Posted on 06/11/2008 9:54:40 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
-By Warner Todd Huston
Congressional Democrats announced early in May that they wanted to make "military propaganda" illegal. To achieve this goal they passed new legislation that strengthened previous legislation that is supposed to ban the Pentagon from indulging in "propaganda" for the military.
This bill is supposed to stop the military from sending "any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes or behavior of the people of the United States in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly."
In other words, the military is not allowed to talk to the American people or Congress for fear of disseminating "propaganda."
The only way to fulfill this idiotic policy is to stop anyone in the military from ever speaking in public because, when you get right down to it, nearly any communication from the Pentagon, or any command staff in theater, will have the effect of "influencing" those who hear it. That is the nature of human communication, after all.
Of course this is a silly concept that the Democrat Party has come up with. Every single thing that man conceives of must be "sold" to everyone else to get implemented. The idea is born in the minds of one or a few and then those disciples of the idea go forth and begin a campaign to convince those who can put that idea into place that the idea is worthy of support. In essence, that is propaganda in its simplest form. The happy face is put on, the hands are shaken, and the plan is laid out for discussion. This is called being human! It's how we all get things done.
Besides, what level of information becomes propaganda and what just "information"? To a rabid, anti-military nut any words from the Pentagon is "propaganda." To the highest booster, none are. Who is to determine when what is being said becomes "propaganda"?
My guess is no one in the Democrat caucus is smart enough to know.
But, let's look at the real reason this simple-minded policy was created. The real reason the Democrats want such a policy in place is to silence the military entirely. Democrats aren't interested in keeping the tender ears of the people from being assaulted with "propaganda." No, they want to be able to shut the military off from being able to appear before the American people to defend themselves against Democrat attacks. THAT is the true goal.
If the Democrat Party can keep the Pentagon in the can, then Congress and the Democrat Party will be the conduit of information between the military and the people. And the Democrat Party finds an enemy in the American military. So, what better way to further their own propaganda then by making sure the enemy's will never be heard.
Stalin would be proud of Congressional democrats.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h5658eh.txt.pdf
Here it is, section 1075, page 559, of the “Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)”.
The Senate bill seems to be a backup in case someone reads the 888 page appropriations bill and attempts to take out Sect 1075.
Beat me to it. Absolutely.
Next they’re going to complain because they can’t get anyone in the military to answer questions, and they’ll blame it on some imaginary gag order.
Odd, innit, the relationship between certain public books and Congressional actions? McClellan’s book, Wilson’s book, some of the 911 books, Clark’s book and subsequent TV special, Earth in the Balance, Silent Spring, and for all we know The Fog. Almost as though the book is used as propaganda to justify Congressional action.
9 SEC. 1075. PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO PROPAGANDA.
10 (a) PROHIBITION.—No part of any funds authorized
11 to be appropriated in this or any other Act shall be used
12 by the Department of Defense for propaganda purposes
13 within the United States not otherwise specifically author
14 ized by law.
15 (b) REPORTS.—Not later than 90 days after the date
16 of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the
17 Department of Defense and the Comptroller General of
18 the United States shall each conduct a study of, and sub
19 mit to the Congress a report on, the extent to which the
20 Department of Defense has violated the prohibition on
21 propaganda established in section 8001 of Public Laws
22 107–117, 107–248, 108–87, 108–287, 109–148, 109–
23 289, and 110–116, the Department of Defense Appropria24
tions Acts for fiscal years 2002 through 2008.
1 (c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the
2 term ‘‘propaganda’’ means any form of communication in
3 support of national objectives designed to influence the
4 opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of the people of
5 the United States in order to benefit the sponsor, either
6 directly or indirectly.
It was the defense appropriations bill, see above.
The Democrats hate our military. They just won’t say it out loud, so they try these little end-runs instead.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
law enforcement activity associated with counter-drug, counter-terrorism,
and national security investigations and operations.
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by the Congress.
This section, 8001, is in every military appropriations bill as far back as I can see- it's always been illegal to emit "propaganda" without congressional approval.
“Democrats Try to Make Military Press Conferences Illegal”
I’m no fan of the Dems, but you are wrong on this headline. More importantly, your incauracy and total misuderstanding of DoD’s principles of information foment the nut-root right and the Larouche-... well, whichever side they’re on.
First off, it is illegal for military personnel to target propaganda at the America people (”No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.”)
PSYOPs are different. The purpose of PSYOP is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the unit’s objectives.
See the difference? “within the United States” and “Foreign.”
Once more: “within the United States” and “Foreign.”
DoD in interacting with the press has the policy to “ available timely and accurate information so that the public, the Congress, and the news media may assess and understand the facts about national security and defense strategy.”
Additionally, “A free flow of general and military information shall be made available, without censorship or propaganda, to the men and women of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
and
“Information will not be classified or otherwise withheld to protect the Government from criticism or embarrassment.”
Do yourself a favor and read the DoD Directive here: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/512205p.pdf
...you sure this story isn’t out of NK?
Nope...this is out of the same country that has nominated the Marxist Barack Hussein Obama for president.
I guess that would keep them from having “Congressional hearings” during which they insult the top generals (Petraeus et al).....
No word on the Marxist Media propaganda being dished out daily for Obama and the Democrats?
(This is stunning)
Send it to Mark Levin!!
Today.....for his show.
It's been illegal for the military to use congressionally approved funds for “publicity or propaganda” for some time now.
But a full-blown congressional hearing into every statement made by the military to see if it's a factual exposition or illegal propaganda will be a waste of time and would be, in my opinion, a propaganda tool used by congress at best and at worst a means to put our military leaders on trial.
Couple this with Obama’s plan to hold war crimes trials “if needed”, and there's cause for concern about just where this will lead.
And just who determines what is propoganda? Military statements about the status of the war can be subjective and therefore categorized as propoganda just because they don’t believe them to be correct. On any level, it still amounts to censorship with a little hypocrisy thrown in for good measure...they can get their negative message out with no positive feedback from the Military to counteract it. It is wrong and un-American.
I’m concerned when the Dems are headed but that’s a differnt issue than propagandizing the U.S vs. PSYOP’s to foriegn “audiences.
Factuality is a bedrock of the relationship between military “spokesmen” and the media. If you lie you will be found out (I.E. Pat Tillman, the USS Iowa, Gulf of Tonkin). When you are found out you have zero credibility — zip, zero, nada - - and rebuilding it is difficult at best.
If the press lies or gets in wrong, what happens? Most often they are denied access to the prinicpals. When your colleagues are interviewing or getting info from the higher ups and you’re getting squadoosh, you paper/network is, shall we say, not happy. If you can’t get a story, then why should they have you on the payroll.
Do your Dhim friends really acknowledge that the leadership of their party, their representatives in Congress, are anti-military?
Usually what you’ll hear is “We support the military, BUT...” and a firm denial that they have a negative opinion of the military.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.