniques
TIMING -
In real estate, the three guiding rules are "Location, location, location!" In the world of PSYOPS, the comparable rules are "Timing, timing, timing!" In the world of PSYOPS, the weakest tool can be effective, given the element of TIMING.
One of the most important applications of ‘timing’ is the dynamic of ‘first-up;’ the proverbial ‘early bird.’ Given the dynamics behind the events of 9-11, they become a classic for all time. 9-11 was an inside-job; get used to that.
With no documentation linking al Qaeda to 9-11, per the FBI’s Robert Mueller, al Qaeda became the instant villain. Osama bin Laden issued a formal denial in an audio tape; but the ‘first-up’ effect was already in place. With that background, an obviously phony video tape was played before America, attempting to implicate bin Laden. We know it worked – that’s PSYOPS. AND, look at what that PSYOPS accomplished!
(Don’t get enthralled by the effect, the 9-11 PSYOPS story is very ugly. It may mean the death of America, as we knew it. If in doubt, read the "Patriot Act.")
"Timing" can also be a major clue to the astute observer. To be ‘first-up’ may also indicate who the villain actually is. Those who support the ‘first-up’ may be peripheral villains. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, the ‘official line was, "There were no warnings. When that was illustrated as a lie, the claim was changed to "….specific warnings." As though any perpetrator is going to advertise his intentions in the Sunday Times! As time went on, more and more ‘warnings’ were illustrated; along with the history of the warnings being silenced with prejudice – from within. Out of the Hollywood version of "Godfather," comes the same dynamic – "…the first person…" Timing is important for many reasons.
NAME CALLING AND LABELING –
"Bad names" have always played a tremendously powerful role in the entire history of the world; as well as in our own personal development. Names have ruined and killed people; but, they have also stirred men and women to outstanding deeds and accomplishments. Names and labels have ruined the lives of people and have sent many to prison. Names and labels have made men angry enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellow men – or to die for the declared named or labeled cause. Names and labels have been applied to people, groups, associations, churches, tribes, gangs, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, regions of the country, nations, and races. Many tremendous results have been effected – just with a name or label. In American history, the "McCarthyism" ruined lives of truly great people, just with the simple implication of "Communist;" no proof required! Even today, descriptors such as "Commie," "Pinko" and "Leftist" bring a programmed emotional reaction.
In Current politics, "politically undesirable" has been labeled as "evil" or "terror." Laws have been passed on these elements, as though one could comparably outlaw the darkness of night. Yet, the strategy worked, the draconian laws were passed!
The name-calling technique of the disinformationist usually links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol, of some type. Beyond pure propaganda, the disinformationist crafts the name-calling into a form which has an emotional effect on the targeted audience. The usual style is to inject ‘distrust,’ into any association with the targeted individual/issue. The disinformationist who uses this technique hopes that the targeted audience will mentally AND emotionally reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of objectively looking at the available evidence.
Again, the element of "INTENT" is key. To cite some of Bush’s cabinet members as ‘felons,’ warns the listener, however negative the image is.
The most obvious type of name calling involves generally accepted ‘negative’ names. For example, consider the following:
§ Commie
§ Nazi
§ Fascist
§ Pig
§ Yuppie
§ Queer
§ Terrorist
§ Leftist
§ Neocon
However, the relative position of the name-calling ‘assailant’ or the ‘victim’ is a factor. "Expensive" is bad to a buyer, but wonderful to a seller. A more subtle form of name-calling involves words or phrases that are selected because they possess or create a negative emotional charge.
A responsible Pentagon official may propose specific military budget cuts. Instead of being labeled as "wise" or "fiscally conservative," the official gets labeled as "stingy." Either description can refer to the same behavior – with an extreme of different connotation. Other examples of negatively charged words include:
§ politically correct
§ social engineering
§ connected
§ radical
§ corrupt
§ cowardly
§ counter-culture
The name-calling technique leaves the casual observer with the logical mandate to ask intelligent questions when spotting "name-calling." Not all "name calling" is inappropriate or counter-productive. If a female politician cites a colleague or opponent as a ‘sweetheart,’ the connotation isn’t particularly inappropriate or negative. To cite Saddam Hussein as a ‘monster’ is dynamic; although a highly negative imagery. However, subjectivity is important in such matters. Referring to a man as a ‘sweetheart’ may ruin the day of a feminist. Referring to Saddam as a ‘monster’ may stir a Muslim supporter to violence. The appropriate questions:
§ Is the name calling appropriate?
§ Would a reasonable person find the name-calling personally tempting?
§ What is the intention behind the name calling?
§ What does the name imply?
§ Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the typical association behind the name?
§ Is an idea or thought process which serves a given person’s or group’s best interests being discounted/dismissed through such name calling?
§ Omitting the name calling, what are the merits in the remainder of the message?
SPARKLING GENERALITIES –
Almost any culture claims to believe in, fight for and live by "virtuous words." These "words" are normally associated with deeply set attitudes and ideas. In the USA, such words include: civilization, civic, morality, justice, equality, Americanism, God, Christianity, good, proper, right, democracy, patriotism, family, motherhood, fatherhood, science, medicine, health, natural and love.
For the purposes of propaganda/disinformation analysis, call these virtue words "Sparkling Generalities" focusing attention upon the dangerous characteristic that they have: They mean different things to different people; thus they can be used in different ways. The trick being in the controlling of context or association of the generalities.
Disinformationists prey upon the selected words, as we typically understand them or relate to them. Through scientifically styled means/methods/techniques, disinformationists prostitute the cherished words and beliefs and attitudes of unsuspecting people.
When Americans hear the word ‘democracy,’ they typically think of their own definite ideas about democracy, the ideas learned at home and school. "Mom, apple pie and the girl next door" come to mind. The typical reflex is to assume that the term is being used in that particular sense. The ‘virtue word’ lowers the 'caution threshold,' deferring any suspicion or mistrust; particularly when listening about the things 'the United States must do to preserve democracy.'
However, when one hears of ‘democracy’ in 2003 Iraq, the proverbial ‘red flags’ pop into view. The term is the same, the ‘association’ is different; very different. The image of a burning Humvee comes to mind, along with the image of dead or wounded GIs.
In essence, the employment of the "Sparkling Generality" is the reversal of "Name Calling." Name Calling seeks to make us fear and/or reject the cited entity. The intention is for the targeted audience to formulate a judgment to reject and condemn the victim of the name-calling, without bothering to examine the evidence. The Sparkling Generality device, conversely, seeks to make us identify with, approve and accept the generality without examining the evidence.
Exporting American Democracy to Iraq sounds noble to the typical American. However, given the "Patriot Act," what is actually being exported? In examining the "Sparkling Generality Device," all that is said regarding Name Calling / Labeling must also be kept in mind.
The observer should ask:
§ What image is the ‘virtue’ word intended to convey?
§ Does the presented idea in question have a legitimate connection with the general/typical meaning of the word?
§ Is this an attempt to prostitute an idea which does not serve the observer’s best interests?
§ Is it being "sold" or "spun" through its being given an association or name that the typical and reasonable observer isn’t likely to buy into?
§ Omitting the "virtue word," what is contained in the remainder of the ‘message?’
ATTITUDE -
An attitude is an imbedded personal style of dealing with information or events. Think to the common expressions -
"Why should I?" "What’s in it for me?" "I could care less!" "Live and let live." "No shame in my game!"
In that context, Americans are routinely conditioned to respond to information and events with a conditioned ATTITUDE. In the ‘first up’ style of the 9-11 presentation, America predictably responded in patriotic fashion. With the conditioning of such horrors as the 1993 bombing of the WTC and the Oklahoma City bombing, the mass media presentations stirred a revenge reflex; America seemingly had suffered enough "terrorism." The ATTITUDE was highly predictable - "I’ve had enough! Nobody is going to get away with this!"
EXPECTATIONS -
A popular belief system asserts that it is wrong to ‘lay’ your expectations on another, demanding a specific accommodation. However, a clear mind quickly remembers that there is an animal known as the ‘reasonable expectation.’ For example, fidelity in a relationship or marriage. Reasonable expectations are all around us – but they are quickly being deleted from the American culture.
America regularly witnesses the exporting of the USA critical economic infrastructure. America’s sovereignty is being dissolved faster than Americans can detect the unmistakable pattern. Whatever ‘forces’ may be in operation, Americans are facing lower-paying jobs – if any. Political discussions of job ‘numbers’ evade any discussion of job ‘quality.’ The ‘normal’ job benefits are more routinely being subsidized by the employee – if any benefits are even provided.
The sovereignty of America is discounted, versus a strange and methodical imposition of an American "global responsibility," which routinely excludes the welfare of Americans!
Thus, one of the apparent rules of the ‘system’ is, "…destroy all expectations; reasonable or otherwise."
One of the deadliest of these efforts was the overturn of the American "Equal Protection" clause in the U.S. Constitution. In the Michigan college reverse discrimination case, the ruling hinged on a "compelling interest" in removing the equal-protection provision as the issue pertains to reverse discrimination in school admissions.
What America didn’t notice was the ‘style’ of the language; and what that language is destined to mean. Specifically, that phrase "compelling interest," is destined to be applied to the selective enforcement of all American laws. That "selective enforcement" has been a relative norm for quite a while in American society. Now, however, there is essentially a Supreme Court precedent to anchor the debate for the "compelling interest" in enforcing the law only as "Politically Convenient."
In essence, "social obligation" will be openly transferred to political "obligation," in the controlled style of "political creep."
MISLEADING EUPHAMISMS -
When disinformationists use sparkling generalities and name-calling symbols, they are attempting to impress their targeted audience with vivid, emotionally stimulating words. In certain situations, however, the disinformationist attempts to pacify the audience in order to make an unpleasant reality more palatable. This is accomplished by using words that are bland and euphemistic. The brutal is converted into the ‘kinder and gentler.’
For example, America changed the name of the War Department to the Department of Defense. "Queer" became "gay." During war-time, civilian casualties are referred to as "collateral damage," and the word "liquidation" is used as a synonym for "murder." "Suspect" became "person of interest." The U.S. Constitution was almost destroyed by the "Patriot Act." From the Vietnam War, "combat fatigue," or "shell shock" became "post-traumatic stress disorder;" the descriptor being completely disconnected from the reality of war. The "suicide bomber" became the "homicide bomber." The "Muslims" (connected to Osama bin Laden) of the American/NATO Balkan campaign became "Ethnic Albanians."
FALSE CONNECTIONS
TRANSFER DEVICE -
The psychological mechanism of "Transfer" is used by the disinformationist to boost an authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept. For example, most people respect and revere their church and the nation. If the disinformationist succeeds in getting ‘church’ or ‘nation’ to approve a campaign in behalf of some program, he thereby transfers its authority, sanction, and prestige to that program. Thus, we may unwittingly accept something which otherwise we might reject.
The transfer device typically uses symbols for its best effect. The cross represents the Christian Church. The flag alludes to the nation. Cartoons depicting "Uncle Sam" allude to U.S. nationalism and an implied consensus of public opinion. Those symbols reliably stimulate emotions. (Don’t forget that concept.) The visual contact/association with such symbols will INSTANTLY arouse an entire menu of feelings we have with respect to community, church or nation.
A cartoon showing "Uncle Sam" as approving or disapproving something is powerful. Thus, the ‘Transfer’ device can be readily used both for and against the target causes and ideas. The key for the casual observer is in distinguishing the intent.
"Transfer" can be effected with deeds. When a political activist closes a speech with a public prayer, the attempt is to transfer religious prestige to the ideas being advocated – and the person/entity. As with all propaganda devices, the use of this technique is not limited to one side of the political spectrum. Pacifists can pray for peace, as quickly as a chaplain can pray for victory.
Authority can be "transferred" (or taken away). The disinformationist may attempt to transfer the reputation of "Science" or "Medicine" to a particular project or set of beliefs. A slogan for a popular cold medication serves to encourage the target audiences to "Applaud the miracles of medicine." Most have seen many TV commercials, with an actor dressed in a white lab coat tell us that "Brand-X is the most powerful pain reliever which can be bought without a prescription." In both of these examples, the transfer technique is being employed.
In the negative arena, the association of a Washington Post writer being a recipient of a Pulitzer Prize might be attacked by citing the faked story about the drug addicted child.
Transfer techniques can also take a nefarious/evil turn. A major engineering group prepared the Oklahoma City bombing report; using blatantly flawed data – yet, it sold! In history, the propaganda of 1939 Nazi Germany rationalized racist policies by appealing to anthropology, history, sociology and religion.
With a controlled ‘spin,’ even religion and science can be prostituted in almost any issue. The observer should be aware that any idea or program should not be accepted or rejected simply because it has been linked to a symbol such as Justice, Medicine, Science, Democracy, or Christianity. When the observer is confronted with the "transfer device," it is appropriate to ask the following questions:
§ What is the apparent – or not so apparent - intent/goal of the speaker?
§ What is the intended message which the disinformationist is seeking to ‘transfer’ the authority, sanction, and prestige?
§ Is there any legitimate association between the message of the disinformationist and the revered thing, person or institution?
§ Independent of the "transfer mechanism," what are the merits of the message, when viewed alone?
DISSOCIATION DEVICE -
Dissociation is the reverse of "Transfer," usually serving to produce a "Plausible Innocence." This technique is closely associated with Name Calling/Labeling. Quoting someone who is reasonably assumed to be honest serves to effect the excuse – or a ‘safe’ distance, "Hell, I didn’t know he was lying; why would ANYBODY suspect that?"
Displacing an arena allows the illusion of truth, via a shift in focus. To say that U.S. forces didn’t do something, serves to distance the Pentagon from condemnation. The close association of U.S. forces to those who did the actual act (a guerilla group, for example) operates as a ‘breakout’ device. "Nobody would have suspected that rebel bunch would do such a thing?" The guerilla unit is referred to as a "cutout." Often the "breakout" [action] effort is cleverly programmed; the Delta Force, for example. No matter what they do, their involvement is always protected under the flag of "National Secrecy." Their involvement also serves as a peripheral insulation. To hold a secondary group responsible might "compromise" Delta Force – a "national security interest."
Another tactic is to use disassociation to discredit a group or person, "He/they are not qualified to say…" "He/they have a reputation for being dishonest." "He/they are liars" "He/they are ridiculous/absurd."
DEALING OFF THE BOTTOM OF THE DECK -
It is often enough seen that events, information or statements are methodically taken out of context. Often, context is presented with strategic information missing.
Early in the accident investigation of the Egypt Air 990 crash, a set of translators insisted that the copilot began his religious chant with the statement, "I’ve made my decision!" Yet, the ‘official’ account leaves that statement out. In the end, the report ‘diplomatically’ reads that mechanical failure could not be cited as the cause of the crash. The copilot was not cited as having committed suicide-murder. While all indications pointed to a suicide-murder, the FBI insisted that there was no criminal ‘element’ warranting their taking over the investigation. The ‘official’ omission misled the public – to say the least.
Often, information or statements are methodically taken out of context. When citing regulations, for example, supporting information can often be quoted as though the particular statement is totally governing. In the FAA regulations, for example, there is a regulation prohibiting a pilot from leaving the flight deck for arbitrary reasons. Such events as a bathroom break or attending to an emergency are excepted. However, by leaving out the stated exceptions, a captain couldn’t legally leave the cockpit – for any reason. Absurd? It’s happened! The FAA took the supporting language out of context, and successfully processed a violation – committing a felony, in the process!
MANUFACTURED REALITY
The alleged assassin of Bobby Kennedy plead guilty - now serving a life sentence. The world bought off on the idea that Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy. However, the autopsy demonstrated that Sirhan didn’t hit Bobby with a single round! The fatal bullets came from an alternate direction and range. The media recordings identified five more shots than Sirhan’s weapon was capable of firing. Yet, what does the world believe???
PANIC AND CHAOS -
Panic, confusion & chaos are opportunity environments for those who have the capacity to know – or estimate - the limits of the presented ‘threat.’ Survival and security become the first-up priorities, versus ‘facts.’ These scenarios also allow those in power to manufacture a reality, as the populace will normally grant leaders total ‘trust;’ even blind trust, hoping to receive survival and safety in return.
The world has rarely seen such panic and chaos as the events following 9-11. The damage was factual – but the deaths were distorted out of proportion. Despite early and relatively accurate data, the actual number of deaths at the World Trade Center was kept hidden for months. The original figures being kept incredibly high – until after the Afghan invasion was well under way. During the ‘assumed fatalities’ period, several national charities received huge sums of money. Amidst that ‘chaos,’ it took an investigative reporter to reveal that the greater percentage of the charity money was being kept by the charities, versus being distributed to the intended victims.
In the shadows of the 9-11, the pre-written "Patriot Act" was scammed into law. Americans never dreamed that the ‘law’ would usurp the U.S. Constitution. Amazingly, most Americans related 9-11 to Pearl Harbor, without questioning the possibility of a similar internal government facilitation – which was factual. More amazingly, the early ‘official’ claims of "no warnings" were quickly debunked. Even then, most America didn’t ask the obvious questions.
ASSUMPTION –
"Assumption" is a major element in the world of PSYOPS. The application of ‘Assumption’ is reliably operated from the "conditioning" of the targeted audience. One assumes that the President would never do anything wrong. It is assumed that the justice system works; after all, didn’t Clinton nearly get impeached? Yet, the post 9-11 events are filled with Bush’s violations of his Federal Oath of Office, "…to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Yet, he quickly signed the infamous "Patriot Act," which removed America’s entitlement to the key elements in the Bill of Rights. With his knowledge and consent, at least two "suspects" rotted in a military prison, because there was no ‘evidence’ to charge them in a federal court. They were denied legal council, despite court orders. They were interrogated relentlessly, under the guise of ‘national security.’
In the Iraq invasion, the assumption was that the USA would NEVER do something terribly immoral; let alone commit a war crime. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The invasion was a war crime, by itself. After the ‘formal’ combat was finished and Iraq had no army, the Hussein brothers were killed in a combat operation. There was no arrest attempt, they were just killed. Possibly, they deserved to die at the hands of a court; they didn’t deserve to be murdered in a U.S. military attack. WHY? Because of the international agreements which the U.S. is a signatory to; however unpopular the idea ma be.
Yet, ‘Assumption’ worked for the ‘system’ – beautifully!
Too much of America’s history is fraught with false information. Thus, except for natural disasters, one should quickly ask:
§ Is there something which just doesn’t look right?
§ Is there a conflict between what’s seen and heard, versus the ‘official’ account?
§ Is there room for legitimate confusion in the information presented?
§ What might be missing in the presented ‘picture?’
§ What is the intent/goal of the ‘official’ account?
§ Do the observed actions support the ‘official’ account?
§ Could the reverse be more factual?
§ What is the intended message?
§ Who is delivering the ‘official’ account?
§ Is there any ‘salesmanship’ being witnessed, versus honest information?
§ Is there any more information obviously needed?
§ Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the merits of the event(s), when viewed without the ‘official’ narrative?
§ Are the opposing viewpoints more reliable?
IGNORANCE AND APATHY -
It’s unusual for the U.S. to uniquely conduct a military invasion, versus being part of a U.N. effort. Given the horror of 9-11 (as presented) America was ready to take on the world – single-handedly. In hindsight, we discover many fallacies associated with 9-11, leading to the question, "Was 9-11 an inside-job?"
The issues don’t end with the consideration of a simple possible mistake, made in the proverbial heat of battle. Given the facts – as they were known at the time – there was no legitimate provocation for war. Although it appeared that there was a ‘time’ pressure, few looked past the end of their noses at such documents as the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Accords and the Nuremberg Charter. If they had, it would have been discovered that the Afghan and Iraq invasions constituted war crimes. In the assumption that America was totally above committing a war crime, few Americans ever looked at the pertinent documents – not even the military!
In the ‘convenient’ void of ignorance, Americans didn’t relate to the meaning of the opium fields of Afghanistan being re-planted (following the Taliban destruction of those fields). The replanting of those fields meant cheaper heroin being supplied to European and American drug dealers!
Assuming integrity in the White House, Americans couldn’t grasp the significance of the U.S. interests militarily seizing control of Iraq’s oil production. Few Americans have even heard of Zbigniew Brezenski’s book, "The Grand Chessboard." The book essentially lays out the American control/takeover of the Middle-East, in the spirit of "America’s Manifest Destiny." Fewer Americans connect the "Corporate America," versus the "American Government." Imagine the U.S. Military doing the dirty work for Unocal, Chevron, et al! They did it!
Few Americans know of Bush’s Presidential Executive Order No. 13303. That Order laid claim to Iraq’s oil production. Iraq could not even decide who could buy their oil! For all intents & purposes, Iraq became an American corporate colony.
Yet Americans believed that ‘democracy’ was the intent of the continued American military presence in Iraq!
While post 9-11 "Homeland Security" seemed to take on a mandatory mission, few Americans caught the political sleight-of-hand which substituted the content of the "Homeland Security Act," at the last minute. The result was billions of dollars in "pork." Amidst the ‘reliable ignorance,’ the tax-dollar rip off missions successfully flew. Given the routine and convenient omissions in the American mass media, it’s clearly wise to ask:
§ Is the public up-to-speed with the pertinent issues?
§ Is there a credible outraged claim of ulterior motives? If so, what are the details?
§ Does any one group have a monetary motive for lying?
§ Is there a sense that something is seriously wrong in the presented ‘picture?’
§ What is the stated intent/goal in the ‘official’ account?
§ Could there be a pre-existing secret agenda?
§ What is the intended message?
§ Who is conveying the ‘official’ account?
§ Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the merits of the event(s), when viewed without the ‘official’ narrative (spin)?
SHADOWS -
The well-documented history of political events in America display a clear nefarious intent from the nation’s leaders; dating to at least Bill Clinton’s election. During the Clinton terms in office, a host of anti-terror laws were written; tailored to 9-11, including the "Patriot Act." Likewise, the military "Project for a New American Century" was developed. BUT, not by a military group! Among other matters, the PNAC – as it’s called – cites America’s global military "Constabulary Duties." Holding North Korea at bay is one thing, but playing "Globo-Cop" is another! Post 9-11 was pre-planned in the shadows of the Clinton years!
Amazingly, America seems to be oblivious to another effort; the implementation of the Gestapo-style "Model Emerengcy Health Powers Acts;" alternately called the "Model State Emergency Powers Acts." (MSEHPA) The "model" is a generic statute, intended to be enacted by the individual states. As "suggested," the individual state health personnel could ultimately wind up under the control of the federal government; expected to act as an extended police force. Their ‘emergency powers’ would be Gestapo in nature, including the power to arrest people who refuse to take prescribed "immunizations," or carting them off to "Quarantine Camps." The associated civil rights would not be worth talking about.
Doubts? Look to -
>http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/26/mehpa.htm
For a copy of the proposed law, look to –
>http://www.publichealthlaw.net/MSEHPA/MSEPHA2.pdf
By June 30, 2005, the MSEHPA had been introduced in whole, or in part, by 44 states; 37 states had passed laws which include provisions from - or similar to - those in the MSEHPA. In fairness, the compliance varies, as to the extent of the MSEHPA provisions.
Any state which adopts such a ‘conforming’ law gets an immediate five-million dollar "signing bonus." The federal subsidies increase dramatically, from there.
The questions:
§ Is this something which was methodically ‘low key,’ or possibly supposed to be nearly secret?
§ Does the presented account seem to come out of thin air?
§ Does the ‘logic’ hold up as being consistent? Did something ‘magically’ change?
§ Is there an important piece of information in-hiding?
§ Did something happen with a fortuitous timing – defying claims of ‘coincidence?’
§ Does the presented account smack of nefarious propaganda?
§ Is there any viable outraged claim of ulterior motives – including profiteering?
§ Is there ANY reasonably compelling suspicion amidst the information presented?
§ Is there a sense that something is seriously wrong in the presented ‘picture?’
§ Does the ‘official’ account meet a reasonable test of ‘integrity?’
§ Could there be a secret agenda?
§ What is the intended message – express or implied?
§ Who is ‘fronting’ the ‘official’ account?
§ Are there any people or groups protesting; and what do they have to say?
§ Independent of the ‘official’ account, what are the independent merits of the associated event(s)?
TESTIMONIAL DEVICE -
Babe Ruth is on the cereal box, promoting a breakfast cereal as part of a balanced breakfast. Britney is presented in a commercial endorsing a specific line of clothes. A church member attests to a ‘miracle.’
Such is the classic use of the "Testimonial Device" which readily comes to the minds of most, when the term ‘testimonial’ is used.
When we hear/read that "The New York Times said," "John L. Lewis said...," "Herbert Hoover said...," "The President said...," "My doctor said...," "Our minister said..."
The "Testimonials" may simply emphasize a legitimate, valid and accurate idea - a ‘fair use’ of the device. In other cases, however, the "Testimonial(s)" may represent the sugar-coating of a clever distortion, a blatant lie, a misunderstood notion; or any anti-social suggestion. Such "Testimonials" may have the element of "association creep." For example, when speaking to priests convicted of pedophilia, the overt expression may be, "…these God-hated priests…" when directly referring to the pedophilia issue. However, there is the risk/intent that the subconscious GENERAL association will uniquely be "…these God-hated priests." Thus, the discounting of priests, in general, can occur, whether by accident or design.
There is nothing inherently wrong with citing a qualified source; the testimonial technique can be used to construct a fair and well-balanced position or debate. However, it is often used in ways that are unfair and blatantly misleading.
With respect to a "Testimonial, the "Transfer" device can also be used as a "Trojan Horse," in the case of a prominent personality duped into making a false statement. Or, conversely, such a prominent personality forced to issue a denial or distortion of an otherwise obvious fact.
Another PSYOPS application of a "Testimonial" - as a "Transfer Device" – is essentially a bank-shot. An alternate source is quoted (Testimonial) in such a fashion as to lead someone to believe that they are a uniquely qualified – or unqualified - source. The reader/viewer is misled into believing a given slant. Often, the intent of the quotation (Testimonial) is lost in an unwitting presumption of an honest debate.
For example, the American segment of the bin Laden family was factually evacuated by private aircraft, immediately following 9-11! One person may cite the fact in a debate, while the clever disinformationist "bonds" the discussion to the same ‘revelation’ by America’s ‘favorite,’ Michael Moore. The ‘first-up’ effect tends to seal the fate of such discussions, despite the fact that the debate originator was actually quoting from the Tampa Tribune, but failed to cite the source, in the beginning.
A "Testimonial" can be centered on a seemingly authoritative document. For example, in the 9-11 affair, a Tom Kenney was quoted from a conversation with Dan Rather as implying – at least – that a FEMA rescue team arrived in New York the night before 9-11 – in preparation. In the ensuing debate, an individual polled FEMA – via the "Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA) - using an incorrect name, "Tom Kennedy." The FOIA response (authoritative Testimonial) came back in the essence of "No information was responsive to your request." The mis-spelling might have been deliberate. However, the real name was "Kenney," not Kennedy." The illusion (Testimonial) was that the assertion that FEMA rescue arrived the night before 9-11 was FALSE. The requested information was NOT forthcoming. The illusion of a straight-forward FOIA response served as a Testimonial, whatever the actual facts may – or may not - be.
In congressional testimony, Rudi Guiliani admitted that FEMA was already set up on Pier 92, under a conveniently timed "Operation Tripod."
The most common misuse of the testimonial involves citing individuals – such as celebrities - who are not qualified to make judgments about a particular issue or person. In 1992, Barbara Streisand supported Bill Clinton; Arnold Schwarzenegger threw his weight behind George Bush. While both are popular performers, in their own right, there is no viable reason to think that they know what is best for America. The "Testimonial" takes advantage of the psychological device, known as "identification."
The false testimonial is not bound by any restraints. In the Oklahoma City bombing, the FBI "expert" was caught both unqualified and in a lie, as to the explosive substance in the truck. His fate was a promotion!
Unfair testimonials are usually obvious; most people have seen through the obviously rhetorical trick at some time or another. In the experience of human nature, however, this probably happened when the testimonial was provided by a celebrity whom we did not respect. Conversely, if the testimony is provided by an admired celebrity, we are much less likely to be critical.
When encountering the obvious "Testimonial," it is appropriate to ask:
§ What is the apparent – or not so apparent - intent/goal of the speaker?
§ ‘Who’ or ‘what’ is actually being quoted in the testimonial?
§ Why should anyone regard this person/organization/publication as containing expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question?
§ Independent of the "Testimonial," what does the message/idea amount to?
INJECTED ASSOCIATION -
Honest people are vulnerable to the disinformationist; the honest person thinks in honest terms. Honest people simply don’t expect to be given blatantly dishonest treatment, as a victim or an observer. Thus, there is the risk/probability that an honest statement can be methodically and forcibly associated with a bad source.
To cite the imagery of the burning Pentagon in the early AP picture, citing the lack of evidence of an aircraft impact can result in the claim, "Oh, you’re obviously referring to the picture on the cover of that socialist Frenchman Theirry Meyssan – the conspiracy nut!" The reality may be that the speaker had ONLY seen the AP photo. Still, the ‘first-up’ effect and the injected association will have a dramatic effect on the casual observer.
RHETORIC PASSION AND TONE OF VOICE -
Even in text presentations, ‘passion’ and ‘tone of voice’ can be conveyed – and quite effectively. With that in mind, it’s academic that a passionately told lie creates the illusion of truth. Thereafter, the tactical use of language is important to observe. An honest person rarely needs to resort to the tools used by the disinformationist. However, when passionate rhetoric is used in an obviously styled manner, suspicion – at a minimum – is in order. This is particularly true when associated with unreasonable discounting of an issue, source or personality. Dynamic communication skills are to be admired – but not when they are utilized for a nefarious purpose. Again, the key is in distinguishing the intent of the message.
REPACKAGING AND "SCOPE" -
Long after the fact, the White House abruptly announced that they were dealing with faulty information, when deciding to invade Iraq. The presentation was in the spirit of "See, it wasn’t our fault; the information came from dishonest people, whom we were duped into believing!"
If one’s attention is fixed to that latest position (scope), the position sounds good, until one remembers (expanded scope) that – prior to the Iraq invasion - countries were lined up telling the White House that the information was false. France and Germany – in particular - trashed their diplomatic relationship with the USA, in an effort to prevent a senseless bloodbath.
Just prior to the invasion announcement, the U.N. inspection team was reporting increasing evidence that Saddam had – in fact – destroyed his prescribed weaponry; or at least transported it out of the country. "Selective trust" (limited scope) is no excuse in that picture; too many were attesting to Saddam’s actual compliance and the lack of any viable evidence of WMDs. Yet, the White House statement would have the reader believe that there is only one side to the issue - "See, we were lied to; it’s not our fault. It was an innocent mistake, see?" The attempt was to "Repackage" the truth with the device of "Plausible Assertion."
When encountering the obvious "Repackaging," it is necessary to ask:
§ What is the intent of the statement/position? Clarification? Deceit? Excuse making?
§ How does the statement/position compare with other previous information?
§ Is this a radical perception/position change worth inquiring more deeply?
§ Is there a reliable opposing position worth comparing the statement/position to?
§ Does alternate information condemn the "Repackaging?"
IMAGING
ORDINARY FOLKS -
The "Ordinary-Folks" technique, attempts to convince the target audience that the celebrity and their ideas, are "…those of the common people." The device is used by advertisers and politicians alike.
Obviously, America's recent presidents have all been millionaires, who have gone to great lengths to present themselves as ordinary citizens. George Bush Jr. was reading to school children on 9-11. Bill Clinton partied with the rest of his peers, but "…didn’t inhale." George Bush Sr. hated cooked broccoli, and loved to go fishing. Ronald Reagan was often photographed as the outdoorsman, chopping wood. Jimmy Carter presented himself in the fashion of an humble Georgia peanut farmer.
The political candidates reliably deliver the phony promise to "clean out the barn" and set things straight in Washington. The political scene is filled with politicians who ignore any corruption issues, while appearing to challenge the economic and privilege disparity of the mythical "cultural elite," trying very hard to identify with the needs and desires of "ordinary American people." The baby-boomers of the fifties no longer find significance in whether the candidate inhaled or not. George Bush Jr. never bothered to answer the drug questions; America didn’t care.
Again, the pertinent questions:
§ What is the intent, relative to the "hidden" person?
§ Disregarding the sales pitch, what are the presented messages/images worth when divorced from the presented personality?
§ Is there a trait or history methodically being left out?
§ What could he or she be trying to cover up with the ordinary-folks approach?
What are the facts, relative to the presentation?
BANDWAGON DEVICE -
The campaigning politician IS a propagandist; the world accepts that. The candidate always needs "numbers;" real or otherwise. The political candidate rents a hall, attracts radio and TV stations, fills a super-stadium, marches thousands of people in a parade. He/she employs prejudicial colors, symbols, music, movements and Hollywood special effects. He/she induces great numbers to write letters, send E-mails, and contribute money or time to his/her cause. He/she appeals to the desire - common to most of us - to identify with and to "follow the crowd."
In modern politics, the propagandist (and disinformationist) needs to similarly affect the masses. He/she directs the "appeal" to ‘bonded’ groups with the common ties, ties of nationality, religion, race, gender, vocation or social status [unemployed, for example]. In a similar fashion, the disinformationist campaigning for or against a given program, position or perception will appeal to their target audience as Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Jews...as farmers or as school teachers; as housewives or as miners. Truth is almost the last priority, versus "results."
Using all other propaganda devices, all the means of positive imagery are used to inspire the respective hopes, fears and hatreds, the desired prejudices, convictions and ideals common to a target group. Thus emotions are employed to push and pull the members of a targeted group onto a prescribed Band Wagon – or to create a fear of "charging" that band wagon with an attack, given the apparent numbers or sheer power behind the particular bandwagon. Following 9-11, there was no hope of winning against ANY position, taken by the Bush administration. 9-11 manufactured the biggest bandwagon, since Pearl Harbor.
The basic message of the Band Wagon appeal is "everyone else is on board; therefore, so should you be." In the primordial quest for ‘safety in numbers,’ few want to be left behind, thus the technique is quite successful in all arenas. The gimmick is in taking a close look at the particular bandwagon, versus an emotional reflex to immediately climb onto the presented Band Wagon. The disinformationist’s mission is obviously to make the targeted audience think there is such a priority; "Opportunity only knocks once!"
The element of "consensus" often rules the bandwagon effect. In regard to the First Amendment, most reflexively agree that "...you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater." No one bothers to ask, "What if it's on fire?"
A recent example is in the Afghan and Iraq campaigns. While the "Victory Bandwagon" approach worked, the illustration of the lies, in advance of - and after - the invasions left America in the lurch of "War Crimes." – NOBODY seemed to notice! The Band Wagon approach was that successful.
"American" War Crimes? What person could possibly think the unthinkable? Who could conscience the thought, let alone explore the possibility that such could EVER possibly be factual? Why, not even Hollywood could so dare!
Fear and uncertainty are powerful forces to nudge or push people onto a pandered bandwagon as a "solution" to their anxieties. During the Vietnam War years, the frequent citation of the "Red Menace" created acceptance and approval of the war, inducing many into enlisting. The war was factually about oil and Texas profiteering; few noticed. The PSYOPS worked.
When the "Bandwagon" approach is noted, it would be prudent to ask the following questions:
§ What is the actual agenda/program?
§ What is the evidence, both for and against the program?
§ Is there a hidden agenda?
§ Regardless of who and how many are supporting the program, is it appropriate or prudent to also support it?
§ Does the "Bandwagon" program serve - or undermine - the individual and collective interests of the typical person?
FEAR DEVICE -
How many times has America heard this speech - "The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive." More and more people are recognizing the speech from Adolf Hitler, in 1932 – the speech is that commonly used, in some format. Yet, its equivalent also served the "establishment" for ten years of the Viet Nam War. Surprisingly, the ‘establishment’ lost the war!
With rare exception, only a true disinformationist or generic propagandist handily stimulates fear, while immediately citing a recommended "solution." When the "Fear" device is being used, the disinformationist warns the members of the target audience that disaster will result if they do not follow a particular course of action. The intended "Fear" is accompanied by the convenient ‘solution;’ fear on one end, with ‘hope’ on the other.
By using/prostituting "fear," the disinformationist plays upon the emotions; especially on the target audience's deep-seated fears and emotional reflexes. The technique is typically used to redirect attention from the merits of a viable proposal; toward steps that claim to reduce ‘fear’ or ‘threat.’
A joke portrays the common reality: "My buddy George is one smart SOB. He told me, during the 1964 campaign, that if I voted for Goldwater, the USA would be at war in Viet Nam inside of six months. Damn - he was right – I voted for Goldberg; and look what happened!"
As the 1964 election indicated, ‘truth’ is often an enemy of politics. Lyndon Johnson was elected, but the war took off - anyway. The induced-fear technique can be highly effective when wielded by a clever demagogue. However, the technique is typically used in less dramatic ways. Consider the following:
§ A television safety commercial portraying a terrible automobile accident (inducing fear), reminding the viewers to wear their seat-belts (the fear-reducing [hope] solution).
§ An information packet from an insurance company uses pictures of houses destroyed by floods (inducing fear), then inserts ‘convenient’ details about home-owners' insurance (the fear-reducing [hope] solution).
§ A letter from a pro-gun organization begins by describing disarmed citizens in a lawless America in which only criminals possess guns (inducing fear). The letter goes on to cite the Constitution; asking the readers to oppose a ban on semi-automatic weapons (the fear-reducing solution).
At least since the end of the World War II, psychologists and communication specialists of all types have conducted studies to learn more about the effectiveness of fear/hope inducements – as it pertains to herding the masses [directing a mass action]. Some valid criticisms have been made, but the general conclusions are worth considering as being valid. In general, the studies have concluded:
§ The more genuinely frightened a person is, from any communication, the more likely they are to take viable preventive action.
§ The "Fear" approach will not be successful, unless the threat is believed to be PERSONAL, factual, imminent and pertinent, with the target audience otherwise feeling powerless to change the threatening situation.
§ "Fear" is far more likely to succeed in producing a positive response, if the target audience is given specific and viable recommendations to reduce the threat - if the audience feels empowered by the information. The targeted audience needs a high degree of faith in the recommendations.
In general, there are six elements required for a successful fear appeal:
1. An identified (perception control) and pertinent threat. (emotional control)
2. A specific safety recommendation. ("hope" solution)
3. The targeted audience must be made to feel a sense of OBLIGATION.
4. The targeted audience perception (trust) that the safety recommendation will be effective.
5. The targeted audience’s perception/faith that they are reliably (personally) capable of performing the recommended solution – with assured (faith) results. [As they are believed in.]
6. There must be a tangible reward for the targeted audience having lived up to the actual or imposed OBLIGATION. Personal satisfaction may be enough.
When "fear" tactics do not include all six elements, they have a certain probability of failure. During the intensity of the Cold War, the anti-nuclear movement, successfully aroused a high degree of public fear of a nuclear war. However, lacking specific, viable and "easy" action recommendations, the effort fizzled, as the populace perceived themselves as generally doomed, with no effective or workable solutions. They were frightened, but took little action.
In contrast, however, simple fall-out shelters did become popular, as people were instructed on their construction and believed that shelters would protect them. Installing a simple shelter was something that they could actually do.
During the 1964 campaign, Lyndon Johnson was probably successful in swaying voters with a television commercial, which portrayed a young girl being annihilated in a nuclear attack. The commercial linked (transferred) the threat of nuclear war to Barry Goldwater - Johnson's opponent. Johnson was presented to the voters as an effective, and viable way of avoiding the nuclear threat.
Pay attention to how that operated!
1. Goldwater was identified (perception control) as the threat. (emotional control)
2. The safety recommendation ("hope" solution) was not to vote for him.
3. The concept of "Americanism" (obligation) was used. 4. The target audience believed (trusted) in that solution.
5. The target audience was given a personal, easy and workable solution – which they believed in.(faith)
6. The election victory left the usual reward of political victory, and at least the illusion (tangible reward) of evading nuclear war.
History records that while the feared nuclear war might have been averted, the Viet Nam War pressed onward. Thus, "clarity of probable results" ends up being the responsibility of the masses, given that they are usually an unwitting ‘means to an end!’ Often, in politics, the decision is simply the lesser of two evils – as perceived. In the case of the Viet Nam War, the scammed "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" hadn’t been identified as to its corruption; praise be to the mass media!
Under the illusion of averting nuclear war, the American voters unwittingly enabled a ten-year war; costing 58,000 American lives, plus casualties, plus cost, plus….. The election "Timing" was everything.
To better illustrate these principles, look to a reversed case. During the summer of 2003, the Liberian crisis left thousands murdered and starving – yet, America barely noticed; WHY?
1. With little news coverage, Liberia was not effectively presented or identified (perception control) as an imminent or pertinent threat to Americans. (emotional control)
2. A specific safety recommendation was not cited. ("hope" solution)
3. The minimally targeted audience was not made to feel a sense of OBLIGATION.
4. The minimally targeted audience perception (trust) didn’t see any safety recommendation that would be effective.
5. The targeted audience did NOT have the perception/faith that they were (personally) responsible for, or capable of performing any particular recommended solution – with assured (faith) results.
6. There was too little tangible reward for the targeted audience – if they lived up to any actual or imposed moral [distant] OBLIGATION. Personal satisfaction was not be enough.
Certainly, in this case, many American churches did get involved, but not to the extent needed to meet the Liberian crisis.
In current politics, "fear" continues as a political device – emotional control. The tactic is simple; agitate public fear of terror, illegal immigration, or crime; proposing that the candidate will successfully reduce the threat. The issue almost gets comical in the sense of "My terror-bandwagon is bigger than your terror-bandwagon." Such emotionally persuasive "fear" messages should trigger the following questions:
§ Is the intent to prostitute an issue to get panic votes?
§ Are the issues complete and factual, as presented?
§ Is there an unreasonable exaggeration in the ‘fear’ or ‘threat’ issue?
§ How pertinent or even legitimate is the cited ‘fear’ or ‘threat?’
§ Will the proposed solution actually reduce the supposed threat?
§ When viewed dispassionately, what are the independent merits of the proposal?
LOGICAL FALACY -
Logic is utilized to draw a conclusion from one or more premises. A simple statement of fact (as opposed to a ‘conclusion’) should not be considered in the light of being either logical or illogical. The typical response to a ‘fact’ is to simply weigh the statement as true or false.
Most are familiar with the following argument:
§ Premise 1: A cat is an animal.
§ Premise 2: A dog is an animal
Conclusion: A ‘cat’ and a ‘dog’ are one and the same creature.
Thus, good judgment and insight are required to wade through even a simple argument of logic. Imagine a celebrity getting asked the question, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes; or no!’ Hence the basis for the ‘logic’ of an argument needs to be effectively tested, in order to translate the basic terms; relative to the conclusion. The inherent rule being, ‘Verify the facts, define the terms; and test your assumptions.’
That’s not to say that correct conclusions require a long list of observations. Some are more heavily weighted than others. If one were to insist, ‘Give me ONE good reason to believe that 9-11 was an inside-job!’ The easy answer is, ‘One, there was no legitimate investigation. OR; two ‘ Anyone who got in the way of 9-11 was creamed. AND; three, the official ‘bad-guy
Comment on this Article
7 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY
PERCEPTION CONTROL - "PLAUSIBLE ASSERTION PLAUSIBLE DENIAL "
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
The world was told that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9-11. Yet, the security tape video has a time-date stamp of almost a day and a half later. Nothing which resembles a B-757 is in the tape. While the security videotape fireball is nothing less than impressive, the photographs of the scene make an astute observer’s hair stand on end.
The multiple aircraft pieces, on the Pentagon lawn, were from the front end of the aircraft, yet they show no impact, smoke or fire damage. What should be polished aluminum is painted bluish gray. Early photos show the smoke stained wall of the Pentagon, but a tree next to the building still has green leaves on it. The grass immediately in front of the Pentagon is still green. The pictures show fire trucks being present, early on. But later photographs show all the fire in the world, with no fire trucks, or firemen, until the fire reaches a dramatic peak. SOME of the close-in pictures of the scene leave the question, ‘Why do we have photographers, but no firemen?’ Many of the pictures don’t lend themselves to the possibility of a good telephoto lens, with a ‘lucky’ photographer in the area. While ‘Plausible Assertion’ passionately indicates that a B-757 hit the Pentagon, the remaining forensics simply don’t support the assertions. Flight 93 in Pennsylvania is very similar. In particular, the only ‘fire’ associated with the Flight 93 Crash in Pennsylvania shows an obvious ordnance explosion. It too is missing the ‘fingerprint’ of the black column of smoke. Add the missing "normal" components of the engines, tail section, outer wing sections, etc.
The ‘Perception Control (Plausible Assertion) essentially says, ‘Oh, but if you look at the scene the way we want you to.’
The key aspect of such efforts is contained in the fact that such efforts are oriented around facilitating the psychological mechanism of ‘denial.’ Americans, in particular are spoiled; we don’t like insecurity and we don’t like to think for ourselves. The ‘average’ of our lives is adequate for having trusted so far; why start thinking and questioning, now??
The emotional cowards of society appeal to each other and the ‘causists,’ ‘It’s not THAT badly broken; DON’T fix it!’ From 1963 onward, America hasn’t noticed that their lives are NOT getting better. The degrading of American life is methodically slow; the vast majority of Americans don’t notice ‘ they care still less.
Americans didn’t notice that under Reagan, the federal income tax was diminished, but the federal burden was transferred to the states. A tax was relieved at the federal level, but replaced at the state and local level. The net difference was a tax ‘increase‘ not a decrease. As programmed, America didn’t pay attention!
One small slice at a time, American Democracy and the traditional American way of life is being taken away.
Those who perpetrate deeds such as 9-11 are very keenly aware that the radical majority of Americans hate thinking and reasoning for themselves ‘ they were conditioned not to. America was conditioned to depend on the mass media, television, in particular ‘ for ‘truth.’
American society is not saintly; the greatest corruption on the planet thrives in Washington D.C. ‘ but it’s a ‘clever’ corruption. American history has left too many ‘clues’ as to what can be gotten away with. The fallacy of the John Kennedy murder was clearly illustrated, just by the ‘pristine bullet;’ Oswald was quite obviously a patsy. Yet there were no marches on Washington. As predicted, the ‘first-up’ technique ruled the nation’s perceptions. A few years later, Bobby Kennedy was murdered. It was known soon enough that Bobby was not killed by Sirhan, yet there still were no marches on Washington. The assassination of Martin Luther King was no different. "The system" knows the limits of human nature, particularly in the American society. Two years after the fact, few are protesting the obvious inside-job of 9-11;
The ‘system’ works!
The ‘system’ is keenly aware that ‘shock’ is followed by catatonia ‘ a ‘shutting down’ process; not just a ‘freeze-in-place’ process. The ‘system’ facilitates that process by making it easy, greasing the skids of ‘Perception Control!’
COMPLEXITY
Money rules the world. It’s no secret that private corporations compete for government contracts ‘ with huge associated profits. Yet, the world has increasingly seen private companies replacing government offices and functions. Interestingly, the ‘government’ answers to an increasing number of ‘private’ groups, as though they are an official ‘government’ office. These groups are euphemistically called ‘Non Government Organizations, or ‘NGOs.’ Few indicators are as powerful as the infamous ‘money trail’ Lacking media coverage, few Americans realize the huge sums of tax-dollars being pumped into Texas pockets; in the very same style of the Vietnam War.
In the brief life of the proposed ‘Office of Strategic Information’ (OSI) [‘Ministry of Propaganda,’], the office hired a private consulting firm to do its work. What the Federal Government is prohibited from doing, the individual states and ‘private’ firms can do, right? If the OSI had survived, America would probably have eventually heard, ‘The ‘government’ didn’t lie, the contracting company mis-spoke.’ The ‘consulting firm’ would have operated as a ‘cut-out.’
Legalities aside, ‘private’ firms regularly do an end-run on government functions. In theory, the CIA can’t legally spy on U.S. citizens. No problem; private companies, ‘snitches’ or foreign intelligence services take care of that. The so-called ‘Patriot Act’ mandated intelligence sharing with allied countries.
‘No problem,’ you say? With rare exception, America’s phone bills are ‘processed’ in Israel! Anyone with a smattering of computer education knows what can be done with that data, beyond financial billing. Such manipulations don’t make naiveté affordable. Israel is quite expert at the application of the infamous PROMIS software.
One of the least known of the end-run ‘private’ companies is the ‘Military Professional Resources, Inc’ or, MPRI. This is a company which hires former/retired military professionals to serve as mercenary forces, without a uniform or weapons (supposedly.) It is unusual to NOT see this group in action, wherever U.S. military actions take place. The MPRI is owned by the scandal-ridden L-3 Communications; Linda Daschle being their lobbyist (another long story).
The Iraq war illuminated full-fledged mercenaries on U.S. payrolls being used in Iraq. "Security Contractor" became a euphemism for "unlawful combatant." Yes, our "unlawful combatants" were pandered as ‘legitimate;’ the Taliban "unlawful combatants" were illegally imprisoned in the ‘Gitmo’ prison camp.
All in plain sight!
Similarly, the ‘support’ company, Dyncorp, shows up. All these groups and companies are not only a surrogate for U.S. interests (legitimate or otherwise), but they are paid extremely well, when the final analysis is in. Normally, ‘layering’ is involved. For example, ‘Brown & Root’ (Now ‘Kellog, Brown & Root’) may have a cost-plus contract ‘ a mere 3% ‘plus-factor.’ However that 12-dollar piece of plywood just got bounced to 50-dollars, when a ‘specific’ contractor did the supplying. The money was raked off from the middle.
Yet, what does America, or anyone, know, or even actively suspect? The presentation, or lack thereof, serves as ‘Perception Control.’ The one thing which is certain, is that the American mind, in particular, is intellectually and emotionally ‘lazy.’ Americans orient their life around freedom from stress, not work. ‘Perception Control’ takes care of the stress. Americans prefer NOT to know; the stress is too much.
To regress –
The OSI was created shortly after Sept. 11 to build public support abroad for the U.S. war on terrorism. Almost immediately, the New York Times reported the Defense Department as paying the ‘Rendon Group,’ (Washington-based international consulting firm), $100,000 per month to help the OSI with a broad campaign that would include "black" propaganda, or disinformation. That left a ‘pop-up’ government office as receiving the benefit of estranged DoD tax money. With more than a TRILLION dollars unaccounted for, as of 2002; what’s a few bucks more??
In defense of the OSI, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas J. Feith, was quoted as telling reporters that the Pentagon would never lie to the public. However, the journalists remembered that the Hill and Knowlton company produced the phony Kuwaiti ‘incubator’ story, of the 1991 Gulf War fame. Hill and Knowlton is one of the world's largest public relations firms. The end-run excuse (PSYOPS) was that they produced it for Kuwaiti interests. ‘Technically,’ it wasn’t their fault if the ‘Kuwaiti’ material was used by others, for dishonest purposes. In any event, the previous government association with a ‘private’ willingness to manufacture ‘truth’ for profit was enough. The cop-out usually sounds like, ‘‘…this topic falls into the realm that the company has no wish to confirm, deny or comment on."
[Feith later became a major figure in the abu Ghraib torture scandal and the Pentagon AIPAC spying scandal.]
In the ‘incubator story,’ the supposed anonymous 15-year-old star witness was, in fact, a member of the Kuwaiti royal family; her father was the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. ‘Nayirah’ described, for Congress, having seen Iraqi soldiers remove 312 babies from their incubators, leaving them to die on the hospital floor. The intended emotional response was apparently effective. The U.S. Senate approved support of the war against Iraq by a narrow, five-vote margin. It’s impossible to know for sure whether or not the U.S. commercially manufactured story about the murdered babies make the critical difference. In the Senate, the ‘war’ margin was five votes!
Perception Control = Emotional Control = Mind Control
‘Privatization,’ at it’s finest. The OSI died; the lies would have to be otherwise told ‘ and they were!
The following list of PSYOPS tactics comes out of the Army’s FM 33-1 ‘Psychological Operations’ manual; Appendix I. Many of the Strategies and Techniques are familiar to anyone who has followed recent political debate ‘ particularly in the various online forums. Each branch of the U.S. military has a comparable document, but the principles are generally the same.
§ Accomplishment
§ Additional info needed
§ Animosity
§ Appeal to authority
§ Assertion
§ Authority
§ Bandwagon
§ Card stacking
§ Card stacking to increase prestige
§ Celebrity testimonial
§ Change of pace
§ Characteristics of simplification
§ Civilians as plain folks
§ Common bond
§ Concise
§ Conclusion based on favorable facts
§ Dangers of name calling
§ Demonization
§ Direct name calling
§ Disapproval
§ Ego
§ Enemy leader testimonial
§ Ethnic difference
§ Evident over time
§ Exploitable vulnerabilities
§ False testimonial
§ Fear of change
§ Fellow warrior testimonial
§ Hide info
§ Homey words
§ Humanizing leaders
§ Ignorance of threat
§ Illustration
§ Inanimate object
§ Incredible truth
§ Indirect name calling
§ Individual powerlessness
§ Insinuation devices
§ Insinuation
§ Lacks naturalness
§ Leading question
§ Least of evils
§ Lost opportunity
§ Lying
§ Malicious rumor
§ Name calling h07; Native dialect
§ Non-personal testimonial
§ Official sanction
§ Only favorable facts
§ Opposing leader testimonial
§ Other side
§ Oversimplification
§ People vs. Bureaucracy
§ Photo
§ Pinpointing enemy
§ Plain folks
§ Planned spontaneous error
§ Plausible testimonial
§ Political difference
§ Pure motives
§ Rationalization
§ Repetition
§ Ridicule
§ Ruling elite difference
§ Scarcity
§ Selective omission
§ Self-centered
§ Self-evident
§ Shift of scene
§ Simplification
§ Slogan
§ Social difference
§ Social disproval
§ Sources of testimonials
§ Special favor
§ Stalling
§ Stereotyping
§ Take action
§ Terror photo
§ Terror
§ Testimonial
§ Think for others
§ Transfer
§ Types of name calling
§ Types of plain folk
§ Unequal taxes
§ Vagueness
§ Vernacular
§ Virtue words
§ Vocal
§ Warriors as plain folks
There is no shortage of material written on the subject of ‘PSYOPS.’ An internet search of ‘psyops techniques,’ information warfare,’ ‘iw,’ ‘cyberwar,’ ‘psyops+civil’ ‘psyops+urban.’
The topic is somewhere between a fascinating and a frightening science. However, the material presented here demonstrates, in brief, how the science of PSYOPS affects every American; directly or indirectly. PSYOPS is a weapon; almost a secret weapon. Its use on Americans, in the fashion of a ‘munition,’ - is nothing less than treasonous.
In the Iraqi campaign, the gang in the ‘Information Warfare’ elements of the military were given an opportunity to prove that their ‘stuff’ worked.
They failed!
As is the entire Iraq War assured to fail. As the Vietnam War failed. As the Mogadishu campaign failed.
‘Wait just a damned minute!’ you plead, "For all this dynamite ‘science,’ why didn’t the Iraq War go as planned?"
Because the element of Iraqi CULTURE was not factored! Arabs are not possessed of the behavioral dynamics of ‘Western’ beliefs, thoughts, values, attitudes or emotions. To a certain extent, it may be said that punishing an Arab is on par with beating a masochist. However unpopular such a statement may be, results strongly tend to verify its premise.
"Why, then, does PSYOPS obviously work in America?" Because, conversely, the American culture WAS the framework of the PSYOPS. The PSYOPS was written from a known ‘Western Culture’ standard. In particular, American beliefs, logic, values thoughts, attitudes and emotions. The mistake in Iraq (among other failures) was in presuming a universal set of probable decisions, based on an incorrect set of theoretical dynamics in logic and emotions; WRONG!
As any computer programmer will tell you, ‘Garbage-in; garbage-out.’ The most fabulous Mac program won’t work in a PC; that analogy is close to the reality.
In short, the ‘system’ tried to open an Iraqi lock with an American key; the effort was doomed from the beginning.
Over time, it’s assured that the obvious lessons will be learned and the identified mistakes will be corrected.
Comment on this Article
8 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY
COERCIVE PERSUASION
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
The Transcendence of Brainwashing
Just when America least needs another round of psycho-babble, out pops the "psycho-technology" of "Coercive Persuasion." Okay, what is it?
Coercive Persuasion is the methodical – often subtle or even clandestine - application of psychological manipulation. Coercive Persuasion coerces its targeted audience into "perceiving," "learning" and "adopting" a prescribed set of thoughts, beliefs, values, attitudes and/or behaviors.
From movies such as "The Manchurian Candidate," the 1950's imagery of "brainwashing" and "thought reform" leave people in the dust of the scientific psychological manipulation of individuals – or entire populations. The term "brainwashing" is most often thought of in terms such as "imprisonment," "physical abuse," "gun to the head," or the hypnosis experiments of the "Manchurian Candidate."
The "Manchurian Candidates" are real, but usually found exclusively as patsies on the order of Sirhan and McVeigh.
Coercive Persuasion is a factual science. In example, America – as a whole – never seriously questioned the horror which Jack Kennedy’s "pristine bullet" represented – to every last American. Similarly, America somehow didn’t care that the Bobby Kennedy autopsy demonstrated that Sirhan Sirhan didn’t hit Bobby with a single round. No one wanted to be the voice to ask, "Well, who did shoot him – and WHY did they shoot him?" Not even the Kennedy family asked the compelling questions! The horror of 58,000 dead kids from the Vietnam War didn’t bring any meaningful investigation into the phony "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution." The glaring holes in the official accounts of 9-11 have gone almost unnoticed. All that didn’t happen by virtue of the elements of chance or coincidence!
The highly controlled mass media delivered the propaganda; enabling the anticipated preponderance of weak minds to drift with the political winds. That predictability being another of Hitler's unmentionable legacies. Coercive Persuasion did the rest.
Coercive Persuasion operates by undermining the individual’s defense mechanisms, their perceptions, their values and their attitudes. As the Communist Chinese termed the process – "re-education." America was subjected to the non-captive version, "Politically Correct."
Coercive Persuasion alters the otherwise expected personal conduct and the person’s ability to reason - without resorting to physical force.
In the current time frame, "coercive persuasion" cleverly and covertly overcomes an individual's decision-making by impacting the individual’s judgment. The victim gradually loses the ability to make independent decisions or to insist on the information necessary to make an informed and intelligent decision. Coercive Persuasion leaves the victim with the attitude "I know what the facts probably are. But what can I do about ‘things’ without getting myself hurt?" When that attitude can be identified; the ‘system’ has worked!
The common concept of "brainwashing" is traditionally associated more with techniques of ‘national’ political indoctrination, as opposed to everyday society, corporate or government agency "culture" or methods of teaching in a public school system. However, today, one cannot help wondering as to what extent "brainwashing" might be found amidst a supposedly benevolent format of their immediate "culture" - including general education. Whether in a government agency, corporate environment or public education system, it is wise for workers, students, teachers and the general public, to be aware of the "modern" psychological processes, generally called "brainwashing."
In the modern world of psychiatry and psychology, "brainwashing" is more commonly referred to as "coercive persuasion," "coercive psychological systems," or "coercive influence." For all intents and purposes, "Coercive Persuasion" may be regarded as the micro-management of Psychological Operations, or "PSYOPS."
Coercive psychological techniques are mental, emotional and behavioral "change" methods which employ known psychological dynamics in a coercive way to induce the adoption of a "preferred" ideology or set of thoughts, beliefs, ideas, attitudes, or behaviors. The core methodology is the avoidance of any physical motivation (punishment). [For clarity, physical punishment can also be deprivation of movement or other physical needs.] The coercive strategy is to systematically select, sequence and coordinate the effective mechanisms of coercive influence. For convenience, the term "Coercive Persuasion" will be utilized, given its popularity – where found.
As with most political "systems," it is important to distinguish the element of "intent." To mandate school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and sing patriotic songs might meet the test of "Coercive Persuasion." However, the intent is to foster nationalism – hardly something to apologize for. Still, there will be those who will debate the ‘patriot’ issue in the light of denying children the right of free will.
Thus, it is necessary to visit the "Reasonable Person Test," to judge according to the end-result. To the person who insists on having power over others in a world of cold logic, against the perpetual "human" needs, it may come down to the frustrated assertion, "Well, that’s just the way it is!"
Often, it may be necessary to forcibly establish a ‘sacred’ benchmark. Icy logic may argue for zero age limits when it comes to cigarettes, alcohol, street drugs or sex for children. Thus, it may come back to the human mandate to cite the cut-in-stone ‘benchmark’ of civilized standards, in ‘human’ terms of "That’s beyond the boundaries of a civilized society!" While that might seem academic, nigh unto ‘stupid’ to most, such issues as "NAMBLA" attest to the "reach" of debate and logic, as a self-serving version of "Coercive Persuasion" attempts to hijack the basic values of the American society. Thus, it is necessary to be keenly aware of the probable end effect of such permissive efforts, amidst a naïve and gullible norm of "Live and let live."
Coercive Persuasion is increasingly found in the corporate culture. The impact results in an Orwellian work force, conditioned to sacrifice personal income, benefits and free will; substituting ‘corporate’ needs, over personal needs. The impact being a cleverly veiled corporate Communism. DON’T forget that concept!
When Coercive Persuasion is found, commonly, one sees the beginning event as something which will reliably produce anxiety and stress; often in scenarios which effect such results continuously, over extended periods of time. The initiating step could be a simple – but serious - challenge for one to clarify his/her intellectual/political position. Often, the challenge will be issued with a caution – perhaps a trained/practiced tone of voice.
The techniques can be applied in isolated/personal arenas, or publicly in a sophisticated "propaganda" methodology, relying on the mass media – or the Internet!
Regardless of the arena, the techniques such as repetitive or extended verbal, audio, visual, or tactile fixation drills are used. In military "Boot Camp," for example, excessive exact repetition of routine activities (training or work), sleep restriction and/or nutritional restriction is often found. Add the features of physical/mental/emotional punishment and/or ever present threat of punishment.
Social isolation – where possible - is a supporting tactic; including ‘divide and conquer’ methods. Or; in such events as a corporate takeover, it could be "conquer and divide," as an initiating event.
In the true "cult" realm, contact with family and friends is typically blocked in some fashion, along with persons who have no previous exposure to - or independently do not share - the prescribed attitudes. Dependence on the controlling entity is effected by a variety of means, from simple ‘acceptance-and-approval,’ to professional or financial dependence. In ‘open’ systems such as the corporate environment, verbal cautions may be found as subtle social blockades, such as a comment to the effect of, "It might be better if you didn’t bring your personal/family life to work with you."
Certainly, the effect of documented "evaluations" have a major impact, as well. Such evaluations typically have a cumulative effect, almost rendering human beings as an expendable component, very similar to a defective chip in a computer.
Even on the Internet, it is possible - in such arenas as discussion forums - to isolate and verbally batter a given personality into leaving the forum, or submitting to the text-version of Coercive Persuasion. In unrestricted Internet discussion forums, dedicated disinformation agents are often discovered. While their identity is only revealed in their messages and style, their mission is two-fold; to batter the free will of other contributors; and to manufacture / inject the ‘preferred’ illusion (disinformation) of ‘consensus’ to the researcher/journalist and the casual reader – or "lurker" as they are termed.
The controlling entity can be expected to do their best to prohibit, discourage or divert any non-conforming information and non-supporting beliefs, attitudes and/or opinions within the ‘in-house’ communication. Typically there are rigid – or implied - ‘rules’ imposed, as to permissible topics to discuss; both within the ‘group’ and with ‘outsiders.’ Whenever possible, ALL communication is highly controlled – in some fashion. Often, an "in-house" jargon is discovered. Typically, the meaning of some of the terms/phrases is obscure, by accident or design. For example, the application of the term "proactive." Something is active or inactive; what does "proactive" imply? Someone is an active supporter or an opponent. Thus, the use of the term "proactive" often has a ‘twilight zone’ inference, versus a clear statement. These terms or concepts often carry an aura of mystery, which has the mental-emotional effect of creating an illusion that someone is somehow ‘special’ or powerful,’ as they seem to be "…in the know."
Often the Coercive Persuasion tactic is to pressure the target to re-evaluate the most central values of his or her previous experience in a probing, questioning or outright negative light. Often, methods are discovered which are designed to destabilize and defeat the subject's basic consciousness, reality awareness, major world viewpoints; as well as their emotional control and mental/emotional defense mechanisms. The targeted subject is mandated or coerced to review and reinterpret his or her life's history and adopt an entirely new perspective. Christians are familiar with such a process in the concept of "original sin." The argument is essentially, "We’re all sinners, therefore we owe the redemptive product of our [automatic] shame to God [as the particular local church cares to establish that ‘debt.’]" Fear and its associated subservience are the desired end-result.
The 'elect' will receive any carrots, the rest will exclusively suffer the stick - with associated induced guilt.
The effect of such tactics is often effective by coercing or inducing a sense of powerlessness, by subjecting the person to intense and frequent messages, events or actions which serve to undermine the person's self-confidence and personal judgment.
For example, making a casual statement that one feels that management is not in tune with the workers needs could lead to the statement, "You know, your remark about management, the other day still bothers the hell out of me!" In current corporate America, such a response would send shudders up anyone’s spine; questioning what the end-effect of the distortion of a casual remark might be. One could instantly imagine what the remark would deliver on their next evaluation.
These tactics become more effective if they can coerce or induce a strong aversive emotional reactions in the target, using non-physical trauma or punishment such as intense humiliation, ridicule, character assassination, loss of privilege, professional social isolation, social status change, intense shame, guilt and anxiety. (Caution is advised in discriminating between relatively simple personal ‘power trips,’ versus methodical institutional efforts.)
Often, the tactic of intimidation of the target is witnessed, with the force of group-sanctioned non-religious psychological threats. This would include character/personality judgments.
When the opportunity presents itself, whether by invasive tactics on the part of the perpetrator, or somehow "permitted" by the individual, such tactics are a function of ‘psychological force.’ They can be applied to such an effective degree that the individual's capacity to make informed or factually free choices becomes inhibited – if not nearly destroyed. When such tactics are effective, the victims are often found to be unable to make their normal, wise or balanced decisions, which they otherwise would most likely - or normally - make. Given enough strategy or ‘force,’ most individuals can be unknowingly manipulated by such coordinated and sequenced processes.
Any form of controlling thoughts, beliefs, attitudes or values - whether it is a minor cult, or a totalitarian regime, involves some form of "persuasion."
One may care to use the term "brain washing" or "psychological conditioning," regardless, the indoctrination or initiation technique is most commonly designed to ‘amend’ moral attitudes, versus purely intellectual convictions.
These "persuasion" techniques typically involve:
Pressure:
The methodology goes toward threatening and confusing the individual, wearing them down through surprise or unpredictable treatment. Such treatment or manipulation is assured to produces some level of fear, anxiety and dread; possibly guilt. In any event, the person will be confused as to what to expect, as well as what they are to think and how they are expected to act. Physical and/or mental stress, shock, or desensitization conditioning is often used to break down both intellectual and emotional resistance. If the intent is truly nefarious, the individual’s spiritual value system will be altered or destroyed. In most cases, physical abuse is a last resort – if not absolutely prohibited (given the potential for accountability).
Isolation:
A common Coercive Persuasion tactic is to manufacture a state of anxiety, sometimes referred to as the "3 Ds" - debility, dependence, and dread. The tactic creates a sense of "isolation," or helplessness. The individual is in some form ‘distanced’ from his/her normal safety mechanisms – including ‘environment.’ A common "captive audience" method is the technique of sensory or stimulation deprivation; either an incremental decrease of the sensory stimulation, or a form of solitary confinement – in the extreme. In a corporate or social environment, the core ‘devices’ are usually the same – in some format - applied over time, in lesser magnitude. For example, in the corporate arena, an unexpected and extended out of town job assignment could be a programmed form of isolation.
PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION
As practiced, the Coercive Persuasion program strategy is often to identify the "leaders" of a given group and somehow remove them from the group. That may involve breaking up the ‘group.’ Being a "leader" could be as simple as being a popular or respected personality.
The typical application of Coercive Persuasion is to introduce clandestine "facilitators," or outright informers, whose assigned job is to create a destabilized atmosphere, leading to a general aura of mistrust or suspicion. Commonly, a "whisper campaign" is found. The goal is to breach any existing expectations or trust; or prevent even reasonable expectations or trust – including any level of intimacy - from developing among the captive audience. Any pre-existing intimacy or trust is often corroded by overt or subtle means.
Another tactic or technique is to subject a selected/targeted individual to a form of sensory or stimulation deprivation. In a corporate or government arena, that could start with something as simple as a caution against making or taking personal phone calls, using the ‘company’ computer for personal E-mails, or internet surfing. The tactic goes on to decrease any ‘favorite’ sensory stimulation, which might be available. That could be a demand for compliance with the prescribed coffee break time limitations. The thrust of such an effort is to destroy any pre-existing morale and "esprit de corps," essentially turning workers into captives, rendering them vulnerable to threats - and bribes.
The intent is to "reset" the individual’s perspective on the past, versus the present and future. "Perspective Control" can be effected by abruptly or subtly forcing a person to choose between cooperating with a newly prescribed ‘value set,’ or losing their position and associated income, their tenure, seniority or any possibility of position advancement or a type of meritorious pay increase. Often the tactic is to confuse the target, wearing them down by unpredictable treatment, sometimes cycling between a harsh and seemingly unfair and/or arbitrary treatment; at other times courteous and friendly, fair-minded, and even conciliatory treatment. Such manipulation produces confusion as to the ‘norms,’ accompanied by confusion, fear, anxiety, dread, and guilt. The individual is left wondering as to the "correct" thought and social practices. Any penchant toward "paranoia" is often excited.
During any "isolation," whether physical mental or emotional, from familiar sources of physical, mental, emotional or spiritual support, the tactics often operate by imposing a sense of self-doubt; stripping the individual of their normal & reliable defenses, such as reserve (‘wait and see’ or ‘choice of participation’), upon their identity, dignity or their sense of physical, mental, emotional or spiritual privacy.
Often "confessions" are elicited, so as to establish an emotional ‘lever.’ The harsh reality is that there is only a small percentage of any population, which is largely free of major guilt. Thus a ‘lever’ is typically not difficult to establish. Factual victims of abuse and violence are often perversely manipulated with the question, "What did you do to deserve that?" Such a question is often found in the more damning fashion of "What do YOU think you did to deserve that?" This style of the question cleverly forces ownership upon the individual being ‘levered.’
Conversely, the enthusiastic and otherwise "willing" participants are, in some fashion, rewarded for their acceptance of the prescribed/new beliefs, values or attitudes. In the corporate or government environment, one is often labeled a "team player" – a major indicator, by itself. The reward can be as simple as relief from the associated pressures in whatever environment that the effort is found.
Conditioning:
A relatively permanent "conditioning" is often effected by repetitious ‘messages,’ cautions, assertions, accusations, lectures and/or instruction. In America, "Diversity Training," is a common example, today – voluntary, assigned or forced. The conditioning process will follow a specific ‘value system,’ a rigid line of thinking, reasoning, analyzing and behaving. Often, a prescribed manner of looking at one’s self may be included. Where found, it may routinely be heard, "I once was like…." If the individual goes along with the "party" line, they are made to be ‘safe’ and possibly rewarded. Non-compliance will almost assuredly lead to the individual being punished, in some fashion. Any ‘reward’ may be simply limited to a diminished punishment magnitude.
A further associated tactic is obvious political conditioning. This consists of daily repetitious lecturing and instruction along a particular line of social thinking and behaving. Often, those who are considered "informed," "motivated," "bright," more "advanced" or "evolved" in their thinking, attitudes and behavior become "facilitators," assigned to indoctrinate others. Often the tactic is to send the facilitators on a mission, convinced that they are "special," and that their clients are somehow less "informed," "motivated," "bright" or less "advanced" or less "evolved."
THE TECHNIQUES OF COERCIVE PERSUASION
In general, there are eight techniques, which are discovered. These are usually found to overlap, so as to produce the "coercive persuasion." Not all of the techniques are required for the Coercive Persuasion methodology to be effective. As with physical inertia, early psychological results dictate diminished psychological force. Some of these tactics are more effective in closed-system cults, such as the Jonestown variety.
1. Mental-emotional confusion (shock effect) is used to "soften" the individual (or group) with confusion accompanied by fear. This can be achieved overtly, via the daily news. 9-11 is a classic; a whole country softened up within a few hours.
In a cult environment, the Coercive Persuasion is sometimes achieved with selective presentation of information, hypnosis – of some type - or other suggestion tactics or ‘shock’ techniques such as work load and/or sleep reduction and/or excessive repetition of ‘controlling’ messages. Prolonged staring at a written message, symbol, object or "mental exercise partner" operates as a message fixation technique.
The 9-11 newscasts demonstrated the successful effect of repetitive audio, visual or verbal fixation – on the global population! Al Qaeda – al Qaeda – al Qaeda! [And, it worked!]
The technique of mental-emotional confusion (with associated fear) serves to break or intrude upon the target's normal priority or concentration. The hidden message is, "Surprise! Your assumptions and beliefs are all wrong! Don’t trust yourself; trust us!" The ‘normal’ priority or concentration is breached in order to diminish the individual's faith in their personal ability to think through or to verify the information being given. This often achieved through the use of constant audio-video barrage of selected information – or ‘system’ of information. Another approach is to apply time-compressed projects; with failure assured.
2. Application or threat of powerful non-physical punishments. Commonly, one witnesses the manipulation techniques of humiliation, loss of status or privilege, professional or social isolation, abrupt professional or social status changes, the induction of doubt, fear, anxiety, guilt and/or shame. Whether used or threatened – directly or by implication – these techniques can create intense negative emotional reactions.
The events of 9-11 left America in the Reichstag dilemma of "…patriot; yea or nay?"
Often, the tactic of ‘bad-scene; good-scene’ is observed. In such a case, rewards are held out for submissiveness and compliance. In "closed systems," such as government agencies or corporate environments, the worker is often ‘conditioned,’ so to be as pleased with a letter of commendation as he/she would be with a sizeable check. Often enough, individuals are actually subjected to the harsh application of these tactics, becoming emissaries of the message, "Don’t go there!" In the style of Orwell’s loving "Big Brother" the ‘punishment-reward system’ has a much greater power to affect perception, thought, emotion and behavior than a uniquely threat-only system. The "Winston Smiths" are recycled as converts; even zealots.
This technique is usually discovered with a manipulating ‘leverage’ being maximized through alternating harshness and leniency. In special cases, lavish rewards may be used. In most instances the threat-reward system is limited to acceptance-approval, acknowledgment, admiration and/or other ‘low overhead’ means. The associated tactics are often to be found in calculated feasts or famines, as needed to achieve the ‘conversion.’
3. Social or professional isolation. Various means are employed to limit or stop an individual’s contact with colleagues, peers, family, friends or associates. That isolation serves as a punishment for those who do not share the "approved" thoughts, beliefs, attitudes or ideology. In the ‘reward cycle,’ financial devices, social and professional status and other ‘levers’ are utilized to create a dependence on the "new group."
Through the manipulation of rewards, professional or social group pressure, and other non-physical punishments, the manipulations effect considerable control over a person's time, effort, focus, professional or social environment, and the individual’s sources of professional, social and even family support. The manipulations serve to put psychological (mental-emotional) distance between the ‘before-and-after’ behavior, which reflects the thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, values, routines, and personal life organization. The manipulations often result in symbolic and/or actual betrayal of self and others, renunciation of self and/or others, the personal attack or repudiation of past associations, or previous values; casual or sacred.
In the cult environment, an individual who is continually exposed to Coercive Persuasion in training programs, lectures, events or experiences, is manipulated to gradually distance himself from his past - particularly past values. The individual often begins the ‘distancing’ process by not calling or writing family, colleagues, peers and old friends. In an extreme, work, school, family activities or other important previous activities may be abandoned or shifted to a much lower priority; such that the paradigm shift somehow occupies all of their time.
4. Major paradigm shift. This tactic induces a reprogramming of an individual’s values – their controlling belief system; it is the most effective means for coercing "change." This tactic – in some fashion – produces ‘confessions.’ In turn, the product is guilt and/or shame. The confessions may be open, or strictly within the confines of the individual’s thoughts.
Often, ‘discovery’ methods are utilized, with frequent and intense efforts made to force the targeted individual to negatively reevaluate their most central pre-existing life and experience of "self" and/or prior conduct. The effort is scientifically designed to create self-doubt, thereby destabilizing, degrading, or diminishing the target's self-image, his/her view of the world, their emotional control, their perceptions, awareness and their interpretation of reality; as well as their mental-emotional defense mechanisms. These psychological assaults are designed to force the targeted individual to reinterpret their ‘previous life’ and to adopt the prescribed "new" value system. Such is a part of the "re-education" system.
Disregarding the actual facts of an individual’s previous history, the targeted individual is incrementally convinced that his/her past experiences, thoughts, beliefs, family life and social or professional life were "bad." At a minimum, the individual is intended to believe that these life elements were at least considerably worse than they actually were. For those familiar, the process essentially reconstructs or resets "Maslow’s Pyramid;" with the ‘need’ of survival being threatened, whether overtly, by implication or just via fear and/or suspicion.
Once the targeted individual is manipulated into believing that "survival" is now at stake; they are convinced that in order to "survive," he/she must commit to the specified paradigm shift, swearing fealty or acknowledging dependence upon the manipulating entity, trusting in their "superior knowledge," or the espoused mission. The element of "self-trust" is eradicated. The target is conditioned to believe that through such a "commitment" (to others) they may - only then - achieve the remainder of "Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs;" safety, love, family and fulfillment. The elements of "trust" and "sufficiency" is "out-sourced." They must, in some fashion, convince the ‘handlers’ that they have totally and finally surrendered; and that they "…love Big Brother."
In the corporate environment, the ‘shift’ might be the simple conviction that times have changed, however subtly or radically. The ‘shift’ is usually accompanied by the conviction that "..there’s no going back."
In the cult environment, this technique usually mandates detailed self-disclosed personal history. Once a confession is made – even a false confession – the bell can’t be ‘un-rung.’
5. Intense and frequent efforts to undermine self-confidence and judgment; creation of a sense of helplessness and/or powerlessness. Any criticism or complaints will usually result in the controlling entity demonstrating to the targeted individual, that he or she is possessed of a major flaw, as opposed to any flaw within the group or the particular propaganda/ideology being pandered. The targeted individual is passionately induced to believe that the ‘system’ knows what’s best and should always be assumed to be correct; the targeted individual is "guilt-tripped" into believing that they are wrong. The targeted individual is pressured into abandoning previous convictions, in favor of assuming that only the ‘system’ can be the true authority for judgments and decisions. The underlying assumption – often quite false – is that the ‘system’ can be trusted.
6. Manipulation of information and language. Any input which results in a mental-emotional conflict, any upsetting, or non-supporting information is blocked, denied, censored, reinterpreted or its access is prohibited whenever possible; particularly as it relates to group communication and indoctrination. Any controversial issues are typically poisoned via direct deception or the clever blockage of pertinent facts, the mixing of truth and lies. A confidence game strategy also may be utilized to manipulate any adverse information or inhibit the discovery of any presented falsehoods.
There will often be rules concerning permissible topics for discussion with ‘outsiders.’ Typically, communication is strictly controlled. In cult scenarios, a "group language" is often found. Those "into" the group are identified by their speech patterns. Those who remember the "valley-speak" of California ["for sure; for sure"] can readily recognize this trait.
To reinforce the preferred belief system, commonly used words are often substituted or redefined; possibly, new words are created; "proactive" is one such case. The ‘approved language’ is often loaded, creating a value-perspective in the ‘we-against-they’ scenario; often dividing the world into "the good, informed, aware and wonderful US," versus "the ignorant, bad, evil, and unenlightened THEM."
There may be limitations on verbiage. For example, a ‘reward’ may be expressed in a meeting as, "I would like to acknowledge Susan for…" That as opposed to, "I would like to applaud / congratulate Susan for…" The difference being scientifically calibrated, so as NOT to create an expectation of more than just a verbal reward, versus furnishing ‘fuel’ for a desired raise/promotion.
Similarly, assumptions (convenient misunderstandings) may be manufactured, via clever verbiage. To say that a person or ‘management’ has a "goal," is not the same as saying that management has a "commitment." Yet, a workforce may predictably NOT identify the subtle difference in terms. Under a false assumption, the workforce may self-manufacture a positive attitude toward a specific individual or management. Later, that same assumption, may be choked down the throats of the workforce, as a self-inflicted wound; when the assumed ‘commitment’ isn’t fulfilled. Such "accountings" are typically expressed in a perverse – and controlling - message to the effect of "You’re stupid; nobody ever said that. You didn’t listen. Your assumptions don’t translate into company policy!" In the end, the recipient of such treatment will advise all their associates that "…silence is golden."
Information is often controlled in such a way as to offer "no choice" selections of intellectual positions, benefits, etc. Any presented alternatives put before the targeted individual to choose from are actually void of any valid options, which would be contrary to the positions, intentions or goals of the ‘system. In the case of 9-11, Bush ran the classic no-choice position of "…for us; or against us." Such is similar to the Henry Ford choice of car color; "You can choose any color you want; so long as the choice is black." In the case of 9-11, it was a matter of choosing anything anyone wanted, so long as it closely complied with the ‘system’ line. "War" was the obvious mandate from D.C.; War Crimes and profiteering became the bitter reality.
Such techniques serve to prevent personal initiative, independent thought or analysis, the discovery of deception, or open questioning of authority or rebellion. The ‘system’ strives to maintain a closed system of logic, as well as an uninformed and trusting mind-state in the targeted individual. From the legacy of George Orwell's "1984," without the knowledge of, or the permission to express or use certain thoughts, attitudes or words – versus the substituted verbiage - people are effectively denied access to any undesired conflicting thoughts, attitudes, feelings and actions, which those particular words represent. It’s academic that since words represent thoughts and feelings, with those thoughts capable of motivating actions; if words can be controlled – thoughts, feelings and action can be controlled.
7. Application or presence of psychological threat. Any such ‘closed system’ typically presents the conviction that anyone who fails to adopt the approved thought process, attitude, belief, or prescribed behavior are either directly threatened, or they are led to the certainty that severe punishment or dire consequences – of some sort - will eventually meet them. In many cases, methodologies are designed to produce such high stress levels as to induce physical or mental illness, drug dependence (including prescribed psychoactive drugs), economic collapse, professional or social failure and divorce are a few examples of these threats.
These techniques of Coercive Persuasion combine the most effective and traditional psychological and sociological coercive methodologies of influence and deception techniques with the most powerful techniques of ‘behavior modification,’ and other psychological technologies such as hypnosis or Neuro-Linguistic Programming. The resulting synthesis is often found to be wrapped in a slick soft-sell veneer, of the Madison Avenue PR variety.
8. Structure and control. The element of "compartmentalization" is a common trait of institutionalized Coercive Persuasion. While such structure has a certain production-control benefit, the barriers created also effect tremendous influence over the subject population. Such environments are typically identifiable by having some form of "Human Resources" department, with a powerful supervisory hierarchy. For example, the corporate policy may prohibit a departmental – or branch – transfer, without a ‘compartment’ supervisor’s approval/recommendation. The effect of such structure and control is to implant a general sense of powerlessness in the individual. In a time of crisis, the affected individual doesn’t have the ability to reach out to a friend, as the friend will be informed, "That’s not your department."
END RESULTS -
The psycho-technology is usually found to be sufficiently effective as to ensure the "conversion" and "retention" of a significant percentage of any population exposed to the methodology. Strong character and bright minds are often successful in resisting the "conversion;" Coercive Persuasion is not a "magic bullet," nor is it yet infallible. However, in time, the technology may become as ‘developed’ as such inventions as the Laser. Already, cell phone technology can pinpoint a powered cell phone (not even being used) down to approximately ten feet in most major cities. Supposedly this technology is an "emergency services" feature. One can only imagine ….
Human nature leaves such important variables as one’s lessons from individual life experiences, cultural norms, and pre-existing psychological disposition. These variables can be expected to react with the personal malleability and the degree of severity of the application; as well as the duration of the methodology application. That is to say that a person with an existing weakness will bend according to the size and form of the mental/emotional hammer used on him/her, and the length of time the beating endures. The individual dynamics of such ‘psycho-assault’ variables will determine the eventual outcome of the Coercive Persuasion. In the negative application, the ultimate effectiveness and degree of ‘injury’ will advertise the value of the individual measure, or the collective success of the applied "Coercive Persuasion" elements.
Can anyone imagine the ‘destructive testing’ of the human mind, in a civilized society? The effort is quite real, as evidenced by such highly protected extremes as the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, (Gitmo) or the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Worse, such well-known "Nazi" War Crimes receive no significant outrage from the American public, nor the supposedly free-press! One may be assured that such silence is a function of "science," not accident!
STYLE vs. ACTION
The Coercive Persuasion techniques are typically selected and applied in a scientific manner – of some sort. Again, the core effort is to create the maximum emotional effect. The application of the methods is typically intended to deliver maximum stress, stopping short of inducing psychosis – but not always!
In the ideal application, the intended subtle Coercive Persuasion style is intended to compel the targeted individual to submit or "adapt," via a series of scientifically sequenced steps. The individual steps are typically designed to be so minor that the targeted individual doesn’t perceive any overt threat, or notice any personal changes. The intention is the ultimate product of a "new" person. In theory, Hollywood could capitalize on an old movie theme, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," producing a movie entitled "Invasion of the Mind Snatchers."
In the ideal application of Coercive Persuasion, the victim is faced with the strategy of a brilliant chess player – always several moves ahead. Regardless of individual decisions, one or more of the techniques are strategically "played," so as to subtly induce submission. Consciously or subconsciously, the individual encountering the ‘treatment’ experiences severe stresses; as such Coercive Persuasion programs induce cumulative pressure. The targeted individual is often forced into a corner, where they can only reduce the pressures by submitting to the effect, via "acceptance" of the system or "adopting," the prescribed thoughts, beliefs, values and attitudes. Thereafter, the result is the desired change in the individual’s attitudes, reactions and behaviors.
Efficiency dictates that Coercive Persuasion is typically applied in group settings. With rare exception, the victims of Coercive Persuasion are unaware that their own "friends and allies" are being used to cleverly apply or facilitate the Coercive Persuasion techniques. The obvious strategy is to ensure that the intended victims don’t put up their normal ego defense mechanisms, as they would otherwise do in known adversarial or confrontational situations. In the ideal case, when Coercive Persuasion is used, the targeted subject may never discover the hidden agenda - or that he/she has become a victim of the ‘system.’
During the application of the stresses and rewards, as well as any punishment techniques, the cumulative effect on the person is extensive. The stresses are not intended to produce a rational, stable and self-sustaining reorganization of thoughts, beliefs, values or attitudes. The intention is that of a coerced compliance and/or submission. The next desired result is the ‘personal’ rationalization, in the particular situation, of a cause-and-effect for the coerced conduct. The targeted individual is desired to personally ‘invest’ in the process by personally justifying the ‘change.’ The underlying submission message is, "You don’t have to think; just listen – and obey!" In most instances, the "changeover" is regularly tested to ensure that the ‘program’ has been genuinely effective.
Often the victim is ‘handed’ the elements of guilt or shame to assist the desired rationalization. A method of general reinforcement is required to maintain the prescribed or resulting thoughts, beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors. Equally important is the maintenance required to sustain the personal rationalization, so as to ensure the long-term continuity of the influence over the person's behavior.
Once the desired behavior is effected, it is natural that those associates (friends/family) who are independent of the "influence" environment will notice significant changes, and inquire as to what happened. When questioned by close associates or family, the victims of Coercive Persuasion may aggressively insist the changes were a form of ‘personal growth,’ "for their own good." They will typically insist that the changes, however subtle or radical, were "freely chosen" by themselves. Further inquiry may reveal that the affected victim is oblivious of the specifics, which led to the changes. Given the common application of artificial ‘guilt’ or ‘shame,’ the individual’s denial mechanisms can be expected to accompany any associated confusion. These two particular "beliefs" ("for my own good;" "my choice") are typically found to be a "standard feature" found within the victim of a Coercive Persuasion program.
A mainstay mechanism of such programs relies on the statistical significance of the person from the proverbial "dysfunctional family." Most people come from such families. The matter is not statistics (averages), but rather goes to the effective emotional ‘programming’ which, by default, typically accompanies such an individual. Specifically, such individuals are typically far more attentive to the wants/needs of others than themselves. Thus, informing a person that their personal ‘norms’ are harmful to others, will reliably trigger an automatic conformity reaction – in most individuals. Conversely, informing the ‘group’ that a person is being selfish and unreasonably stubborn in their ways (not being a ‘team player’) will trigger a powerful ‘group’ resentment and reaction to that individual.
The associated ‘conversion’ operates so as to maintain the new "values" - and to minimize any legal liability. In the process of the victim’s beliefs being openly expressed, he/she typically is convinced that the choice was totally voluntarily and freely made – to "change." In the process of the ‘conversion,’ the victim is constantly asked if the decision is theirs. To survive, the victim will always say ‘yes.’ In the long term, the verbalized assumption of responsibility ("I did it!") serves as reinforcement by virtue of "keeping agreements." Comparably, such statements leave the ‘controlling entity’ free of legal accountability. In fear of embarrassment, the victim will self-motivate (re-invest), in order to preserve their ‘new’ espoused image, even if serious doubts should develop. Within a "group," the reinforcement devices are that much easier and effective.
Compared to the stereotyped "brainwashing" [re-education] of the Korean War vintage, Coercive Persuasion is easier to effect, more powerful and more readily applied. However, due to the preferred large group applications, those affected by Coercive Persuasion are radically less monitored – as individuals – with the additional risk of the natural bewilderment resulting in their going beyond their personal limits of maximum stress, with a resulting alcohol or drug dependency resulting, if not a true psychosis.
The harsh reality of Coercive Persuasion is that the coercive force is maximized through cumulative application and synergy. Over an extended period of time, Coercive Persuasion can potentially produce more destructive influence than physical abuse, imprisonment, physical threats or legal threats.
ATTITUDE MODIFICATION
The effects of Coercive Persuasion change both the individual's internal attitude toward the actions encountered AND the external effect of the effort. Modern Coercive Persuasion methods contain a workable technology for effecting the victim’s willing "cooperation," "sincerity," and "compliance" which is so passionate, zealous and convincing, that it expresses itself as voluntary and willing change, versus factually coerced ‘change.’
Comment on this Article
9 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY
COERCIVE PERSUASION vs. SIMPLE PERSUASION
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
By definition, Coercive Persuasion embodies a ‘toxic’ intent and a careful methodology in the application of the techniques. Enticing someone to buy a set of encyclopedias is radically different than persuading them to buy street drugs. The casual or coincidental application of some of the Coercive Persuasion techniques does not constitute an organized or dynamic Coercive Persuasion program. However, the radical gap between Coercive Persuasion, versus the ‘traditional’ brainwashing methods - physical force, imprisonment, or threat of force - leaves Coercive Persuasion, and it's nearly unperceivable method of application, deceptively looking more like a form of simple persuasion.
In the image of an "X-Y" graph, "simple persuasion" sits at the base, opposite Coercive Persuasion on the vertical; or "Y" axis. Similarly, harmless information in a book presenting all viewpoints would be far to the left side on the horizontal "X" axis, with repeated violent physical coercion on the extreme opposite side.
On one end of the influence continuum ("Y" axis) simple persuasion involves beliefs and behaviors in an atmosphere of free will. In the case of simple persuasion, it is the value or truth (assumed to be honest) in the message that ultimately creates the message's acceptance; and effects any subsequent decisions or actions.
On the opposite end, Coercive Persuasion is distinguished from simple persuasion by an intense and focused manipulation. Coercive Persuasion involves a scientific and methodical manipulation. Coercive Persuasion alters – or re-programs – thoughts, beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors by manipulating, undermining, inhibiting and/or obstructing free will. In the application of Coercive Persuasion, the coercive tactics and techniques incrementally force the message's acceptance. Any objective and inherent value or truth is not essential, except by coincidence or convenience.
Simple persuasion may still be powerful, such as a ‘hellfire and brimstone’ sermon, or a car salesman telling a man how much the ladies like a particular car. Simple persuasion lacks the nefarious intent, sophistication and deceptive methodology of true Coercive Persuasion.
Again, simple persuasion may imitate, or superficially employ, some of the tactics and techniques of Coercive Persuasion. Simple persuasion lacks the duration and broad "assault mission" associated with Coercive Persuasion.
Conversely, Coercive Persuasion is often pandered as simple persuasion; attempting to disguise itself. The deception behind Coercive Persuasion translates to the science being a devastating psychological control technology.
LEGAL ISSUES
In a courtroom, the victims of Coercive Persuasion lack any signs of physical abuse. In the defensive mode, the victims can be expected to present convincing rationalizations for any radical or abrupt changes in their behavior – or life. They are usually found to have a convincing "sincerity." In the extremes of success of Coercive Persuasion, the victims have been changed so gradually that they typically aren't even aware of the described and factual differences in their life. In a courtroom, the challenge is to decide if Coercive Persuasion was actually used unlawfully. The court decisions require careful case-by-case analysis of all the influence techniques used - if they can be identified - and how they were applied. Nefarious intent must be established. It is legally necessary to focus on the medium, as opposed to the message. The legal challenge must also focus on the critical differences, versus any coincidental similarities, as to whether or not Coercive Persuasion was illegally used. Love and concern aside, harm must be established; change alone is not sufficient. For example, sobering up a 30-year alcoholic can’t be considered any form of legal offense.
COERCIVE PERSUASION AND SOCIETY
One can only guess as to how much Coercive Persuasion has affected Americans over the last 20 - 30 years. There should be no doubt that it has been used within group applications, affecting millions of people. One of the more common applications of Coercive Persuasion is witnessed in a perversion of the Rand Corporation’s "Delphi Technique," which leads to the topic of "Manufactured Consensus." Coercive Persuasion is now evidenced in its techniques being sneaked into Corporate America, through "management consulting" or "productivity services." How often does America hear the Coercive Persuasion terminology such as "politically correct," "team player" or "diversity training?"
The potential for Coercive Persuasion is only limited by the magnitude of nefarious intent and the imagination of its managers. Persuasive Coercion is an unregulated technology, used to "invisibly" exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of the targeted individuals. Unfortunately, it is being naïve to not assume that the ‘magnetic’ power of Persuasive Coercion is too inviting not to be improved further. In the Lord Acton statement, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts – absolutely."
Tragically, few appreciate the fact that Coercive Persuasion has the power to overcome normal freedom of thought, undercutting any or all of man’s other freedoms. In a time of massive corruption, it’s no longer safe to say that it’s "strange" that national or international laws don’t explicitly make Coercive Persuasion or any methodology of "thought reform" a crime.
Most people assume that their own minds and thought processes are somewhere between sacred and invulnerable. An "Immortality Complex" leads the typical individual to the false conclusion that they can’t be appreciably manipulated. It’s a ‘given’ that people prefer to believe that their thoughts, beliefs, opinions, values and attitudes are totally self-regulated.
Interestingly, when confronted, the same self-assuming individuals will incrementally admit to such personal weaknesses as advertising or high-pressure sales tactics. However, they will still insist in preserving a rather transparent myth, asserting that only ‘other people’ are weak minded and easily conned or influenced. But, they insist, they are "strong minded."
Often, a ‘designer’ surface logic is employed to bypass critical thought processes. For example, the "American" family value system may be attacked – in a passionate and convincing voice - by citing the "terrible" family value system that "American" children abandon their parents in their older years; while the children of other countries do not. The argument works, until one goes to a ‘deeper’ level and argues, that ‘their’ parents paid for their own Social Security retirement three times over – and have been told for the third time that they still are not old enough to collect a dime. Still, the "surface logic" ("first-up" effect) comes up as a powerful persuasion device, usurping rational thought processes, to easily impose a different logic.
Still, most people entertain at least a fantasy that manipulators might confront, browbeat, and argue ‘other people’ into doing their bidding. In that perspective, they commonly picture the forces of "Big Brother" in Nazi storm trooper boots, holding guns to peoples’ heads; forcing such persons to totally alter their beliefs and their personalities to willingly accept a ‘new’ and ‘safe’ ideology.
Amazingly, George Orwell’s book, "1984" has become a classic for all time. The underlying message being that anyone is vulnerable to manipulation, whether overt and brutal, or subtle and covert. The Hollywood line of "Every man has a price" should not be perceived in terms of dollar amounts, versus the more immediate ‘price’ of a sacred value, such as the immediate survival of self or loved ones.
Comment on this Article
10 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY
WHEN MINDS ARE FREE TO REASON, THE CULTURE IS SAFE
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
Mankind has always had to fight an oppressive political and religious system for all forms of freedom – including freedom of thought. In the USA, laws have been enacted to prohibit "hate crimes." ‘Hate’ is an emotion; we are no longer even free to feel.
Now the world is witnessing a re-visitation of the Nazi propaganda machinery, as well as the oppressive methodologies of the Gestapo. In a world, which thrives on technology, it is technology – and its managers - which is destined to be the most difficult adversary.
In the Kennedy murders alone, America has factually seen its share of the "Manchurian Candidate;" ("Manchurian Patsy" is more accurate) yet, few notice the obvious lessons of history. Thus, the power of psychological technology must be questioned – and feared! The refinement of psycho-technology threatens the ultimate imprisonment. As with physical incarceration, the psycho-technology denies or restrains one's free will, the individual’s conscience, and their informed consent. While the concept defies the imagination of most, political Coercive Persuasion amounts to high treason. In the 2001 "Patriot Act," the language which defines "terrorism" goes to such loose language as "…appear to be intended:" In whose perception??? When does "revenge" get separated from the ‘normal’ concept of "terrorism?" At the time of this writing, abortion protestors and drug dealers are falling within the scope of the "Patriot Act," as the selective application of law resorts to arbitrary "perception." In the style of the TV "cop shows," Coercive Persuasion will produce a ‘plea bargain,’ in the precise methodology of Persuasive Coercion. Imagine being a defendant, and being advised by your own attorney, "You can go to trial and sweat the ‘mandatory sentencing guideline’ of 25-to-life for terrorism, or take a plea-bargain for 5-to-10 for possession with intent to distribute." Some persuasion methods produce faster results than others.
The most frightening aspect of Coercive Persuasion is that the surgical precision of the art increases in the invisible control psychology; and within the associated technology of the information age.
Thus, in time, one may reasonably be certain that if the psycho-technology is properly researched and applied, the victim won't be able to detect its application!
Comment on this Article
11 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21stT CENTURY
ONLINE DISINFORMATION
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
In many Internet presentations, there is the strong suggestion of certain ‘personalities’ presenting information/positions in the format of being "disinformationists;" or "PSYOPS [Psychological Operations] Technicians." The logical question emerges: "How can you be sure – or suspect – that disinformation or PSYOPS are being conducted?"
From one’s own observations and/or research, the patterns of the personalities are reasonably self-evident.
1. The particular ‘personalities’ are attached to only incredibly sensitive issues and or positions.
2. They typically get instantly "personal."
3. They are detached from "normal" standards of morality, such as the traditional American justice standards - including the Constitutional Bill of Rights.
4. They ONLY support the "government," regardless of any practical, compelling or moral positions to the contrary.
It gets more complex from there. However, the underlying issue goes to the question of the casual poster, "How would I recognize a disinformationist or PSYOPS Technician? How does it work?"
Another valid question is, "How would you distinguish a ‘good-guy’ from a ‘bad-guy?’"
The simple answer to that question is that the ‘good-guy’ seeks to educate, discuss, debate or illustrate – with obviously noble intent. The ‘good-guy’ is anchored to admirable principles or causes. Condemning the burning of Mt. Carmel or James Beck, versus a serious attempt to arrest them/him; speaks to an attachment to "American Justice." Approving or cheering the burning of them/him – without any sincere remorse - is self-serving barbarism. The ‘bad-guy’ is uniquely a ‘destroyer.’
The major clue is that one particular ‘control’ rule stands out:
"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Mind Control"
Six Methods for Online Perception Control
1. The ‘targeted’ person is, ideally, not to be allowed to discover what is going on; and how she or he is being manipulated/changed – one step at a time – or by whom. The targeted person is kept on the edge of the question, "What do you want me to say?" The disinformationist or psyops operator will ensure that the ‘acceptance/approval’ steps are easy to take. The rule seems to be to never issue a ‘broad-brush’ challenge for the targeted person to change their thoughts & attitudes.
2. The person’s social environment is often controlled – even online. A special emphasis is commonly discovered to be made in an attempt to control the targeted person’s time. Online participants may be ‘required’ to answer detailed questions, with the questions designed to "frame" a controlled conclusion – unknown to the unwitting participant. There is often found to be a clear persistence in the questions – to the last detail, until the trap is sprung, or the targeted person makes self-defeating mistakes/conclusions. The questions to the ‘target’ are often framed toward a later goal of quoting the person – "Well, you previously said ‘X,’ are you changing your mind?"
3. It is very often discovered that there is a systematic attempt to effect a sense of powerlessness in the targeted person. A ‘wolf pack’ may be discovered; two attacking is more effective than one. However it is also true that the ‘wolf pack’ avoids the appearance that an ‘attack group’ is in operation, versus creating the impression that "All good people think like ___." The targeted person’s physical, mental and emotional energy is tasked. The targeted person is worn down, via never-ending questions, challenges or innuendos - or a variety of selected psychological techniques. The focus is found to be to trigger the long-term EMOTIONAL elements of "ridicule," embarrassment," "guilt" or "shame." (Implied: "A truly GOOD person wouldn’t think/speak like that." Personal image/credibility/integrity is the first-up line of attack.)
4. Any system of rewards, punishments and/or experiences [character enhancement or attack] is manipulated in such a way as to inhibit any behavior that reflects the person’s desired social identity. The online manipulation goes to the proposition, "IF you imitate ME/US, I’ll quit saying bad things about you." In the presumptions of the human experience, ‘seniority’ implies authority or association WITH authority and a capability to effect harm. Any online ‘friendships’ will be attacked.
5. A system of rewards, punishments, and experiences is manipulated, in order to promote the ‘desired’ group’s ideology, norms or belief system and group-approved behaviors. "You can’t say that!" "You REALLY should learn how to think." The experiences of those who ‘complied’ are touted as models for ‘acceptance and approval.’
6. A closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure is injected or implied, which is oriented around ‘no feedback.’ The closed system refuses to be modified except by perceived leadership approval or executive order.
"I really hope you don’t actually believe that could be TRUE!"
"That question has already been answered."
"The issue is self-evident; let’s move on."
The world of "Information Warfare" and "PSYOPS" is complex and detailed. Most articles on the Internet are oriented around military themes. However, their application to the domestic population is a matter of altering a handful of terms & environmental arenas. The U.S. military - including the National Guard and Reserves - are trained at riot control. Delta Force was advising - at a minimum - at WACO and the Seattle WTO conference. It’s simply naive to think that the domestic U.S. population is exempt from such issues as "Information Warfare" and PSYOPS"
Just remember the volumes of headline articles asserting that Saddam had literally "tons" of WMDs. Then note the reality and the post-war exposure of the lies which were successfully sold to the public - and Congress.
The key revelation as to whether PSYOPS is present, versus debate or education, is the obvious element of "intent;" who/what benefits? However, that "intent" is not always evident. For example, the WMD debate draws attention away from the clear War Crimes in the corrupt invasion of both of Afghanistan and Iraq. The "16 words" of the Niger uranium matter drew attention away from the more damnable and undeniable lies of the ENTIRE Bush team. The focus also limited the casual observer’s attention to the single speech.
The harsh reality is that the effect of the lies and the associated personalities had a terrible effect on all of humanity. Unfortunately, the clear suggestion is that the "campaign" is just getting started!
Blind trust aside, the issues surrounding a controversial event must rationally be observed and/or evaluated, with a certain chain of evidence and logic, concluding that the information is both solid and conclusive, or that further information and/or clarification is needed. When one’s mind jumps to
"This just doesn’t make sense," then it’s time to re-examine or re-think a matter.
Often, major "problems" successfully escape appropriate scrutiny. For example, the Bobby Kennedy autopsy attests to Sirhan never having hit Bobby with a single round; yet, America still slept. The major questions being, "Who did shoot him; and where the hell was the media??"
Similarly, the bloody Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, in 1967 went unnoticed, by the media.
Most thought Thierry Meysan’s position that there was no B-757 strike on the 9-11 Pentagon too ludicrous to consider. Blind faith kept most away from the issue. Those who were jogged to the ‘curiosity’ position got a rude awakening. The legendary "conspiracy theorist’" became the "conspiracy examiner." Still, critical thinking prevailed among too few, often relatively impotent to effect a change. Personal conclusion and/or conviction requires that if one or more links are observed to be undeniably weak, the matter requires more information, and a re-development of the particular picture/position. Hopefully, objectivity prevails.
Where such weaknesses are discovered, an alternate thesis is usually demanded, by logic, alone.
The most solid approach demands that certain "benchmarks" be developed, as reference points. In the WTC, for example, one must note that a stopwatch confirms that the WTC buildings (3) free-fell; they didn’t "collapse," in any manner of reasonably anticipated mechanical sequence. Hence, a reasonable person should start looking for supporting links to confirm the horror, which that observation inherently demands.
Amongst the 9-11 media video, there are ‘captures’ strongly suggesting sequenced blasts, ahead of the collapsing upper section. The Naudet brothers captured and witnessed lower lobby images, suggesting a major thermal and mechanical event – which couldn’t have migrated from the upper floors, given vertical distance and the three-tier elevator ‘modules.’ The lack of smoke damage in the lobby rejects the notion of a hydrocarbon fire. The overhead glass in the lobby was intact, with the vertical panes all being shattered – suggestive of something on the order of an earthquake – or the building settling. The later documented reports of molten steel in the building basements quickly led to the conclusion of a unique thermal event; totally separate from the aircraft crashes or the related fires – however ‘mysterious.’
More points appear, such as the quick and overseas disposal of the WTC steel and the matter of the insurance money. Any suspicious fire scene is preserved for forensic examination. Yet, the WTC steel was sold to China, almost overnight. Who would be authorized to sell that steel, without any forensic analysis and an impending insurance claim, with the potential for fraud.
If a person rents a store, for example, the terms of the lease will require the lessor to carry fire insurance for the replacement of the store - not as a personal gamble that there might be a fire - and the lessor being able to keep the money, over the rights of the property owner. For all obvious reasons, insurance is never treated as a lottery. Is the investment company which leased the WTC towers compelled to rebuild the WTC towers, or turn over the insurance money to the Port Authority? If not, why not.
Other ‘truth benchmarks’ are readily available. For example, the USA "terror status" is always ‘elevated,’ as a minimum – with the White House forcing the Mexican border wide open to anyone – including ‘terrorists;’ ‘narco-terrorists,’ in particular.
The great ‘humanitarian’ and ‘democracy’ advocate, George Bush Jr., won’t recognize Taiwan as an independent country – as Iraq is crafted in to a ‘designer nation.’
"Narco-terrorism" is on the Bush ‘list.’ Yet, after the Taliban had banned opium production in Afghanistan, the post-invasion opium fields were re-planted with a vengeance! Not to mention the consequent vast quantities of opium serving the global heroin markets. Minor rhetoric aside, Bush did nothing significant to intervene.
Thus in the observation process it is necessary to both establish that one or more links can be broken, leading to the rapid invalidation of the original presentation. However, credibility demands that one must also be careful to note whether or not there are supporting links to the original presentation which cannot be rationally broken. Often, combinations of the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ are left to the matter of "preponderance of evidence," often ‘mitigated’ by some format of shouting match. The key rule being - "Think for yourself!"
In the OKC bombing, for example, there are a host of major unanswered questions. In the final analysis, the site of the truck-bomb crater reveals a diameter of approximately 18 feet, versus the ‘official’ citation of 28 feet, in the ASCE report. Hence the conclusion that the truck-bomb couldn’t possibly have done the sum of the Murrah Building damage, backed by the radically irregular shape of the damage and the seismic data. Throw in a host of peripheral and truly bizarre and essentially ‘un-investigated’ deaths. Add the blatant corruption, known to be involved in the ‘official’ investigation.
It is also necessary to note whether or not a presentation is clearly made in the scope of unmistakable "plausible assertion" or "plausible denial;" versus easily proven and/or documented fact; add "common sense." Raw suspicion drives persistence.
In order to be credible, there must also be the element of "fairness." That may require the position, "I don’t know." The test being whether or not the ‘unknown’ is critical to a major premise; does the ‘unknown’ serve to defeat or advance that premise?
Returning to the matter of disinformation, the true ‘agent’ – versus a random ‘apologist,’ will be found to be devoted to the interference of any independent evaluations, versus the ‘official’ line. His/her job will be to lead others to falsely believe that any ‘alternate’ premise links are weak or too easily and seriously broken to consider. Such an ‘agent’ will, at a minimum, offer alternate solutions, always leading away from the truth – or the more probable truth. In most cases, various forms of scientific "attack" on any messenger or message will be witnessed. These efforts will be dedicated to impeding both conclusions and convictions.
In the 9-11 matter, for example, the disinformationist is charged with not only discounting alternate ‘conclusions,’ but to also destroy any positions which will leave the ‘conviction’ that something is seriously wrong with the ‘official’ accounts. Such disinformation efforts are scientifically crafted to prey upon scientifically established weaknesses in the typical persons mind. For example, the disinformationist will be charged with inducing intellectual and emotional stress, so that ‘distance’ is created via the rhetoric of the disinformation and also with time. It may be assumed that such efforts are also scientifically ‘measured’ in the disinformation ‘back-rooms.’
In most cases there is a certain "preponderance of evidence," whether in the form of reliable documentation; or within the reasonable person’s mind, as to greater probability of what is factual. There does remain a certain mandate for acceptance, which says that if the ‘first-up’ presented chain of evidence cannot be broken for a given position, the first-up position will have won.
In cases where the chain of logic or evidence is undeniably broken, via a truly critical link; a repair to that link must be made, a new link must be forged, or an entirely new chain must be assembled, regardless of which ‘side’ the breach occurs.
The shattering of a critical link typically mandates a scalding review/examination of the remaining links, for validity and pertinence.
Where honest intent is behind a failed presentation, the shortest route to the truth is an acceptable admission that the presentation was flawed, and a new position is being assembled.
Many 9-11 activists were taken in by the DoD imagery of the ‘strike’ fireball at the 9-11 Pentagon. The mistaken trust in authority blinded many, who failed to notice that the photos of the day revealed that the presented fireball didn’t burn as much as a blade of grass – add that the time-date stamp on the imagery was a day-and-a-half later, etc.
The activist mandate was to acknowledge the flaws in the video footage and move on to other information, which supported the original claim. Ironically, the citation of the DoD being behind the phony imagery better served the activist position, than did what the imagery otherwise offered. The matter further proved the vulnerability of even bright minds to being taken in. The paradox was that the phony footage ended up as a ‘boost’ to the activist positions, toward exposing the truth.
Again, the propaganda formula -
"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Mind Control"
- the disinformationist can be spotted by their focus on emotionalizing the issue, while often seeking to somehow punish any failure - factual or simply accusatory. The disinformationist will be found using the best of verbal skills to intimidate any undesired presentations, with the goal of discouraging or preventing any further discussion – or observation and analysis.
The broader attempt of a disinformationist is to poison any issue, in the minds of a journalist or casual observer, as opposed to a given activist. This can often be observed in facts mixed with flawed information, if not outright lies. This can be deliberate by a disinformationist, disguised as an activist, or such can sometimes be foisted upon the unsuspecting.
For example, in the Vince Foster death, one reliable journalist was tricked into believing that Foster’s gun was found in the wrong hand. The subsequent credibility damage was incredible.
By implication, many disinformationists work with an Information Warfare team. It must be assumed that there is a team leader pulling the strings of the up-front personality. The disinformationist team suffers, when the truth wins. Thus, there is commonly found an incredible passion in the effort to preclude any undesired rational and complete analysis of any chain of logic and/or evidence. Beyond the prevention effort, the truth further threatens to hang the disinformationist and/or their team.
A common tactic of the 'embedded disinformationist' is to create busy work, passionately insisting on "extreme investigation." Alternately, he/she will water-down a forum, with distracting articles and issues. The intent being to divert or exhaust mental and emotional energy.
It’s somewhat rare that facts and truth inherently carry their own weight. Thus, it is the role of the disinformationist to apply deceit, at a minimum, if not outright lies. Within reason, the disinformationist evades outright lies, versus an extreme of deceit. It is a general rule in disinformation and "psyops" (psychological operations) circles that the worst event is to ever get caught in a lie. Hence, the obvious evasion of a lie – versus alternate ‘deception’ tactics - often betrays the identity of a disinformationist.
Neither the 9-11 commission or the FBI will cite foreign terrorists as being the culprits of 9-11. There were no tickets to be discovered, the purported terrorists didn’t appear on any passenger manifests; nor did they appear in the 9-11 autopsies. Still, the methodology in the presentation left America with the unmistaken conviction that foreign terrorists did the work of 9-11.
The trained and skilled disinformationist operates with a fairly standardized bag of tools and tactics. However, it’s also true that the general public is not inclined to look for the presence of a trained disinformationist; given that the mass media is most commonly found spouting comparable positions. However blind and counter-productive, ‘traditional’ trust in the mass media effects incredible influence over the minds of the public.
The general attitude that America is above resorting to Nazi propaganda tactics aids the disinformationist. It is also true that the law prohibits GOVERNMENT agencies from applying propaganda or "psyops" on the American public. However, it was seen in the 1991 Gulf War, that the propaganda had been "outsourced" to a private firm – sufficiently outside the reach of those laws. Another application of the infamous "loophole."
When ‘undesired’ truth is presented, the disinformationist attempts to distract any discussion in the alternate and undesired chain of logic and evidence, which cannot be easily broken. Instead, the disinformationist – when necessary – resorts to clever deception – sometimes outright lies - to ‘frame’ given links as being far weaker, than they factually are. Often one witnesses the creation of an illusion, which ‘suggests’ a break. When that doesn’t serve the disinformationist, the "personal" treatment is witnessed, wherein the disinformationist – at a minimum - questions the motives or the credentials of the presenter – or source of the information.
Again, in the 9-11 debates, one FEMA worker stated that his rescue team arrived the night before 9-11. That statement became a hot debate, involving a multitude of disinformation attempts. Even if the ‘official’ line was accepted, that the debated rescue team arrived in New York ON 9-11; and promptly went to their hotel, for the night. The issue was ‘quietly’ settled by Rudy Guiliani’s testimony before Congress, that FEMA had a major team assembled in New York, in the format of a ‘scheduled’ exercise. That exercise was called "TRIPOD," set up on Pier 92. Still, the public, as a whole, didn’t react - the ‘time factor’ had dampened public interest.
While it is academic that discounting a thunderstorm can’t quiet the lightning, the "public" can be swayed in their perceptions, as to what may or may not be true. Emotional survival strategies bend the mind of the public toward ‘easy’ and emotional paths of decision making; the classic "path of least resistance." Thus, the disinformationist often has a given flaw in human nature working for him/her. Consequently, the mandate for the first-up presentation is an inherent part of any nefarious conspiracy. That, of course, adds a terrific liability to any truly ‘secret’ operations. The Watergate scandal is a classic, in that regard. Nixon’s team lacked a first-up position, if anything went wrong.
Almost any position – moral or otherwise - requires corroboration. Yet, the mental-emotional psychological dynamics of the ‘first-up’ presentation can still often win. For example, Ron Brown’s plane was reported to have gone down in the "storm of the decade." That position was as false as any in history, yet it still won.
"Perception Control" is always the key. However corrupt, it is common in the American court system that "bought" testimony is allowed in the fashion of criminals being allowed to testify against other criminals. Breath-taking verbal attorney skills aside, this isn’t always successful, where corroborating evidence is seriously lacking.
Where there is a clear motive to lie, logic dictates that factual opposing evidence would render any such testimony as a lie, leaving that testimony as totally and completely invalid. Yet, the events of 9-11, in example, render the additional mandate that the testimony must be sufficiently impressed upon the targeted minds – regardless. That’s where the media enters the picture, attesting to Herman Goering’s statement, that the fear among the public will easily serve to actualize a blatant lie. Specifically, "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
That, of course falls in line with Goebbel’s statement, "If you tell people the same lie over and over again and it goes unchallenged, that "lie" becomes the people's "truth." Key, in this statement is the qualifier, "unchallenged." Witness the incredible controls over the American media, in particular.
By all appearances, Bush Sr.’s New World Order is alive and thriving – as a ‘virtual government,’ hidden in an incredibly clever ‘fog’ of information. It is an end result, versus a physical headquarters. The "order" is achieved by networked personalities and so-called "Non Government Organizations" (NGO). The ‘goals’ are hiding in plain sight, in such forms as Brezinski’s "The Grand Chess Board," Barnett’s "The Pentagon’s New Map," The "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC, the "Hart Rudman Report" and Bush’s "National Security Strategy" (NSS). The ‘mechanisms’ appear to be found in such entities as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the infamous Trilateral Commission and the "Bilderbergers."
"Globalization" appears to be a euphemism for "Ameri-corp uber alles."
While such seems totally off-scale for credibility, the documents and history don’t lie! Astute perception is required. Look to just the title, "The Pentagon’s New Map," then wonder how the Pentagon got charged with achieving global American corporate goals! Independent observation and thought are required. Next, go to the trillions of unaccounted dollars which the Pentagon refuses to account for. There is nothing in the realm of "impossible," in this picture!
The scientific element of "Negative Perception Control" (ignorance, non-presentation or psychological denial) leave the reality quite well masked.
Doubts? Look these matters up on the Internet; then think and judge, for yourself.
However ‘impossible’ it may seem, the events leading up to and subsequent to 9-11 strongly suggest that the original "Nazi Formula" is being very closely followed, with few changes, versus enhancements. In the background, ignorance is facilitating the effort. For example, few know the Geneva Conventions, thus the War Crime invasions (and they were) of Afghanistan and Iraq aren’t generally perceived as such. As desired, ignorance serves the propaganda ‘perception’ formula, as dynamically as does effective information presentation. As expected, the disinformationist will shout - "Don’t look behind that curtain!" ‘Truth’ and ‘facts’ are additionally treated in terms of "regard." Presentation is one element, but the final absorption is a matter of personal ‘regard’ for that information, relative to its intake as fact or fiction. Enter the tactic of "characterization." Is the observers ‘regard’ in the light of "Oh, that’s nothing," or "OH, my God!"
Public forums such as Internet chat, discussion and news groups; as well as newspaper letters to the editor play an important role. These forums present topics for discussion, with attempts by individuals to ‘sell’ their particular position. Often, the associated exchange, discussion or debate develops a particular idea or position, with the given medium serving as a sounding board; with the intent to improve an idea, solution or position.
In these environments, the disinformationist often appears; intent upon quickly ending any such discussion. The disinformationist often ‘frames’ the presentation – and the presenter - as lacking in serious credibility. Often any associated supporters are comparably ‘framed’ as being comparably less than credible. The typical strategy also attempts to stage the issues and personalities for any future confrontations, by defeating any early successes.
In such exchanges, the disinformationist commonly alludes to "higher standards," as a means to control the discussion. This is commonly expressed in the format of "I’m trying to…" A witness is often cited as lacking engineering or medical credentials; with the statement that they have no qualified position to offer reliable testimony. Often a matter, source or personality is comparably ‘linked’ to a low standard. For example, a respectable newspaper may be unjustifiably ‘labeled’ as a "communist rag." A reputable person is labeled as "leftist," with no regard for any workable definition of "left." The disinformationist may resort to outright demands, as though they are in some special position to make the demand. "Common sense," seemingly becomes invalid. There may be a demand for those who present a position or concept to back up everything with a professional level of expertise, such as a doctor, engineer or professor. According to the demands of the disinformationist, anything less is supposed to render any discussion as meaningless. It is typical that in support of such demands, anyone who disagrees is labeled or characterized as being obviously stupid, in no uncertain terms. This is typically seen in the posture of "See how you are?" Such attacks can often be nothing less than brutal, commonly expressed in the style of trying to foist ‘shame,’ ‘ridicule’ or ‘guilt’ upon the undesired presenter. Facts and truth take a distant second place, when such tactics are employed.
While most expect rational discussions, the reader/listener/observer is increasingly left to judge whether or not a discussion is rational, or whether one side or the other is the least bit credible. Therein lays the importance of corroborating independent information, for better or worse. Unfortunately, the same reader is also tasked to determine when a rational discussion is taking place, or whether or not blatant deceit, disinformation, psyops or "Coercive Persuasion" (Jonestown tactics) are present.
The casual participant is also tasked with the decision as to whether or not to confront an apparent disinformationist with direct questions, as to their intent and role. While there are commonly those who simply desire to lead others astray – as well as those who are simply ignorant, foolish or misguided – all such should be challenged to establish truly reliable information.
In responding to an opposing position, it is most effective to start with diplomatic questions, or statements. It may be ultimately necessary to demand that the other party ‘put up or shut up.’ However, that is commonly a two-edged blade; caution is advised.
For the ‘noble’ person, caution is advised, with regard to the use of accusations. These should be used with great prudence; they can back-fire. All responses should evade any emotional traps and discussion/debate sidetracks. When an article or rule is discussed, it is best to keep the matter in good context. Quoting a complete statement or rule rather than loosely citing it, denies many the complete reference. At a minimum, it’s best to offer - and be prepared - to provide a complete copy of a cited statement or rule.
The "25 RULES" offered by another Internet contributor, H. Michael Sweeney, are well worth examining. He credits these rules as having been built from the Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression, by David Martin. While not the "complete gospel," they offer a good beginning, for recognizing and understanding disinformation tactics.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and the last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinformationist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it - especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to- the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn’t so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
The important aspect of all this information is to know that "disinformationists" exist; and that they operate with an effective scientific method. These are not casual debaters, or simple ‘contrarians.’ They are an intellectual and emotional toxin in the society. They can be defeated, but only when they are generally known, identified as they appear; and with steps taken to counter their nefarious ways.
Comment on this Article
12 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY
INTERNET PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS (PSYOPS)
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
The term, "cyberspace" represents a dramatic shift in the thought processes of all major endeavors, but particularly when it comes to war. "War" is no longer limited to the physical realm, as its major means of expression.
Once again, the modern psychological ‘victory’ formula is:
"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Mind Control"
In the undying philosophy of the Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), "War is diplomacy by other means." Intended meaning aside, he didn’t say, "…on the battlefield." In modern global politics, the war for the human heart and mind is a tremendous struggle, whether the effort comes from profit-making machinery of Madison Avenue, or the "black ops" of Langley Virginia.
Von Clausewitz left the legacy of the "trinity model" of war. In that concept, he argued that the dynamics of the government, military and populace would determine the outcome of war, whether the government is offensive or defensive.
However, history leaves the legacy that the government and military can be totally destroyed, with the remaining will of the populace being the underlying determining factor. It is academic that the PSYOPS teams operate on this premise.
Iraq is one such classic case; leaving the legacy that the total destruction of a country’s military and government is a poor idea, as there is no one in remaining authority to tell the populace to quit fighting. In the case of Iraq, again, the Arab culture is sufficiently unique, that the American war effort left the extremely low probability of anyone in a surviving government delivering the "quit" message. The post-war Iraqi "resistance" speaks for itself.
Obviously, the PSYOPS teams have serious work to do. The one lesson which seems to escape military planners is that if the will of the populace can’t be broken, victory is impossible. The lessons of Viet Nam, Beirut, Mogadishu and even Northern Ireland have gone unheeded – and, at what expense? Conversely, we have the example of Iran; the Shah was overthrown by the simple will of the people being re-directed! No doubt, the multitude of PSYOPS groups took notice.
PSYOPS efforts are found in the News Coverage, Public Relations, Propaganda, blatant PSYOPS, or the mother of all tactics, "Coercive Persuasion" - the 'stuff' of Jonestown. The process begins with presented information, real, distorted, imagined or manufactured.
In the human experience, with rare exception, the first presentation (first-up) determines the long-term "perceived truth."
Perhaps, nothing can be more exemplary than the ‘plumped-up’ Osama bin Laden in the conveniently "unclear" videotaped confession to 9-11. With that tape, America went off to commit the War Crime Invasion of Afghanistan.
Enter the translation of a Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper: al-Wafd, dated as of Wednesday, December 26, 2001 - Vol 15 No 4633
News of Bin Laden's Death
and Funeral 10 days ago
Islamabad –
A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.
We must note the distinct ‘missing-person’ character against the 2004 videotape, which lacked any shadows, inferring a sophisticated production, versus bin Laden’s pragmatic preference for caves. The image was sufficiently mechanical as to appear to be a Hollywood special effects production. Even the ‘message’ lacked the expected frequent references to Allah.
Considering such as the phony 9-11 "security camera" video images of the Pentagon ‘strike,’ the bin Laden videotapes fall highly suspect against his clear denials of involvement in the events of 9-11.
With regard to the subsequent US invasions, America didn’t bother to go to the library to look at such documents as the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions or the Nuremberg Precedents. Unfortunately, historians await the American version of – "But, we didn’t know!"
In the events of 9-11; before, during or after, the medium for the psychological devices wasn’t limited to the ‘conventional’ mass media; the Internet played a key role – pro and con.
A major part of the events of 9-11 was the void of critical information which, while abundant, was never presented; but overtly and methodically blocked from local or mass-media dissemination.
A key indicator of such a tactic is found in Clinton’s Arkansas criminal associations, while Governor. While the information was available, it was never prominently presented by the mainstream mass media. Thus, he was TWICE elected as President.
The common availability of the personal computer makes it nearly rare to hear a person swear more by the conventional news media, than the Internet – the political ‘second opinion.’ Thus, a battle for the human heart is being rigorously fought, with the first element of the formula, "Perception Control."
It is not the least bit surprising that the arena of military Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) is being expanded to the Internet.
Comment on this Article
13 MIND CONTROL IN THE 21st CENTURY
The Battlefield of Information
Compiled by Ralph W. Omholt
AIRLINE CAPTAIN
skydrifter@comcast.net
In all regimes, Psychological Operations are an important instrument, used to implement the prescribed national security strategy. Not uncommonly, the "corporate" strategy seems to operate as a profitable parallel shadow to that national security strategy, employing its own version of Psychological Operations, independently.
The elements of government Public Diplomacy, military Public Affairs and Psychological Operations play a key role in the endeavor of "information operations," ideally reinforcing each other. In theory, they are separate functions, with unique missions.
"Public Diplomacy" is intended to be an interagency effort, theoretically only directed at the influence of foreign audiences. That arena employs the use of over-the-border’ information dissemination, whether radio, TV or the Internet.
The world of government-sponsored "Psychological Operations" uses specific techniques - designed (in theory) to uniquely influence non-U.S. audiences.
In the theory of the government game, "Public Affairs" are not supposed to direct or manipulate the public actions or their opinion. Supposedly, Public Affairs simply inform; theoretically, under the U.S. law, they "must be separate and distinct" from any Psychological Operations.
In the same political theory, Public Affairs (as a unique arena) cannot legally be used for the purpose of military deception; or as disinformation for the digestion of foreign or domestic audiences. Nor are Public Affairs to act in the fashion of "propaganda" or publicity designed to sway or direct public opinion ... be included in [Department of Defense] public affairs programs." That, according to the "Doctrine for Public Affairs in Joint Operations," otherwise known as "Joint Publication 3-61."
So goes the theory, anyway.
However idealistic the applicable laws may be; reality has a different account; not always flattering to those who claim a position of integrity and morality. For example, the events of 9-11 contained an incredible level of Psychological Operations and "Coercive Persuasion;" still ongoing. One has only to examine the images of the 9-11 pre-collapse damage to the Pentagon; noting that the damage was impossible to have been done by a B-757.
Specifically, the external columns were broken at their base; and not displaced inward. The lowest possible impact point, according to the ‘official’ account, would have been approximately 18 feet. Add the missing seismic "crash" signature and the lack of thick black smoke of burning jet fuel, coming from the purported impact hole. However passionate and well-intended, the "witness" testimony of an aircraft crash doesn’t find the needed physical corroboration. As a clincher, the famous piece of aircraft skin on the Pentagon lawn was the wrong color; add the wrong damage.
Most importantly, all legitimate investigations into the 9-11 events were blocked from the White House, among other players. Despite the lack of evidence, al Qaeda was sold as the 9-11 culprit.
Mix well-timed Propaganda, PSYOPS and "Coercive Persuasion" with the correct media presentations, and the rest is history. As always, timing is key.
Coupling the most current technology with the global mass media, it is common to see an increasing blend/overlap of information between Public Affairs and Psychological Operations. Hence, Public Affairs is no longer a unique function of delivering specific media products, such as magazines, newspapers and radio/television programming. Its function now involves the task of processing themes and messages; acting as a low-level Psychological Operations front.
The underlying motivation is best described in the statement, "We can’t manipulate the enemy, if you’re out there telling the truth!" Psychological operations now mean that much.
The demand for such an evolution demands that Public Affairs, Psychological Operations, and Public Diplomacy (radio, television, newspapers), in addition to all other pertinent elements of information operations, be integrated - to the greatest extent possible - and that the efforts be carefully synchronized.
In the context of U.S. efficiency and enterprise, they need to be integrated into a single organization. Yes, the turf-wars are bloody.
It is academic that Public Information - domestic and international - must be consistent at all levels, in order to achieve and maintain the needed credibility of each element. It is natural that the content of the messages emanating from Public Affairs, Public Diplomacy and Psychological Operations will normally differ. However, in the interest of maximum "power," the messages are required to not appreciably contradict one another.
Still, in the world of elementary human affairs, too much consistency generates suspicion; in the fashion of witnesses who all tell an obviously scripted account. In particular, when the mass media is in total alignment with governmental powers, the public suspicion can be expected to come very alive, nigh unto dangerous.
Mind Warfare Has its Limitations
Psychological Operations are theoretically oriented toward directing selected information at only foreign audiences. In that statement is the obvious thought that it’s counter-productive to lie to – or manipulate - your own audience.
That leaves the Psychological Operations personnel in the position of being the ‘voice,’ when it comes to the political messaging of the decision-makers; whether civilian leaders, politicians, or military commanders.
Psychological Operations personnel are charged with the responsibility of gathering, processing and controlling all possible information, so as to steer the targeted civilian and military emotions, reasoning, motives, and intentions; so as to effect a desired behavior. Ideally, that means that it is critical for every theme and objective to both support and reflect the stated national policy. In turn (ideally), that requires that any informational program be integrated and synchronized with all other information programs.
In the world of Psychological Operations, that is a formidable task, just given the inter-agency "friction."
Physical warfare is incredibly expensive. Thus, it is discovered that there are both spoken and silent mandates to coordinate all possible information programs. Central to such national mandates, are the military Psychological Operations.
It is the un-spoken goal for customary diplomatic and political missions to prevent a potential enemy from leaning toward any form of violence – offensive, or defensive. However, as the history of Pearl Harbor and the Iraq WMD issue demonstrate, that is not always the reality.
Internet and other communications technologies make it nearly impossible for civilian governments to regulate information interchange. Consequently, target audiences experience much greater exposure to PSYOPS efforts.
The global population trends are naturally moving toward urbanization, particularly in the so-called third world countries. In consequence, the traditional application of overwhelming combat force quickly becomes uniquely effective, only on conventional battlefields, versus the urbanized environment, heavily populated by non-combatants. Given recent history, "enemy" forces have noted the obvious moral conflict, effectively forcing any third-world enemy to resort to using "human shields" as a means of survival. While often illuminated as "cowardice" by the aggressor’s media, the humanist perception quickly questions whether such tactics are cowardice, or sheer common sense and wisdom.
In the military mission, the capability to communicate persuasively is paramount to any political and/or military goal. It is obvious that the destructiveness of conventional military weapons and limits of traditional diplomacy leave Psychological Operations highly useful in bridging the gap between military threat of force and diplomacy. There are cases of Psychological Warfare winning a bloodless war.
In the American society, there are found significant legal limitations. In the shadow of the propaganda used by the USSR in the Cold War, a variety of laws govern Public Diplomacy. Inherently, many PSYOP efforts quickly become domestic Public Diplomacy. In consequence of such laws, military Psychological Operations encounter serious limitations.
In legal history, there was a general attitude against government agencies propagandizing the American people. The "Smith-Mundt Act" of 1948 became the foundation for Public Diplomacy. That Act established the U.S. Information Agency (USIA). [That office/function is now the Office of International Information Programs.] In 1972, the "Foreign Relations Act" amended the Smith-Mundt Act, banning the disseminating of any "information about the U.S., its people, and its policies" prepared with the intent of dissemination abroad, from being disseminated within the United States. The 1998 Zorinksy Amendment added more restrictions on Public Diplomacy; prohibiting any funds from being used - "to influence public opinion in the [United States], and no program material . . . shall be distributed within the [United States]." The 1998 Foreign Relations Restructuring Act also merged several government agencies, leaving the USIA under the Department of State.
Political and military goals aside, the "powers" faced the conflict that there was no gain in being honest. The various laws left those in the business of Psychological Operations with a nearly impossible task of reconciling domestic, versus international messaging. In the modern world of communications, it is academic that any information conflicts would be instantly identified, with the obvious counter-productive effect.
In 1999, Presidential Decision Directive 68 was issued, forming the International Public Information Group. The stated intent recognized that international public information activities "are overt and address foreign audiences only." The Directive noted that any domestic information should be "de-conflicted" and "synchronized" so as NOT to broadcast contradictory messages. The intent of the Directive was to ensure that the various "information" agencies would coordinate their efforts.
International legal barriers also limit the Internet for the application of Psychological Operations. It is not surprising that technology creates major political conflicts. The existing and explicit regulations over particular actions - and general principles of international law – limit PSYOPS, as the advances in Information Technology outpace existing laws. The obvious consequence is the ambiguity in the definition of war, coupled with a void in the desired and/or needed provisions, which explicitly prohibit information attacks.
The IT "generation gap" leaves major areas of contention in the world of Information Warfare. While the "traditional forces of cyberwar are found in the form of organized national militaries, any netwar attacks may not necessarily involve traditional military forces, versus non-state or "guerilla" netwarriors.
A major conflict arises in the definition of "force," as information attacks may not directly involve lethal attacks or physical destruction. Thus, it is a challenge to define such "attacks" as constituting the equivalence of "force," under the pertinent provisions in such documents as the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. Overt information attacks may be considered legal forms of coercion, even in peacetime. In the converse, the distortion of enemy perceptions may be illegal, or otherwise be limited by the laws against perfidy.
Even within the bounds of existing legal limitations, many areas of Psychological Operations are considered to be within the bounds of international law. The current international standard is the restraint provided by the rules of the International Telecommunication Union. However, these rules do not apply to warring belligerents, leaving Information Warfare in the light of "…all is fair…".
That allows the manipulation of enemy perceptions. The result is the creation of confusion, by such means as covertly altering official messages, broadcasts or intimidating enemy leaders by methodically (electronically) misleading their intelligence or other forms of communications. To do so would not necessarily violate the laws of war, in principle.
Yet, the reasonable person is left to question the morality of using Information Warfare to such an extreme as to leave an enemy force and its citizens or leaders detached from reality. In the modern world, it is not difficult to find cases of propaganda, video morphing, or deceptive broadcasts used to initiate unrestrained civil war, or even genocide. Thus civilization must, sooner or later, test the issue of what should be considered illegal.
Returning to the 9-11 Pentagon, the supposed Department of Defense "security videotape" of the aircraft impact contained an erroneous time-date stamp, the shadows were impossible and the incredible fireball was demonstrated to not have burned or damaged anything. Still the "first-up" impression was burned into the brains of America, with no call for an inquiry.
Another classic case in point was the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. The primary weapon of choice was audio cassettes, distributing the teachings of the Ayatollah Khoumani. However effective, imagine outlawing religious-oriented messages.
Ironically, in the USA, religious messages are successfully being ‘outlawed,’ by selectively re-packaging them as ‘hate.’ In Canada, for another example, it is illegal to cite religious scripture which condemns homosexuality. In short, "It can happen!"
Strategy and Tactics
Even within the existing laws, the Internet serves as an important military medium, enabling the Armed Forces to employ it, offensively, in the realm of unconventional warfare. Certainly, the military has a vested interest in using the Internet in countering any propaganda, disinformation, and controversies or exposures, such as the Depleted Uranium issue, similar to the Agent Orange disaster.
Currently, the major debate against using the Internet for PSYOPS is centered in the tactic of information product denial, particularly in the forced public prevention of Americans from receiving specific Internet products.
The Internet product issue goes to a range of goods and services, such as encryption methods, privacy software (anti-spyware) and certainly specific information and internet communication capability.
A certain amount of Internet military application of PSYOPS is still available, through the use of foreign language messages, posted on a different Web site. That tactic assumes a certain measure of "tolerance." While the typical American may not understand the particular language employed, there will still be some minority segment of the U.S. population which does get exposed to such "end-runs."
The potential capability of the Internet as a PSYOPS medium is rather self-evident, by now. Both state and non-state entities have increasingly relied upon the Internet to achieve domestic and international approval and support.
As one example, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was formed and operated with such effect as the Dayton Accords, in the Balkan breakup. Today, one still has to ask, "Who are they, anyway?" It’s not as though they are a "Congress" of the European Union. Regardless of their rather "cosmic" (non-state) being, the OSCE effectively employed the Internet to successfully influence the conventional public information channels and the voter information efforts. In that effort, they have reinforced their seeming legitimacy, as an international organization.
To date, few have examined the descriptor, "Ethnic Albanian." That being a cryptic political euphemism for "Muslim." Few Americans, in particular, are informed that the "Ethnic Albanians" had displaced the traditional Serbs from their homelands. When those Serbs attempted to re-assert themselves in their original homeland, the fighting broke out. In the midst of the controversy, the parallels were available between the return of the Serbs, versus the return of the Jews to the former Palestine. Yet, the public presentation was radically different – including the presentations on the Internet.
For example, the OSCE web site touted itself as a central clearing house for the Balkan issues. While holding itself out as an authoritative information source, the site served as a propaganda source. Its "service" extracted a subtle price. The Serbs and Kosovars went beyond the providing of information, engaging in what may legitimately be described as the first online war. Both sides used the various Web sites and E-mail to make their case and take their stands.
With the evolution of information operations/warfare, the various information mechanisms are destined to become more popular among the traditional "policy" agencies. Although debatable, it is suggested that a denial of service is an inferior tactic, to a greater level of information presentation – with an associated quality in that presentation. The trend is for an increasing emphasis on affecting the target audience perceptions, the associated emotions, thoughts and certainly their behavior.
During the Balkan War, the Serb broadcast media outlets were considered to be the main source of Milosevic's propaganda. In consequence, those facilities were bombed, having been labeled as "Dual-use" targets. However, the U.S. Government elected not to attack the Serb Internet sites.
The official position of the Department of State was, "Full and open access to the Internet can only help the Serbian people know the ugly truth about the atrocities and crimes against humanity being perpetrated in Kosovo by the Milosevic regime."
It is elementary that raw truth is no match for a passionately and effectively conveyed lie.
The Internet served as an effective NATO propaganda medium, despite the Serb Internet efforts. The assumed difference was in the arena of resources, whether money, expertise or personnel. The allowed survival of the Serb Internet served as a message, in itself. The suggestion being that the USA, in particular, was "above" taking unfair advantage of the Serb position. The Department of State mounted a rigorous online effort to defend the Balkan campaign and the U.S. credibility, in particular.
Beyond the expected norms of the Internet traffic, the Internet forums served as a major intelligence source. Whether the mood of the populace, or the movement of Serb forces, the Internet traffic was a Godsend to the intelligence community. The major requirement being the establishment of which sources could be trusted.
The Internet also allowed direct personal contact with the Serb populace, without any intervention in the form of government censorship, or the influence of peripheral propaganda. The Internet also forced the Serb officials to think twice about terminating the Internet service, themselves, fearing a popular backlash.
The American/NATO interaction within such environments as instant messaging and chat rooms served as a major source of PSYOPS influence over the Serbs. No doubt there was a major effort in the realm of "manufactured consensus." That being the first true "cyberwar," the Serbs would have been poorly prepared for the psychological interdiction.
Comparably, the Internet facilitated information being delivered to sympathetic groups in specific areas of concern. With respect to the local "forces" sympathetic to the NATO push, the Internet communication allowed the "friendlies" to conduct proxy military operations, sparing the need for Special Operations Forces to become more deeply involved.
Obviously, journalists delight in being able to gain information access to otherwise prohibited locations. That access, in turn, permits the mainstream media to act as an independent force-multiplier. While traditional journalism might offer an opposing view, few may rationally doubt the controls effected over the entire spectrum of the international mass media.
Although the statement above will meet with heated objection, the effective pandering of the term, "Ethnic Albanian" serves as overwhelming evidence of the magnitude of such controls. The White House conversion of the Palestinian "suicide bombers" to "homicide bombers" was quite similar.
The Internet is also an electronic battlefield, requiring defensive devices, programs and techniques to defend against attacks on individual Web sites and other information sources. This is generally accomplished through blocking and filtering software, which is installed on the various Internet gateways and pathways, reaching as far as individually owned computers.
It is interesting to note that for all the cyber warfare, there is little to block pornography on the internet, that being essentially the province of "Connected Crime." It is a crime to download, store or re-distribute certain forms of pornography, but it is not a crime to originate such material. The implied message being, that the American citizen has the right to speak, but not the right to listen or remember.
As with all forms of media, the Internet has become an extension of the physical battlefield. Thus, governments and militaries find the Internet to be a critical wartime asset for Psychological Operations. Over time, the number of state and non-state actors is increasing in the use of the Internet as a lever. The key advantage of the Internet is its relatively low cost, especially where third-world countries are concerned.
Hence, there is a certain mandate for the concerned entities to achieve maximum effectiveness through advantageous Internet policies, regulations and laws. Only then can any PSYOPS effort take full advantage of the ever-changing contemporary electronic media.
Currently, international law restricts many aspects of Psychological Operation efforts. In an increasingly insane world, we find the ample legal room for the United States, in particular, being constricted through such devices as the "Patriot Act." Most are aware of the Muslim online charities and money transfer services which were shut down, following 9-11.
Conversely, the various agencies in the United States are stepping up their effectiveness on the Internet, via more refined Psychological Operations tactics. In particular, the application of "Coercive Persuasion" methodologies are found in greater abundance. Such efforts, and their legal status may not be "provable," but certain online personalities display an otherwise uncanny – and interesting - ability to sway major debates.
It should be noted that the U.S. interests are not the exclusive perpetrators of Psychological Operations. In particular, the Muslim interests are discovered to be an increasingly formidable force in the PSYOPS field. Certainly, Russia and China have been long-time players in this field. As with all arms races, we may be certain that time will deliver increasingly sophisticated devices.
Still, the military remains as the major player in the field of PSYOPS. In that light, the military finds the mandate to maximize its employment of the Internet. That mandate demands that the application of Internet efforts be an integral effort, as opposed to being a uniquely external device, with the needed Psychological Operations being uncontrolled and non-synchronous.
- END -
Comment on this Article
USA Patriot Act extended through March 10
UPI
3 Feb 06
The U.S. Congress has given the USA Patriot Act, portions of which were set to expire Friday, an additional five weeks of legislative life.
The Senate, in a 95-1 vote Thursday, extended the Patriot Act until March 10. The extension was to give negotiators time to resolve issues in the measure, including privacy concerns.
The Patriot Act was passed after Sept. 11, 2001, and gave U.S. investigators increased powers to search data such as library and business records. Provisions were to sunset Dec. 31 and the White House sought, citing the importance of sections that allow U.S. investigating forces to share information, to make the entire law permanent.
While the House of Representatives voted to do that, some senators, both Republicans and Democrats, expressed concerns. A compromise late last year extended the law until Feb. 3 and Congress has now kept the measure going until March.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in a statement said, "Democrats ... continue to support the reauthorization of the Patriot Act now with modest improvements. We must give government the tools it needs to fight the terrorists, but the checks we need to stop it from abusing its powers."
Comment on this Article
U.S. officials warn of greater threats from terrorists
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
International Herald Tribune
3 Feb 06
WASHINGTON - Top U.S. intelligence and military officials said Thursday that the threat of terror attacks against American interests might be greater than ever, despite progress against al-Qaida and the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because terror groups have become more diffuse and are aggressively seeking more lethal weapons.
"The enemy — while weakened and under pressure — is still capable of global reach and still possesses the determination to kill more Americans, and to do so with the world's most dangerous weapons," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said at the National Press Club.
"There is a tendency to underestimate the threat they pose," he said.
Meanwhile, John Negroponte, who in May became the country's first director of national intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that despite "some notable successes against the global jihadist threat" — many of them by the United States' allies — there had been an "exponential increase" in the numbers of targets being tracked by U.S. intelligence agencies, from terrorist groups to alienated groups and drug traffickers.
Negroponte also expressed concern about Iran. He said that hard-liners now controlled "all major branches and institutions of government," that government repression had become more effective, and that leadership had become "more confident and assertive" than at any time since the early days of the Islamic republic.
He added that Tehran's power and resources had been bolstered by high oil prices and that Iran had prepared itself to withstand outside pressures by forming trade arrangements with countries such as China and India.
Still, Negroponte said, the intelligence agencies believed that "regime-threatening instability is unlikely."
That assessment came after President Bush had infuriated Tehran by saying in his State of the Union address that Iran was "held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people" and suggesting that the people might act to win their freedom.
Negroponte told senators that while "we have eliminated much of the leadership that presided over al-Qaida in 2001," there were other factors of concern. One was that al-Qaida's leadership along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area had gained much wider sweep through its alliance with the terrorist network, based in Iraq, of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Fragmentation of terror groups, both through pressure on more established groups such as al-Qaida and a new generation of copycats, had led to "the emergence of a decentralized and diffused movement with minimal ... guidance or control," like those that had attacked in Casablanca, Madrid and London, Negroponte said. "They are harder to spot."
Al-Qaida and dozens of what he dubbed its "self-generating progeny" remained interested in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, he said, even if attacks using conventional explosives remained more likely. It was now more likely, the intelligence chief said, that a terror group would use weapons of mass destruction than a state would.
More broadly, Negroponte told senators, the slow pace of political, social and economic change in most Muslim-dominated countries "continues to fuel a global jihadist movement."
Copyright Houston Chronicle
Comment: Of course they pose a threat... NOW. Now that the Neocon gang have really gone out there and made serious enemies for America after creating a fake terrorist attack on 9/11. We really DO need to be afraid, VERY afraid.
Comment on this Article
Homeland Security campaign schools kids in preparedness
By Mimi Hall
USA TODAY
3 Feb 06
The Homeland Security Department on Thursday introduced a new emergency-preparedness campaign to teach 8-to-12-year-olds how to prepare for a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other emergency.
"Preparedness is not just a government challenge," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said during a visit to Andrew Jackson Language Academy, an elementary school in Chicago. "We all have to learn how to plan for the unexpected."
The kid-friendly program features an adventurous mountain lion mascot named Rex, a website (www.ready.gov) and classroom teaching materials being sent to 135,000 middle school teachers in the nation's 25 largest metropolitan areas.
An idea launched as part of the Homeland Security department's $9.6 million Ready campaign, the effort is the latest by the nation's security leaders to get parents and children thinking about emergency planning. In late 2004, the department unveiled public service TV ads aimed at encouraging parents to make emergency plans with their families. The ads showed anxious children asking their parents what to do in an emergency. Some child psychologists warned that the ads would frighten children.
The latest campaign takes a lighter approach, offering games and puzzles on the Ready website. The site also offers instructions on how families should prepare for emergencies and lists item they should keep in stock, including a three-day supply of non-perishable food, a battery-operated radio and duct tape.
"You and your family can collect items for your emergency-supply kit during a family scavenger hunt!" the site says.
The site also teaches kids about the causes of various natural disasters, including earthquakes, tsunamis and tornadoes.
It defines terrorism as "the use of threat or violence to scare governments into changing their policies" and cites the 9/11 attacks as examples. Children are instructed to "talk to your parents or teachers if you have questions about this type of emergency."
"It's a fine line when you're working to reduce anxiety, not create anxiety," said Ron Palomares, a child psychologist with the American Psychological Association who helped create the campaign.
He said the program was geared to fourth-, fifth- and sixth-graders because that's when children begin to hear and understand the news and worry about how it will affect them. "They hear bin Laden, and they hear Katrina ... and it's now beginning to become real to them," he said.
Comment: Oh lord, not again! In short, they are going to teach them how to get under the desk, bend over and think nice thoughts while the nukes fall. The nukes, we should add, that have been aimed at us thanks to Bush and the Neocons.
Comment on this Article
Pentagon Database Leaves No Child Alone
By Mike Ferner
ICH
3 Feb 06
All over the country, organized citizens are fighting to restrict the military’s presence in schools. But having recruiters troll high schools cafeterias is just one way the Pentagon inundates our youngsters with messages to “Go Army!”
Since 2002, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has spent a half-million dollars a year creating a database it claims is “arguably the largest repository of 16-25 year-old youth data in the country, containing roughly 30 million records.” In Pentagonese the database is part of the Joint Advertising, Marketing Research and Studies (JAMRS) project. Its purpose, along with additional millions spent on polling and marketing research, is to give the Pentagon’s $4 billion annual recruiting budget maximum impact. And it has lit a fire under civil libertarians, privacy advocates and counter-recruiting activists across the nation.
Over 100 organizations recently sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and to the DoD oversight committees of Congress, demanding the Pentagon dump the JAMRS database.
Gary Daniels, litigation coordinator for the Ohio ACLU, declared, “The ACLU’s work revolves around personal privacy, but in 2005, it’s almost like the ship has sailed. It’s clear the Pentagon’s database does not bode well for privacy rights.”
“JAMRS is a much larger issue than recruiters’ presence in the schools,” Daniels added. “Students who ‘opt out’ of having their information turned over to recruiters by their school are just shifted into another column in the JAMRS database, called the ‘suppression list.’” With students’ personal information now in the hands of the Pentagon, Daniels estimated that keeping recruiters from contacting youths directly is just about impossible.
Air Force Lt. Colonel, Ellen Krenke, a DoD spokesperson, downplayed the significance of the JAMRS database. It was initiated in 2002 and even then, she said, it was not a new project, simply a way to centralize information. “The individual services (Army, Navy, etc.) have been collecting this data since being authorized by Congress to do so in 1982.”
As for concerns about the sources of the information on these 30 million young people and how it will be used, Krenke said, “Most of the information in the database is collected through commercial vendors and is given by students voluntarily. If requested by law enforcement, tax authorities or Congress, JAMRS is required by law to provide the information. However JAMRS has never distributed these records outside DoD. Nor is it DoD’s intent to share the data to outside agencies.”
Lillie Coney, Associate Director of EPIC (Electronic Privacy and Information Center), said that Krenke’s reassurances are less than meet the eye.
Coney contends that by waiting until May of this year to give public notice it was assembling the JAMRS database, DoD was in violation of the federal Privacy Act for over two years and has kept the public in the dark as to exactly how the information will be used.
She characterized the 14 “Blanket Routine Uses” the Pentagon claims as exemptions to the Privacy Act as “a catch-all loophole that allows an agency to disclose personal information to others without the individual's consent,” and objects that, to date, the Pentagon refuses to put in writing why they are not requesting information directly from the data subjects, how to correct false information in a record, or how the military intends to notify someone that local, state, or federal agencies have requested their information.
Two of the 14 exemptions claimed by the Pentagon will allow it to give any federal law enforcement agency the records of anyone it believes has broken any federal statute, as well as disclose a person’s records for the purpose of “…counterintelligence, or for the purpose of enforcing laws which protect the national security of the United States.” Coney warned that this will allow the military to begin creating criminal records on individuals for nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights.
“Compare this to credit reports,” Coney explained. “If you didn't know they existed and that they could affect your ability to get a job or a loan, how in the world would you know you need to check them for incorrect information? Imagine what you could do with access to a student's name, phone, social security number, e-mail address, race, employer, grade point average, gender, extracurricular activities, driving record, degree interest, and attained skills if it is shared with any federal government agency, foreign government, as well as state and local governments. If any information in this database is wrong, who will authorities tend to believe? You or the Department of Defense?”
Others object to JAMRS because of the extensive involvement of private marketing companies, including maintenance of the database itself.
Toledoan Peggy Daly-Masternak has two teenage sons. She started the Student and Family Rights and Privacy Committee, aimed at reducing the military’s presence in the city’s public schools. She says “there are few things these days on which people across the spectrum of viewpoints can unify. Privacy is one. If people knew the extent of the Pentagon’s data collection they would give it a resounding ‘No’ and they would shout ‘DEFINITELY NOT’ to compiling these databanks together under contract to private companies. Yet, this is exactly what JAMRS does.”
The Pentagon has contracted JAMRS work to:
* Mullen Advertising Corp., one of over 100 subsidiaries of the Interpublic Group, a global advertising conglomerate with $6.4 billion in annual revenues and operations in 130 countries.
* Benow Corp., Mullen’s subcontractor to manage the database. Benow was recently purchased by Equifax, Inc. which describes itself as “a global leader in turning information into intelligence.” Equifax generates $1.2 billion annually by selling marketing services to businesses and credit reports to individuals.
* American Student List Corp. (ASL), and Student Marketing Group Corp. (SMG), two companies that specialize in gathering information from students, sell JAMRS some of the data it uses. According to EPIC, both these companies have faced legal action for using deceptive practices in collecting information from students.
· Teenage Research Unlimited: (TRU) is one of the companies from which JAMRS purchases “information on attitudes of youth…on a wide variety of topics”
TRU’s web site claims it is “the first marketing-research firm to specialize exclusively in teenagers,” with a vision “to develop an unparalleled expertise in the teenage market, and to offer our clients virtually unlimited methods for researching teens.”
At the bottom of the company’s “about us” page, TRU states it “regularly applies its expertise to the ‘unmarketing’ of high-risk youth behaviors. As an advocate for teens, TRU has worked on a number of important social-marketing issues, including: anti-tobacco and drug use, sexual assault, life safety, education, crisis management, and skin cancer.” What it calls its social-marketing clients include the American Cancer Society, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, various state health departments, and Kidspeace, a group with a mission to “give hope, help and healing to children facing crisis,” including a web page advising how to help children cope with war.
The much longer list of TRU corporate clients include Abercrombie and Fitch, Calvin Klein, Target, Hill and Knowlton, Channel 1, CosmoGirl, Cartoon Network, MTV, Time-Warner, WB Network, AT&T, Microsoft, Verizon Wireless; VISA, Avon, Proctor and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, Heinz, Kraft, General Mills, Taco Bell; and lastly, an “Other” category ranging from the Master Lock Co., to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. Literally at the bottom of the list is the Department of Defense.
As the ACLU’s Daniels said, “In a way, the Pentagon is not doing anything private industry hasn’t done for years. The military is trying to turn kids into soldiers and private industry is trying to make them bigger consumers.”
Daly-Masternak voiced an additional concern. “The sources of data in the JAMRS database include the High School Master File and the College Students File. Both are collected and manipulated by the American Student List and Student Marketing Group…and where do the ASL and SMG get the data they trade for cash? If it’s what the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) recommends schools collect from students, every student from kindergarten through college is in big trouble regarding their privacy. Linking JAMRS to NCES and other such data has the potential for the DoD to create lifetime profiles of everyone,” she warned.
The U.S. Dept. of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics publishes the NCES handbook listing over 700 coded bits of information on students, such as:
Category 0674: Honors Information – 18 coded options including whether the student made the Honor Roll, Honor Society, or Honorable Mention.
0679: Extra curricular activities – 97 coded options
0689: Non-school activity – 13 coded options from full time employment to patents and inventions.
0710: Education planned – 14 coded options from GED to Ph.D.
0714: Voting status
0715: Other post-school accomplishments “other than employment, education and military service such as elective offices held and books published.”
0737: Whether or not the student has gingivitis. Options 2091 to 2094 describe normal gums to “severe gum deviation.”
0741: Mother’s first pre-natal visit
0743: Mother’s total weight gained during pregnancy
1070: Meal service transaction date: “The month, day and year on which the student received a particular meal or food service.”
1106: Meal service components. Coded options include bread, fruit, meat, milk and vegetable.
9 categories on Early Childhood Program Participation, defined as “Information about a child's care, education, and/or services from birth to enrollment in kindergarten.”
16 categories on student employment: In-School/Post-School Employment Status to Number of Hours Worked per Weekend and Employment Recognition.
Coney said people should also note that so much information is “floating around in cyberspace” from sites like www.myspace.com where young people can chat on thousands of topics in exchange for registering their name, email address, date of birth, gender, zip code, and country. “The free time kids have to themselves these days to role play, act out, and just be kids is often spent in the new online ‘backyard,’ but we know that anything placed on the internet can be accessed if there’s a data leak.”
The Pentagon’s JAMRS web site lists the following as sources for the information in its database:
· High School Master File: (HSMF) contains contact information on nearly four million students for every class year, covering about 90% of the high school population.
· Selective Service System: contains a listing of all registrants with the Selective Service System, about 2.5 million names per year.
· College File: contains basic information on over 3.4 million college students enrolled in a range of two- and four-year academic institutions across the country.
· Joint Lead Management System: over 70,000 yearly “influencer (parents, coaches etc.) and prospect leads” are processed on a daily basis from the individual branches of the military.
· Permanent Suppression File: this file is update and available the first of every month.
Some of the research projects JAMRS commissions include:
* Ad Tracking Study: conducted quarterly to monitor “advertising awareness and imagery” for all military branches.
* Adult/Youth Influencer Polls: track “attitudes, impressions, and behavioral intentions as they relate to and affect military enlistment.”
The Youth Poll “measures youth's favorability of the military, perceived knowledge of the military, perceptions of current economic conditions, and reactions to current events.”
The Parent Poll is targeted at parents of children who’ve completed the Youth Poll, to see what has an effect on “…a parent's likelihood to recommend as well as indirectly influence youth propensity (to enlist).”
* College Drop Outs Study: conducted to understand “…how the Services can capitalize on this group of individuals (ages 18-24).” It was performed by University of Texas MBA students who volunteered their time as part of a market research course.
* Educator Study: 90 high school teachers and guidance counselors were polled to “uncover their attitudes toward military service” and to “develop better understandings of the relationship between educators – a key youth influencer group – and military representatives engaged in recruiting efforts on high school campuses…”
* Knowledge Study: “Knowledge about the military and attitudes toward it have a strong impact on youth's propensity to join and adults' likelihood to recommend the military…(T)he JAMRS program began a study in August of 2004 on the types of knowledge that may affect these attitudes: subjective knowledge (how much one believes he/she knows about the military), declarative knowledge (knowledge of military facts) and structural knowledge (how one associates military concepts) are three types of knowledge thought to affect attitudes toward the military. This study will be especially beneficial to military recruiters and advertisers in determining what youth and influencers need to know about the military, what they need to believe they know about the military, and how they relate military concepts, in order to be propensed for military service or recommend it.”
* Media Allocation Project: using services such as Nielson and Arbitron, “…JAMRS can project how many young people (15-24 & 18-24) saw a branded message and forecast costs by state and by month. These data have been, and will be, used by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decision making through research and analysis, to evaluate the effectiveness of marketing communications and to assess advertising mix tests (given a certain budget, what is the most efficient mix of TV, radio, print, etc.). Clemson University has also used these data to link advertising effectiveness with military applications and enlistments.”
* Mothers’ Attitude Survey: gauges attitudes towards the military of 270 mothers of 10th- and 11th-graders. The purpose is to validate JAMRS’ “influencer communications” strategies that allow recruiters to a) refine approaches towards friends of mothers who may be strong supporters of the military, b) help motivate friends of mothers who are undecided about advocating the military, and c) help avoid alienating mothers who are strongly opposed to the military.
* National Quorum™ Poll: conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide/Harris Interactive Co., is a twice-monthly omnibus survey that serves as a trend analysis tool. “The National Quorum…provides JAMRS the means to get a 'pulse' on public opinion immediately after a significant event” and to capture the attitudes and opinions of American adults on various aspects of the military, including the impact of the war in Iraq.
* Studies conducted by the National Academy of Sciences: The JAMRS site describes an extensive involvement between the Department of Defense and the NAS, dating from 1999, through the Academy’s National Research Council. The Council’s Committee on Youth Population and Military Recruitment has completed two phases of work.
1) “In the first phase, the committee examined long-term trends in the youth population and evaluated policy options that could improve youth propensity for and enlistment in the military.” Their research was published in a 2003 report, Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth
2) “In the second phase, the committee reviewed military research on advertising and recruiting and found it often lacked long-term objectives and coordination across relevant research topics and methodologies. The committee developed an evaluation framework to assist the DoD in making informed decisions on the effectiveness of various recruiting policies and mixes of recruiting resources.” This research was published in a 2004 report, Evaluating Military Advertising and Recruiting, Theory and Methodology.
The book is helping DoD to improve its research on advertising and recruiting policies and has been sent to each of the Services’ Market Research Directors and Recruiting Commanders.
Donald Rumsfeld’s top adviser on recruitment, pay and benefits for some 3.4 million people on active duty, in the Guard and Reserve, and DoD civilian employees is David Chu. He recently told reporters, “If you don’t want conscription, you have to give the Department of Defense an avenue to contact people.”
The Pentagon’s JAMRS database is designed to do that in a bigger and better way than ever before.
Ferner is a freelance writer from Ohio.
Comment on this Article
New Details Revealed on C.I.A. Leak Case: Cheney?
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: February 4, 2006
WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff told prosecutors that Mr. Cheney had informed him "in an off sort of curiosity sort of fashion" in mid-June 2003 about the identity of the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak case, according to a formerly secret legal opinion, parts of which were made public on Friday.
The newly released pages were part of a legal opinion written in February 2005 by Judge David S. Tatel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. His opinion disclosed that the former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., acknowledged to prosecutors that he had heard directly from Mr. Cheney about the Central Intelligence Agency officer, Valerie Wilson, more than a month before her identity was first publicly disclosed on July 14, 2003, by a newspaper columnist.
"Nevertheless," Judge Tatel wrote, "Libby maintains that he was learning about Wilson's wife's identity for the first time when he spoke with NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert on July 10 or 11." Mr. Russert denied Mr. Libby's account. Ms. Wilson is married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who has criticized the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
Over all, the new material amplified and provided new details on charges outlined in the October 2005 indictment against Mr. Libby. The indictment accused Mr. Libby of falsely telling investigators that he had first learned about Ms. Wilson from reporters, when he had, according to the charging document, learned of it from other government officials like Mr. Cheney.
Mr. Libby appeared in federal court in Washington on Friday for the first time in several months. A federal trial judge, Reggie B. Walton, set a calendar that means Mr. Libby's trial will not begin for at least 11 months, with jury selection to begin on Jan. 8, 2007.
Judge Walton had hoped to start the trial in the fall of 2006 but Mr. Libby's chief lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., said he would be involved in another trial at that time.
Judge Tatel's comments in the formerly secret legal opinion were largely drawn from affidavits supplied by the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, that were written nearly two years ago, in August 2004. At that time, Mr. Fitzgerald was seeking to compel grand jury testimony from two reporters, Judith Miller, then a reporter for The New York Times, and Matthew Cooper, a reporter for Time magazine.
By that point, the newly disclosed pages showed, Mr. Fitzgerald had centered his inquiry on possible perjury charges against Mr. Libby, although that was not publicly known at the time. Mr. Fitzgerald had abandoned a prosecution based on a federal law that makes it a crime to disclose the identity of a covert officer at the C.I.A. Such charges, Judge Tatel wrote, were "currently off the table for lack of evidence."
Judge Tatel wrote his opinion as part of a unanimous decision by the three-judge panel which ruled on Feb. 15, 2005, that Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper had potentially vital evidentiary information and could not refuse to testify to the grand jury in the leak case on First Amendment grounds.
In a separate affidavit filed by Mr. Fitzgerald and disclosed Friday, the prosecutor wrote that Mr. Libby had testified that he had forgotten the conversation with Mr. Cheney when he talked to Mr. Russert. "Further according to Mr. Libby, he did not recall his conversation with the Vice President even when Russert allegedly told him about Wilson's wife's employment."
About eight pages of Judge Tatel's concurring opinion were deleted from the opinion released in 2005. After Mr. Libby's indictment, lawyers for The Wall Street Journal went to court and succeeded in obtaining the material released Friday by order of the same three-judge panel.
Not all of the previously withheld material was released. Several pages, which apparently contained information about Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation of Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, remained under seal. Mr. Rove has not been charged, but remains under investigation although his lawyer has expressed confidence that Mr. Rove will be cleared.
The release of new material represented an important First Amendment ruling for the right of public access to court records, said Theodore J. Boutros Jr., a lawyer for The Journal. "We're pleased that the court recognized that grand jury secrecy is not absolute and that there's an important public interest in the public being able to scrutinize the basis for a judicial decision."
The newly disclosed information provides new details about other events, like a previously reported lunch on July 7, 2003, in which Mr. Libby told Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, about Ms. Wilson.
In his opinion, Judge Tatel said that Mr. Fleischer said that Mr. Libby had told him that Ms. Wilson sent had her husband on a trip to Africa to examine intelligence reports indicating that Iraq had sought to buy uranium ore from Niger.
Judge Tatel wrote that Mr. Fleischer had described the lunch to prosecutors as having been "kind of weird" and had noted that Mr. Libby typically "operated in a very closed-lip fashion." Judge Tatel added: "Fleischer recalled that Libby 'added something along the lines of, you know, this is hush hush, nobody knows about this. This is on the q.t.' "
Comment on this Article
Iraq, Niger, And The CIA
By Murray Waas
Special to National Journal
2 Feb 06
Vice President Cheney and his then-Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were personally informed in June 2003 that the CIA no longer considered credible the allegations that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger, according to government records and interviews with current and former officials. The new CIA assessment came just as Libby and other senior administration officials were embarking on an effort to discredit an administration critic who had also been saying that the allegations were untrue.
CIA analysts wrote then-CIA Director George Tenet in a highly classified memo on June 17, 2003, "We no longer believe there is sufficient" credible information to "conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." The memo was titled: "In Response to Your Questions for Our Current Assessment and Additional Details on Iraq's Alleged Pursuits of Uranium From Abroad."
Despite the CIA's findings, Libby attempted to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger the previous year to investigate the claims, which he concluded were baseless.
Previous coverage of the CIA leak investigation from Murray Waas
The campaign against Wilson led to the outing of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA officer -- less than a month after the CIA assessment was completed. Libby resigned as Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser on October 28, 2005, after he was indicted by a federal grand jury on five counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice for concealing his role in leaking Plame's identity to the media.
Tenet requested the previously undisclosed intelligence assessment in large part because of repeated inquiries from Cheney and Libby regarding the Niger matter and Wilson's mission, although neither Cheney nor Libby specifically asked that the new review be conducted, according to government records and to current and former government officials. Tenet also asked for the assessment because information about Wilson's mission to Niger had begun to appear in the media, and Tenet thought that the press or Capitol Hill might raise additional questions about the matter.
The new disclosures raise questions as to why Libby and other Bush administration officials continued their efforts to discredit Wilson -- even as they were told that claims about Iraq's having procured uranium from Niger were most likely a hoax.
The answer may lie in part with the already well-known misgivings about the CIA by Cheney, Libby, and other senior Bush administration officials. At one point during that period -- the summer of 2003 -- Libby confronted a senior intelligence analyst briefing him and the vice president and accused the CIA of willfully misleading him and the administration on Niger. Libby was said to be upset that the CIA, in his view, had routinely minimized the extent to which Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction and was now prematurely attempting to distance itself from the Niger allegations.
Libby had also complained about the CIA's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control. WINPAC, as the center is known, scrutinizes unconventional-weapons threats to the United States, including the pursuit by both foreign nations and terrorist groups of nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological weapons.
Libby, according to people with knowledge of the events, said that he and Cheney had come to believe that WINPAC was presenting Saddam Hussein's pursuit of such weapons in a far more benign light than Iraq's intents and capabilities reflected. Libby cited CIA bureaucratic inertia and caution and his view that many of WINPAC's analysts were aligned with foreign-policy elites who did not support the war with Iraq.
Libby and others in the office of the vice president apparently were even more suspicious because they mistakenly believed that Plame worked for WINPAC, according to these sources. When they also learned that Plame possibly played a role in Wilson's selection for the Niger mission, their suspicions only intensified.
One indication of Cheney's personal interest in the subject was that some of Libby's earliest and most detailed information regarding Plame's CIA employment came directly from the vice president, according to information contained in Libby's grand jury indictment.
"On or about June 12, 2003," the indictment stated, "Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."
It would not have been improper or illegal for Cheney to discuss Plame's CIA employment with Libby or other government officials with high security clearances. No public evidence has emerged during the two-year grand jury probe by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that Libby acted at the vice president's behest in leaking details of Plame's CIA employment to the press, or that Cheney even knew that Libby was doing so.
Contemporaneous notes of Libby's that were obtained by federal investigators in the CIA leak case indicate that Cheney had originally learned about Plame from then-CIA Director Tenet. Tenet has confirmed that Fitzgerald interviewed him, but Tenet has refused to make public any details of what he told investigators. He declined to comment for this story.
Sources said that Tenet may have discussed Plame with Cheney because of requests from Cheney, Libby, and other administration officials for more information about the Niger matter and Wilson's mission. Cheney's and Libby's interest in Niger was apparently rekindled after New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof wrote on May 6, 2003, that the CIA had sent an unnamed former ambassador to the African nation in February 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. Kristof wrote that the ex-ambassador reported back to the CIA and the State Department that the allegations were "unequivocally wrong" and "based on forged documents."
The column led Cheney and Libby to inquire about the then-still-unnamed ambassador and his trip to Niger. On May 29, 2003, Libby asked then-Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman for information about the mission. Grossman in turn assigned the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report on the matter. Cheney's and Libby's interest in the issue led Tenet to seek more information as well.
On June 11 or 12, according to the grand jury indictment of Libby, Grossman reported back that "in sum and substance Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and the State Department personnel were saying that Wilson's wife was involved in the planning of his trip."
Also on June 11, 2003, according to the indictment, "Libby spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip." On the very next day, June 12, the indictment said, Cheney more specifically informed Libby that Plame worked at the CIA's "Counterproliferation Division."
Tenet received the highly classified memo on Niger from his analysts on June 17, 2003, five days after Cheney and Libby spoke with each other about Plame's working for the CIA. Sources familiar with the matter say that both Cheney and Libby were informed of the findings in the June 17 memo only days after Tenet himself read and reviewed it.
In the memo, the CIA analysts wrote: "Since learning that the Iraqi-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq purchased uranium from abroad."
The memo also related that there had been other, earlier claims that Saddam's regime had attempted to purchase uranium from private interests in Somalia and Benin; these claims predated the Niger allegations. It was that past intelligence that had led CIA analysts, in part, to consider the Niger claims as plausible.
But the memo said that after a thorough review of those earlier reports, the CIA had concluded that they were no longer credible. Indeed, the previous intelligence reports citing those claims had long since been "recalled" -- meaning that the CIA had formally repudiated them.
The memo's findings were considered so significant that they were not only quickly shared with Cheney and Libby but also with Congress, albeit on a classified basis, according to government records and interviews.
On June 18, 2003, the day after the new Niger assessment was sent to Tenet, Robert D. Walpole, the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, briefed members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the findings. And on the following day, June 19, 2003, Walpole briefed members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence as well.
Six days after the memo was sent to Tenet, on June 23, 2003, Libby met with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and -- as part of an effort to discredit Wilson -- passed along to her what prosecutors have said was classified information that Wilson's wife, Plame, worked for the CIA, according to allegations contained in Libby's indictment.
On July 6, 2003, Wilson himself went public with his allegations that the Bush administration had misused the Niger claims to make the case to go to war. Wilson made his arguments in an op-ed in The New York Times and an appearance that same morning on NBC's Meet the Press.
On July 8, 2003, Libby and Miller met again. During a two-hour breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, according to testimony Miller gave to the federal grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case, Libby first told her that Plame worked for the CIA's Weapons, Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Office.
Around the same time, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and at least one other senior Bush administration official leaked information to a number of journalists about Plame's CIA employment and her role in recommending her husband for the Niger mission.
Columnist Robert Novak, on July 14, 2003, published his now-famous column identifying Plame as a CIA "operative" and alleging that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger.
The disclosure did little to discredit Wilson. Instead, it had unintended and unforeseen consequences for Libby and the Bush administration: A special prosecutor would be named to investigate the leak; Judith Miller would spend 85 days in jail for refusing to testify regarding her conversations with Libby before ultimately relenting; and a federal grand jury would indict Libby on charges that he obstructed justice and committed perjury to conceal his own role in the leak of Plame's CIA status to the press.
As Libby awaits trial, one of the unresolved mysteries is why Libby insisted in interviews with the FBI and during his grand jury testimony that he learned about Plame's employment from journalists, when investigators already had Libby's own copious notes indicating that he had first learned many of the details of Plame's CIA employment from Cheney and other senior government officials.
One possibility examined by investigators is that Libby was attempting to cover for Cheney because of the political or legal fallout that might occur if it was determined that the vice president had been involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.
Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said, "The prosecutor's implicit inference before the jury may well likely be that Libby lied to protect the vice president. Even in a plain vanilla case, a prosecutor always wants to be able to demonstrate a motive."
That Cheney was one of the first people to tell Libby about Plame, and that Libby had written in his notes that Cheney had heard the information from the CIA director, Gillers said, might make it more difficult for Libby to mount a credible defense of a faulty memory. "From a prosecutor's point of view, and perhaps a jury's as well, the conversation [during which Libby learned about Plame] is the more dramatic and the more memorable because the conversation was with the vice president" and because the CIA director's name also came up, Gillers said.
The disclosure that Cheney and Libby were told of a CIA assessment that the agency considered the Niger allegations to be untrue, and that Tenet requested the assessment as a result of the personal interest of Cheney and Libby, would "demonstrate even further that Niger was a central issue for Libby," said Gillers, and would "make it even harder, although not impossible, to claim a faulty memory."
-- Murray Waas is a Washington-based journalist.
© National Journal Group Inc.
Comment on this Article
Iran is world's top sponsor of terrorism: Rumsfeld
Sat Feb 4, 2006
By Louis Charbonneau
MUNICH (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran on Saturday of being the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, a charge that his Iranian counterpart rejected as "ridiculous" and "outrageous."
"The Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism," Rumsfeld told an annual security conference in Munich where talk of Iran's nuclear program was at the top of the agenda.
"The world does not want, and must work together to prevent, a nuclear Iran," he said.
Rumsfeld spoke just before the UN's nuclear watchdog decided to report Iran, which Washington and the European Union fear is covertly developing atomic weapons, to the UN Security Council. Tehran says its nuclear program is peaceful.
"We must continue to work together to seek a diplomatic solution to stopping the development of (Iran's) uranium enrichment program," Rumsfeld said.
Enrichment can make fuel for atomic power plants or weapons.
"While we oppose the actions of Iran's regime, we stand with the Iranian people who want a peaceful democratic future. They have no desire to see the country they love isolated from the rest of the civilized world," he said.
Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar was quoted by Iranian state television as saying Rumsfeld's comments were "outrageous remarks and a ridiculous projection by the White House leaders."
"Rumsfeld had better try to act responsibly for the disgrace of attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, because the people of the world will never forget the torturing of the prisoners of Abu-Ghraib," he said.
Comment: Rumsfeld is a liar. He said the same things about Iraq in full knowledge that they were not true. Believe him at your peril.
Comment on this Article
The Long War: Rumsfeld Releases 20-Year Plan
By Josh White and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
3 Feb 06
The United States is engaged in what could be a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday.
Rumsfeld, who laid out broad strategies for what the military and the Bush administration are now calling the "long war," likened al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin while urging Americans not to give in on the battle of wills that could stretch for years. He said there is a tendency to underestimate the threats that terrorists pose to global security, and said liberty is at stake.
"Compelled by a militant ideology that celebrates murder and suicide with no territory to defend, with little to lose, they will either succeed in changing our way of life, or we will succeed in changing theirs," Rumsfeld said in a speech at the National Press Club.
The speech, which aides said was titled "The Long War," came on the eve of the Pentagon's release of its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which sets out plans for how the U.S. military will address major security challenges 20 years into the future. The plans to be released today include shifts to make the military more agile and capable of dealing with unconventional threats, something Rumsfeld has said is necessary to move from a military designed for the Cold War into one that is more flexible.
He said the nation must focus on three strategies in the ongoing war: preventing terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, defending the U.S. homeland and helping allies fight terrorism. He emphasized that these goals could take a long time to achieve.
Indeed, the QDR, mandated every four years by Congress, opens with the declaration: "The United States is a nation engaged in what will be a long war."
The review has been widely anticipated in Washington defense circles because of the dramatic changes in the U.S. military's global role since the last review in 2001. Adding to the high expectations is the fact that Rumsfeld and his team have now been in place for more than four years.
The QDR strategy draws heavily on lessons learned by the military from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the worldwide campaign against terrorism, shifting the Pentagon's emphasis away from conventional warfare of the Cold War era toward three new areas.
First are "irregular" conflicts against insurgents, terrorists and other non-state enemies. Iraq and Afghanistan are the "early battles" in the campaign against Islamic extremists and terrorists, who are "profoundly more dangerous" than in the past because of technological advances that allow them to operate globally, said Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England in an address on Wednesday.
The QDR also focuses on defending the U.S. homeland against "catastrophic" attacks such as with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Finally, it sets out plans for deterring the rising military heft of major powers such as China.
The strategic vision outlined in the QDR has won high marks from defense analysts for diagnosing the problems the U.S. military will likely face. However, it is less successful in translating those concepts into concrete military capabilities, the analysts say.
The review does not dramatically change the "force construct" -- the set of world contingencies that the U.S. military is expected to be able to deal with. The most important change is the recognition that U.S. forces may have to carry out long-term stability operations, or surge suddenly to a world hot spot. There are not "huge tectonic shifts," said Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an address Wednesday.
The strategy does call for devoting resources to accelerate a long-range strike capability directed at hostile nations, and for new investments aimed at countering biological and nuclear weapons -- such as teams able to defuse a nuclear bomb. But it makes relatively minor adjustments in key weapons systems, with the biggest programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter and the Army's Future Combat Systems escaping virtually unscathed. This leaves less room for investments in innovative programs and forces to address the types of problems that the QDR identifies, analysts say.
"A lot of tough choices are kicked down the road," said Andrew F. Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
One of the toughest battles facing the United States, Rumsfeld said yesterday, is recognizing the seriousness of the terrorist threat and the immediacy of fighting the nation's enemies. He said the task facing Western nations could be arduous, as terrorists operate in numerous countries around the world, hidden, and with the willingness to wait long periods between attacks. Military leaders and officials in the Bush administration have taken to calling the global war on terrorism the "long war," which defense experts say is a recognition that there is no end in sight.
"Dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism is going to take a long time," said Robert E. Hunter, senior adviser at Rand Corp. and a former ambassador to NATO. "But we have to define success. You're never going to get rid of all terrorism."
Rumsfeld said he does not believe the war will end with a bang but, instead, with a whimper, "fading down over a sustained period of time as more countries in the world are successful," much as how democracy outlasted communism in the Cold War. He added that the early decades of the Cold War also brought confusion and doubt.
"The only way that terrorists can win this struggle is if we lose our will and surrender the fight, or think it's not important enough, or in confusion or in disagreement among ourselves give them the time to regroup and reestablish themselves in Iraq or elsewhere," he said.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Comment: Sounds exactly what the Catholic Church said and did at the beginning of the crusades, including the crusades against the Cathars, their own "heretic" countrymen.
Comment on this Article
Rumsfeld and Orwell
channelingreality.com
Recently Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech at the National Press Club. It was so Orwellian it made my head spin. He talked about the nature of our enemy. Everything he said about the enemy could be said about our government - past and present. He said this was a different kind of war. It was asymmetric or irregular warfare and the battlespace is mostly in this country. He said the enemy has committees and media relations people who work everyday to manipulate the media to support the agenda. He said their plans are no secret - they are on the Internet - which is true, but the plans I find on the internet for global domination are found on the UN website and the U.S. Government websites. I find it at the State of the World, the WTO, World Economic Forum and the FTAA websites. I find it in the trade agreements and in the positions of the Congress who should be representing the interests of Americans but in fact, they support the globalist agenda of taking our nation apart.
The bizarre thing about his speech was that the plan he attributes to Osama Bin Laden for creating an Islamic empire to govern the world, is the same plan that the United States supports via the United Nations. It is a plan for global governance. In order to reach a point of global governance, nation-states must be dissolved and the power centers have to become regions - like the North American continent via FTAA and like the European Union. The WTO and so-called ‘free trade’ which is actually centrally managed trade is the means by which the economies of nation-states are being destroyed and the meaning and value of citizenship are being devalued. Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with that. Reagan, George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, The Chimp and minions like Robert Zoellick have done that.
(Rumsfeld's speech can be found at the C-Span website under 'Recent Videos').
Obviously, the Middle East would be one of the regions in a system of global governance. In something I read a while back, it said that Saddam Hussein had a plan to control the entire region. Saddam Hussein was a CIA asset who was put into power by the U.S. government. I suspect they promised him the top position of the Middle East region after the fall of the Shah of Iran but something went haywire so they had to take him out leaving a power vacuum in the Middle East. My guess would be that Saddam had not been able to change the culture fast enough to suit the globalists.
On September 8, 2000, Bill Clinton signed the Millennium Declaration for global governance. Mikhail Gorbachev was invited to this country to to establish a Foundation - State of the World Forum - at the Presideo.
"The core mission of the State of the World Forum is to establish an enabling environment and to serve as a Secretariat for the gathering of leaders and citizens from around the world and a spectrum of diciplines to search together for those new frameworks of values required for this new phase of human development; and within this context to take concerted action -- strategic initiatives -- to help give shape to the world we envision".
"Many of earlier civilizations which have largely appeared over the 6,000 years of our recorded history have largely been created by groups of so-called "creative minorities" or "sapiential circles" -- independent individuals who came together to articulate and take up challenges being ignored by declining and out-dated concepts, organizations and governments."
I believe it was Gorbachev and Maurice Strong who wrote the Earth Charter which has been adopted by the United Nations. It is a radical environmental treatise that calls for a complete restructuring of world view and how people live on the earth. Al Gore wrote a book which follows the themes of the Earth Charter - called “Earth in the Balance”. This radical environmental agenda is being implemented in this country under environmental names like ‘Smart Growth’ and sustainable development. It is being used to radically change how people live on the earth - and the U.S. Government supports it. It is being used to relieve people of their property rights and natural resources on their property. And… btw, Mohammed Atta was an urban planner and he was not a religious man. That doesn’t fit with the Osama scenario - but it does fit with the Gore-Gorbachev-Strong game plan.
The way that the ‘terrorists’ are being funded is through front groups - like the ones that Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed were and are heading up. Corporations and Foundations establish a ‘special interest’ front groups to lobby Congress and to propagandize for their agenda. Other front groups include Ducks Unlimited, Nature Conservancy, MALDEF, La Raza. All of these groups lobby for their ‘special interest’ but all are geared towards breaking down our nation-state in furtherance of the goals of the funders - globalization. Grover Norquist is a Muslim and his goal is “make our government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub”. That was Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton’s goal too - to ‘reinvent government’ by eliminating government employees and replacing them with ‘public-private partnerships’ - effectively corporate government.
Rumsfeld mentioned Lenin and Hitler in his speech. He said nobody paid attention to what they wrote and the world paid for it. Hitler was ‘legally elected’ and he consolidated power. How is that different from the PNAC agenda and Bush’s consolidation of power? It isn’t. Rumsfeld defined the way the funding works for the ‘terrorists’. They are the front groups 501-C3’s and 4’s. Has the Congress done anything about that? No. Have they tried to stop the FTAA and the dissolution of our nation? No. Have they announced that they want out of the WTO? No. In fact, everything this administration has done has been to support the UN agenda for the dissolution of our nation.
Rumsfeld said:
“The only way the terrrorists can win this struggle is if we lose our will and surrender the fight or think it is not important enough or in confusion or in disagreement among ourselves, give them the time to regroup and reestablish themselves in Iraq or elsewhere. A decade ago we celebrated the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the end of the cold war. But that war, what President Kennedy called “a long twilight struggle” lasted some 45 years before we saw a hope of victory. In the early decades the way was uncertain. Allies bickered over tactics. They bickered over strategies. They even bickered over the seriousness of the threats. There were motions in Congress to pull our forces out of Europe and concede. Euro-communism became fashionable (Third Way). It’s not really communism, it’s Euro-communism so it’s ok. Then as now we found ourselves building new organizations to help in our new circumstances. And today in many ways, we find ourselves echoing the words once spoken by Dwight Eisenhower in the early decades of the cold war. He said, “We face a hostile ideology - global in scope, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method. To meet it successfully we must carry forward steadily, surely and without complaint, the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake.”
It is true that we face a hostile ideology, global in scope, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method. And Donald Rumsfeld’s Orwellian description of the conflict and the enemy are case in point.
Comment: It's beyond gall for Rumsfeld to quote Eisenhower since Dwight was talking about people like Rumsfeld: The Military-Industrial Complex and their ideology.
Comment on this Article
How Do They Know Who Is a Terrorist?
by Charley Reese
February 4, 2006
The Bush administration says it only intercepts calls from terrorists. OK, how does the Bush administration know that somebody in Europe or the Middle East is a terrorist? Terrorists don't walk around the street with little name tags identifying them and their organization. They don't call people and say: "Hi, al-Qaeda calling. Can I interest you in a bomb-making kit?"
Both law-enforcement and intelligence agencies fundamentally depend on informants. Informants in foreign intelligence are at best traitors to their respective countries. Informants in domestic crime issues are often paid, either in cash or in deals cut on crimes they have committed. Altogether, they are a sleazy lot.
One point many people often don't understand is that CIA officers are not spies. They are "case officers." Their job is to recruit spies (informants) and funnel the information back to the analysts.
Naturally, every country tries to depict its spies as noble people opposed to tyranny rather than people trapped and blackmailed, soreheads and neurotics or simply greedy opportunists. Often, informants working for money in domestic criminal cases will actually entrap some innocent person. That's how the sorry episode of Randy Weaver began, which ended with the deaths of his wife, his son and a deputy U.S. marshal in 1992.
A paid informant badgered Weaver, who was hard up for money to feed his family, into illegally sawing off a shotgun, something any 8-year-old with a hacksaw and a vise can do. The idea was to arrest him, threaten him with a long prison sentence and then coerce him into becoming a federal informant. It was a federal cluster you-know-what from start to finish.
This is a short preface to the current problem of domestic spying. The Bush administration says it only intercepts calls from terrorists. OK, how does the Bush administration know that somebody in Europe or the Middle East is a terrorist? Terrorists don't walk around the street with little name tags identifying them and their organization. They don't call people and say: "Hi, al-Qaeda calling. Can I interest you in a bomb-making kit?"
The answer is an informant or some other country's intelligence agency. The first thing you know is that this person is a terrorist suspect. If anyone had proof that he was a real terrorist, he would be arrested. You can get some idea of how unreliable these suspect lists are by the instances of pop stars, U.S. senators, babies and other innocent people winding up on the U.S. terrorist watch list because of bureaucratic goof-ups.
Furthermore, it stands to reason that the National Security Agency has no way of knowing who this suspect is calling until the call is actually made. NSA doesn't put wiretaps on telephones. It sweeps the calls out of the air, and then the NSA supercomputers comb the messages for certain key words. My guess is that the NSA is intercepting all the overseas calls from Americans of Arab descent, people of the Muslim faith, as well as those who have spoken out on Middle East issues or have business dealings in the region. In other words, it's a massive invasion of privacy, not a selective invasion of privacy – or at least that's my guess.
Ronald Reagan said of his arms deals with the Soviets: "Trust, but verify." The problem is, there are no ways the American people or their elected representatives can verify anything President Bush says on the subject of national security. It's all classified. The very practice of one equal branch of the government keeping secrets from another equal branch of the government is an unconstitutional act that ought to be ended immediately. We will have to wait for a Congress with guts for that to happen.
I fear the expansion of American government power more than I do the terrorists. They are, after all, criminals who might shoot us or bomb us and get killed in the process. They are, by nature, a passing threat. A secretive government that scoffs at the rule of law and the restraints of the Constitution, however, is a very permanent threat to the freedom of the American people.
Government power that isn't checked will just keep on growing until one day the American people will wake up neither free nor secure.
Comment on this Article
Sen. Roberts Backs Domestic Spying
Associated Press
4 Feb 06
WASHINGTON - Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts on Friday strongly endorsed the Bush administration's argument that the president has the authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance in the U.S. in pursuit of terrorists.
Presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush have intercepted communications to ascertain enemy threats to national security, Roberts, R-Kan., said in a letter to the chairman and ranking Democrat of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Despite legal analysis by some critics, I am confident that the president retains the constitutional authority to conduct" such spying when the primary purpose is the collection of foreign intelligence information regarding foreign powers, Roberts wrote in his 19-page letter to Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
Leahy is among Democrats who have questioned President Bush's authority to conduct the domestic spying program.
Roberts' letter came the day after National Intelligence Director John Negroponte's appearance at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, where Democrats focused on questions about the legality of the National Security Agency's secret surveillance program and complained that the president had kept them in the dark about it.
Negroponte defended allowing the NSA to eavesdrop _ without first obtaining warrants _ on international communications of people on U.S. soil who may be linked to al-Qaida.
Comment: In other words, Pat Roberts has dirty laundry that he doesn't want the Neocons to publish... that's what they have been doing for the past year, gathering blackmail info on every judge, congressman, journalist, or any other person who might oppose them.
Comment on this Article
Docs: Similar Wiretap Debate 30 Years Ago: Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld involved
By MARGARET EBRAHIM, Associated Press Writer
February 3, 2006
WASHINGTON - An intense debate erupted during the Ford administration over the president's powers to eavesdrop without warrants to gather foreign intelligence, according to newly disclosed government documents. George H.W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are cited in the documents.
The roughly 200 pages of historic records obtained by The Associated Press reflect a remarkably similar dispute between the White House and Congress fully three decades before President Bush's acknowledgment he authorized wiretaps without warrants of some Americans in terrorism investigations.
"Yogi Bera was right: It's deja vu all over again," said Tom Blanton, executive director for the National Security Archives, a private research group that compiles collections of sensitive government documents. "It's the same debate."
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings begin Monday over Bush's authority to approve such wiretaps by the ultra-secretive National Security Agency without a judge's approval. A focus of the hearings is to determine whether the Bush administration's eavesdropping program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law with origins during Ford's presidency.
"We strongly believe it is unwise for the president to concede any lack of constitutional power to authorize electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes," wrote Robert Ingersoll, then-deputy secretary of state, in a 1976 memorandum to President Ford about the proposed bill on electronic surveillance.
George H.W. Bush, then director of the
CIA, wanted to ensure "no unnecessary diminution of collection of important foreign intelligence" under the proposal to require judges to approve terror wiretaps, according to a March 1976 memorandum he wrote to the Justice Department. Bush also complained that some major communications companies were unwilling to install government wiretaps without a judge's approval. Such a refusal "seriously affects the capabilities of the intelligence community," Bush wrote.
In another document, Jack Marsh, a White House adviser, outlined options for Ford over the wiretap legislation. Marsh alerted Ford to objections by Bush as CIA director and by Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft over the scope of a provision to require judicial oversight of wiretaps. At the time, Rumsfeld was defense secretary, Kissinger was secretary of state and Scowcroft was the White House national security adviser.
Some experts weren't surprised the cast of characters in this national debate remained largely unchanged over 30 years.
"People don't change their stripes," said Kenneth C. Bass a former senior Justice Department lawyer who oversaw such wiretap requests during the Carter administration.
The National Security Archives separately obtained many of the same documents as the AP and intended to publish them on its Web site Saturday.
The documents include one startling similarity to Washington's current atmosphere over disclosures of classified information by the media. Notes from a 1975 meeting between Cheney, then White House chief of staff, then-Attorney General Edward Levi and others cite the "problem" of a New York Times article by Seymour Hersh about U.S. submarines spying inside Soviet waters. Participants considered a formal
FBI investigation of Hersh and the Times and searching Hersh's apartment "to go after (his) papers," the document said.
"I was surprised," Hersh said in a telephone interview Friday. "I was surprised that they didn't know I had a house and a mortgage."
One option outlined at the 1975 meeting was to "ignore the Hersh story and hope it doesn't happen again." Participants worried about "will we get hit with violating the First Amendment to the Constitution?"
CIA Director Porter Goss told lawmakers this week that recent disclosures about sensitive programs were severely damaging, and he urged prosecutors to impanel a grand jury to determine "who is leaking this information." The National Security Agency earlier asked the Justice Department to open a formal leaks investigation over press reports of its terrorism wiretaps.
Comment on this Article
Increasingly, Internet's Data Trail Leads to Court
By SAUL HANSELL
Published: February 4, 2006
Who is sending threatening e-mail to a teenager? Who is saying disparaging things about a company on an Internet message board? Who is communicating online with a suspected drug dealer?
These questions, and many more like them, are asked every day of the companies that provide Internet service and run Web sites. And even though these companies promise to protect the privacy of their users, they routinely hand over the most intimate information in response to legal demands from criminal investigators and lawyers fighting civil cases.
Such data led directly to a suspect in a school bombing threat; it has also been used by the authorities to track child pornographers and computer intruders, and has become a tool in civil cases on matters from trade secrets to music piracy. In St. Louis, records of a suspect's online searches for maps proved his undoing in a serial-killing case that had gone unsolved for a decade.
In short, just as technology is prompting Internet companies to collect more information and keep it longer than before, prosecutors and civil lawyers are more readily using that information.
When it comes to e-mail and Internet service records, "the average citizen would be shocked to find out how adept your average law enforcement officer is at finding information," said Paul Ohm, who recently left the Justice Department's computer crime and intellectual property section.
The issue has come to the fore because of a Justice Department request to four major Internet companies for data about their users' search queries. While America Online, Yahoo and Microsoft complied with the request, Google is resisting it. That case does not involve information that can be linked to individuals, but it has cast new light on what privacy, if any, Internet users can expect for the data trail they leave online.
The answer, in many cases, is clouded by ambiguities in the law that governs electronic communication like telephone calls and e-mail. In many cases, the law requires law enforcement officials to meet a higher standard to read a person's e-mail than to get copies of his financial or medical records.
Requests for information have become so common that most big Internet companies, as well as telephone companies, have a formal process for what is often called subpoena management. Most of the information sought about users is basic, but very personal: their names, where they live, when they were last online — and, if a court issues a search warrant, what they are writing and reading in their e-mail. (Not surprisingly, the interpretation of voluminous computer records can be error-prone, and instances of mistaken identity have also come to light.)
AOL, for example, has more than a dozen people, including several former prosecutors, handling the nearly 1,000 requests it receives each month for information in criminal and civil cases. The most common requests in criminal cases relate to children — threats, abductions and pornography. Next come cases of identity theft, then computer hacking. But with more than 20 million customers, AOL has been called on to help in nearly every sort of legal action.
In recent years, "we found ourselves involved in every imaginable classification of traditional crimes, from murder to the whole scope of criminal behavior, because AOL was used to communicate or there is some trace evidence," said Christopher Bubb, assistant general counsel at AOL.
Investigators have found new ways to identify people who visit Web sites anonymously or use a false identity. Many Web sites keep a log of all user activity, and they record the Internet Protocol address of each user. I.P. addresses are assigned in blocks to Internet service providers, who use them to route information to the computers of their users. If an investigator determines the I.P. address used by a suspect, he can subpoena the Internet provider for the identity of the user associated with that address at a particular date and time.
For example, in investigating a bomb threat at a Canadian high school in 2002, Mr. Ohm approached the operator of a message board in California on which the threats were placed. He asked to review the log monitoring each user's activities, which showed the Internet Protocol address of the person who left the threatening message. Mr. Ohm used that address in turn to determine the suspect's Internet service provider, who identified a teenager who had posted the message. (As a minor, he was not prosecuted.)
While Internet evidence has been used to solve some crimes, there have also been examples of mistakes in the process. Last year, Manchester Technologies, a company in Hauppauge, N.Y., sued Ronald Kuhlman Jr. and Kim Loviglio, claiming they had posted messages on a Web site that defamed its chief executive.
Manchester had identified Mr. Kuhlman and Ms. Loviglio based on information provided by Cablevision, their Internet provider, which incorrectly associated their account with the Internet Protocol address used to make the postings. Manchester dropped its suit against Mr. Kuhlman and Ms. Loviglio, who in turn sued Cablevision. That case was settled for undisclosed terms, their lawyer, Mark Murray, said.
The 1996 law that governs privacy for telephones, Internet use and faxes — the Electronic Communications Privacy Act — provides varying degrees of protection for online information. It generally requires a court order for investigators to read e-mail, although the law is inconsistent on this, treating unopened items differently from those previously read. The standard to compel an Internet service provider to provide identifying information about an Internet user is lower — in general, an investigator needs a subpoena, which can be signed by a prosecutor, not a judge. (And the USA Patriot Act allows some of these procedures to be waived when lives are at risk.) By comparison, domestic first-class mail requires a search warrant to be opened.
In cases in which investigators want to intercept Internet communication as it occurs, they must get the same authorization needed for a telephone wiretap, which requires continuing court monitoring. In 2004, there were 49 cases of computer or fax transmissions being monitored under these procedures, according to federal statistics (which exclude national security cases).
Mr. Ohm, now an associate professor at the University of Colorado Law School, said those statistics undercounted the instances of such monitoring, especially cases in which an Internet company was tracing attacks on its own system.
"The Wiretap Act has enough loopholes built into it that you can often do a wiretap without having to get a court order," he said.
The law for civil cases, like divorces or employment disputes, is also a bit unclear. Litigants can generally subpoena the identifying information of a user behind an e-mail account or an I.P. address.
AOL says that only 30 of the 1,000 monthly requests it receives are for civil cases, and that it initially rejects about 90 percent of those, arguing that they are overly broad or that the litigants lack proper jurisdiction. About half of those rejected are resubmitted, on narrower grounds. Generally, AOL gives its members notice when their information is sought in civil cases. If the member objects, the issue is referred back to the court. (In criminal cases, there is often no notice, or notice is given after the information has been given to investigators.)
"Subpoenas come in all the time that ask for everything," said Kelly Skoloda, an AOL lawyer. "We engage in an active dialogue to determine what they want and what we can give in compliance with our privacy policies."
AOL and most other Internet providers take the view that the content of e-mail messages cannot be turned over to lawyers in civil suits. The most significant exception is that e-mail can be turned over with the consent of the account owner, and litigants often persuade judges to order their opponents to authorize the disclosure of e-mail.
A gray area that has recently gained prominence involves the pages that users read online and the terms of their searches.
Yahoo, Google and the new free AOL.com site, for example, maintain records of user surfing behavior. Google also keeps a log file that associates every search made on its site with the I.P. address of the searcher. And Yahoo uses similar information to sell advertising; car companies, for example, place display advertising shown only to people who have entered auto-related terms in Yahoo's search engine.
It is unclear what standard is required to force Internet companies to turn over this search information to criminal investigators and perhaps civil litigants.
"The big story is the privacy law that protects your e-mail does not protect your Google search terms," said Orin S. Kerr, a professor at the George Washington University Law School and a former lawyer in the computer crime section of the Justice Department.
Other lawyers argue that the law that provides protection for e-mail content, or even the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches, could be applied to data about Web searching, but the issue has not been tested in court.
The break in the St. Louis murders came in 2002, when a reporter received an anonymous letter with a map generated by Microsoft's MSN service — marked with the location where a body could be found.
The F.B.I. subpoenaed Microsoft for records of anyone who had searched for maps of that area in the days before the letter was sent. Microsoft discovered that only one user had searched for precisely that area and provided the user's Internet Protocol address. That address, in turn was provided by a unit of WorldCom, which identified the user as Maury Troy Travis, a 36-year-old waiter. (Mr. Travis was arrested and hanged himself in jail without ever admitting guilt.)
While requests for search data have been few, computer experts expect them to increase.
"It is rare that those links will be a slam-dunk that will make a case," said John Curran, a former cybercrime investigator for the F.B.I. "But when you are putting together a larger case, you are trying to connect the dots, and it is the little things that actually help."
Comment on this Article
Cameraman in Calif. Airman Shooting Arrested
By GREG RISLING
The Associated Press
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. - The man who videotaped a sheriff's deputy shooting an unarmed Air Force security officer was arrested Friday for an alleged assault in Florida, officials said. Meanwhile, the wounded airman's family gathered outside sheriff's headquarters and demanded the deputy's arrest.
Amateur cameraman Jose Luis Valdez was taken into custody by Pomona police on a Dade County, Fla., warrant alleging he used a weapon to assault an elderly woman in Miami, said two federal immigration officials.
The warrant came up during a routine background check when Valdez went to an immigration office for an interview to renew his alien registration "green card," according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because their agencies did not handle the arrest.
Valdez, contacted by cell phone, confirmed he had been arrested but said the only problem he had in Miami was an arrest for driving under the influence. He did not elaborate about that arrest, but said authorities wanted to send him back to Florida within 24 hours.
"They want to get me out of California as soon as possible," Valdez said in Spanish. "They say I was involved in gunfire in Miami."
He did not provide other details.
Valdez taped the scene Sunday night after a car involved in a brief high-speed chase crashed into a wall by his home, 35 miles east of Los Angeles. Senior Airman Elio Carrion was a passenger in the car driven by a friend.
The tape showed Carrion on the ground talking with San Bernardino County sheriff's Deputy Ivory J. Webb, who stood pointing a gun at him. A recorded voice appeared to be commanding Carrion to "get up." As Carrion began to rise, the deputy fired three shots into him.
Carrion, 21, an Air Force security officer recently back from Iraq, was shot three times and was hospitalized in good condition.
Webb, 45, who has more than 10 years with the department, was placed on paid administrative leave.
The FBI has opened a civil rights investigation of the shooting but Carrion's family said Friday that more must be done.
"My family is outraged because this person hasn't been arrested and is on paid vacation," Carrion's wife, Mariela, said at a news conference.
She said her husband was doing "good."
Attorney Luis Carrillo, who represents Carrion's family, said federal authorities should arrest the deputy for civil rights violations if local authorities do not make an arrest.
"Their son is a hero," Carrillo said. "He went to Iraq and thank God he didn't get a bullet, but he comes home and he gets three bullets...."
Carrillo also said the arrest of Valdez appeared to be "some kind of retribution on a good Samaritan who taped something that law enforcement didn't want the public to see."
The Sheriff's Department had not contacted the Carrion family since the shooting and had no comment on the demand for an arrest, spokeswoman Jodi Miller said.
Associated Press Writers Sandy Cohen and Robert Jablon in Los Angeles contributed to this story.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
Comment: Folks, this is how a Police State operates. Now, if anyone else EVER witnesses the police or other authorities shooting anyone, beating them, stealing their property, or any other violation of human rights, they will turn their heads and slink away and hope no one notices that they saw. It is coercion by demonstration. Expect more of it. Unless, of course, you decide to stand up against them...
Comment on this Article
Hundreds of Mentally Ill to Be Executed in America: Amnesty
By Abid Aslam
OneWorld
2 Feb 06
Amnesty International is asking that hundreds of mentally ill people facing the death penalty in American prisons have their sentences commuted.
Ten percent of the first 1,000 people executed in the United States since 1977 suffered from illnesses ranging from schizophrenia to post-traumatic stress disorder and brain damage, the leading rights watchdog and opponent of capital punishment said in a report released Tuesday.
Another 3,400 people remain on death row and 5-10 percent of them have mental illnesses, Amnesty said, citing estimates by the National Institute of Mental Health.
The revelations coincided with hearings Wednesday in which U.S. senators heard about the death penalty from relatives of crime victims.
Ann Scott, whose daughter was sexually assaulted and murdered in 1991, likened the killer to an animal and said he should be ''put away.''
''I, me, want this bully gone. I want him to disappear off the face of this earth. I want him to rot in hell for eternity,'' she was quoted in a news report as saying of her daughter's murderer, Alfred Mitchell. ''He is a bad seed that never should have been born. He is an animal and when you have an animal that attacks people, you take it to the pound and have it put away.''
Vicki Schieber, whose daughter Shannon was raped and murdered in 1998, disagreed and told the Senate panel she did not want her daughter's killer to be executed.
''Responding to one killing with another killing does not honor my daughter, nor does it help create the kind of society I want to live in, where human life and human rights are valued,'' she said. ''I know that an execution creates another grieving family, and causing pain to another family does not lessen my own pain.''
Her daughter's killer, Troy Graves, was sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of parole.
The Amnesty report and Senate hearings reflect increasing scrutiny of the death penalty in the United States.
Last October, a Gallup poll said that 64 percent of Americans favored the death penalty--still nearly two-thirds of the population but the lowest level in 27 years. Approval of the death penalty peaked at 80 percent in 1994, Gallup said.
Amnesty, in its report, urged an immediate moratorium on all executions involving the mentally ill.
The inmates in question suffered ''serious mental impairment'' either before or while they committed their crimes, Amnesty said, adding that their execution stood at odds with a 2002 Supreme Court ruling that it is unconstitutional to execute criminals who are mentally retarded.
Only one state--Connecticut--bars execution for convicts found to have been mentally ill when they committed their crime. Texas is the top executioner of mentally impaired people, killing at least 24 retarded or mentally ill people since 1977. Oklahoma killed the next largest number of mentally ill people, nine, among the cases studied by Amnesty.
''The safety net currently in place to prevent individuals with long, documented histories of severe mental illness from committing violent crimes or to protect them from being executed when they do is egregiously inadequate,'' the group said.
''Instead of receiving the care they desperately need, hundreds of severely mentally ill offenders in the United States are mired within a health care system that is too slow to help and a justice system that is too quick to push them into the death chamber,'' it added.
Amnesty said a review of psychiatric examinations, medical records, and documented cases of extreme behavior found that at least 100 of the condemned prisoners had severe mental illness. In other cases, it was impossible to determine if the inmates suffered from mental illness because a thorough psychiatric examination had never been done.
Mentally ill defendants were allowed to conduct their own defenses, waive their rights to appeal, and ''volunteer'' to be executed, the rights organization added.
More than one-fourth of the 100 mentally ill prisoners executed since 1977, when the Supreme Court lifted a 10-year moratorium on capital punishment, had thus agreed to be killed--sometimes because they simply would not accept that they were mentally impaired but also because they had given up hope of receiving treatment, said the report, The Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders.
''In some cases, families begged the state for help with their mentally ill loved ones only to be told that nothing could be done until the relative became 'dangerous','' Amnesty said. ''Unfortunately, the next time the families heard from the state authorities was when the person for whom they had sought help was being arrested and charged with murder.''
Many trials never heard any evidence of mental illness, the report said, and U.S. prosecutors exploited public ignorance or fear about mental illness by arguing that mentally ill defendants' ''flat'' behavior in court indicated they were ''unremorseful.''
The report cited the case of Scott Panetti, sentenced to death in 1995 for killing his parents-in-law. Panetti, who had been hospitalized repeatedly with hallucinations, represented himself in court, where he dressed as a cowboy and asked irrational questions. His case is under appeal.
Other defendants had been medicated so that they would be lucid enough to be aware of what was happening to them at the time of their execution.
Comment on this Article
Washington's Iraq Blindness
By Robert Dreyfuss
TomPaine
3 Feb 06
While Bush reinforces his Zarqawi myth and Dems call lamely for more armor, the battle lines for civil war in Iraq are being drawn.
The Iraq that exists in President Bush’s imagination and the real Iraq, the one in which 160,000 U.S. troops occupy a nation sliding into civil war, have never seemed further apart. Bush’s Iraq is a fantastical one in which American forces are battling the enemy that struck us on 9/11. Yet on the ground, in the real Iraq, more than six weeks have passed since Iraq’s election, and battle lines for civil war are being drawn up. There are multiple parties to that civil war: militant Iraqi fundamentalist Shiites tied to Iran, well-armed Kurdish warlords planning to grab Kirkuk and its oil, powerful Sunni tribal and religious forces bitterly opposed to the Shiite-Kurdish bloc and a Baathist-military resistance movement that has strong support among the Sunnis.
None of those forces, however, want anything to do with Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. By all accounts, Zarqawi’s forces in Iraq are fast becoming nearly invisible on the canvas of Iraq’s battle map. And certainly neither bin Laden nor Zarqawi have a prayer of seizing control of Iraq whether U.S. forces stay in Iraq or not.
Let us first take a look at the enemy that President Bush says we are fighting, and then at the real Iraq.
Sounding like the Willy Loman of the snake oil industry, President Bush looked both tired and defensive as he made yet one more sales pitch for his failed Iraq policy. In his State of the Union address this week, the president insisted that the U.S. foe in Iraq is the bin Laden-Zarqawi axis, and that the danger still involves those mythical weapons of mass destruction. “Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder—and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder,” proclaimed Bush. “Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world.”
Is the enemy in Iraq Shiite militias, Kurdish warlords or Arab nationalist armed insurgents? No, according to Bush. It is radical Islam and its attendant evildoers. “By allowing radical Islam to work its will—by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself—we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage,” warned Bush. “But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil.”
He added, “The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home.” But Bush failed to explain how you can win a victory against an imaginary opponent.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, in the real Iraq, things are going from bad to worse. Last week, I reported here that the Arab League reconciliation effort on Iraq had collapsed in the wake of the Dec. 15 election. That effort was backed by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, the U.N., Russia and the European Union. But ultimately, it was put in the deep freeze because the Shiite fundamentalist parties in Iraq—the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Al Dawa and Muqtada Sadr’s Mahdi Army—utterly refused to compromise with mainstream Sunnis and ruled out talks with the Sunni-led resistance. Yet, as Hamlet’s uncle, King Claudius, said, “When sorrows come, they come not single spies but in battalions.”
Worse news followed: According to Al Zaman , an Arabic-language Iraq paper monitored by Juan Cole in his blog, Informed Comment, secret talks that had been underway between the U.S. military and the insurgents broke down and were ended. Why? Because the resistance leaders wanted a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Among their other demands, none of which are particularly radical, the insurgents wanted the reconstitution of the Iraqi army, U.N. supervision of elections and the dissolution of the militias of the Shiite religious parties.
Meanwhile, precisely parallel demands were made by the official Sunni parties and their secular, non-sectarian allies, who together won 80 seats in the new assembly—and they backed their demands by threatening open revolt, in the form of outright civil disobedience. (Civil disobedience, in wartime Iraq, carries a more violent meaning than that associated with Martin Luther King and Gandhi.) The leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Muslim Brotherhood-linked Sunni religious party that is part of the National Accord Front (and which, in turn, is part of the 80-seat bloc that also includes a secular Sunni nationalist party and Iyad Allawi’s moderate group), issued a set of demands that included: the disbanding of militias; an end to the pattern of death squad activity, random arrests and kidnappings; the strengthening of the army and its deployment to protect security in Baghdad; the dismissal of the radical-right Shiite interior minister; and the publication of the still-secret report of the investigation into torture prisons run by the ministry of the interior. The Iraqi Islamic Party's message: Accept these demands, or else.
The fact that the Iraqi Islamic Party is resorting to threats that amount to insurrection is a sign of how polarized Iraq is since the election. Only a few weeks ago, the IIP was toying with the idea of joining a government in Baghdad led by the Shiite-Kurdish alliance. That increasingly seems out of the question, because even the moderate Muslim Brotherhood IIP cannot risk breaking with overwhelming Sunni opinion that the Shiites are cats' paws for Iran and that they intend to create a breakaway state in south Iraq. Indeed, recent polling in Iraq has shown that the vast majority of Sunnis (and even most Shiites) want the U.S. out of Iraq, and fully half support armed attacks on U.S. forces.
None of this polarization was reflected in Bush’s State of the Union fantasy. Nowhere did he indicate that Iraq is beset by anything other than evildoers tied to Al Qaeda. And he didn’t mention that a few days before he spoke, Iran’s Islamic Republican News Agency reported cheerfully that Abdel Aziz Hakim—who has emerged as the chief power broker in post-election Iraq—had issued nonnegotiable demands that the new Iraq government intensify its war against the resistance, redouble its de-Baathification efforts, and enforce the “implementation of the constitution especially to create a state in the south and center of Iraq.” Hakim, of course, is the leader of SCIRI and its 20,000-strong Badr Brigade, which was founded, armed and trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. His hardline stance, and his insistence that Adel Abdul Mahdi, his chief henchman, be Iraq’s next prime minister, seem calculated to provoke what would amount to a final Sunni break with the government in Baghdad. And his insistence on a south-central state, parallel to the emerging state of Kurdistan in the north, signals the rise of a new Shiite religious power in the Middle East that frightens not only Sunnis in Iraq but the rest of the Arab world.
It’s bad enough that none of this penetrated the State of the Union speech. But what’s worse is that the Democrats are letting Bush get away with it. One sentence from The New York Times a day after Bush spoke says it all. Referring to Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, who spoke in advance of Bush’s speech, the Times noted: "The Congressional leaders steered clear of the Iraq war in their remarks before the speech." Meanwhile, the Dems sent the overearnest Tim Kaine, the governor of Virginia, out to give the official response to Bush. He, too, virtually ignored Iraq, except for offhand comments about American troops not having enough body armor
Robert Dreyfuss is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books, 2005). Dreyfuss is a contributing editor at The Nation, a contributing writer at Mother Jones, a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone.He can be reached through his website: www.robertdreyfuss.com.
Comment on this Article
Whatever happened to what's-his-name?
by William Bowles
3 February, 2006
'Scourge of Western civilisation', 'leader of the insurgency', 'al-Queda in Iraq', 'Usama's right-hand man', the Scarlet Pimpernel of 'Islamic fundamentalism', Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. For the past couple of years we were bombarded by the mythical man's dastardly deeds, then all of a sudden-he disappeared from the headlines.
Well not entirely, in the month of January 2006 I collected 113 stories that mentioned his name of which about 40 are in Western media publications. Scanning the headlines however and we find that the pickings are pretty slim, so slim in fact, most are hardly worth mentioning as they contain nothing of any significance but I suppose they keep some ‘journalists’ employed.
Here are a few of the stories for your amusement:
“Lebanon has revealed that members of the cell had plans to establish a military infrastructure in Lebanon with direct links to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head,” Monsters and Critics, 31 January 2006
“Iraqi ‘Militias’ Capture 270 Al Qaeda
… “The group of (Jordanian militant and al-Qaeda pointman) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not expect a similar campaign which has dealt them a serious blow,”” Jawa Report – Arlen, TX,USA 30 January 2006
“Bombs Strike Christian Targets in Iraq
… Suspicion fell on Islamic extremists such as al-Qaida in Iraq – led by Jordanian-born terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – that have been responsible for …”, Forbes – USA, January 30 2006
“Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq … US commander: Al-Zarqawi likely still alive. . Anger, confusion in al-Zarqawi’s home town …” MSNBC, January 25, 2006,
“Al Qaeda Web site hints at rift
BAGHDAD – In a further sign of the rifts emerging within Iraq’s insurgency, Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has stepped aside as the head of a …,” Chicago Tribune, 23 January 2006-02-03
“Al-Zarqawi, Plain and Simple…
The British newspaper, Sunday Times, reported Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sleeps with a bomb-belt in order to be ready to commit suicide if he is ever caught.” January 21, 2006, Zaman Online – Istanbul,Turkey
“Is defiant tape a sign of weakness? … Al-Qa’eda has now “franchised” its methods and ideology to splinter groups around the world – especially to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who has led the jihadists …”, Telegraph.co.uk – United Kingdom, 19 January, 2006.
“Official US agency paints dire picture of ‘out-of-control’ Iraq
… “External fighters and organisations such as al-Qaida and the Iraqi offshoot led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are gaining in number and notoriety as significant …””, The Observer – UK, January 17, 2006.
You’ll note that every single ‘news’ story is based on hearsay and allegations of links that ‘al-Zarqawi’ has to the ‘insurgency’, to ‘al-Queda’, to ‘jihadists’ but there is not a single story amongst the entire 113 or so that offers a single shred of evidence that the man actually exists let alone heads up the Iraqi ‘branch’ of ‘al-Queda’ or as some stories allege, some kind of ‘franchise’ arrangement, which would be laughable if it wasn’t being used as a basis to wage war on the planet.
Okay, look I could go on with more of this drivel (check the list yourself), the question to ask is why a man who has been labelled as one of the world’s most dangerous and sought-after individuals, with a $25 million bounty on his head, could occupy the headlines and then just as miraculously vanish from view without so much as a by-your-leave?
To understand the role ‘Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’ plays in the propaganda war the West has conducted for the past several years, we have to look to the role such stereotypes play in the West. He is, after all, only the latest in a long line of demons that stretches back for centuries, all of which have a core based on racist stereotypes eg, the ‘savage’, the ‘hook-nosed Arab’, the ‘baby-chowing Jew’, ‘cannibal’ or whatever. All have one thing in common, they invariably have dark skins and are decidedly non-Christian.
They exploit the deeply instilled fears and insecurities that are the product of a society that survives precisely because it is based upon a divide-and-rule system; weak against the powerful, the haves versus the have-nots, black versus white, Christian versus Islam, Catholic versus Protestant…
Having firmly instilled the image into the public’s mind, ‘fanatic’, ‘terrorist’, ‘fundamentalist’ or whatever, the actual person whether real or imaginary, can actually be dispensed with. ‘al-Zarqawi’s’ name can henceforth be safely slipped into any ‘news’ item without recourse to proof, as and when needed, triggering a classic Pavlovian response. All that is required is the occasional insertion here and there, perhaps a tape, an intercepted message, or a press release, purportedly originating with ‘al-Zarawi’ or one or his ‘lieutenants’, to remind us that he’s still alive and kicking Western butt somewhere.
It’s also worth noting that the major corporate/state media are never challenged as to the veracity of their alleged reporting, and those that try to get some kind of proof from the corporate press as to their oft-repeated allegations concerning ‘al-Zarqawi’s’ escapades rarely if ever get a response.
The way ‘al-Zarqawi’ gets used in ‘news’ items follows a tried and trusty formula; ‘it is alleged’, ‘according to reports’, ‘sources tell us’, ‘my sources’, or some third-party story that is itself based upon the same elusive ‘sources’ is always the basis for every story on ‘al-Zarqawi’. Nothing else is required, ‘al-Zarqawi’ has been transformed into a legend that requires no proof; nobody is going to come forward and accuse the corporate media of spreading a pack of lies as there’s nothing actually for the media to prove, all its sources are invisible or unnamed based upon a set of assumptions that the chief editors have no need to justify.
Ask yourself why not a single journalist has ever gotten within spitting distance of ‘al-Zarqawi’? Ask yourself why even third-party connections to ‘al-Zarqawi’ are almost impossible to track down aside from the man’s family who say he’s dead (one or two stories surfaced on this but never made it to the front-page or on television news broadcasts).
The reality is an unholy alliance between the state and the media who work in close collaboration with each other. Step out of line and the diplomatic correspondent, foreign editor or whoever, lose their access to the corridors of power and within a short time, they can kiss their well-paid jobs goodbye.
Investigating the sources of every story on ‘al-Zarqawi’ leads back to the state—either the US, the UK or an ally such as Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Italy, Australia. I challenge any corporate/state news organisation to produce a single, independent and verifiable source on the existence of ‘al-Zarqawi’.
Ultimately, the ‘al-Zarqawis’ are part of an arsenal of propaganda tools whose major function is to disguise the real nature of events and their causes. Thus in Iraq the ‘insurgents’ are led, not by indigenous Iraqis whose only objective is the expulsion of the foreign occupier, but by a foreigner whose objective is the destruction of ‘Western civilisation’.
Just as in the occupation of Vietnam, the ‘insurgents’, the so-called Vietcong, were portrayed as the dupes or proxies of a foreign power, the Soviet Union and/or China, whose real aim was also the overthrow of ‘Western civilisation.’
So too in another US-inspired and backed war, the so-called civil war in Angola, where it was the Cubans, who in turn, were the proxies for the Soviet Union. And again in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada and Panama, it’s all so predictable it gets tedious.
Of course, search the corporate media for anything that links these events together, that makes connections such as the ones they are all too ready to make between the Iraqi resistance and ‘al-Zarqawi’ and you’ll search in vain. Hey, it was all part of the ‘Cold War’; it’s all conveniently part of ‘history’ now and hence can be relegated to academia. No need to bring up such uncomfortable realities and for good reason, for once such connections are made, it calls into question the current round of lying and deception being practiced on an already un-informed public.
The results of such venomous deception and demonisation are all too apparent; an atmosphere of hatred for Muslims and Islam which in turn has fuelled the most reactionary elements who purport to represent Islam to respond in kind. If anything points to the intimate relationship between reactionary side of Islam and the West it’s the way they feed off each other, whether for the same or different objectives; the mullahs of Iran, anxious to hang onto power, who need an external enemy or the West, who also need an external enemy to justify their equally reactionary programme.
We need look no further than the unholy relationship between the Reagan government of the 1980s and the Khomeini regime (with the Israelis as middleman), where an identical deception was played on an ignorant public. Even as Reagan branded Iran as evil in public it was doing deals, selling the mullahs weapons.
So whilst acres of words are spawned, indeed an entire industry has been created around ‘al-Zarqawi’ and fortunes made, no such industry exists to investigate the double-dealing and hypocrisy of successive US and British governments.
The media’s role is all too apparent when we look at the current hysteria surrounding the cartoons depicting Mohammed, cartoons I might add that were first published months ago without any comment by the media at the time. So why so different this time around? The answer is obvious; during the intervening months the media’s Islam hysteria has reached a new peak and is clearly linked to the failure of the occupation and the never-ending ‘revelations’ concerning Blair and Bush’s lying duplicity about the reasons for the invasion and its abject failure; the increasing effectiveness of the resistance and hence the need to divert attention away from the reality of the imperium’s objectives.
It follows exactly the same route that led to the Cold War and with the same predictable results with each side seeking justification for evermore extreme responses in a cycle of negative feedback that has no end, precisely the result both sides want.
It’s worth noting too, the way the media reports the latest ‘revelations’; the leaked conversation between Bush and Blair that took place in January 2003. The differences between the BBC’s coverage and the Guardian (which first published extracts from the book by Philippe Sands) are instructive and illustrate not only the differences between the state’s propaganda mouthpiece, the BBC and a nominally independent corporate news organ and the way ‘al-Zarqawi’ has been reported.
First the BBC:
Mr Blair is quoted as saying he was “solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam”.
The Guardian:
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 – nearly two months before the invasion – reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
The BBC:
The book claims Mr Blair only wanted a second UN Security Council resolution because it would make it easier politically to deal with Saddam.
The Guardian:
“The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning”, the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was “solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam”.
The BBC:
And it says Mr Bush told Mr Blair the US “was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours”.
If Saddam fired on them, the Iraqis would be in breach of UN resolutions, he suggested.
The Guardian:
Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of “flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours”. Mr Bush added: “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]”.
The BBC:
Mr Bush is also quoted saying it was possible an Iraqi figure would defect and be able to give a “public presentation” of weapons of mass destruction.
The Guardian;
Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a “public presentation about Saddam’s WMD”. He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a “small possibility” that Saddam would be “assassinated”.
The BBC:
The note said Mr Bush thought there was also “a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated”.
The Guardian:
Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an “insurance policy”, providing “international cover, including with the Arabs” if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.
The BBC fails to mention this and much of the rest of the extremely relevant information such as Blair’s assurances to Parliament. Instead, it offers us this:
The BBC:
A Downing Street spokeswoman told BBC News the events leading up to the war had been thoroughly investigated.
The Guardian’s story is much more effusive:
On February 25 2003 – three weeks after his trip to Washington – Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving “Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily”.
He added: “Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime – I hope most people do – but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN’s demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.”
Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an “insurance policy”, providing “international cover, including with the Arabs” if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.
The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction in breach of UN disarmament obligations. It took place a few days before the then US secretary Colin Powell made claims – since discredited – in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq’s weapons programme.
The contrast is striking insofar as the Guardian’s story also gives us context and some history, almost entirely missing from the BBC story, which has only four perfunctory comments paraphrased from government sources about the leaked document. And I might add that the BBC in this case can’t claim lack of space or time as an excuse, its report is online and the Guardian’s appeared in print. It surely should be obvious to anyone reading these two stories that the BBC has been less than forthcoming with the facts, even when it has them to hand.
Read both reports in full, side-by-side.
Comment on this Article
German spy scandal heats up
By Roland Flamini
UPI Chief International Correspondent
Published February 3, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Just prior to the Iraq war, Germany's then foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, traveled to Ankara, Turkey, and met with two agents of Germany's Foreign Intelligence Service, BND, to discuss ongoing operational cooperation with the CIA, though Berlin was publicly opposed to the U.S.-led conflict and considered the military option illegal.
Fischer acknowledged the meeting recently as part of an unfolding controversy surrounding the BND's role in aiding the U.S. war effort.
The current public scrutiny of the BND could seriously tarnish the former Social Democrat-led government and weaken the current Christian Democrat-led coalition by undercutting Chancellor Angela Merkel's SPD Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
Allegations of collaboration between the German and U.S. intelligence services in Iraq were first made by an unidentified former U.S. operative and a BND agent on a "60 Minutes"-type television program in Germany. According to the program, prior to the war, the United States limited "operational assets in theater," that is, agents on the ground in Iraq, but the Germans did not in part due to well-established links between Saddam Hussein's foreign intelligence service and the former East German intelligence service, the Stasi.
While German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was strongly critical of U.S. plans to invade Iraq, and in March 2003, Berlin -- alongside Paris and Moscow -- blocked a U.N. Security Council vote on a resolution authorizing the war, the Leipziger Volkszeitung newspaper reported recently Fischer promised Washington clandestine help through "special German connections" in Iraq.
In fact, according to several German news reports, rather than withdrawing the BND agents from Iraq upon commencement of hostilities, as was expected, Berlin "parked" its agents in the French Embassy in Baghdad. Der Spiegel magazine said the agents used coded satellite telephones to relay information to BND headquarters in Pullach.
Since his recent appointment as the new head of the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) last month, Ernst Uhrlau, has revealed at least two BND agents remained in Iraq after the start of the U.S.-led attack, and some of their information was passed on to the Americans though Berlin regarded the war illegal.
The former SPD-led government has given different reasons why intelligence agents were deployed in Iraq, including a claim they were protecting the German embassy, and/or German troops in Kuwait. But Uhrlau and other German intelligence officials have insisted the agents did not supply the United States with "actionable intelligence," for example by acting as spotters for U.S. missile attacks. According to the official line, German agents did not tell the U.S. military where to bomb, but where not to bomb -- the location of so-called "non-targets," such as hospitals, schools, mosques and churches.
However, the German media reported that it was Berlin's agents who pinpointed the restaurant in Baghdad which Saddam had allegedly made his base. Twelve civilians were killed in the subsequent bombing raid, but Saddam was not in the building.
This episode has not been officially confirmed. Beyond flying in the face of state government policy, the specter of civil law suits by survivors would in any case make this something difficult to admit. But an intelligence source has told United Press International that Uhrlau has privately admitted that U.S. intelligence, at a senior level of the CIA, did make specific operational requests that were purportedly turned down. According to the source, one of them was to provide information about the deployment, combat effectiveness, of the Iraqi Medina division that was holding up the U.S.-led coalition's advance on Baghdad.
Prior to the fighting, the source said, U.S. intelligence had also asked for help in looking into the feasibility of "neutralizing" Saddam Hussein, a sanitized term of art for state-sanctioned assassination. The U.S. intelligence services are legally barred by presidential directive from carrying out assassinations and were looking for proxies to do the job.
A CIA spokesperson Friday refused to comment to UPI on any of the German claims of requested assistance.
Other sources have mentioned different requests: The Berliner Zeitung reported Jan 19 that before the war the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency asked the BND to verify the location of a building belonging to the Iraqi secret service, and the newspaper said German intelligence obliged.
Also coming under fire in Germany -- though it was publicly announced at the time -- is the fact German air force officers manned the surveillance equipment on AWAC planes, which overflew the war zone during combat operations and provided critical technical intelligence to theater commanders. The fig leaf of justification that the planes were reporting to American officers as NATO personnel, rather than in their U.S. military identity is now being questioned.
A nine-person parliamentary control commission of the Bundestag, which meets in secret, is gathering evidence of alleged German involvement in the Iraq conflict. The critical test to determine if heads will roll and whether Berlin's strained relationship with Washington will be strained further, will be a determination of whether the German agents crossed the red line between passive versus active cooperation.
For now, the political parties on both sides of the house have agreed not to call for a full parliamentary inquiry, but rather to give the control commission time to do its work. Without going into specifics, the commission, headed by a former coordinator of the intelligence services, has said it found the explanations under oath of the two agents in Baghdad plausible, credible and reliable, and thus, does not share the general public's clarion call for a wider investigation into the cloak and dagger world of a service many think was teetering on the brink of questionable, if not illegal actions.
The present grand coalition's Social Democrats were in power until recently, and all this happened during their watch. The pacifist Greens, also members of the old government, but now in opposition, are embarrassed by the involvement of one of their leaders, Joschka Fischer. Chancellor Angela Merkel is said to feel that the inquiry is undermining the effectiveness of one of the most efficient intelligence services in Europe, if not the world, and not helping her policy of consolidating her relationship with President George W. Bush.
The political fallout raises questions of what Chancellor Schroeder knew, and when he knew it about intelligence cooperation with the United States, while at the same time blustering against Bush and publicly branding the war as "an adventure." But Schroeder is now out of office: Steinmeier, on the other hand, was Schroeder's chief of staff at the time, and from all accounts deeply involved in intelligence operations. Steinmeier spends much time these days explaining the former government's intelligence activities. As more information continues to leak out, will his position become untenable? And, for that matter, could that be the object of the exercise.
Comment on this Article
Turkey will construct own nuclear power plant with US support
Regnum
3 Feb 06
On February 9, during a visit of Turkish Energy and Natural Resources Minister Hilmi Guler in the US, he will discuss participation of American companies in construction of a nuclear power plant in Turkey. Winter decrease of gas supply from Russia and Iran caused the Turkish government to seek for alternate power sources. The project of a nuclear power plant construction has become especially vital for Ankara after negotiations held by Guler in Turkmenistan about gas purchase from the country.
Besides these questions, other guidelines of the Turkish power engineering will be discussed, including construction of hydro- and thermoelectric power plants, privatization of coal mining, construction of oil pipelines Samsun-Ceyhan and TransThracia. Because of exploration of new oil fields in the country, Guler will conduct negotiations with Exxon Mobil, BP and Shevron.
Turkey needs more and more energy. In 2005, annual amount of energy consumption in the country increased by 8%. In the next 10 years Ankara plans to provide industry and citizens with 40 thousand megawatt of energy.
Comment on this Article
Iran has no bomb but it will hit back, US told
By Alec Russell in Washington and Anton La Guardia in London
Sydney Morning Herald
February 4, 2006
IRAN'S clerical regime is supremely confident, has a firm grip on power and is ready to retaliate against attacks by the US or Israel with missiles or by activating terrorist allies, the latest American intelligence assessment says.
The National Intelligence Director, John Negroponte, delivered an implied rebuke to those in Washington hoping the West can engineer regime change in Tehran. In Tuesday's State of the Union address, President George Bush issued a veiled call for the Iranian people to rise up against the mullahs.
But on Thursday, as the International Atomic Energy Agency's governing body prepared to vote on a resolution to report Iran to the UN Security Council, Mr Negroponte suggested there was no imminent threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Tehran "probably" did not have an atomic bomb or the fissile material to make one, he said. But the risk Iran could make or buy a nuclear device and mount it on its missiles was "reason for immediate concern".
Mr Negroponte told the Senate intelligence committee: "Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. And Tehran views its ballistic missiles as an integral part of its strategy to deter and, if necessary, retaliate against forces in the region, including United States forces."
Mr Negroponte also noted that the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group in Lebanon "has a worldwide support network and is capable of attacks against US interests if it feels its Iranian patron is threatened".
On March 6, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency is to deliver a status report on Iran's nuclear program and its co-operation with the agency. That grace period will offer Iran "a window of opportunity" during which it can change tactics, stop uranium enrichment, and demonstrate that it will be more forthcoming with information about its nuclear programs, Mohamed ElBaradei said.
"Iran still has a month to move forward and show full transparency," he said on Thursday.
During closed-door meetings of the agency, only two countries - Syria and Cuba - said they would vote against reporting Iran to the council, while Venezuela indicated it might oppose the measure, said a diplomat who attended the sessions.
In a letter to Dr ElBaradei, Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and its chief nuclear negotiator, repeated a warning that a law passed by Iran's parliament provides that if the country were to be reported to the UN it would "have no other choice but to suspend" a program of unannounced nuclear inspections by the nuclear agency.
Comment: Quite a few people have been issuing not-so-veiled calls for the American people to rise up against the Neocons. That might be a better option.
Comment on this Article
Former weapons inspector warns of US-Iran war
By:Jay Nowakowski
West Hartford News
02/02/2006
Former United Nations weapons inspector and ex-marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter told a crowd of about 500 gathered at the West Hartford Town Hall that, "...the Bush administration is fixing intelligence around policy on Iran," and that it could lead to a new US war in the Middle East. He noted that the administration used a similar approach in its current war in Iraq. "There is nothing to prevent the president from going to war in Iran. He has no respect for checks and balances. We're heading toward Tehran unless we get representatives in Congress who respect the constitution of the United States," he said.
Ritter, a former marine officer, stressed that he is a soldier who loves his country and has served it proudly, and he would do it again without hesitation if the country faced a legitimate threat. He staunchly supports the US troops currently in Iraq just as he vehemently opposes the war.
"When it comes to Iraq," he said, "there was no threat to the United States. It was all about getting rid of a political problem. When the Bush administration came to power, it came with an ideology that says that the United States can act unilaterally and militarily for whatever reasons it chooses," he said. "If you want to support the troops, do so by bringing them home now," he urged.
Ritter said that again and again the administration would have us believe that we are building a better Iraq, but in fact conditions are worse now than before the US invaded. "Iraq is devolving not evolving," he said. "It is imperative that we never forget how we got into Iraq. We went to war on a lie, end of story," he said.
Mr. Ritter was invited to speak at the Town Hall by the West Hartford Citizens for Peace and Justice. That organization is composed of residents of West Hartford and surrounding towns who have come together in opposition to the USA Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. Since forming, they have evolved into a grass roots organization dedicated to promoting public dialogue on issues of peace, justice and democracy.
"We invited Mr. Ritter [to speak] because we think he is an extremely eloquent voice in the anti-war community," said Kathy Huxe, the group's publicity coordinator. "Our goal is to have some percentage of this audience, people who have been on the fence about this war or who are supportive of this administration and the war, realize where this country is going. I think that each day more and more are seeing this administration for what it is - not honest and not in touch with reality," she said.
State representative Andrew Fleischmann, served as moderator of the program. "When I was asked I told them I would be honored to do so," said Fleischmann. "Mr. Ritter is someone who has had the courage to speak truth to power at a time when that has taken a lot of guts," he said. "The Bush administration has played on people's fears of terrorism and managed to create a false link between the war on terror and the war in Iraq," he said.
"We're spending trillions of dollars on this war that would better be spent on domestic issues," said West Hartford resident Win Heimer. "We need to have a change in congress. We need to elect a democratic congress to put a check on this president's uncontrolled power," he said.
Comment on this Article
Russian MP: US-Israeli anti-Iranian moves, premeditated assassination of Iranian nation
ArabicNews
3 Feb 06
Russian Duma representative Alexi Mitrafanov Friday called the harmonized plot hatched by some EU members, United States, and Israel against Iran's nuclear program "premeditated assassination" of the Iranian nation."
Mitrafanov made the comment in an exclusive interview with IRNA, adding, "The reason behind US-Israeli antagonist policies pursued against Iran is your country's independent and nationalist policies, that can be a model for other countries in the region."
On Iran's nuclear dossier, he said, "The united States, backed by the EU, the IAEA, and the UN Security Council lever, intends to impose sanctions against Iran, but such sanctions would initially inflict losses against the Americans and the Europeans."
The Duma representative added, "In that case the oil prices would rise up to $100 per barrel and the West would suffer other losses, as well."
He said, "Having the full cycle of producing nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, too, is Iran's natural right, and it is neither logical, nor possible to deprive your country of that legal right resorting to unreasonable pretexts."
Mitrafanov emphasized, "Iran must be permitted to have the full nuclear fuel cycle in accordance with the international regulations and under the supervision of the IAEA."
Iran said today that there is "no difference between forwarding Iran's nuclear dossier to the UNSC, reporting the case to the Security Council, or just informing that international body of the case," indicating that these actions are interpreted as equally in collusion and hostile against Iran.
Comment on this Article
China's UN Envoy: Won't Support Sanctions Against Iran
DowJones Newswire
3 Feb 06
UNITED NATIONS (AP)--China would never support sanctions against Iran as a " matter of principle," the Chinese ambassador to the U.N. said Friday, adding that his nation still prefers a low-key approach in confronting Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Ambassador Wang Guangya told reporters that he did not want the Security Council to put pressure on Iran, but instead to support the International Atomic Energy Agency as it tries to defuse the standoff over Iran's suspect nuclear program.
"I think, as a matter of principle, China never supports sanctions as a way of exercising pressure because it is always the people that would be hurt," Wang said.
Wang's comments came as the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board debated Friday whether to refer Iran to the Security Council, which has the power to impose legally binding sanctions against a nation.
The United States and several European countries want the council to play an active role as a way to exert pressure on Iran. But Russia and China, allies of Iran, have said they envision the council having far less involvement.
Iran, which claims its program is peaceful and aimed only at generating electricity, has repeatedly warned that getting the Security Council involved would provoke it into doing exactly what the world wants it to renounce - starting full-scale uranium enrichment - as well as curtailing IAEA inspections.
"I think the best way we still have time to work for is to make all sides to be flexible to work out this diplomatic solution," Wang said. "We believe that now it is not the council that should exert its responsibility, it's still the IAEA."
Comment on this Article
FBI Probes AIPAC Leak of Iran Docs to NYT
DailyKOS
Mark
2 Feb 06
The FBI is probing an effort by two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to disclose classified information to the New York Times. This appears to have been part of an effort to cultivate Times reporters in order to selectively leak classified Iran WMD documents.
Larry Franklin, a former Iran desk officer at the Pentagon, recently pleaded guilty to trading classified papers with Israeli intelligence officers and employees at AIPAC. Two AIPAC employees accused of working with Franklin are now being tried in federal court in Alexandria, VA.
This prosecution follows the much publicized scandal involving ex-NYT reporter, Judy Miller, as the conduit of false information about Iraq WMD.
The Times is burying this story breaking today at the bottom of its on-line National page.
In a short article in its on-line edition, the NYT is reporting that Times staff have been questioned by federal investigators in recent days about efforts by AIPAC employees to leak classified documents.
Two NYT reporters were approached by AIPAC employees with classified documents. Larry Franklin, a former Iran desk officer at the Pentagon Office of Special Plans(OSP), was recently convicted of trading secret documents with Israeli intelligence officers and representatives of AIPAC in Washington, DC.
This raises a question about the nature of the documents. Was this the classified material that Franklin himself had salted into Pentagon files at the behest of his handler, the Mossad Chief of Station at the Israeli Embassy in DC?
The Franklin indictment states that the former DoD officer incorporated changes suggested by a foreign intelligence officer into douments on Iran he was preparing for DoD.
See, http://www.dailykos.com/... also see Franklin Indictment, pp 23-24, para 6. ("FO3" is Naor Gilon, the former Mossad chief who fled the country after word of the FBI's investigation into Franklin and AIPAC was first leaked during the summer of 2004.)
Today's NYT report is extracted below:
2 Times Reporters Queried in Federal Investigation
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: February 2, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 -- Federal agents contacted two reporters from The New York Times on Wednesday seeking information about a former Pentagon official and two representatives of a pro-Israel lobbying group who have been at the center of a criminal investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
The requests were made to David S. Cloud and Steven R. Weisman, reporters in The Times's Washington bureau. Mr. Cloud was asked about possible contacts he had in the spring of 2003 with representatives of the lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. At the time, Mr. Cloud was a reporter for The Wall Street Journal.
SNIP
A government official who has been briefed on the matter said that agents had contacted reporters from several news organizations.
The agents, the official said, are trying to determine whether reporters received national security information intended to influence their reporting on the Middle East.
SNIP
The requests follow the Jan. 23 sentencing of Lawrence A. Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst and expert on Iran. Mr. Franklin's sentencing, to a term of more than 12 years after a guilty plea, refocused the case on two former Aipac officials, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, who are scheduled to go on trial in April. Each has pleaded not guilty.
If this is what it appears to be, here is additional proof of Track Two of the effort by a neocon cabal and Israeli intelligence to plant false WMD data with the intent of driving the United States into an expanding war in the Middle-East.
Comment on this Article
A Treasonous Camarilla - AIPAC espionage case points to larger spy scandal
Justin Raimondo
3 Feb 06
"Phase two" of the investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence into how we got it wrong on Iraq has been delayed for quite some time, initially because of Sen. Pat Roberts' outright blocking tactics, and now, apparently, due to a Pentagon internal investigation into the activities of former Deputy Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, who oversaw a key albeit little-known and highly secretive intelligence-gathering unit, the "Office of Special Plans." A central figure in Washington's neoconservative network, Feith resigned a year ago, just as suspicion was falling on him and his subordinates in a string of interconnected scandals: the WMD "intelligence" flap, Ahmed Chalabi's connections to Iranian intelligence, and the AIPAC spy case.
Last May, I speculated that these matters might have something to do with Feith's sudden resignation, and now it looks like I was right. Raw Story is reporting that "phase two" of the SSCI investigation is being held up by the Pentagon's self-probe, while the senators await...
"A report from the Pentagon inspector general as to Feith's alleged role in manipulating prewar intelligence to support a case for war. Feith, who is also being probed by the FBI for his role in an Israeli spy case, resigned in January 2005…. One former intelligence source points to 'a bigger can of worms' that a Feith investigation may unravel, pointing to the Israeli spy case – in which Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin passed classified information to a pro-Israeli lobby – and to the Defense Department's own inability to address security breaches."
Feith is one of the more ideological neocons, with connections to the far-right wing of Israel's Likud Party and the settler movement. He presided over a newly created team of intelligence analysts – the Office of Special Plans (OSP) – whose job it was to think up the War Party's talking points. According to Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force officer and Pentagon analyst, Feith's Office of Special Plans was created from a narrow range of neoconservative think tanks – most notably the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a think tank founded by AIPAC officials and long associated with Israel's Washington lobby. Among the neocon activists who worked with the Near East and South Asia (NESA) bureau, we have one David Schenker, previously a WINEP research fellow, and Churchill expert Michael Makovsky, younger brother of senior WINEP fellow David Makovsky, formerly executive editor of the Jerusalem Post. It was a tightly knit little group, Kwiatkowski has testified:
"Career Pentagon analysts assigned to Rumsfeld's office were generally excluded from what were 'key areas of interest' to Feith, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, notably Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. 'In terms of Israel and Iraq, all primary staff work was conducted by political appointees; in the case of Israel, a desk officer appointee from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.'"
The Larry Franklin-AIPAC-WINEP connection strongly suggests that what we are dealing with here is not simply a domestic group that had somehow seized control of U.S. foreign policy in order to pursue their interventionist agenda, but a foreign-directed and assisted covert operation designed to subvert the institutional foundations of various key government agencies and hijack U.S. military might in order to serve the interests of a foreign power, i.e., Israel. This suspicion is particularly strong when it comes to Feith, who had his security clearance revoked in 1982. The charge: leaking information to the Israeli embassy.
Rumsfeld restored Feith's clearance when the Bushies came to Washington and he was appointed a deputy at Defense, in charge of the policy shop where convicted spy Franklin worked. What is intriguing about the Franklin case is that much of the top-secret information and documentation that came into that fervent neocon's possession was way above Franklin's pay-grade. The big question, in the AIPAC spy case, is: who else in DoD was he working with?
One bright day last year, the FBI knocked on the door of the Pentagon and began administering lie-detector tests to DoD employees. Could that be what is holding up the Senate's investigation into bogus Iraq "intelligence"? Is this why Feith and others have gotten themselves all lawyered-up?
Franklin is taking the fall for higher-ups, including Feith. As law enforcement agencies continue to investigate the circumstances – and government personnel – that surround the AIPAC spy case, the evidence clearly points in a disturbing direction. Come to think of it, an inordinately large number of neoconservatives working in government have had their security clearances revoked, and all for the same reason: passing classified information to Israel. The Franklin case underscores the vital role played by AIPAC as a conduit for funneling U.S. secrets to Tel Aviv, a fact that will come out at the trial – that is, if Franklin and the other two defendants, longtime AIPAC powerhouse lobbyist Steve Rosen, and Keith Weissman, AIPAC's Iran specialist, have anything to say about it.
The AIPAC spy trial, scheduled for late April, already had the pro-Israel community plenty scared, and with good reason: in the interests of avoiding guilty verdicts, and possibly very long sentences, Rosen and Weissman will make the case that AIPAC was fully informed of their activities, and, far from disapproving, actively encouraged them to engage in illegal activities, i.e., espionage. Now that the connection to the Feith investigation is coming out, however, a real wave of fear must be sweeping through certain Washington circles. Franklin got 12 years: what will the feds dish out to the rest of the cabal?
There are two different approaches to the question of assigning responsibility for this disastrous war, both of which are valid. The first is to take the broad view and look for the culprits in the world of ideas. From this broad view, we can discern that any number of factors played a role in marching us off to war: the need for oil, the ideological preconceptions of the Bushies, the military-industrial complex, and, perhaps, Earth's alignment with Pluto and Mars. Such arguments can never be decisively settled, and are fodder for endless scholarly dissertations ostensibly "proving" this theory or that.
What can be proved, however, is that specific individuals, working in concert, proceeded to engage in illegal activities, including espionage, obstruction of justice, and forgery, to name just a few, in the interests of involving us in a needless and increasingly costly war. The crimes of the War Party can be traced back to specific persons: in identifying them and detailing their actions and motives, we can begin to understand the reasons for the biggest strategic disaster in our history. Surely the story of how we were lied into war will be told by future historians in terms of the broad, inclusive approach favored by scholars, but in a sense a truer tale will told by Justice Department prosecutors in the clear, bloodless language of a legal indictment.
It is often said – I have said it myself – that a cabal of neocons took us into war, a view disdained by the War Party as a groundless "conspiracy theory" that verges on anti-Semitism. Yet very few of these people have taken up the cudgels on behalf of the AIPAC defendants, and those few who did went silent soon after Franklin's guilty plea. If there is no foreign-directed conspiracy to spy on the U.S. and procure information for Israel, in addition to lobbying on behalf of Israel's interests in the councils of government, then why has Franklin been sentenced to spend over a decade languishing behind bars?
However, I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy" because of the bad connotations of the word, and "cabal" is not quite right, either. We need something more specific, and I suggest camarilla. The invaluable Wikipedia defines the term as follows:
"A Camarilla is a group of courtiers or favorites that surround a king or ruler. Usually they do not hold any office or have any official authority and influence their ruler behind the scenes. Thus they also escape having to bear responsibility for the effects of their advice."
This describes the neoconservatives to a tee. Taking responsibility for their past assurances that we would be greeted as "liberators" is the last thing any self-respecting neocon would think of doing. As former officials of the occupation start hawking their wares of disillusioned "idealism" and the Weekly Standard pushes the line that Iraq's democratic revolution has been "betrayed" by the Bush administration, they're trying to slither out of fault by claiming that their policies weren't really followed by the sellouts in the Bush administration. The real value of camarilla, however, is that it throws the spotlight on their modus operandi.
Whispering in the ear of the king, this treasonous camarilla had access to power – which they used in a very specific, goal-oriented way. Their goal: secure Israel's future. Their method: get U.S. troops into the Middle East, in part to distract fire away from Israeli targets, and in part to carry out a "democratization" process in the interests of making the region safe for Israel – or, at least, less hostile. Democracies, the neocons claim, never attack each other – a theory blown to bits not only by any honest examination of our own foreign policy, but by recent events in the occupied territories. The triumph of Hamas should put that old neocon talking point to rest beyond any hope of resuscitation.
The American people want to know who lied them into war and why. If it turns out that the lies were manufactured by a nest of spies rather than a noble-but-naïve band of misguided idealists, there will be hell to pay.
Comment on this Article
Confirmed: Israelis kill 15-year-old inside Lebanon
By Majdoline Hatoum
Daily Star staff
Friday, February 03, 2006
BEIRUT: Lebanon and the United Nations confirmed Thursday Israeli troops killed a 15-year-old shepherd inside Lebanon, after investigations were carried out by peacekeeping forces along the Lebanese-Israeli border.
UNIFIL's senior adviser Milos Strugar told The Daily Star that a UNIFIL investigation into the incident had "confirmed the shepherd was killed inside Lebanese territories."
"The results will be communicated to the proper UN authorities," he added. Struger also said that a shotgun was found near the body of the dead boy.
"This is a blatant assault against Lebanon's sovereignty," Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told Parliament, adding that Lebanon was in contact with the UN over the incident.
"The martyr was shot dead while he was on Lebanese territories, he had not crossed the borders toward the occupied land," said Siniora, who met with UN representative in Lebanon Gere Pedersen later in the day.
Pedersen condemned the shooting following his meeting with Siniora, calling on the concerned parties to practice "self restraint."
"Everyone knows how serious the situation is ... and we denounce this incident," he added.
The body of the 15-year-old shepherd, Ibrahim Rahil, was found early Thursday morning in the disputed Shebaa Farms area, less than 24 hours after his disappearance.
This incident threatens an escalation of tension along the already volatile border area.
The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's spokesperson Stephane Dujjaric said: "The UN cannot comment on the incident until they have received a formal copy of the investigations. As far as we are concerned, the investigations are ongoing."
Israeli Army sources claimed during the day that Rahil was shot because he had crossed the UN-demarcated Blue Line toward the Israeli borders.
An army spokeswoman said an Israeli patrol had "spotted an armed man who crossed the international border line ... He fired at the troops who then returned fire and identified a hit."
However, Hizbullah foreign affairs official, Sayyed Nawaf Musawi said the killing was a deliberate breach of Lebanese sovereignty, and added that the Israeli soldiers who killed Rahil had infiltrated Lebanese territories by at least 650 meters before shooting the young shepherd.
"The autopsy showed that Rahil was shot from about 50 meters' distance, and his body was found 700 meters away from border line on the Lebanese side," Musawi said.
"This is a very blatant breach. It is not only the fact that Israeli forces killed a Lebanese civilian boy in cold blood, they also did it in the depths of the Lebanese territories," he added.
Musawi also denounced Israeli claims the boy was carrying a weapon.
"What is it to them? He was 700 meters inside Lebanese territories," Musawi said. "If that's the case, and they want to establish a new 'blood rule' of shooting everyone near the borders with weapons, we will shoot all their soldiers and all settlers who come near the border area with any sort of weapons, and everyone knows they are as close as five meters from the border line," he added.
Musawi also slammed the UN, saying that Hizbullah, as well as most of the Lebanese people, did not trust the international body to take action against Israel.
"We don't even expect them to denounce the incident," he said. "We know how to take our rights with our own hands."
Musawi said the resistance's response to the breach will come at the right time, with the proper response.
"Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah put it very clearly yesterday when he vowed to properly retaliate if the missing boy turned out to be dead as a result of Israeli fire, and I don't have anything to add to this."
Nasrallah, Hizbullah's secretary general, had warned Wednesday night that there would be harsh retaliation in the event that Rahil turned out to be dead as a result of Israeli fire.
Druze MP Anwar Khalil said following a meeting with Nasrallah Thursday that the attitude of all residents of the Lebanese South was to "support the resistance in its work."
"The Israeli enemy had asserted once again yesterday that it will not stop its breaches and assaults on the Lebanese, and the result yesterday was the killing of an innocent shepherd in the area," he said. "This is a clear sign that the assaults have not, and will not, stop."
The area of Shebaa Farms has been controversial since Israeli forces withdrew from the Lebanese South in 2000. Hizbullah, backed by the Lebanese government, asserts the area is Lebanese, while Israel and the UN say it is occupied Syrian land.
In November, clashes in Shebaa Farms left four Hizbullah fighters dead and 11 Israeli soldiers wounded. The most recent flare-up in cross-border violence was in late December when rockets fired from Lebanon crashed in the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona, damaging property but causing no casualties. Israel retaliated with an air strike against a Palestinian military base south of Beirut.
Comment on this Article
Cartoon controversy spreads throughout Muslim world
Ewen MacAskill, Sandra Laville and Luke Harding in Berlin
Saturday February 4, 2006
The Guardian
Governments across Europe, the Middle East and Asia were reluctantly sucked into the Danish cartoon row yesterday as hundreds of thousands of Muslims took to the streets to protest.
The dispute spread to London for the first time. More than 500 people, led by the extremist group al-Ghuraba, formerly al-Mujahiroun, marched to the Danish embassy in Knightsbridge carrying banners calling on Muslims to "massacre" those who insult Islam and chanting: "Britain, you will pay, 7/7 on its way."
Pakistan and Turkey condemned publication of the satirical drawings of the prophet Muhammad, originally published in a Danish newspaper. Underlining the extent of the international divide over the issue, the German government pointedly defended the right of papers across Europe to publish the cartoons, including four in Germany. But the British government, in an unusual divergence from the rest of Europe on such issues, sided with Pakistan and Turkey.
Fearful of reprisals, Germany and other European countries stepped up security at their embassies across the Middle East. The German move came after gunmen briefly kidnapped a 21-year-old German on Thursday from a hotel in Nablus. Palestinian gunmen threw a pipebomb into a French cultural centre in Gaza City in the early hours of yesterday. Later, 300 demonstrators rampaged through the lobby of a building housing the Danish embassy in Jakarta.
The cartoons were first published in a Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, in September. The Danish government initially ignored complaints from the country's Muslims, who then took their campaign to the Middle East and Asia. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister, made a belated attempt yesterday to end the row by calling in about 70 ambassadors, including those from Muslim-dominated countries. But Mona Omar Attia, the Egyptian ambassador, said she would recommend that diplomatic action against Denmark should continue.
Pakistan's parliament unanimously passed a resolution yesterday criticising the newspapers publishing the cartoons for conducting a "vicious, outrageous and provocative campaign".
The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was quoted in the Turkish press saying: "Caricatures of prophet Muhammad are an attack against our spiritual values. There should be a limit of freedom of press."
Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, denounced the decision to republish the cartoons, saying press freedom carried an obligation not "to be gratuitously inflammatory". Mr Straw, at a press conference in London, said that while he was committed to press freedom, "I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been insulting, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong". He praised the British press, which up to yesterday had not published the cartoons, for showing "considerable responsibility and sensitivity".
By contrast, Wolfgang Schauble, the German home minister, defended the decision by four German newspapers to publish the cartoons: "Why should the German government apologise? This is an expression of press freedom."
Today a New Zealand newspaper, the Dominion Post, became the first in that country to publish the cartoons. Its editor, Tim Pankhurst, said: "We do not want to be deliberately provocative, but neither should we allow ourselves to be intimidated."
The Foreign Office's private view is that the decisions to publish elsewhere in Europe verge on Islamophobia. Mr Straw's comments were later echoed by the US government, which described the cartoons as "offensive to the beliefs of Muslims" and criticised the European press. A US state department spokeswoman, Janelle Hironimus, said: "Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable."
Outside the Danish embassy in London, demonstrators burned the Danish flag before ripping it apart. Scuffles broke out at Hyde Park Corner, as marchers clashed with a motorcyclist who called them "extremists". He was protected by police as some demonstrators surrounded him.
Anjem Choudhary, one of the leaders of the demonstration, refused to condemn the threat of another suicide attack in London on the scale of the July 7 bombings as a result of the perceived insult to Islam. "I am not in the business of condoning or condemning," he said. "The fact is that 7/7 was brought upon the people of London and Britain by the foreign policy of Tony Blair. There is no reason why there should not be more suicide bombings in London."
Passersby stopped police officers to ask why the marchers were being allowed to carry banners threatening further suicide attacks in the city. One police officer replied: "Don't worry. We are photographing them."
Comment: This is truly a tempest in a teacup being driven all out of proportion by someone... Indeed, it is very bad taste to make fun of any group, but particularly when that group has been targeted by the US and Israel for Genocide.
Comment on this Article
Cartoons: Don't be fooled, this isn't an issue of Islam versus secularism
Robert Fisk
4 Feb 06
'The Koran does not forbid images of the Prophet but millions of Muslims do'
...more than a decade ago, a film called The Last Temptation of Christ showed Jesus making love to a woman. In Paris, someone set fire to the cinema showing the movie, killing a young man.
Had that cartoon of the Prophet shown instead a chief rabbi with a bomb-shaped hat, we would have had "anti-Semitism" screamed into our ears - and rightly so...
The problem is that these cartoons portrayed Mohamed as a bin Laden-type image of violence. They portrayed Islam as a violent religion. It is not. Or do we want to make it so?
So now it's cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed with a bomb-shaped turban. Ambassadors are withdrawn from Denmark, Gulf nations clear their shelves of Danish produce, Gaza gunmen threaten the European Union. In Denmark, Fleming Rose, the "culture" editor of the pip-squeak newspaper which published these silly cartoons - last September, for heaven's sake - announces that we are witnessing a "clash of civilisations" between secular Western democracies and Islamic societies. This does prove, I suppose, that Danish journalists follow in the tradition of Hans Christian Anderson. Oh lordy, lordy. What we're witnessing is the childishness of civilisations.
So let's start off with the Department of Home Truths. This is not an issue of secularism versus Islam. For Muslims, the Prophet is the man who received divine words directly from God. We see our prophets as faintly historical figures, at odds with our high-tech human rights, almost cariacatures of themselves. The fact is that Muslims live their religion. We do not. They have kept their faith through innumerable historical vicissitudes. We have lost our faith ever since Matthew Arnold wrote about the sea's "long, withdrawing roar". That's why we talk about "the West versus Islam" rather than "Christians versus Islam" - because there aren't an awful lot of Christians left in Europe. There is no way we can get round this by setting up all the other world religions and asking why we are not allowed to make fun of Mohamed.
Besides, we can exercise our own hypocrisy over religious feelings. I happen to remember how, more than a decade ago, a film called The Last Temptation of Christ showed Jesus making love to a woman. In Paris, someone set fire to the cinema showing the movie, killing a young man. I also happen to remember a US university which invited me to give a lecture three years ago. I did. It was entitled "September 11, 2001: ask who did it but, for God's sake, don't ask why". When I arrived, I found that the university had deleted the phrase "for God's sake" because "we didn't want to offend certain sensibilities". Ah-ha, so we have "sensibilities" too.
In other words, while we claim that Muslims must be good secularists when it comes to free speech - or cheap cartoons - we can worry about adherents to our own precious religion just as much. I also enjoyed the pompous claims of European statesmen that they cannot control free speech or newspapers. This is also nonsense. Had that cartoon of the Prophet shown instead a chief rabbi with a bomb-shaped hat, we would have had "anti-Semitism" screamed into our ears - and rightly so - just as we often hear the Israelis complain about anti-Semitic cartoons in Egyptian newspapers.
Furthermore, in some European nations - France is one, Germany and Austria are among the others - it is forbidden by law to deny acts of genocide. In France, for example, it is illegal to say that the Jewish Holocaust or the Armenian Holocaust did not happen. So it is, in fact, impermissable to make certain statements in European nations. I'm still uncertain whether these laws attain their objectives; however much you may prescribe Holocaust denial, anti-Semites will always try to find a way round. We can hardly exercise our political restraints to prevent Holocaust deniers and then start screaming about secularism when we find that Muslims object to our provocative and insulting image of the Prophet.
For many Muslims, the "Islamic" reaction to this affair is an embarrassment. There is good reason to believe that Muslims would like to see some element of reform introduced to their religion. If this cartoon had advanced the cause of those who want to debate this issue, no-one would have minded. But it was clearly intended to be provocative. It was so outrageous that it only caused reaction.
And this is not a great time to heat up the old Samuel Huntingdon garbage about a "clash of civilisations". Iran now has a clerical government again. So, to all intents and purposes, does Iraq (which was not supposed to end up with a democratically elected clerical administration, but that's what happens when you topple dictators). In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won 20 per cent of the seats in the recent parliamentary elections. Now we have Hamas in charge of "Palestine". There's a message here, isn't there? That America's policies - "regime change" in the Middle East - are not achieving their ends. These millions of voters were preferring Islam to the corrupt regimes which we imposed on them.
For the Danish cartoon to be dumped on top of this fire is dangerous indeed.
In any event, it's not about whether the Prophet should be pictured. The Koran does not forbid images of the Prophet even though millions of Muslims do. The problem is that these cartoons portrayed Mohamed as a bin Laden-type image of violence. They portrayed Islam as a violent religion. It is not. Or do we want to make it so?
Comment on this Article
1,000 feared dead as ferry sinks in Red Sea
Rory McCarthy
Saturday February 4, 2006
The Guardian
Hundreds of people were feared drowned in the Red Sea yesterday after an ageing Egyptian ferry carrying 1,400 passengers and crew sank in rough weather in one of the worst shipping disasters.
Rescuers found at least 200 survivors in lifeboats and brought them ashore. By late last night a transport ministry spokesman said 314 people had been rescued, including a three-year-old.
It went down at midnight, halfway through a regular night crossing from Saudi Arabia to Egypt. Nearly all the passengers were Egyptians, many returning from the hajj pilgrimage in Mecca or from jobs in Saudi Arabia. Dozens of dead bodies were pulled from the water yesterday.
A spokesman for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said that the ferry did not have enough lifeboats. However, the transport minister, Mohammad Lufty Mansour, said: "The ship complied with all necessary safety measures. The reasons for the accident remain unknown."
The vessel, al-Salam Boccaccio 98, was 36 years old but appeared to have been regularly maintained. It was a roll-on roll-off ferry, a class of ship which has a reputation for stability problems. It sailed under a Panamanian flag.
It started from Jeddah, where the hajj pilgrims boarded, and went on to Duba. On Thursday at 6.30pm it set out to cross the Red Sea and should have docked at Safaga, lower Egypt, at 2.30am yesterday. But before midnight it ran into trouble.
The captain sent an SOS, picked up by at least one other ferry, but none of the coastguard services reported any call. Suddenly the ferry dropped off radar 60 miles off the town of Hurghada, a resort on the Egyptian coast just south of the Sinai peninsula. Waters in the area are up to 1,000 metres (3,300ft) deep.
The fact there were no more distress calls suggests the ship sank quickly. It is not clear what caused it to go down, though the weather was poor and there were heavy seas. High winds and sandstorms were reported in Saudi Arabia when the ship set sail.
"It could take some hours to work out what happened," said Andrea Odone of El Salam Maritime, the operator.
There was no suggestion of a collision or a terrorist attack, but the roll-on roll-off style of ferry is known to be particularly vulnerable in heavy seas. If a relatively small amount of water washes on board it can rapidly destabilise the ship. "What we are all speculating is that the rough weather must have been the main factor in bringing this vessel down," Nizam Siddiqui, who works at the Jeddah office of the maritime insurer Lloyd's of London, told the BBC.
In a major search operation by the Egyptian and Saudi authorities, four Egyptian frigates and a destroyer were sent to the scene. Later a search and rescue plane and helicopters spotted five lifeboats carrying survivors who were eventually brought ashore at Safaga, 375 miles south of Cairo. "We have spotted several lifeboats with live passengers that we are trying to get to," said Ayman al-Kaffas, a spokesman for the Egyptian embassy in London. "It's a challenging operation due to the bad weather conditions." Rescuers had already found "dozens of bodies of victims", he added.
Last night hundreds of relatives of the passengers were gathering in Safaga. Some complained of a lack of information as they waited. "There is nobody ... to tell us what is going on," Ahmed Abdul Hamid, a teacher from the southern Egyptian city of Assuit, who was waiting for his cousin, told the Associated Press. "We are in a complete blackout."
HMS Bulwark, a newly commissioned Royal Navy amphibious assault ship, was in the Red Sea, and was briefly diverted to help and later recalled after its offer of assistance was turned down.
El Salam Maritime operates a fleet of 15 ferries and is the largest private shipping company in the Middle East. It operates in the Mediterranean and on the Nile, as well as regular services across the busy Red Sea between Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
David Osler, of Lloyd's List, said the ferry's design (like that of the Herald of Free Enterprise, which sank off Zeebrugge in 1987) had stability issues. "It only takes a relatively small ingress of water to set up a sort of rocking effect which gains momentum and tilts the ship. If water got in for any reason, that is the sort of thing that could happen." He said the vessel had had a structural survey last year in which the firm said there was "nothing significant to report", and had a stability refit in 2003. Roll-on, roll-off type of ships were still in use, added Mr Osler, but since 1987 stability had been "massively increased". From 1970 to 1999 the ferry served ports in Italy under a previous owner.
First reports suggested that, though heavily-loaded on Thursday, the ferry was not crowded beyond its capacityof 1,487, according to the company's website. Egypt's state news agency quoted a figure of 1,272 passengers, 1,158 of them Egyptian, 99 Saudi, and a handful of people from Syria, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Yemen, Sudan, and one from Canada. There was a crew of 100 and a cargo of two dozen cars.
There have been other accidents in the busy Red Sea, although none as serious. Last October a ship from the same company, the al-Salam 95, sank after colliding with another ship. Two people were killed and nearly 40 injured.
Comment on this Article
Customs 'camps' cause for concern
By Tom Hennessy
presstelegram.com
3 Feb 06
Maybe a lifetime in the news business makes one paranoid. Or maybe it was just a matter of timing.
The story showed up in Tuesday's Press-Telegram, as I was reading "Night," Elie Wiesel's horrifying autobiography of a teenager in Buchenwald and Auschwitz.
Appearing on page A5, the story said the federal government had awarded a $385 million contract for the construction of "temporary detention facilities." These would be used, the story said, in the event of an "immigration emergency."
Jamie Zuieback, an official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), explained such an emergency like this: "If, for example, there were some sort of upheaval in another country that would cause mass migration, that's the type of situation that the contract would address."
That sounds a tad fuzzy, but let's concede that the camps do have something to do with immigration, illegal or not. In fact, there already are thousands of beds in place at various U.S. locations for the purpose of housing illegal immigrants.
But for anyone familiar with history U.S. or European the construction of detention camps for whatever purpose should prompt a chilling scenario.
Same folks
The new detention camps will be built by Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The latter, as you likely know, is the defense-related corporate giant with fists full of contracts involving the war in Iraq.
Halliburton was led by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995 to 2000. Democrats in Congress have accused the administration of favoring the company via no-bid contracts. But KBR says the detention contract was competitive.
Tuesday's story also said the contract was awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers. However, Halliburton says it was awarded by the Department of Homeland Security in support of ICE.
The contract is for a year, but includes four one-year options. It is a renewal of an existing ICE contract, notes Halliburton.
KBR, in fact, had the $9.7 million contract to build the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. This facility, popularly dubbed "Gitmo," holds 660 prisoners classified by the government as "enemy combatants."
Anyone care?
This column is written with the distinct feeling that not many people will give a hoot about any or all of this. But as already noted, a news story about construction of government detention centers should give us all pause.
Considering what took place in Nazi Germany, as well as the shameful incarceration of Japanese-Americans in 1942, no detention camp should be built without the widest possible public scrutiny.
Bottom line: The contract cries out for greater attention. So far, the government's expressed reason for building them is insufficient and ill-defined. And even if the camps do relate to illegal immigration, their purpose could be changed overnight.
This is an instance in which we could be well served by our representatives in Congress. They need to look at this and give constituents a better picture of what is going on.
Let's not have it said, years from now, that no one ever questioned this.
Tom Hennessy's viewpoint appears Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. He can be reached at (562) 499-1270 or by e-mail at Scribe17@aol.com
Comment on this Article
The killing has got to stop
JOE COLGAN
GUEST COLUMNIST
Seattle Post Intelligencer
2 Feb 06
I write as a veteran who has a special love for our troops and their families, and as the father of Lt. Benjamin Colgan, who was killed in action in Baghdad on Nov. 1, 2003. I also write on behalf of those who joined me in meeting with Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell last December about this senseless war in Iraq.
How many more Americans and Iraqis must perish or be maimed until the "stay-the-course" approach is discredited?
In October, Cantwell signed a letter stating "simply staying the current course is not a strategy for success." Yet when I met with Cantwell, she failed to distinguish her position from that of President Bush.
She also touted the importance of the Warner/Frist Amendment, which does nothing more than offer advice to the president and require that he report to Congress. After almost three years of unnecessary war, is this the best our highest deliberative body can do: make suggestions that will be ignored and beg to be kept informed? At this point in her re-election campaign, Cantwell must clarify her position on the Iraq war and hold public forums to discuss realistic options for ending this ever-deepening disaster.
It is time to acknowledge that the United States has now hit a dead-end on both the political and military fronts in Iraq, with current U.S. involvement in both areas only inflaming civil war. Last December's election in Iraq -- an event heralded as promising stability -- is itself undermined by the continuation of this occupation.
The United States is caught in the middle of a sectarian divide, and it will only get worse. Over the past five months, it has been widely reported that the United States has been trying to engage the Sunnis in political dialogue. Experts say that failing to do so can only deepen the insurgency. Yet showing Sunnis diplomatic respect inspires mistrust and anger from the rival Shiites.
Militarily, we've created the armed basis for a civil war. Iraqi armies in the north now consist of more than 10,000 Kurdish Peshmerga militia members who "wouldn't hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades," according to a Knight Ridder new story in December. In southern Iraq the army consists of pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalists. We have created military forces that, as they increase in "operational readiness," actually add to the instability of Iraq. Yet we continue a policy that conditions U.S. military disengagement on such operational readiness.
More Iraqi civilians are dying as a result of U.S. military actions. U.S. air strikes in Iraq have jumped from 25 per month last August to around 150 in December. The results of this strategy are predictable and horrifying. On Jan. 2, as many as 14 Iraqis, mostly women and children, were killed in a U.S. air strike. On Dec. 24, 2005, The Washington Post reported that U.S. air strikes killed many dozens of civilians throughout Iraq's Western Anbar province during the November offensive. In a 2005 report, Human Rights Watch deplored the U.S. strategy of resorting to indiscriminate aerial strikes resulting in civilian deaths.
A "reduction" of U.S. troops during 2006, in concert with an increasing air war, is not morally defensible or a way out.
The city of Fallujah represents a microcosm of the larger nightmare. We destroyed this town in order to save it. More than half its residents remain as refugees in their own country, and Americans are again dying in Fallujah at an increasing rate (12 in the past two months). The Pentagon's policy of "clear, hold and build" in reality does nothing more than "destroy, banish and build resentment."
We must go beyond the administration's false choice of staying the course or cutting and running. It is time for Cantwell to help move the debate beyond pointless rhetoric by taking a clear position and holding public forums to promote a better understanding of the costs of this war and how to end it. The only victory to be gleaned from this war is one for the American soul: Let's stop the killing.
Joe Colgan of Kent served in the Army from February 1963 to January 1966.
Comment on this Article
Cindy Sheehan terrorizes Bush and his trained clapping seals at the State of Disunion speech
by Special by Ben Hooked, Historical Science Fictionists from the Planet Alpha-Omega 1,2,3
February 3, 2006
Diabolic… Cindy Sheehan armed with a concealed T-shirt boldly snuck into Bush’s State of Disunion Speech.
How did she get in? In a plot to terrorize Bush, Representative Lynn Woolsey, Dem from California, nothing more need be said, but I will say more, invited, even gave Cindy Sheehan a ticket to the speech – Gallery 5, seat 7, row A, while the treacherous Sheehan attended an ‘alternative state of disunion’ by the suspected terrorist organization Code Pink.
Why haven’t these people been arrested and stored in secret jails yet? Code Pink is a group controlled by radical feminist Peace Niks. They’ve been protesting Bush’s invasion of Iraq – along with millions of little people all over the country since even before Bush started his war.
Once upon a time Code Pink almost made their protest mainstream when a Code Pink member returning after Bush’s Invasion of Iraq reported on the bloodshed on the Republican News Hour with Jimmy Lehrer. Luckily the News Hour realized their error and cut her off in mid sentence forcing Code Pink underground to work with the likes of the radical Cindy Sheehan.
Who is this radical Cindy Sheehan? Cindy Sheehan is a disgusting example of motherhood. Her son Casey, a soldier in Iraq gave his life in the line of duty. Now that Cindy Sheehan knows the facts about why Bush started the war in Iraq she’s one pissed off mother. Like most terrorists her mental apparatus is irrational. She doesn’t want other Mother’s to suffer the loss that she’s experienced.
At first in shock over the loss of her son, Cindy Sheehan had behaved sensibly. She had met with Bush as he offered her his condolences. Later when Cindy discovered that Bush lied about the reasons for the War she became irrational. This inconsistent behavior indicates instability based on a willingness to use her brain and assess the truth based on data that the main stream media kept from her and most of the American public. Cindy should be put in a mental gulag to prevent this truth virus from infecting other Americans.
Once learning the truth the unstable Cindy sought to terrorize Bush in every manner imaginable. Cindy camped 26 days near Bush’s homestead. The Bush homestead has a cozy cabin and the surrounding grounds have brush just dying to be cut. Bush was at his homestead on a working 26 day vacation. In the tradition of great Americans, George cut brush and fell off his bike daily.
Cindy asked to meet Bush at the end of his driveway, saying she wanted an explanation as to why her son had died in Iraq. Cindy’s so powerful and terrifying that the most powerful man in the world was afraid to walk to the end of his driveway and talk to her. A very sensible precaution as her current behavior demonstrates.
Upping the anti, increasingly irrational and threatening, Cindy Sheehan peacefully protested in Washington D.C. in front of the White House along with 300 other peace activists. Thank god these people were arrested.
We need stronger laws preventing Peace Protests and Protestors from embarrassing the war monger in Washington. Currently protests and protestors must be kept at least Five Miles away from Bush when he’s propagandizing. This should be made one hundred miles.
Furthermore Loyalty oaths that must be signed saying that no one will protest or exercise their right to Free Speech at a Bush propaganda rally needs to be strengthened to include everywhere in America that Buffalo once roamed and crapped--- no just make that everywhere. No protest allowed. Period.
Growing more and more unstable and radical, Cindy Sheehan took her seat at Bush’s state of disunion armed with a hidden T-shirt with the words, “2,245 Dead – How Many More??” This referenced the number of American service personnel killed to date in Iraq. Luckily she was arrested when she could remove her outer clothing to reveal the disgusting pornography she wore below.
Later, Sheehan was released without charge because the trophy wife of a Republican Congressman wore a shirt that said, “Support Our Troops.” Quite rightly the Congressman protested the treatment of his wife longly and loudly in the House the following day. A capital spokesman said it was all a mistake. Neither woman should have been removed from the proceedings. Next year congressmen & family members will be allowed to wear NASCAR type regalia with their corporate sponsors and logos on full display.
Luckily, the Sheehan episode hardly affected the proceedings. The Republican seals barked and clapped vigorously, on cue, as George, Resident Select of the White House entered the room.
I always try to end my pieces with some positive news. Meanwhile, in an unrelated report Exxon-Mobil and Chevron Oil announced whopping record breaking war profiteering.
Now there’s something The Annie Rand Think Tank, chief proponents of greed as the most valuable of American values, can cheer about.
(Ben Hooked is currently working on his best seller, book three of The Chronicles of Alpha-Omega 1,2,3, Revenge of the Reincarnated Slave Masters even as he comments on events on earth. Due to a crack in the Time-Space continuum Ben lives on the future home of earthlings while observing and writing about the past on earth. That’s how historical science fiction works.)
Comment on this Article
Revolutionary Movements and Leadership
By Charles Sullivan
ICH
3 Feb 06
"Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be lead out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up your minds there is nothing that you cannot do for yourselves." --Eugene Victor Debs - December 18, 1905
As a writer, I get many responses to my articles across a wide spectrum of ideologies, from all over the world. This is one of the things that make writing interesting to me — engaging people and hearing their ideas about things that matter. Almost invariably people ask me what they can do, or who is going to lead the next great social justice movement. What follows is my response to those inquiries. Bear in mind that it is hastily crafted and intended as a rough outline — a starting point. I will leave it to others more capable than me to build upon the foundation I have laid; or if necessary to start anew.
As the result of our hurried lifestyle, we live in a relatively intellectually shallow culture that has been softened by the idea of instant gratification. When we are sick we take a pill with the expectation that it will quickly make our malady disappear. We rarely consider the underlying causes of illness and disease. Our meals are rarely savored: they are prepared quickly and eaten in haste. Everything we do is predicated upon speed. This, I believe, has led to a kind of intellectual laziness that is prevalent among Americans, more than anywhere else in the world. We want quick fixes, easy answers—instant gratification. We want someone to lead us and tell us what to do, in essence relieving us of the burden of personal responsibility we know is ours.
Let us come to understand, however, that the complex problems facing not only America, but also the world, have no simple or easy solutions. If solutions exist—not all problems can be solved by mortal minds—these issues will require deep thought and long and persistent effort on the part of many. If we are serious about the business of revolution we must not only be committed to meaningful change, we must be in it for the long haul. Unfortunately, change often occurs at glacial speed, not at the velocity of light, as we might hope. Even when change appears to happen very quickly, it only appears that way after a long hard struggle on the part of many to reach critical mass. When critical mass is reached, and we rarely know exactly where we are in relation to it, then things happen quickly and dramatically. But it is a long and difficult process that leads up to critical mass.
It is expecting too much of anyone to lead a revolution. Revolutions succeed only by the force of many, acting in unison toward a common goal, not by the leadership of a few. If they are to succeed, movements must be bigger than the leadership that organizes them. They must be essentially self-organizing. Leaders can be assassinated, movements cannot. Effective national and global movements are the result of the efforts of millions upon millions of individuals united in common belief, and common effort. They are the result of many single acts added together that move the whole toward a common goal. These acts have a cumulative and profound impact when carried out day after day, month after month, year after year. This is when they acquire the force of revolutionary change for the betterment of all.
Centralized power is concentrated power that is prone to corruption and betrayal. Decentralized, loosely organized movements disperse power throughout the entirety of the movement or cause. It places power equally into the hands of all, rather than a few. This is the kind of movement that, it seems to me, is most likely to succeed. It is the kind of movement in which, paradoxically, everyone is a leader, and no one is a leader. This kind of organization is the kind that most troubles authority, the status quo, because they do not know how to attack it. Its leadership is at once everywhere and nowhere. How does one assassinate an entire movement without engaging in genocide?
There are few tried and true methods to follow. Mostly these are uncharted waters where we venture. However, there is one absolute certainty—we must massively organize on a global scale across a broad spectrum of interrelated concerns and issues. There is no other place to start than at the beginning. This means we must start from where we are—at home and in our respective communities. We might begin by creating decentralized but loosely organized networks of local activists, who meet regularly at someone’s home, or a local library, perhaps, to discuss matters of importance to them; who work both individually and in unison on the issues that concern them. Partnerships are formed and alliances made, as we educate ourselves and decide how to solve local problems.
Some members of this group might work on organizing and democratizing the work place; others might address homelessness and affordable housing. Another group might work to put their own people on school boards, or run candidates for county commissioner. Still others might work on preserving wild forests or monitoring the biological health of local streams and rivers. There are any number of issues to choose from. It requires no more than a single person to begin working on them. The work can begin immediately and its impact can be felt at once. Of course, the more people involved the better. The idea is to find common ground and to make connections based upon commonality.
Meanwhile, broader networks begin to branch out from the local network into the surrounding county, then to the state level. From the state level they broaden their scope to the National level. From there the next step is the global level. All of these citizen activists will be in constant communication with each other, coordinating their efforts and broadening membership in the group. The network continuously branches out in concentric circles, building bridges across platforms and ideologies as it proceeds, until it circumnavigates the globe and joins hands with the people of every nation. There is no fast way to accomplish this. It requires time and persistent effort. This is the basis of a sound and enduring foundation.
Thus we now have large numbers of individuals working on specific parts of interrelated issues that produce specific outcomes. Rather than being overwhelmed by the immensity and complexity of the larger problem, they are broken down into manageable parts. Similar groups will form in every community. They will talk to each other, teach each other, share results and coordinate their efforts. The enormity and complexity of issues can be overwhelming and paralyzing. One hardly knows where to begin, so nothing gets down. The pitfall of enormity can be avoided by delegating work and breaking everything down into manageable portions. If there are enough people willing to do the work they may need to be given a rough blue print and a little guidance. There will necessarily be some false starts, but together we will find our way.
Seemingly disparate but interrelated issues such as corporate control, revolutionary unionism, militarism, public funding of political campaigns, proportional representation in government, sweatshops, civil rights, starvation and hunger, disease, safe organically grown food, small family farming—a broad spectrum of issues—are addressed in this way. Clearly, there is no shortage of issues to select from. There is something for everyone. Find something that interests you and get started.
By continuously attacking these individual issues on many levels, we will be making steady progress on the broad front of a massive social justice movement of global dimensions. Thus we must reach out to the people working in other but related movements, who are already working on their own issues and know them best. In effect, we would be uniting the working poor with labor unions at home and in Sri Lanka; democratizing and liberating the work place through revolutionary unionism, taking public ownership of the economy from the corporations and redistributing wealth equitably to those who produce. We would be cleaning our streams and rivers, even as we address global warming. All things are related. Pluck a flower, trouble a star.
We would work in unison with the disempowered and voiceless across every front, in every nation. Together we have a voice. Separate we do not. Those working on civil rights issues would be united with people working on labor issues, because those issues are interconnected. Individual problems will not be fixed in isolation from the whole. A particular problem can be isolated temporarily for the purpose of making it a manageable part, but it must be reassembled within the matrix of the integrated whole if it is to work. For example, women chained to work tables in Chinese sweatshops would be working with the employees of Wal-Mart in the US and Germany to emancipate all parties from wage slavery. The problem must be fixed globally; otherwise, it migrates to regions where there are few environmental regulations, or no protection for workers against corporate tyranny.
Creative and visionary ways must be found to bring groups of people together in common causes that may appear to be unrelated, but which are in fact interrelated. I will leave that to minds more brilliant than my own, but I will participate.
Ours will be a movement that gives voice to the voiceless, wherever they are, whatever they do. Uniting thousands of smaller issues into a great river of revolutionary activism is the only thing that will set us free. Many of these movements already exist—we have only to join forces with them. It is a monumental undertaking that will require relentless effort, self sacrifice, and commitment to the larger common cause. Uniting all of these disparate factions and moving them forward under a social justice umbrella, pushing forward in unison against our oppressors gives us enormous power that is virtually unstoppable. It is a power that can remake civilization by working toward the common good, by looking out for each other. It requires a different way of thinking than the one we are accustomed to. This way of thinking and doing stresses cooperation over competition and exploitation.
The most important principle of the movement is also logistically the most difficult to achieve—to unite and to focus the disparate parts—to make them function as a single organism in the cause of social justice. This means that we must work in accord across party lines, race, sex, socioeconomic class, political ideology, theology and geopolitical boundaries. We will be creating a global Commonwealth that tolerates and celebrates diversity. It will be based upon mutual respect and concern for the welfare of others. The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few.
The rug weaver in India, the peasant farmer in Bangladesh, the Jewish Monk living in the rocky deserts of Israel; the truck driver moving across the plains of Montana, the anti-war protester in the streets of Washington or London in the prelude to war; the soldier in the sands of Iraq, as well as the insurgent on the other side of the fight; the political prisoners in the US such as Leonard Peltier, and his counterpart in China—all share a commonality with enormous potential to unite. Our rulers succeed by keeping us apart.
The wars that continually erupt across the planet and cause misery and suffering to the poor and the disenfranchised; the enormous gaps that exist between the classes; racism, sexism—the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the few must be abolished. They will not be abolished by the system that created them. We must believe that another world is possible. We must believe it with all our heart and we must be willing to work for it. It will be humankind’s most incredible journey. It will be the most important and satisfying work we can do.
As we proceed along this diverse but united front toward a goal of social justice and world peace, we must recognize that what we are trying to accomplish is nothing less than a global revolution of Democratic Socialism. The name is not important; the substance of the dream is.
This requires a new paradigm—that of the Commonwealth, which is really an old paradigm that has served humankind well for thousands of years. From this moment forth let us not work for private gain and individual wealth; let us work for the common good of everyone, everywhere. Let us recognize that no one can be free until everyone is free.
Let those with technical expertise now come forward to organize global forums online so that we can share ideas, even as we set out to change our respective communities. Let us not only begin talking among ourselves; let us begin the work that we know must be done—work that we can do ourselves beginning this very moment. Let us come together for peace, whatever name we give to it. Everything we do matters—the effect is cumulative.
This hope for remaking civilization in the image of the common people, rather than the money changers, must rise, like a Phoenix, out of the ashes of capitalism. That will be a glorious day. Let us begin the Great Work.
Comment on this Article
Judge Orders Padilla's Shackles Removed
By CURT ANDERSON
AP
02.03.2006
U.S. officials who want terror suspect Jose Padilla to wear handcuffs and ankle chains during open court appearances must first show he poses a direct safety threat, a federal judge said Friday.
U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke made the statement after Padilla appeared in the shackles for his first appearance before her since his transfer in January from military custody as an alleged al-Qaida "enemy combatant" to a criminal defendant.
"At some point in time, people have to be able to write, take notes," Cooke said. "No handcuffs in court, please."
Padilla and four others are charged with conspiracy and providing material support to terrorists for allegedly operating a North American cell providing finances, recruits and supplies.
The handcuff exchange underscored the difference for Padilla between his 3 1/2 years in U.S. military custody and the due process protections afforded by the justice system.
The case is scheduled to go to trial in early September and could take about six months.
Only Padilla and co-defendant Adham Amin Hassoun were in court for Friday's status hearing, and both wore handcuffs attached to a waist chain as well as ankle chains, something Hassoun had not done in previous hearings.
Cooke asked prosecutors for an explanation, saying the defendants have "always been respectful, polite and courteous."
The prosecutors cited Marshals Service policy. Hassoun's lawyer, Kenneth Swartz, said he was told the shackles were ordered because of Padilla's high profile.
President Bush designated Padilla as an "enemy combatant" in June 2002, a month after he was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on allegations that he was on an al-Qaida terrorist mission. The government dropped that designation in November, leading to a grand jury indictment on criminal charges.
The Supreme Court is considering whether to take up Padilla's case arising from that long military detention, which would test whether a U.S. president may order unlimited detention without trial during wartime for U.S. citizens.
Comment on this Article
Venezuela expels US naval 'spy'
BBC
2 Feb 06
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says he is expelling a US official accused of spying with Venezuelan officers.
The naval attache at the US embassy, John Correa, would be forced to "leave immediately", Mr Chavez said in a speech to mark seven years in power.
US officials said the charges were baseless and Captain Correa had left for medical treatment and a holiday.
Mr Chavez has repeatedly accused the US of supporting attempts to overthrow him, a charge Washington denies.
Ties between Venezuela's left-wing government and Washington have been strained for several years, but it is the first time Venezuela has decided to expel a US official.
In Washington, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld described the election of a string of left-wing leaders in the region as worrying.
"[Chavez] is a person who was elected legally, just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally and then consolidated power," he said.
"Now [Chavez] is of course working closely with [Cuban President] Fidel Castro and [Bolivian President Evo] Morales and others.
"It concerns me."
'Spy ring'
Thursday's announcement came three days after Mr Chavez said agents had infiltrated an alleged spy ring at the US embassy.
"We have decided... to throw out of the country a military official from the mission of the United States for espionage," the president said.
He warned that the full US embassy military mission would be expelled if authorities caught any of its officers spying.
"The next step would be to withdraw the whole so-called military mission of the United States," Mr Chavez said.
He had threatened last week to have any American officials involved in spying arrested.
In the past week, Venezuela has also said that several of its military officers have been caught passing state secrets to the US.
Tensions
Relations between the US and Venezuela were already under strain before the spying row erupted.
Washington is deeply opposed to the government of left-wing Mr Chavez, who is a vocal critic of the US.
The US has expressed concerns about Venezuelan democracy under Mr Chavez and about the effect of his government's military purchases on regional stability.
The US has tried to block his attempts to buy military equipment using American technology.
Comment on this Article
Rumsfeld Likens Chavez's Rise to Hitler
CBS
3 Feb 06
(AP) Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld likened Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Adolf Hitler, reflecting continuing tension in relations between the United States and the Latin American government.
Rumsfeld, asked during a National Press Club appearance Thursday about indications of a deteriorating general relationship between Washington and parts of Latin America, said he believes such a characterization "misses the mark."
"We saw dictatorships there. And then we saw most of those countries, with the exception of Cuba, for the most part move towards democracies," he said. "We also saw corruption in that part of the world. And corruption is something that is corrosive of democracy."
The secretary acknowledged that "we've seen some populist leadership appealing to masses of people in those countries. And elections like Evo Morales in Bolivia take place that clearly are worrisome."
"I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added. "He's a person who was elected legally _ just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally _ and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others."
There have been increasing signs of hostility between Washington and Caracas, and on Monday Chavez said Venezuela's intelligence agencies have "infiltrated" a group of military officials from the U.S. Embassy who were allegedly involved in espionage.
Venezuelan authorities, including the vice president, have accused officials at the U.S. Embassy of involvement in a spying case in which Venezuelan naval officers allegedly passed sensitive information to the Pentagon.
It was not the first such charge by Chavez.
He has accused President Bush of backing efforts to overthrow his leftist government, and specifically has charged that the United States supported a short-lived coup in 2002, fomented a devastating strike in 2004 and expelled some American missionaries from Venezuela for alleged links to the CIA.
Washington has repeatedly rejected the allegations.
Comment: If anybody resembles that smarmy little puppet, Adolf Hitler, it is George Bush, with vicious monsters like Rumsfeld in the background pulling his strings.
Comment on this Article
Rumsfeld and Negroponte Amp Up Attacks on Chavez
By EVA GOLINGER
Counterpunch
3 Feb 06
During an appearance today at the National Press Club in Washington, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld compared Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to Hitler, declaring, "We've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money. He's a person who was elected legally, just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally, and then consolidated power, and now is of course working closely with [Cuban leader] Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales [Bolivian President Evo Morales] and others. It concerns me."
Concurrently, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. Congress, John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the 15 intelligence bodies of the U.S. Government, claimed, "In Venezuela, President Chavez, if he wins reelection later this year, appears ready to use his control of the legislature and other institutions to continue to stifle the opposition, reduce press freedom, and entrench himself through measures that are technically legal, but which nonetheless constrict democracy. We expect Chavez to deepen his relationship with Castro (Venezuela provides roughly two-thirds of that island's oil needs on preferential credit terms). He also is seeking closer economic, military, and diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea. Chavez has scaled back counter-narcotics cooperation with the US. Increased oil revenues have allowed Chavez to embark on an activist foreign policy in Latin America that includes providing oil at favorable repayment rates to gain allies, using newly created media outlets to generate support for his Bolivarian goals, and meddling in the internal affairs of his neighbors by backing particular candidates for elective office."
Apart from the dangerous misrepresentation of the reality of Venezuelan social and political life and the absurd comparison to Hitler, with whom the U.S. went to world war, these declarations evidence a scary escalation of aggression towards the Venezuelan government and people by the Bush Administration. Rumsfeld and Negroponte represent the two entities in the United States that wage war: Defense and Intelligence. Their positions go beyond the State Department's diplomatic rhetoric that has characterized relations between Venezuela and the United States during the past few years and up the ante to an increasing possibility of war between the two nations. As the U.S. prepares to take actions against Iran in the very near future, publicly declaring a link between Venezuela and Iran, as well as North Korea, provides justification for an inclusion of Venezuela on the list of nations targeted by the Bush Administration for military intervention.
During the past few days, the Venezuelan government has made public concrete evidence of an espionage case that has resulted in the expulsion of a U.S. military attaché, Navy Capitan John Correa, from this South American nation. Capitan Correa had been recruiting Venezuelan naval officials over a period of more than twelve months, with the aim of obtaining inside information of military and political strategies of the Venezuelan government and pressuring officials to turn against President Hugo Chávez. Although the U.S. Embassy in Caracas and its Ambassador, William Brownfield, have denied knowledge of any wrongdoing on the part of U.S. diplomatic officials, evidence of illegal penetration of Venezuelan armed forces by U.S. military attachés has been provided to this author.
An excerpt of testimony from a Venezuelan soldier recruited by the U.S. Embassy and working as a "double-agent" for the Venezuelan government, to be published in entirety in my next book, the follow-up to The Chávez Code: Cracking U.S. Intervention in Venezuela, follows:
"I am an enlisted soldier pertaining to the action command group. I am testifying about the activities of officials from the United States Embassy [in Caracas]. They seek information and analysis about certain activities of members of our Armed Forces and have contacts with officials that work with the Minister of Defense and they provide them with activities about our Armed Forces. My job is to try and find certain information and to monitor different political organizations, such as the Tupamaros, Bolivarian Circles, the people who work with Lina Ron, as well as information about the acquisition of arms in the Armed Forces. I note herein that I am working as an infiltrator in these groups, an undercover agent, I do not share the anti-American views of these groups, I am just trying to obtain the best information possible for my superiors, for the defense of our nation."
"What do they give you in return?"
"Money, political contacts and the possibility of work"
"What is the best they have given you up until now?"
"A ten-year visa to enter the United States, whenever I want, and according to them, in the future I can attend a course in their intelligence agency in the United States and once I prove my loyalty to them and they see I truly have guts, I can possibly do an intelligence course with the CIA, that's what the military attaché at the Embassy, [name removed], told me himself."
Today's statements by Rumsfeld and Negroponte merely confirm the diehard intentions of the U.S. government to continue its efforts to remove President Chávez from power and impede the development of the Bolivarian Revolution. Over the past few years, the Bush Administration has funneled millions upon millions of dollars into building up an opposition movement to the Chávez administration in Venezuela, utilizing U.S. tax payer dollars filtered through the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development, and has backed a failed coup d'état against President Chávez and oil industry sabotage that caused billions of dollars in damages to the nation yet failed to oust the government from power. For the year 2006, the U.S. Congress has allocated more than $9 million dollars to opposition groups in Venezuela (again, U.S. taxpayer dollars) and has launched a psychological operations campaign coordinated from the Pentagon's Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida. In a document published by the U.S. Army in October 2005 entitled "Doctrine for Asymmetric War Against Venezuela," President Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution were labeled as the "largest threat since the Soviet Union and communism."
Clearly, the Bush Administration has decided Venezuela and President Chávez represent a "severe threat" to U.S. domination in the region and U.S. control over energy resources in the hemisphere. Venezuela may very well be next on the list for a "preemptory war" in the style of Iraq. Citizens of the United States need to be aware of these dangerous steps taken by their government against a nation exercising its democratic and sovereign right to decide the type of socio-political system it desires. Venezuela's democracy, participatory in nature, is supported by more than 70% of its populace. Recent polls place President Chávez's popularity at 77%.
Citizens from around the world had the opportunity to witness Venezuela's thriving democratic revolution firsthand during the VI World Social Forum that just ended in Caracas. Hundreds of thousands of diverse voices from around the world, along with millions of Venezuelans, can attest to the fact that no dictatorship or threat to democracy exists in Venezuela. The only threat Venezuela presents to the United States is that of a good example.
Eva Golinger is a Venezuelan-American attorney and author of The Chávez Code: Cracking U.S. Intervention in Venezuela, available in English and Spanish through her website, www.venezuelafoia.info/codigo.html.
Comment: Typical psychopathic ploy, accuse others of what you do, or intend to do, yourself. Blame the victim...
Comment on this Article
Why The Economy Is (NOT) A Lot Stronger Than You Think
By Michael Mandel, with Steve Hamm in New York and Christopher J. Farrell in St. Paul, Minn.
Business Week
Fri Feb 3, 4:00 PM ET
You read this magazine religiously, watch CNBC while dressing for work, scan the Web for economic reports. You've heard, over and over, about the underlying problems with the U.S. economy -- the paltry investment rate, the yawning current account deficit, the pathetic amount Americans salt away. And you know what the experts are saying: that the U.S. faces a perilous economic future unless we cut back on spending and change our profligate ways.
But what if we told you that the doomsayers, while not definitively wrong, aren't seeing the whole picture? What if we told you that businesses are investing about $1 trillion a year more than the official numbers show? Or that the savings rate, far from being negative, is actually positive? Or, for that matter, that our deficit with the rest of the world is much smaller than advertised, and that gross domestic product may be growing faster than the latest gloomy numbers show? You'd be pretty surprised, wouldn't you?
Well, don't be. Because the economy you thought you knew -- the one all those government statistics purport to measure and make rational and understandable -- actually may be on a stronger footing than you think. Then again, it could be much more volatile than before, with bigger booms and deeper busts. If true, that has major implications for policymakers -- not least Ben Bernanke, who on Feb. 1 succeeded Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Everyone knows the U.S. is well down the road to becoming a knowledge economy, one driven by ideas and innovation.
What you may not realize is that the government's decades-old system of number collection and crunching captures investments in equipment, buildings, and software, but for the most part misses the growing portion of GDP that is generating the cool, game-changing ideas. "As we've become a more knowledge-based economy," says University of Maryland economist Charles R. Hulten, "our statistics have not shifted to capture the effects."
The statistical wizards at the Bureau of Economic Analysis in Washington can whip up a spreadsheet showing how much the railroads spend on furniture ($39 million in 2004, to be exact). But they have no way of tracking the billions of dollars companies spend each year on innovation and product design, brand-building, employee training, or any of the other intangible investments required to compete in today's global economy. That means that the resources put into creating such world-beating innovations as the anticancer drug Avastin, inhaled insulin, Starbuck's, exchange-traded funds, and yes, even the iPod, don't show up in the official numbers.
Now, a generation of economists who came of professional age watching the dot-com boom and bust are trying to get a grip on this shadow economy: People like Carol A. Corrado and Daniel E. Sichel of the Federal Reserve Board, who, along with Hulten, figured out that businesses are spending much more on future-oriented investments than widely believed. In a way, these economists are disciples of Greenspan, who understood earlier than most that the conventional numbers don't capture the emerging knowledge economy.
Greenspan was continually digging into arcane factoids he hoped would give him a better insight into what was going on under the hood of the U.S. economy. And Bernanke seems to understand the importance of doing the same. In a speech last year, he said that intangible investments "appear to be quantitatively important." As a result, Bernanke noted, "aggregate saving and investment may be significantly understated in the U.S. official statistics."
Beyond Widgets
As Greenspan would be the first to tell you, it's a lot easier counting how many widgets the nation produces in a year than quantifying the creation and marketing of knowledge. After all, we're talking about intangibles: brand equity, the development of talent, the export of best practices.
This stuff is hard to measure, but to ignore it is to miss what the economy is telling us. And to miss that is to increase the likelihood of committing policy blunders. Including these intangible investments could provide a better picture of the economy, one that offers more advance warning of recessions, slippage in our ability to innovate, and other nasty surprises.
To understand why the government measures the economy the way it does, it helps to go back in time to the 1930s. The Great Depression had the nation in a death grip, and government planners and politicians lacked the tools to answer the big question of the day: Was the economy getting better or worse? To find out, the Commerce Dept. brought in economist Simon Kuznets, then at the National Bureau of Economic Research, to calculate for the first time the nation's income and output -- the purchasing power and production of the U.S. economy. Setting such a benchmark would allow the government to figure out if the economy was growing or shrinking.
Working with handwritten data, Kuznets and a small group of fellow economists began counting tangible things like machines and buildings as long-term investments. It made sense, since this was still the Industrial Age. And such calculations came in handy during World War II, when the Roosevelt Administration needed a fix on the nation's capacity to grind out tanks, ships, and planes.
A Break With The Past
Kuznets' work set the tone for the rest of the century, not to mention helping win him the Nobel prize in Economics in 1971. Machines and buildings were counted as future-oriented investment, but spending on education, training, and R&D was not. No attempt was made to judge the social utility of expenditures. For example, the $6 million cost of building the Flamingo Hotel, the Las Vegas casino opened by Bugsy Siegel in 1946, was tallied as an investment. But AT&T's funding of Bell Labs, where the transistor was invented around the same time, wasn't even included in GDP. Kuznets himself acknowledged the limitations of his system, yet it stayed basically the same for most of the postwar period.
By the early '90s, Greenspan was becoming increasingly frustrated by the official numbers' inability to explain a rapidly evolving economy. In 1996 and 1997 he refused to accept conventional data telling him that productivity growth was falling in much of the service sector, noting -- correctly, as it turns out -- that "this pattern is highly unlikely." He also pointed out that the official numbers for consumer inflation were too high.
At the Washington offices of the BEA, J. Steven Landefeld, who became director in 1995, felt pressure to include numbers that better reflected the knowledge economy. Landefeld isn't a rash fellow, and the pace of change at the BEA, while quick for a statistical agency, would be called deliberate by most. But in 1999 -- six decades after Kuznets laid the groundwork for calculating GDP -- Landefeld and the BEA decided to break with the past.
The BEA started treating business spending on software as a long-lived investment. The decision was overdue. Companies were spending more than $150 billion annually on software, far more than the $100 billion for computer hardware. And the software often stayed in use longer than the hardware. The fact that economists could go into stores and see software in brightly colored boxes reassured them that it was real. "Prepackaged software is a lot easier" to count, recalls Landefeld.
Silly as it may seem now, it was a revolutionary change at the time. But over the past seven years the economy has continued to evolve while the numbers we use to capture it have remained the same. Globalization, outsourcing, and the emphasis on innovation and creativity are forcing businesses to shift at a dramatic rate from tangible to intangible investments.
According to BusinessWeek's calculations, the top 10 biggest U.S. corporations that report their R&D outlays -- a list that includes ExxonMobil, Procter & Gamble, General Electric, Microsoft, and Intel -- have boosted R&D spending by 42%, or almost $11 billion, since 2000. Yet over the same period, they have only increased capital spending by a meager 2%, or less than $1 billion. So all together, these giants have actually increased their future-oriented investment by roughly $12 billion -- most of which doesn't show up in the BEA numbers.
This shift to intangibles looks all the more remarkable when we look a bit further back. P&G, for example, has boosted its spending on R&D, which doesn't count as investment in the GDP statistics, by 39% since 1996. By contrast, the company's capital budget, which does factor into GDP, is no bigger today than it was back then. The same is true at spicemaker McCormick & Co., where capital spending is basically flat compared to 1996 but R&D outlays to create new products have tripled over the same period.
Want to see how this works? Grab your iPod, flip it over, and read the script at the bottom. It says: "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China." Where the gizmo is made is immaterial to its popularity. It is great design, technical innovation, and savvy marketing that have helped Apple Computer sell more than 40 million iPods. Yet the folks at the BEA don't count what Apple spends on R&D and brand development, which totaled at least $800 million in 2005. Rather, they count each iPod twice: when it arrives from China, and when it sells. That, in effect, reduces Apple -- one of the world's greatest innovators -- to a reseller of imported goods.
That's why the new research from Corrado, Sichel, and Hulten is so important, and why building and improving upon it could become a key goal of economists in the coming years. Ultimately, we might end up with a "knowledge-adjusted" GDP, which would track the spending so crucial for global competitiveness.
Right now, though, rough calculations of these intangibles are all we have. To help come up with their $1 trillion number for unmeasured business investment, for example, Corrado, Sichel, and Hulten counted the portion of advertising designed to have long-lived effects on perception (that would include the sort of corporate image advertising seen here at BusinessWeek). They also estimated the value of new product development in the financial-services industry, which current R&D numbers miss. "We had to hunt around for bits and pieces of data," says Hulten.
Assessing how much bang for the buck companies get from their spending on intangibles is even harder, especially in the fast-changing knowledge economy. Take employee training. In the old days, that required flying people to a teaching facility, which cost companies a lot of time on top of the cost of the instructors and real estate. Now online learning and other innovations are driving down the cost of training. At IBM, the training budget fell by $10 million from 2003 to 2004, a 1.4% decline, while the number of classroom and e-learning hours rose by 29%. Are other companies seeing an equally dramatic decline in the cost of training? No one knows.
Changing Perceptions
That's why the BEA doesn't want to move too fast. It plans to publish supplementary accounts for R&D in the next few years, which will track R&D spending without adding it into the official GDP numbers. Other intangibles, though, remain below the radar. "No one disagrees with this conceptually," says BEA chief Landefeld. "The problem is in the empirical measurement."
But look at how our perception of the economy changes once you add in things like R&D and brand-building. The published data show that total investment -- business, residential, and government -- has been falling over the past three decades as a share of national spending, while consumption has been rising. Add in the intangible investments provided by our three economists, and the picture changes completely.
Total investment rises, going from 23.8% of national spending in the 1970s to 25.1% in the early 2000s -- much higher than the 18.3% the conventional numbers show. That helps explain why the economy has sustained strong productivity growth, and why foreign investors continue to pour money into the U.S.
Factoring in the knowledge economy also helps us understand why the recession of 2001 seemed worse than the official statistics showed -- and why the recovery was so slow. According to the published numbers, the six-month recession of 2001 was so mild the business sector actually grew at a modest 0.4% pace that year. By 2003, however, more than 3 million private sector jobs had disappeared.
One reason for this disconnect is simple: Corporations hacked back their budgets for R&D, advertising, training, and so forth. Yes, that canceled out a ton of high-paying jobs, but had no direct effect on GDP. Remember that R&D and other intangible business investments are not currently counted as national output. Therefore, when a company laid off an engineer doing long-term product development but kept selling the same number of its old products, GDP stayed the same. Productivity even went up, because fewer workers were producing the same amount of output. And if that laid-off engineer went to work, say, building houses? National output might even have risen.
There's enough data available through 2003 to estimate how business intangibles would have changed the growth numbers. For our purposes, let's assume that overall intangible business investment followed the same path as industrial R&D and advertising, for which annual data are available. Crunch the numbers and it looks like the business sector really grew by only 0.1% in 2001, less than a quarter of the size of the official increase. Growth in 2002 now also looks slower than the published data.
By contrast, the conventional numbers may be understating the strength of the economy today. The BEA announced on Jan. 27 that growth in the fourth quarter of 2005 was only 1.1%. In part that was because of a smaller-than-expected increase in business capital spending. However, employment at design and management-consulting firms is up sharply in the quarter, suggesting that businesses may be spending on intangibles instead. Indeed, the consumer confidence number for January zoomed to the highest level since 2002, as Americans became more optimistic about finding jobs.
Then again, the economy may hit bigger bumps in the years ahead. When companies significantly trim their spending on R&D, design, training, and other knowledge-enhancing activities, as they did in 2001, the resulting pain in terms of job losses and reduced innovation could deepen the next downturn.
Perhaps the trickiest and most controversial aspect of the shadow economy is how it alters our assessment of international trade. The same intangible investments not counted in GDP, such as business knowhow and brand equity, are for the most part left out of foreign trade stats, too. Also largely ignored is the mass influx of trained workers into the U.S. They represent an immense contribution of human capital to the economy that the U.S. gets free of charge, which can substantially balance out the trade deficit of goods and services. "I don't know that the trade deficit really tells you where you are in the global economy," says Gary L. Ellis, chief financial officer of Medtronic Inc., a world leader in medical devices such as implantable defibrillators. "We're exporting a lot of knowledge."
Time for another real-world example. In December, Intel Corp. announced plans to build a new wafer-fabrication plant in Israel. To the statisticians, the value of that foreign investment is the book value of the plant -- that is, the cost of erecting the building and installing the chipmaking machinery.
Not counted is the systematic export of knowhow to Israel that enables that factory to operate profitably. At the core is a program called Copy Exactly!, which requires that a new fab duplicate an existing one that is working well, down to how often the plant's pumps are serviced. All of this critical information is documented and transferred from the U.S. to the new plant, but it is not picked up by the trade statistics.
The numbers don't catch Intel's exhaustive training program either. To get its new plants running quickly, the chipmaker brings 800 or 900 employees from the new fab to spend a minimum of six months in Hillsboro, Ore., where Intel develops new production processes. By the time they return home, these people will have picked up not just the details of the process but also tribal knowledge -- the unwritten lore of how Intel works. With that info in their heads, they're equipped to get the new factory up and running at high volume within a quarter, rather than taking a year or more. In economics speak, this is a classic transfer of human capital. So why isn't it called an export?
Ricardo Hausmann, director of Harvard's Center for International Development, believes it should be. He describes these cross-border flows of knowhow as "dark matter." Hausmann notes that U.S. multinationals consistently earn higher rates of return than their foreign counterparts -- an average of 6% on foreign operations since 2000, vs. the 1.2% foreign multinationals earn in the U.S., according to the latest BEA figures. From that, he infers that the multinationals are benefiting, in part, from knowledge exported from the U.S., a country with faster productivity growth than the rest of the industrialized world.
Using these arguments, Hausmann finds that the U.S. current account deficit actually disappears, averaged over time. "With globalization, you develop a blueprint and sell it in all countries," he says. "Countries that are good at creating blueprints get more exports of dark matter."
Admittedly, most trade experts are hostile to Hausmann's conclusions. A recent report from Goldman, Sachs & Co. likened Hausmann's dark matter to cold fusion. And the economists at the BEA worry that adding knowledge exports to the trade stats would make published data less useful. "I have a problem putting fabricated flows into exports," says Ralph H. Kozlow, who oversees international accounts at the BEA. "You get into an impossible statistical maze when you try to value all of this at anything that anyone would believe."
But even if Hausmann is overstating his case, he's on the right track. There's no doubt that the statistical problems are formidable, but it's also certain that the conventional trade statistics are missing a big portion of the knowledge flows that create value these days. Suppose we assume that U.S. multinationals can earn an extra percentage point of return on their foreign investments by being able to use business intangibles exported from the U.S. Then a rough estimate of the value of the unmeasured exports of knowledge is anywhere from $25 billion to $100 billion per year, depending on what assumptions are used.
And let's not forget about immigrants. The workers who move to the U.S. each year bring with them a mother lode of education and skills -- human capital -- for free. One celebrated example is Jonathan Ive, the man who designed the iPod and iMac. Ive was born in England and educated at Newcastle Polytechnic University of Northumbria before joining Apple Computer Inc. in California in 1992.
Ive is not unique. Most of the workers who immigrate to the U.S. each year have at least a high school diploma, while about a third have a college education or better. Since it costs, on average, roughly $100,000 to provide 12 years of elementary and secondary education, and another $100,000 to pay for a college degree, immigrants are providing a subsidy of at least $50 billion annually to the U.S. economy in free human capital. Alternatively, valuing their contribution to the economy by the total wages they expect to earn during their lifetime would put the value of the human capital of new immigrants closer to $200 billion per year. Either the low or high estimate would make the current account deficit look smaller.
These numbers may also seem squishy. Still, if Fed chief Bernanke, corporate executives, and ordinary investors want to know where we've been, and where we're headed, tracking the creation and flow of knowledge is the only way to go.
Comment: Surprised? Not at all. Remember during the tech boom in the US when there was all the talk of the "new economy", and how the old rules didn't apply? Remember how that turned out? Well, now they're trying to tell us that we are moving into a "knowledge-based economy", and all the rules are different again! The fact remains that historically, whenever a nation has had an economy that is in a state similar to that of the US economy - and there are many indications that the US economy is one of the worse ever - the Powers that Be have always let the house of cards come tumbling down to bankrupt the masses and enrich themselves. Sure, they might change their tactics a bit this time around, but let's face it: an economic collapse in the US would be a prime opportunity to clamp down and assert even more control over the country, while simultaneously negatively affecting pretty much every other nation on the planet.
See article text for more comments...
Comment on this Article
Cost of wars soars to $440bn for US
Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday February 4, 2006
The Guardian
The Bush administration has said it is planning to spend $120bn (£68bn) on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars this year, bringing their total cost so far to $440bn.
The spending request, which will soon be presented to Congress, marks a 20% increase over last year, despite plans to draw down US troop levels in both war zones in the coming months. The administration also plans to ask for a downpayment of $50bn on war costs next year. The requests are expected to pass easily.
The spending on the Iraq conflict alone is now approaching the cost of the Korean war, about $330bn in today's dollars. Meanwhile the cost of the overall "war on terror" - relabelled The Long War in the Pentagon - is already close to half a trillion dollars, and will soon equal that of the 13-year Vietnam war.
"There is some reason to be surprised that it's this much," said Steven Kosiak, a military spending analyst at the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. "The Congressional Budget Office had estimated the defence department would need $85bn and that was with no drawdown in troops."
A White House budget official, Joel Kaplan, said that some of the extra spending would go towards keeping military equipment going in the desert, to accelerate training of Iraqi forces, and to give US troops better protection against roadside bombs. The budget request did not include reconstruction spending.
The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, once predicted that the Iraq war would cost $50bn. George Bush's former economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, was forced to resign for being alarmist after predicting in 2002 that the Iraq war could cost up to $200bn. Even before the new supplemental requests, spending on the conflict in Iraq has reached $250bn.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and Columbia University economist, has calculated that the Iraq war could ultimately cost $2 trillion, including lost productivity because of casualties and foreign deployments of reservists, as well as the long-term impact of disability payments and general economic disruption.
The administration's low pre-war estimates assumed that the invasion would be largely welcomed and coalition troops would quickly be able to hand over to a new government in Baghdad.
The money being earmarked for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is outside the normal defence budget. That budget for 2007 is $439bn, a 5% increase.
The budget will be delivered to Congress at the same time as the Quadrennial Defence Review, in which the Pentagon lays out its longer term strategy. The review envisages the development of more mobile, specialised forces in smaller units. There will be a 15% increase in special operations forces, and a new air force drone squadron. Nearly 4,000 more troops will be assigned to psychological operations and civil affairs units.
Military experts have applauded the reforms but say the review does not explain how they will be paid for. There is no mention of cutting back on some of the huge and controversial equipment in development, such as the F22 and F35 fighter planes and the US navy's new DD(X) destroyer.
A British soldier from the 9th/12th Lancers has died following a road traffic accident outside Basra, the Ministry of Defence said yesterday. There was no suggestion of "hostile involvement". It is the 101st British death of the war.
Comment on this Article
Iraq war is costing $100,000 per minute
By Mark Mazzetti and Joel Havemann
Los Angeles Times
3 Feb 2006
WASHINGTON — The White House said Thursday that it plans to ask Congress for an additional $70 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, driving the cost of military operations in the two countries to $120 billion this year, the highest ever.
Most of the new money would pay for the war in Iraq, which has cost an estimated $250 billion since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.
The additional spending, along with other war funding the Bush administration will seek separately in its regular budget next week, would push the price tag for combat and nation-building since Sept. 11, 2001, to nearly a half-trillion dollars, approaching the inflation-adjusted cost of the 13-year Vietnam War.
The cost of military operations in 2006 is $35 billion higher than what Congress had estimated a few months ago that the Defense Department would need this year. The higher costs are occurring even as the Pentagon is planning to reduce troop levels in Iraq in coming months, reflecting the continuing wear and damage to military equipment in desert combat, the need to upgrade protection for U.S. troops and the effort to train and equip Iraqi forces.
No large-scale reconstruction projects are included in the spending, officials said.
Currently, the Defense Department says it is spending about $4.5 billion a month on the conflict in Iraq, or about $100,000 per minute.
Current spending in Afghanistan is about $800 million a month, or about $18,000 per minute.
The rising costs contrast with projections before the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey predicted in late 2002 that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, drawing administration ire for offering such high estimates and eventually resigning his post.
In spring 2003, top administration officials, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, said Iraq's vast oil reserves would help defray the costs of an extended U.S. stay. Nearly three years later, oil revenues are far below expectations and the Iraqi government is able to pay for only a fraction of its reconstruction.
The White House also told Congress on Thursday that it will ask for $18 billion in supplemental funds for Hurricane Katrina relief, bringing to $105 billion the amount the administration plans to spend on relief and rebuilding efforts along the Gulf Coast.
Comment on this Article
19-year-olds among record numbers filing for bankruptcy - expected to get worse
Larry Elliott
Saturday February 4, 2006
The Guardian
Record numbers of consumers - some as young as 19 - gave up the struggle last year to pay off debts amassed as a result of credit-driven spending sprees and filed for bankruptcy or voluntary insolvency, the government said yesterday.
Insolvency practitioners blamed Britain's "live-now-pay-later" culture and the ease of obtaining loans for the 45% increase in the number of individuals going broke in England and Wales in 2005 and said the total was likely to rise from 67,500 to at least 100,000 in 2006.
Firms expect the first quarter of 2006 to be even worse than the final three months of 2005 and are already reporting a sharp increase in the number of consumers calling helplines as a result of the debts amassed during shopping binges over Christmas and the New Year. There is no sign of the upward trend in insolvency coming to an end, they said.
Figures from the DTI showed that the number of personal insolvencies rose by 15% in the final three months of 2005 and were 57% higher than in the same quarter of 2004. The total has doubled in the past three years.
Steve Treharne, Head of Personal Insolvency at KPMG said: "The bankruptcy bubble is getting bigger but seems unlikely to burst for some time yet. The levels and availability of credit have been increasing for some time and recent figures from the Bank of England show that this trend is continuing.
"Since Christmas we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people calling debt helplines, which demonstrates the continued build-up of overindebtedness. As a result, in 2006 we expect to see 60,000 bankruptcies and around 40,000 individual voluntary arrangements, by far the highest level ever seen."
Separately, data from the Department of Constitutional Affairs showed that mortgage repossessions and arrears were also rising. With house price inflation easing, unemployment rising gently and interest rates higher than they were two years ago, orders by courts to repossess homes were 58% higher between October and December than a year earlier. Actions entered by lenders - the first stage of the repossession process - were at their highest level since the depths of the property crash of the early 1990s.
Geoff Carton-Kelly, chairman of business recovery at Baker Tilly accountants said: "There is a massive availability of credit, and people still want to live now and pay later." An increasing number of debtors, he added, were opting for IVAs as a way of dealing with their creditors rather than bankruptcy. IVAs allow those in work to offer regular repayments while often safeguarding the debtor's house.
Recent statistics have shown that women are now nearly as likely to file for bankruptcy or insolvency as men, and that the average age of those in trouble has fallen. Mr Treharne said: "Despite student loans being taken out of the bankruptcy equation, in 2005 nearly 900 former students were so desperate they decided bankruptcy was still the best option for them. Clearly, this is not the best start in life for a graduate."
Mike Gerard, a personal insolvency expert at accountants Grant Thornton, said insolvency was no longer confined to those on poor incomes. It was not uncommon, he said, for someone on an income of £40,000 a year to have unsecured debts of £100,000 to £150,000.
Comment on this Article
UK considers curbing citizens' right to arrest alleged war criminals
Vikram Dodd
Friday February 3, 2006
The Guardian
The government is considering weakening laws designed to capture alleged war criminals and torturers who enter Britain, after pressure from the Israeli government, the Guardian has learned.
The changes would bar individuals from seeking international warrants for the arrest of people suspected of serious human rights abuses. The government has confirmed that Israeli officials have lobbied for changes in the law, which has kept some of their military officials away from Britain in case there should be an attempt to arrest them.
The proposals follow Israeli anger after an attempt was made to arrest one of their senior retired generals, Doron Almog, at Heathrow last September. He was tipped off that police were waiting to arrest him for alleged war crimes in Gaza. He stayed on the El Al plane and flew back to Israel.
The warrant was issued by Bow Street magistrates, central London, after an application from lawyers representing Palestinians who say they suffered because of the Israeli general's alleged illegal orders.
Ministers are said to believe the law is too unpredictable and can risk jeopardising international relations. The warrant naming General Almog for war crimes is believed to be the first of its kind issued in Britain against an Israeli national over conduct in the Palestinian conflict. A British official confirmed that ministers were examining stopping private individuals applying to magistrates for prosecutions over war crimes, genocide and torture, which in turn leads to international arrest warrants being granted.
Under international law, Britain has a duty to arrest and prosecute alleged war crimes suspects if they arrive on its territory, even though the alleged offences occurred overseas.
Gen Almog is alleged to have ordered the destruction of 59 Palestinian civilian homes in revenge for the death of Israeli soldiers, in breach of the Geneva conventions.
Since last September, Israeli officials have met twice with Home Office officials and Foreign Office representatives regarding the attempted arrest. The government has denied claims that US officials want the British law changed, fearing their officials could be arrested for alleged human rights abuses.
Gen Almog said he was tipped off by the Israeli military attache in London, who boarded his plane at Heathrow. Police rejected demands to investigate who tipped off the general, saying in a letter seen by the Guardian from Peter Clarke, the national anti-terrorism coordinator, that they lacked the resources to do so.
Daniel Machover, the solicitor who brought the prosecution, has made an official complaint about the lack of an investigation and police "failure" to board Gen Almog's plane at Heathrow. Mr Machover said any change would weaken the government's claim to be resolute in fighting serious human rights abuses.
He said; "If the UK goes ahead and bends to Israeli pressure, while Israel continues its universally condemned illegal practices, this will sent the worst possible signal to the Israeli army. The British government is completely obsessed with controlling these processes."
Several Labour backbenchers have tabled questions, including Phyllis Starkey, MP for Milton Keynes South West, who said: "The obvious concern is the way in which the Israeli government in particular seems to be given quite favoured access to interfere in UK domestic policy."
The government says any change would be referred back to parliament. The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, apologised to his Israeli counterpart over the attempted arrest, and the warrant has been withdrawn.
A Home Office spokeswoman said: "The government is carefully considering the implications of the General Almog case. The government is currently considering a range of matters relating to the issuing of arrest warrants in international cases, but has not yet concluded what changes, if any, are required. There have been two meetings by home officials with Israeli officials regarding this matter. The Home Office has not been in contact with US officials on this matter."
A spokeswoman for the Israeli embassy in London confirmed meetings with British officials and said: "We would like to find a solution to this unacceptable situation." She added that the right of individuals in Britain to obtain warrants in cases of alleged war crimes had been abused. "This has been used by people to promote their own agenda, and that's the worry we're expressing."
It was reported that shortly after the attempt to arrest Gen Almog, the matter was discussed by the Israeli and British prime ministers at a meeting of the UN in New York.
Comment on this Article
US begins quest for approval for UN Darfur force
By Evelyn Leopold
Reuters
2 Feb 06
UNITED NATIONS - A U.S.-drafted Security Council statement calls for U.N. peacekeepers to be sent to Sudan's violent Darfur region and asks United Nations to draw up plans for an eventual takeover from an African Union force.
The statement, circulated for discussion to Security Council members on Thursday by U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, would be the first step toward authorizing a larger force in Darfur where killings, rape and pillaging continue unabated.
But the statement, which needs approval from all council members, has not yet received agreement from Qatar, the only Arab nation in the 15-member body and China, a close ally of Khartoum, council envoys said.
Specifically, the Security Council would "support in principal" a transition from the African Union mission in Darfur to a U.N. operation, the draft says. The AU has some 7,000 monitors and soldiers in a region the size of France and chronically suffers from lack of financing.
The draft statement requests U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to "initiate contingency planning without delay" on a range of options and integrate any new operation with the current U.N. peacekeeping mission in southern Sudan.
Final authorization will take at least another month. The African Union has not yet formally agreed to join or turn over it operation to the United Nations. Nor has the Khartoum government given its consent.
The Darfur conflict erupted into violence in early 2003 when African tribes took up arms accusing the Arab-dominated Khartoum government of neglect. The government retaliated by arming Arab militia, known as Janjaweed, who began a campaign of murder, rape, arson and plunder and drove 2 million villagers into squalid camps. Khartoum denies responsibility.
SEVERAL YEARS
In Khartoum on Thursday, the head of the AU mission in Sudan, Baba Gana Kingibe, told reporters any U.N. force should count on being in Darfur for two to three years to help guard refugees returning to villages from squalid camps.
But he said it was inevitable the United Nations would have to take over.
"It is clear in our minds that a transition is inevitable in the long run for the simple reason that it will create a more efficient single peace support operation for the whole of Sudan, bringing coherence and synergy, and integration of political, humanitarian, military and post-conflict issues," Kingibe said.
Jean-Marie Guehenno, the undersecretary-general for peacekeeping, has started planning but needs a firm decision from the Security Council before recruiting any troops.
No one knows who would join such a force, with Annan hoping Western nations, including the United States and Europeans, would help with an aggressive mobile force and air power.
Bolton's presidency of the Security Council for the month of February brought calls from advocacy and humanitarian groups for the United States to do something in Darfur following an analysis from the top U.N. envoy in Sudan that international efforts to bring peace to Darfur had failed.
"All we did was picking up the pieces and muddling through, doing too little too late," Jan Pronk told the Security Council on Jan. 13.
He estimated 20,000 troops would be needed to disarm marauding militias and protect refugees who want to go home, but U.N. officials say this number is too high. (Opheera McDoom in Khartoum contributed to this report)
Comment on this Article
Massacre of 6 moves Sulu villagers to tears
By Julie S. Alipala
Philippine Daily Inquirer
4 Feb 06
PATIKUL, Sulu—They were used to violence but the sight of the bullet-riddled body of a baby girl lying on top of her equally dead mother was too much and the residents could not help but cry.
The mother and child were among six people killed in Barangay Liang in Patikul early dawn yesterday in the latest upsurge of violence in Sulu, where Muslim rebels, terrorists and criminal gangs roam, and family feuds are settled with guns.
"This was very inhuman," a woman resident said. Another neighbor just kept silent but also cried, as though to blur the sight of the gruesome scene.
Even journalists who had been to many gory scenes of violence could not control their emotions.
Police investigator SPO2 Sangkula Hussin said the gunmen must have been very angry at the victims but the reason for the killings remained unclear.
Like most villagers, the victims were unarmed.
"They were ruthless," another villager said, looking at the bodies.
The shooting lasted for about 10 minutes, police said, judging from the number of empty shells recovered.
Villagers told the Inquirer that they could not understand why such an incident could happen in their community, which is practically surrounded by military camps.
The close-knit community of tattered houses and makeshift shanties lies near the headquarters of the 3rd Marine Brigade. Another military installation is about 500 meters away.
"All the angles are being looked at. We cannot yet make any conclusions," Col. Domingo Tutaan of the military's Southern Command said by telephone from Jolo, the Associated Press reported.
Houses strafed
Unlicensed firearms are easy to obtain in the Sulu area.
The killings took place a week after eight people were killed by five gunmen who strafed a billiard hall in Balabagan, Lanao del Sur.
Police said the Balabagan attack was apparently part of a rido (family feud) as a son of one of the alleged assailants was killed in the same town last month.
The attack occurred at about 1 a.m. when some 20 unidentified men strafed the houses of the Patenga, Fontanilla and Casipong families in Barangay Liang, according to Senior Supt. Ajura Asirim, police provincial director.
"The suspects used high-powered firearms based on the type of shells our investigators recovered from the scene. They also used grenade launchers although these failed to hit the houses," Asirim said.
The victims
Killed were 8-month-old Melanie and her mother Sulma, 35, her father Leonardo, 40; Aurelio Fontanilla, 50; Pedro Casipong, 56, and his daughter Emma, 16.
Injured in the Patenga household were Jason, 4; Susan, 11 and Alkamar, 3.
Wounded in the Fontanilla family was Jennifer, 22. Among the Casipongs, housewife Lucrecia, 53, was wounded.
Asirim said the attackers had apparently deliberately targeted the victims because minutes before the incident, the armed men even asked directions from neighbors.
Deep anger
"This is what we are trying to discern so we could uncover the motive and possibly, the identities of the suspects," he said.
Asirim agreed with Hussin's observation that the suspects must have harbored deep grudges against the victims because they made sure the victims were dead.
Lucrecia Casipong said the firing was relentless.
She said that during the shooting, her main concern was the safety of her family.
"I crawled over to Emma [her daughter] and hugged her because I thought she must be very scared already. But then I noticed she wasn't moving and blood was all over her. It was then I realized she was dead," she said.
Bullets fly
As bullets flew over her head, Lucrecia said she crawled again toward her husband to tell him about Emma.
But he, too, was dead.
When the firing ended, Lucrecia said she heard Susan crying for help. She yelled back and told her she could not go to her because her husband and daughter were dead.
Lucrecia said it was so dark and she lay on her belly for a long time until she decided it was safe to move around.
No help came
"I cried hard for help too but nobody dared come," she said.
It was only at sunrise that neighbors, some living just 10 meters away, came over.
Residents said they did not come because they were so scared.
"Besides, what can we do? We do not have weapons," a man said.
Jennifer Fontanilla, who said she survived the attack by hiding under her bed, told government-run Radyo ng Bayan that before the shooting, the armed men roused them from sleep and demanded to know if they were Christians or Muslims, the AP said.
Gunmen returned
Asirim said he learned Marines had come but they failed to catch up with the killers.
"We want to get to the bottom of this incident," he said.
The Inquirer learned that the area where the victims lived belongs to the Vicariate of Jolo. It was the late Bishop Benjamin de Jesus who had asked the villagers to live there.
The violence came less than three weeks before a small group of 250 US soldiers deploy on Jolo island for joint military exercises.
About 5,000 US troops are to take part in the annual "Balikatan" war games to be conducted throughout the Philippines.
With reports from Ed General, PDI Mindanao Bureau, and Inquirer wires
Comment on this Article
Meteor lights Alberta sky
February 3, 2006
By KATIE SCHNEIDER, CALGARY SUN
Calgarians awoke to a fire in the sky early Wednesday morning.
Alan Hildebrand, co-ordinator of the Canadian Fireball Reporting Centre, said 20 people reported seeing a fireball, an exceptionally bright meteor, streak across the sky just before 7 a.m., lasting for several seconds before breaking up into fragments.
Reports were made from the Calgary area, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Pincher Creek and other areas, he said.
"It had to be a bright one for everyone in the Calgary area to see," Hildebrand said.
He estimated remnants of the meteorite landed about 400 km south of Calgary somewhere in Montana about two minutes after it appeared as a ball of fire.
Comment on this Article
Glacier break up hastened
From correspondents in London
news.com.au
February 04, 2006
TWO major glaciers in Greenland have recently begun to flow and break up more quickly under the onslaught of global warming, according to a new study which has raised the spectre of millions drowning from rising sea levels.
The report by the University of Swansea's School of the Environment and Society said the Kangerdlugssuaq and Helheim glaciers had doubled their rate of flow to the ocean over the past two years after steady movement during the 1990s.
This spurt meant that current environmental models of the rate of retreat of Greenland's giant ice sheet – which could add seven metres to the height of the world's oceans if it disappears – had underestimated the problem.
"It seems likely that other Greenland outlets will undergo similar changes, which would impact the mass balance of the ice sheet more rapidly than predicted," the study said.
It said the fact that the two major outflow glaciers had shown the same sudden acceleration despite being more than 300km apart suggested the cause was not local but more likely climatic or oceanic in origin.
"In both of these glaciers the acceleration and retreat has been sudden, despite the progressive nature of warming and thinning over some years," the report said.
Advertisement:
"The longevity of this flux increase is unknown but could be substantial," it added.
The report followed a warning earlier this week from Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research – a branch of the Meteorological Office – that the Greenland ice sheet could be disappearing faster than previously thought.
The ice sheet contains one-tenth of the world's freshwater reserves.
Scientists predict that global average temperatures will rise by between one and six degrees Celsius this century unless urgent action is taken now to cap and reduce carbon emissions.
Even a rise of three degrees could result in cataclysmic species loss, melting polar icecaps raising sea levels by many metres and wholesale famine and disease.
Greenland is only part of the picture, and there is also evidence of local warming and melting on the giant Western Antarctic ice sheet.
Scientists said on Monday the world had to halt greenhouse gas emissions and reverse them within two decades or watch the planet spiralling towards destruction.
The first phase of the global Kyoto protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions runs until 2012, and negotiations have only just started on finding a way of taking it beyond that.
The United States, the world's biggest polluter, has rejected both the protocol in its current form and any suggestion of expanding or extending it.
Comment on this Article
Recent Earthquakes
USGS
February 4, 2006
The latest earthquakes from around the world:
Magnitude 5.4 - 2006/02/04 09:17:04 - GALAPAGOS ISLANDS, ECUADOR
Magnitude 6.0 - 2006/02/03 20:34:13 - ANDAMAN ISLANDS, INDIA REGION
Magnitude 5.5 - 2006/02/03 16:00:13 - TONGA
Magnitude 5.1 - 2006/02/03 14:20:50 - FIJI REGION
Magnitude 5.2 - 2006/02/03 06:10:06 - NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
Magnitude 5.4 - 2006/02/03 04:37:36 - NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
Comment on this Article
Manila game show stampede kills 73
CNN
Saturday, February 4, 2006
MANILA, Philippines -- A crowd of people awaiting entrance to a stadium in Manila stampeded Saturday, killing at least 73 people and injuring 322, an official said.
A report carried by the Associated Press quotes the Philippine Red Cross Chairman Senator Richard Gordon as saying the toll was at least 88 people.
Some of the 20,000 people who were lined up outside the arena had been waiting for days to gain access to the stadium, where a game show was to be videotaped, Philippines Congressman Robert Jaworski told CNN.
At 7 a.m., five hours before the show was to begin, people were being admitted to the stadium at such a slow pace that one member of the crowd apparently decided to hasten the process, he said.
"Someone shouted and and screamed that there was a bomb," Jaworski said.
"It was just a prank by one of those irresponsible people who wanted to get in first. Sadly, it caused a panic. It was a down-slope road and they started running down the hill ... they just started trampling each other."
Most of the casualties were women, he said.
The people in the crowd were packed so closely together that it took police and rescue workers until 9 a.m. to reach those who were hurt, resulting in a number of deaths that a faster response could have prevented, he added.
"The gates were being partially opened then shut," said Myrna Britania, 42, who spoke at a hospital where the injured were being treated, AP reports.
"The raffle tickets can be obtained at the gate so everyone was in a hurry. There was pushing and people in front of the gate were crushed."
Britania, who had spent all night in line, said "people at the back of the line were pushing not knowing there were already people dead lying on the ground in front."
Police Superintendent Gerry Galvan told AP at least 50 people died at the stadium and the rest at hospitals where they were taken.
Radio DZBB reported that hospitals were overwhelmed with the scores of injured and were using parking lots to accommodate them.
Gordon blamed poor organization of the event for the tragedy.
"If you predict that there's going to be a huge crowd, you should be ready with ambulances and communications," AP quotes him as saying.
"You should plan for the worst. We have a lot of people who wanted to help but could not get in immediately."
Comment on this Article
Without an heir, is divorce in the air for sad princess?
By David McNeill in Tokyo
04 February 2006
Princess Masako is so weighed down by the demands of imperial life that she wants a divorce, according to the Japanese press, as opposition grows against plans to allow her child, Princess Aiko, to sit on the Chrysanthemum Throne.
Several magazines say that, after 13 unhappy years in the Imperial Palace, the Harvard-educated former diplomat is looking for a way out of her marriage to Emperor Akihito's son, Crown Prince Naruhito. The Imperial Household dismisses the speculation.
The 42-year-old princess has spent the past two years largely out of public sight and has been diagnosed with a mental disorder that many blame on her struggle to produce a male heir.
The princess came under intense palace pressure to have another baby after giving birth to her only child, Aiko, in 2001. Her subsequent illness has sparked a succession crisis and forced the government to begin revising the Imperial House Law, which prevents females from ascending the throne.
A government panel has recommended changing the law and polls suggest that the public supports the idea of an empress. But, with just over a month left before the revision is sent to parliament, the plan has run into opposition from conservatives, including members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).
The former prime minister, Yoshio Mori, and the head of the LDP's Diet Affairs Committee, Hiroyuki Hosada, warned recently that the succession issue could "split the country" if handled badly. "Opposition is growing. The situation is precarious," Mr Hosada said.
The Association of Shinto Shrines, which has traditionally harvested votes for the LDP, has warned that it will withdraw support from anyone who votes for the bill, a potentially serious threat to the Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi, who supports a female emperor. Opponents were galvanised on Wednesday by a Tokyo rally at which more than 170 Diet members signed a cross-party petition opposing the legislation.
At least one member of the imperial family has told the government not to buck tradition. The emperor's cousin, Prince Tomohito, believes that the imperial bloodline should not be diluted by "outsiders". "There is no need to change the law," said the prince.
The speculation about Masako's state of mind has gathered pace as the debate on the succession issue heats up. "There are very few people who actually say the words divorce, but they think it," said Yagi Hidetsugu, a professor at Takasaki Keizai University. "Her withdrawal from the imperial family would certainly solve a lot of problems."
Comment on this Article
Ark's Quantum Quirks
SOTT
February 4, 2006
Comment on this Article