Office of Strategic Influence (Office of Propaganda)

*sigh*

You guys are reading too much into this. You're are apparently already convinced that the new Gestapo is here, Gen. Worden is the new Goebbels, and the next step is the formal burning of the constitution...

You guys were wrong about Ashcroft's fascism, and you're wrong about this. But that's fine... Continue with your paranoid conspiracy theory generation.

 

<B>You guys are reading too much into this. You're are apparently already convinced that the new Gestapo is here, Gen. Worden is the new Goebbels, and the next step is the formal burning of the constitution... </B>

It doesn't matter what the current "intent" of the office is. The whole framework of our government system is limited government power because of the simple and true principle that if you give the government power, it will ultimately be used.

It may start as something used only rarely, but there's no doubt that at some point -- especially with all the secrecy and lack of oversight witin the office -- it can and probably will be used in ways that are a bit more sinister than you're describing.

It would be nice if governments were completely trustworthy and always did the right thing, but the history of the world and our own history show otherwise.

 

Treeman,

I just don't believe in "temporary" repealment of constitutional rights on any level. We must remain true to the principles that has made our country prosper. Principles such as capitalism, free commerce, and other laws of economics balanced with the freedom of the individual. We are the strongest country in the world for one reason and one reason only:

Because we have the strongest, flourishing economy in the world. Our corporations are multi-national conglomerates that are owned by our citizens and the taxes goes to the government, which allows the government to purchase the best military equipment and create the newest military technology. FACT.

Some political interests through lobbyist groups are alienating us from a portion of the world and the negative backlash is extending beyond the middle east into Europe, Russia and other areas. This will create tensions that will adversely affect trade and international commerce, that will effect our economy with our global reach. FACT.

One thing that I do know Treeman, is that some of the biggest propaganda is used in training US soldiers and army officers and molding them into their own image. Similar to how a college fraternity breaks you down during hazing only to build you back into their image of you. There is no individual, only the group. Follow the leader and do not dispute the leader.
Non-conformists are the founding fathers of this country that did not simply follow blindly the will of their government.

The drive towards increased government control and socialism is rampant, and I am very much against it. Its ironic even how the Enron situation is seen as a problem with de-regulation and how the industry should be government-run. That is nonsense to the core.

Things don't change to a fascist state overnight, it happens through slow manipulation and it is our job as US citizens to make sure we never even start down that path.

 

Major:

No doubt? None at all? Not unless you're Miss Cleo.

When we see it abusing the system and publishing false reports left and right, then I will agree with you. Until it starts doing that, there is considerable doubt that its power will be abused.

F.D. Khan:

Neither do I. Please give me an example of one single constitutional right that has been even temporarily repealed/curbed? And don't throw the "well there are still people being detained without charges brought" garbage at me - they are not US citizens and are not protected by the constitution - so the Supreme Court says.

One example.

I take it that this is a reference to the Jewish lobby's influence? Please, don't start going into the whole "Zionist conspriacy" thing... That is one of the more ridiculous conspiracy theories floating around.

Their current perceptions have more to do with two other facts: 1) their own governments are constantly telling them lies about us, and 2) we have previously never bothered to counter those lies with the truth.

Considering the second one... That is the whole point of this new office. You guys are focusing on the "possibly even false news" part, while totally ignoring the great likelihood that 99% of its activities will be to counter the lies that are traditionally told about us to the very populations that you guys are constantly accusing us of ignoring! Do you not see the irony here???

Yes, that is our job. And it is also the job of our government to protect its citizens during wartime. As many here have repoeatedly (and correctly) pointed out, part of that effort must include changing the perceptions of those overseas - addressing the hostility of those in the ME in particular. Well, not the government is going to do just that, and now those same vioces who were telling them to do so are crying "Fascism!"...

Sometimes the government just can't win, I guess?

 

<B>When we see it abusing the system and publishing false reports left and right, then I will agree with you. Until it starts doing that, there is considerable doubt that its power will be abused. </B>

Unfortunately, at that point, it's too late and the damage is done. Don't ever give the government more control than absolutely necessary -- that's been a principle of our government since Day 1. If you know that we will never use this type of stuff on our allies, <I>don't give the government the authority to do it</I>.

 

We have tried telling other countries the truth before. Like treeman said, they already think we're lying to them when we're not. If they don't believe or like our truth, what else are we supposed to do?

The fact that other countries do it too does not make it right by any means. They do this type of thing day in and day out. It doesn't make it right, but it is warranted.

I do think this is getting blown out of proportion. If something they receive is false, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out.

You are assuming that if the US does something wrong once, that we'll do it again and again. We don't have a dictatorship in this country. We do not have one supreme leader. We do not have a government that has absoulute power. I'm not assuming that it won't happen again. If we do it once, it does make it more likely to happen again, but there are checks and balances in our system to protect against abuse. Why do you all fai to recognize that? The power is still not centralized. The government will need support to do this. If one branch thinks power is being abused, they won't let it happen. I try to have some faith in the system.

You're saying you don't want us to tell lies, but you're providing proof that you at least understand that it's not always possible. The US has tried to play by the rules. In fact, I really don't see how this would be breaking rules. We're lying to our enemies? They're bad guys. Why do they deserve to know the truth, especially when we've been giving it to them and they dismiss it as lies.

We wonder why other governments do not trust us? They have always distrusted us. We haven't even done this yet and they distrust us. This will give them another legitamate reason I suppose.

 

Why do you think that telling them lies will all the sudden make them believe us? If they don't believe the truth, why would they believe the lies?

 

RM95,

I think that's a good point. And I don't know.

It does make me wonder though. Is it better to have them not believe the truth or to not believe the lies?

If they don't believe the lies, will any harm really be done (I'm really asking because I don't know)? And what would be the harm?

 

<B>I do think this is getting blown out of proportion. If something they receive is false, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out. </B>

If that was the case, then the government wouldn't be going through this entire process. The people trying to implement this disagree with you here.

When you hear two conflicting reports on some incident in the Middle East, how do <I>you</I> determine which one is right?

<B>You are assuming that if the US does something wrong once, that we'll do it again and again. We don't have a dictatorship in this country. We do not have one supreme leader. </B>

That's exactly the point. We change leaders every couple of years. Just because you trust Bush not to abuse this power does NOT mean other future leaders won't.

<B>I'm not assuming that it won't happen again. If we do it once, it does make it more likely to happen again, but there are checks and balances in our system to protect against abuse. </B>

Agreed. And the check and balance is that we don't give the government excessive power that can be abused, which is the thing that is being ignored here.

<B>If one branch thinks power is being abused, they won't let it happen.</B>

That's good and all, but by the nature of the project (disseminating lies), this is a secretive project and all branches of government aren't going to be involved.

<B>You're saying you don't want us to tell lies, but you're providing proof that you at least understand that it's not always possible. The US has tried to play by the rules. </B>

No, I was referring to the crappy things the US has done in the past. (testing vaccines on black people without their knowledge or permission, I think? Watergate. Iran-Contra.) There are very good reasons to limit the power of government, and even more reasons to demand honesty from the government.

<B>In fact, I really don't see how this would be breaking rules. We're lying to our enemies? They're bad guys. </B>

If you read the article, this project lets us lie to our allies as well. They're the good guys.

<B>We wonder why other governments do not trust us? They have always distrusted us. We haven't even done this yet and they distrust us. This will give them another legitamate reason I suppose. </B>

That's ludicrous. They distrust us because we've screwed them before. Why do we distrust Iraq? <I>Because he's lied to us before, and that means he's likely to lie to us again.</I>

You earn trust, you don't just expect it to come when you've lied before. And authorizing a broad range of lying in the future doesn't help build that trust either.

 

Rm95 & Major:

I really think you guys are totally missing the point here.

I would bet that 99% of what they will hear from us will still be the truth; the real difference now is that there will be a coordinated and committed effort to actually get our side of the story to them. As it is, the only current way for any of them to get our side of things is via the Internet, and the vast majority of Joe's and Jane's in that part of the world have no Internet access.

A primary goal of this office appears to be to increase efforts to get our side of things to those who previously had no access to it. And as I have repeatedly said, I would expect the vast majority of the information we give them will be of a truthful nature, because the truth really is on our side. You guys are simply assuming that this new office is going to be spitting out lies right and left. That is a baseless, and quite paranoid, assumption.

No, you want to give government the power necessary - all power necessary - to win in wartime. Tie the governments hands in wartime, and you are likely to lose the war.

Why did Congress approve its budget if it is expected to abuse its power? Congress - both democratic and Republican - is notorious for not wanting to give anyone any power that might be abused. Apparently Congress doesn't think it's such a bad idea...

And as far as giving out false information, which you guys simply assume is this office's primary directive - I honestly cannot think of any false information, other than military deployments, they they would want to disseminate. I really do not think that you will see too much falsification, if any at all. You guys are overreacting.

 

Major, Thank you for addressing me.

As far as our allies go, do you think they have never ever lied to us? Just wondering.

I don't think one sole group should have this power. If they were just using it for disinformation in warfare strategies, that's one thing. But flat out lying, I don't know how I feel about it. I think it's a scary issue, but I don't really have an exact opinion on it yet.

I missunderstood that this was being done in secret without all government approval. If that were the case, I don't think we would have to fear this power being abused since there would be checks.

As far as I go, I never assume anything is right, or I assume it's all right. Either way, I never know what's really goin on!

Like I said, they didn't believe us before. We have screwed countries over before. We have also kept many promises. As I've said in other threads, people tend to focus on the bad things. It's a truth about life that psychologists have recognized. I would write more, but I have to go to class.

 

<B>No, you want to give government the power necessary - all power necessary - to win in wartime. Tie the governments hands in wartime, and you are likely to lose the war. </B>

First off, this office is not limited to wartime. Second, this authorizes the government to influence public opinion in FRIENDLY countries as well. Maybe you think it won't be used that way, and I hope you're right, but if that's the case, there's no reason to give that power.

<B>Why did Congress approve its budget if it is expected to abuse its power? Congress - both democratic and Republican - is notorious for not wanting to give anyone any power that might be abused. Apparently Congress doesn't think it's such a bad idea... </B>

Honestly? Because it passed right after 9/11 and virtually anything Bush wanted to fight terrorism would have passed in those several weeks because that's what the public demanded. By the way, Congress didn't specifically authorize this office -- it's entirely an Executive Dept thing:

<I>Its multimillion dollar budget, drawn from a $10 billion emergency supplement to the Pentagon budget authorized by Congress in October, has not been disclosed. </I>

Congress simply authorized emergency funding.

 

Princess,

<B>As far as our allies go, do you think they have never ever lied to us? Just wondering. </B>

I'm sure they have, and I'm sure we have as well. The difference here to me is that we're officially sanctioning it. And everyone knows that we're doing this.

<B>I missunderstood that this was being done in secret without all government approval. If that were the case, I don't think we would have to fear this power being abused since there would be checks. </B>

I don't know how OSI will work, but as of yet, it's a pretty secretive thing. Congress didn't specifically authorize it, no one knows its actual budget or what exactly it does. Things like that don't sit real well with me, because that's a breeding ground for abuse.

<B>Like I said, they didn't believe us before. We have screwed countries over before. We have also kept many promises. As I've said in other threads, people tend to focus on the bad things. </B>

I agree that people tend to focus on the bad things, but I think there's good reason for that. Let's say, for example (yes, this sounds really stupid), Joe Schmoe is dating a girl, Joey Schmoe. Now, Joey has thought Joe was cheating on her 5 separate times. It turns out he only did it twice. The next time Joey thinks Joe is cheating, does she have reason to think she's right? I think she does, because he has a history of doing that. Sure, he's not done it every time, but it only takes a couple of times of compromising principles for others to distrust us in the future.

 

Major:

When you hear a dozen reports saying one thing, and a single report saying another, then it's not that hard to figure out. Baseless stories have a strong tendency to be disreputed and found out.

Well, since our leaders obviously see no problem with this evil agency, then why don't you just vote them out next election?

We have yet to see this "abuse of excessive power" that you speak of. Apparently, this office has been in operation since shortly after 9/11. Please give me some examples of its "abuses of excessive power"?

How do you know that? I'd be willing to bet $ that there will be congressional oversight of this office, as Congress doesn't like approving budgets for agencies that don't have to answer to anyone. Even the NSA has to brief them, and that is the "shadowiest" organization in the government. Even most "black budget" items must be disclosed to Congress, and we don't even know if this is in the "black budget".

What are you basing this assumption on?

And the whole "nature of the project (disseminating lies)" shows that you have already judged the office to be evil. You apparently have evidence that it has already disseminated a significant number of false reports to us/everyone. May I see this evidence, please?

True on both counts. But you are making the assumption that there is no oversight here, and without any evidence here. I am willing to bet that they will have to report to Congress.

Give me a hypothetical example of a lie that we would tell to our allies. You are assuming that there are many such examples (I can't even think of one relevant example), and that they will be told regularly. You're paranoid.

Now, I can think of one example where we might lie to our allies: about military deployments and pending military activities. But this is wise decision-making, IMO, as it is known that the French (for example) have passed such information to our enemies (the Serbs in Bosnia and Iraq), and there are leaks between Saudi intelligence and Iraqi Intelligence... But aside from that, what?

No, that's ludicrous. When did we lie to the Brits? The Frenchies? The Saudis? The Turks? The Israelis? The Egyptians? The Germans? This could go on all day...

Some of these allies have consistently told lies about us to their own people. That is a large reason why they distrust us - their governments have told them to.

Why can you only focus on the possibility that we're going to pass along a tidbit here and there that isn't true?

You totally ignore the great likelihood that 99% of the information we disseminate is going to be true. And you also totally ignore the fact that many of our allies have not been truthful to their own populations about us - and have refused to allow us in the past to tell their subjects our side of things. The primary goal of this oprganization, it seems, is to get our viewpoints out to people who previously had no access to that, not to go around the world dishing out lies just to screw with people - as you appear to believe.

Why doesn't anyone trust us? They have never heard our viewpoints - only the skewed viewpoints their governments have allowed them to hear. This will change that.

 

Major:

First off, where does it comment on that either way. Second off, we are at war for the forseeable future so the point is irrelevant at this juncture.

Oh heaven forbid we try to make our friends like us! How horrible!

What do you think an emergency spending bill is? A blank check that the administration never has to account for?

When the administration proposes an emergency spending bill to Congress, it does not just show up and ask "Uuuhh... Can we have $20 billion to fight this war?" It has to have a laundry list of proposals to justify the additional spending, otherwise Congress will not approve emergency spending. I guarantee you that this was on the list, if its budget is that large.

The article says its budget has not been disclosed, and it means to the public. Congress knows of its existence, and its budget. They do not just dish out emergency funds without knowing what they're for.

 

<B>Well, since our leaders obviously see no problem with this evil agency, then why don't you just vote them out next election? </B>

I already planned to vote against Bush next election. Until then, I will continue to debate policies of his that I disagree with.

<B>We have yet to see this "abuse of excessive power" that you speak of. Apparently, this office has been in operation since shortly after 9/11. Please give me some examples of its "abuses of excessive power"?
</B>

Where did I say it was being abused? I said it <B>CAN</B> be abused, and very easily. Call my crazy, but I don't really like to wait until after damage is done and people are pissed at us to correct problems that can easily be foreseen.

<B>You apparently have evidence that it has already disseminated a significant number of false reports to us/everyone. </B>

Find one place where I said that.

<B>But you are making the assumption that there is no oversight here, and without any evidence here. I am willing to bet that they will have to report to Congress. </B>

Of course they'll have to report to Congress, but they certainly aren't going to report specifics (since leaks would obviously negate the effects of the lies in the first placE).

<B>Why can you only focus on the possibility that we're going to pass along a tidbit here and there that isn't true?

I don't care what the <I>likelihood</I> is -- that's the point. If it's NOT going to be used, then why give the government the power? You still haven't answered this. You don't give a government power and assume they'll not use it.

<B>You totally ignore the great likelihood that 99% of the information we disseminate is going to be true. </B>

Well, this can and is already done without this project. This project authorized false information. I don't have any problem with us disseminating true information, and I don't have any problem with false information during war. I do have a problem with disseminating false information to allies for less ethical reasons, which is completely authorized in this project (even if that's not the current intent). This project reeks of slippery-slope in terms of potential uses, and that's almost always a bad way to run government. There have to be very clear lines drawn or things will be stretched to the point of abuse as often than not.

 

I guess this isn't one of those threads for "Pro-US" posters.

This is so not a big deal. Everything the government tells the people of this country is scripted, why shouldn't it be the same for the others too?

If this was meant to be some evil plot, why would they even tell us about it to begin with? Huh?

The plans, which have not received final approval from the Bush administration, have stirred opposition among some Pentagon officials who say they might undermine the credibility of information that is openly distributed by the Defense Department's public affairs officers.

Two important points from that excerpt, of course, are that it hasn't even been approved, and there is opposition. Doesn't look like anyone's trying to pull one over on us, guys -- sorry to get in the way of your thirst for another anti-US nugget.

 

Those who support this think that they are being realists or something.

The best term I've heard for this is "crackpot realism".

Haven't you learned anything from the OJ trial. Once you lie, your credibility is gone. Once the cops lied and played around with some of the evidence, it was pretty hard to say they hadn't lied and played around with the rest of the evidence.

It is important for the US to stand for the truth. It is also important for it to stand for freedom, human rights and democracy. The more consistent the better.

Those of us who are sceptical about the US's stands on these values have that position due to past actions that we are convinced don't reflect those values. Those who live outside this country and who are exposed to a different range of journalism, as we have seen on previous threads on the Israeli resrvist resisters etc., feel even more strongly about this.

The crackpot realists, the propagandists and pr folks, believe that to win back public opinion on these issues is just a pr problem to be managed, and if necessary with lies.

To change these opinions, which like it or not does lead to terrorism on Americans, will require a lengthy history of truth telling and good deeds, not just military might and propaganda.

 

And it's not just paranoid freaks like me who have concerns. Several military personnel are just as concerned. Excerpts:

<I>
The plans, which have not received final approval from the Bush administration, have stirred opposition among some Pentagon officials who say they might undermine the credibility of information that is openly distributed by the Defense Department's public affairs officers.

...

General Worden envisions a broad mission ranging from "black" campaigns that use disinformation and other covert activities to "white" public affairs that rely on truthful news releases, Pentagon officials said.

"It goes from the blackest of black programs to the whitest of white," a senior Pentagon official said.

...

But the new office has also stirred a sharp debate in the Pentagon, where several senior officials have questioned whether its mission is too broad and possibly even illegal.

Those critics say they are disturbed that a single office might be authorized to use not only covert operations like computer network attacks, psychological activities and deception, but also the instruments and staff of the military's globe- spanning public affairs apparatus.

...

"This breaks down the boundaries almost completely," a senior Pentagon official said.

...

Moreover, critics say, disinformation planted in foreign media organizations, like Reuters or Agence France-Presse, could end up being published or broadcast by American news organizations.

The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency are barred by law from propaganda activities in the United States.

...

"Everybody understands using information operations to go after nonfriendlies," another senior Pentagon official said. "When people get uncomfortable is when people use the same tools and tactics on friendlies."

...

"O.S.I. still thinks the way to go is start a Defense Department Voice of America," a senior military official said. "When I get their briefings, it's scary."

</I>

 

I hope this doesn't happen, we're supposed to be the good guys, we shouldn't feel the need to lower our standards just because the other guy's doing it...