LadyBroadoak Visionary Planetary Healing Tutorial: propoganda

Showing posts with label propoganda. Show all posts

December 24, 2010

Who's Who at Wikileaks?

by Julie Lévesque

Global Research Editor`s Note

Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor. Our own website Global Research has provided extensive coverage of the Wikileaks data banks and their implications, particularly with regard to US-NATO war crimes.

The Wikileaks Project is heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media censorship, without examining its organizational structure.

A distinction should be made between the Wikileaks data banks, which constitute a valuable source of information in their own right, and the mechanisms whereby the leaks, used as source material by the corporate media, are transformed into news.

Wikileaks from the outset has collaborated closely with several mainstream media.

This article by Julie Lévesque focusses on the nature and organizational structures of the Wikleak project.

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” --Franklin D. Roosevelt

After the publication of a series of confirmations rather than revelations, there are some crucial unanswered questions regarding the nature and organizational structure of Wikileaks.

Shrouded in secrecy, the now famous whistleblowing site and its director Julian Assange are demanding "transparency" from governments and corporations around the world while failing to provide some basic information pertaining to Wikileaks as an organization.

Who is Julian Assange?

In the introduction to the book Underground: Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier (1997), by Julian Assange and Suelette Dreyfus, Assange begins with the following quotes:

"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." -- Oscar Wilde

"What is essential is invisible to the eye." -- Antoine De Saint-Exupery

From the start, Assange states that he undertook the research for the book; however, he fails to mention that he was actually one of the hackers analyzed in the book, going by the name of Mendax, a Latin word for “lying, false...”.

Although we cannot confirm that the above quotes referred to him, they nonetheless suggest that Assange, at the time, was hiding his true identity.

We know very little about the cryptographer Julian Assange. He is indeed very cryptic when it comes to revealing who he is and where he worked prior to the Wikileaks project. On the list of board members published previously by Wikileaks, we can read that Julian Assange:

n has “attended 37 schools and 6 universities”, none of which are mentioned by name;

n is “Australia's most famous ethical computer hacker”. A court case from 1996 cited abundantly in the mainstream press is available on the Australasian Legal Information Institute. Contrary to all the other cases listed on the afore mentioned link, the full text of Assange’s case is not available;

n “in the first prosecution of its type... [he] defended a case in the supreme court for his role as the editor of an activist electronic magazine”. The name of the magazine, the year of the prosecution, the country where it took place are not mentioned;

n allegedly founded “'Pickup' civil rights group for children”. No information about this group seems to be available, other than in reports related to Wikileaks. We don’t know if it still exists, where it is located and what are its activities.

n “studied mathematics, philosophy and neuroscience”. We don’t know where he studied or what his credentials are;

n “has been a subject of several books and documentaries”. If so, why not mention at least one of them?

One could indeed argue that Assange wishes to remain anonymous in order to protect himself, the whistleblowers and/or the members of his organization. On the other hand, he cannot realistically expect people to trust him blindly if they do not know who he really is.

The most interesting thing about Julian Assange is that his former employers remain unknown. His bio states that he is a “prolific programmer and consultant for many open-source projects and his software is used by most large organizations and is inside every Apple computer”. Was he working freelance? Who did he work for?

An old email exchange from 1994 between Julian Assange and NASA award winner Fred Blonder raises questions regarding Assange’s professional activities prior to launching Wikileaks. This exchange is available on the website of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 03:59:19 +0100

From: Julian Assange

To: Fred Blonder

Cc: karl@bagpuss.demon.co.uk, Quentin.Fennessy@sematech.org,

fred@nasirc.hq.nasa.gov, mcn@c3serve.c3.lanl.gov, bugtraq@fc.net

In-Reply-To: <199411171611.LAA04177@nasirc.hq.nasa.gov>

On Thu, 17 Nov 1994, Fred Blonder wrote: [EXCERPT]

> From: Julian Assange

> .

> Of course, to make things really interesting, we could have n files,

> comprised of n-1 setuid/setgid scripts and 1 setuid/setgid binary, with

> each script calling the next as its #! argument and the last calling the

> binary. ;-)

> The '#!' exec-hack does not work recursively. I just tried it under SunOs 4.1.3

> It generated no diagnostics and exited with status 0, but it also didn't execute

> the target binary....

> Proff

Julian Assange's e-mail to Fred Blonder was sent to an address ending with “nasirc.hq.nasa.gov”, namely NASA. The e-mail was also sent (cc) to Michael C. Neuman, a computer expert at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), New Mexico, a premier national security research institution, under the jurisdiction of the US Department of Energy.

At the time, Fred Blonder was working on a cyber security programme called “NASA Automated Systems Incident Response Capability” (NASIRC), for which he won the NASA Group Achievement Award in 1995. A report from June 2, 1995 explains:

NASIRC has significantly elevated agency-wide awareness of serious evolving threats to NASA's computer/network systems through on-going threat awareness briefings and in-depth technical workshop sessions and through intercenter communications and cooperation relating to the responsive and timely sharing of incident information and tools and techniques. (Valerie L. Thomas, “NASIRC Receives NASA Group Award”, National Space Science Data Center, June 2, 1995)

Is there any relation between Assange’s prosecution for hacking in 1996 and this exchange?

Was he collaborating with these institutions?

For example, in his e-mail, Assange updates Blonder on his work, referring to “other platforms I have not as yet tested”, seemingly indicating that he was collaborating with the NASA employee. One thing we can confirm is that Julian Assange was in communication with people working for NASA and the Los Alamos Lab in the 1990s.

Who's Who at Wikileaks? The Members of the Advisory Board

Here are some interesting facts about several members listed in 2008 on the Wikileaks advisory board, including organizations to which they belong or have links to.
Philip Adams:

Philip Adams, among other things, “held key posts in Australian governmental media administration” (Wikileaks' Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008), chaired the Australia Council and contributed to The Times, The Financial Times in London and The New York Times. Confirmed by several reports, he is the representative of the International Committee of Index on Censorship. It is worth mentioning that Wikileaks was awarded the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression award. (Philip Adams, Milesago.com)

Adams worked as a presenter for ABC (Australia) Radio's Late Night Live and as columnist for The Australian since the 1960s. The Australian is owned by News Corporation, a property of Rupert Murdoch, member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Adams also “chairs the Advisory Board of the Centre for the Mind at Sydney University and the Australian National University”. CFR member Michael Spence also serves on this board and Rupert Murdoch’s son, Lachlan Murdoch, has served as well until 2001. The 2008 Distinguished Fellow of the Center for the Mind was former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has faced a slew of accusations for war crimes. Does Adams have conflicting allegiances: serving on the advisory board of the Wikileaks organization whose mandate is to expose war crimes, yet at the same time sitting on another board which honors an accused war criminal.

According to an article in The Australian:

Adams, who has never met Assange, says he quit the board due to ill-health shortly after WikiLeaks was launched and never attended a meeting. “I don't think the advisory board has done any advisoring,” he quips.

CJ Hinke:

CJ Hinke, “writer, academic, activist, has lived in Thailand since 1989 where he founded Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) in 2006 to campaign against pervasive censorship in Thai society.” (Wikileaks' Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008) FACT is part of Privacy International, which includes among others on its Steering Committee or advisory board, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Index on Censorship.

In the US, Privacy International is “administered through the Fund for Constitutional Government in Washington DC.”(About Privacy International, 16 December 2009).

One of the board members of this fund is Steven Aftergood, who wrote one of the first articles on Wikileaks before the website was even functional. In a report from Technology Daily dated January 4, 2007, it is stated that “Wikileaks recently invited Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy researcher at the Federation of American Scientists [FAS], to serve on its advisory board.”

Ben Laurie:

“’WikiLeaks allegedly has an advisory board, and allegedly I'm a member of it... I don't know who runs it...’ Laurie says his only substantive interaction with the group was when Assange approached him to help design a system that would protect leakers' anonymity.” (David Kushner, Inside Wikileaks' Leak Factory, Mother Jones, 6 April, 2010)

This article appeared in Mother Jones in April 2010. An article of the New York Daily News dated December 2010 quotes Ben Laurie as follows: “‘Julian's a smart guy and this is an interesting tactic,’ said Ben Laurie, a London-based computer security expert who has advised WikiLeaks.”

Despite his denial of being an advisor to Wikileaks, his name still appears on the list of advisory board members, according to reports. It is also worth noting that Ben Laurie is a “Director of Security for The Bunker Secure Hosting, where he has worked since 1984 and is responsible for security, cryptography and network design.” He is also a Director of Open Rights Group, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd and the Open Society Foundation.

Chinese and Tibetan Dissidents on the Advisory BoardTashi Namgyal Khamsitsang:

Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, a “Tibetan exile & activist” is a former President of the Washington Tibet Association, and was a member of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. In July of this year he was appointed by the Governor of Washington State to the State Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs. (A Tibetan Appointed to the Washington State Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs, Tibetan Association of Washington, 17 July 2010)
Wang Youcai
Wang Youcai co-founded the Chinese Democracy Party and is another leader of the Tienanmen Square protests. Imprisoned for “conspiring to overthrow the Government of China... he was exiled in 2004 under international political pressure, especially from the United States. He is also a “member of Chinese Constitutional Democratic Transition Research and a member of the Coordinative Service Platform of the China Democracy Party” (Wikileaks' Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008)
Xiao Qiang:

Xiao Qiang, is one of the Chinese dissidents listed on the Wikileaks board. He “ is the Director of the Berkeley China Internet Project...[He] became a full time human rights activist after the Tienanmen Massacre in 1989... and is currently vice-chair of the Steering Committee of the World Movement for Democracy”, according to Wikileaks’ description. He received the MacArthur Fellowship from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in 2001 and is a commentator for Radio Free Asia. (Wikilieaks' Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008)

Xiao Qiang is also the "founder and publisher of China Digital Times" (Biographies, National Endowment for Democracy), which is a grantee of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (Directives from China's Ministry of Truth on Liu Xiaobo winning Nobel, Democracy Digest, October 8, 2010).

The Steering Committee of the World Movement for Democracy is an initiative of the Washington, DC-based NED. (World Movement for Democracy). In 2008, Xiao Qiang was part of a discussion panel intitled "Law Rights and Democracy in China: Perspectives and Leading Advocates", held by NED before the Democracy Award Ceremony. (2008 NED Democracy Award Honors Heroes of Human Rights and Democracy in China, National Endowment for Democracy, June 17, 2008).

Radio Free Asia is funded by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) which describes itself as a body that “encompasses all U.S. civilian international broadcasting, including the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio and TV Martí, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN)—Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television.” Eight of its nine members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate; the ninth is the Secretary of State, who serves ex officio”. (Broadcasting Board of Governors)

RFE/RL no longer hides its covert origins: “Initially, both RFE and RL were funded principally by the U.S. Congress through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)... In 1971, all CIA involvement ended and thereafter RFE and RL were funded by Congressional appropriation through the Board for International Broadcasting (BIB) and after 1995 the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). (A Brief History of RFE/RL)

Interestingly, in a report from 2002, the CFR suggested “creating a Public Diplomacy Coordinating Structure (PDCS) to help define communications strategies and streamline public diplomacy structures. ‘In many ways, the PDCS would be similar to the National Security Council’... PDCS members would include the secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury and Commerce, as well as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and BBG chairman”, a suggestion officially objected by the BBG “to preserve the journalistic integrity.” (BBG Expresses Concern With Report Recommendations on U.S. International Braodcasting, 31 July 2002)

Wang Dan:

Among the Chinese dissidents once listed on the board is Wang Dan. He was a leader of the Tienanmen Square democracy movement, which “earned him the top spot on China’s list of ‘21 Most Wanted Beijing Student Leaders’.” He was imprisoned for his subversive activities and “exiled in 1998 under international political pressure to the United States.” (Wikilieaks' Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008)

He is chairman of the Chinese Constitutional Reform Association, and sits on the editorial board of Beijing Spring, a magazine funded by NED, the “chief democracy-promoting foundation” according to an article by Judith Miller in The New York Times. One of the founders of NED was quoted as saying “A lot of what we [NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” (quoted in William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, 2000, p. 180).

In 1998, Wang Dan was granted the NED's Democracy Award "for representing a peaceful alternative to achieve democracy and for [his] courage and steadfastness in the cause of democracy". (1998 Democracy Award honors Heroes of Human Rights and Democracy in China, National Endowment for Democracy)

The Battle for "Transparency"

In 2007, Wikileaks described itself as an “uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis.” Its priority? “[E]xposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.” Like the advisory board member list, this description no longer appears on Wikileaks’ website. The organization also claimed to be “founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.” (Wikileaks.org, 17 December 2007)

In the currently available description, the reference to the Chinese dissidents and the origins of the other members has been removed. Wikileaks rather puts the emphasis on not being a covert operation.
Assange encourages blind faith in Wikileaks as he puts a lot of emphasis on the trustworthiness of his opaque organization. In the words of Assange:

“Once something starts going around and being considered trustworthy in a particular arena, and you meet someone and they say ‘I heard this is trustworthy,’ then all of a sudden it reconfirms your suspicion that the thing is trustworthy. So that’s why brand is so important, just as it is with anything you have to trust.”(Andy Greenberg, An Interview with Wikileaks' Julian Assange, Forbes, 29 October, 2010, emphasis added)
"People should understand that WikiLeaks has proven to be arguably the most trustworthy new source that exists, because we publish primary source material and analysis based on that primary source material," Assange told CNN. "Other organizations, with some exceptions, simply are not trustworthy."(The secret life of Julian Assange, CNN, 2 December 2010, emphasis added)

While Wikileaks no longer discloses the names of the members of its advisory board, nor does it reveal its sources of funding, we have to trust it because according to its founder Julian Assange, it “has proven to be the most trustworthy news source that exists”.

Moreover, if we follow Assange’s assertion that there are only a few media organizations which can be considered trustworthy, we must assume that those are the ones which were selected by Wikileaks to act as "partners" in the release and editing of the leaks, including The New York Times, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, El Paìs, Le Monde.

Yet The New York Times, which employs members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) including Wikileaks’ collaborator David E. Sanger, has proven more than once to be a propaganda tool for the US government, the most infamous example being the Iraqi WMD narrative promoted by Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller.

In an interview, Assange indicates that Wikileaks chose a variety of media to avoid the use of leaks for propaganda purposes. It is important to note that although these media might be owned by different groups and have different editorial policies, they are without exception news entities controlled by major Western media corporations.

A much better way to avoid the use of leaks for disinformation purposes would have been to work with media from different regions of the world (e.g. Asia, Latin America, Middle East) as well as establish partnership agreements with the alternative media. By working primarily with media organizations from NATO countries, Wikileaks has chosen to submit its leaks to one single "worldview", that of the West.

As a few critics of Wikileaks have noted, the Wikileaks project brings to mind the "recommendations" of Cass Sunstein, heads the Obama White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Sunstein is the author of an authoritative Harvard Law School essay entitled “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures”. As outlined by Daniel Tencer in Obama Staffer Calls for "Cognitive Infiltration" of " 9/11 Conspiracy Groups":

Sunstein “argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via ‘chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine’ those groups”.

Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public — the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.

Sunstein, whose article focuses largely on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, suggests that the government “enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts.” (emphasis added)

Links to The Intelligence Community
Wikleaks feels the need to reassure public opinion that it has no contacts with the intelligence community. Ironically, it also sees the need to define the activities of the intelligence agencies and compare them to those of Wikileaks:

"1.5 The people behind WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks is a project of the Sunshine Press. It's probably pretty clear by now that WikiLeaks is not a front for any intelligence agency or government despite a rumour to that effect. This rumour was started early in WikiLeaks' existence, possibly by the intelligence agencies themselves. WikiLeaks is an independent global group of people with a long standing dedication to the idea of a free press and the improved transparency in society that comes from this. The group includes accredited journalists, software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians and others.

To determine the truth of our statements on this, simply look at the evidence. By definition, intelligence agencies want to hoard information. By contrast, WikiLeaks has shown that it wants to do just the opposite. Our track record shows we go to great lengths to bring the truth to the world without fear or favour." (Wikileaks.org, emphasis added)

"Is Wikileaks a CIA front?

Wikileaks is not a front for the CIA, MI6, FSB or any other agency. Quite the opposite actually. […] By definition spy agencies want to hide information. We want to get it out to the public." (Wikileaks.org, 17, December 2007, emphasis added)

Quite true. But by definition, a covert operation always pretends to be something it is not, and never claims to be what it is.

Wikileaks' Entourage. Who Supports Wikileaks?
The people gravitating around Wikileaks have connections and/or are affiliated to a number of establishment organizations, major corporate foundations and charities. In the Wikileaks’ leak published by John Young, a correspondence dated January 4, 2007, points to Wikileaks' exchange with Freedom House:

"We are looking for one or two initial advisory board member from FH who may advise on the following:

1. the needs of FH as consumer of leaks exposing business andpolitical corruption

2. the needs for sources of leaks as experienced by FH

3. FH recommendations for other advisory board members

4. general advice on funding, coallition building and decentralised operations and political framing

These positions will initially be unpaid, but we feel the role may be of significant interest to FH."

The request for funding from various organizations triggered some doubt among Wikileaks collaborators.

John Young became very sceptical concerning the Wikileaks project specifically with regard to the initial fund-raising goal of 5 million dollars, the contacts with elite organzations including Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy and the alleged millions of documents:

"Announcing a $5 million fund-raising goal by July will kill this effort. It makes WL appear to be a Wall Street scam.

This amount could not be needed so soon except for suspect purposes.
I'd say the same about the alleged 1.1 million documents ready for leaking. Way too many to be believable without evidence. I don't believe the number. So far, one document, of highly suspect provenance."

Young finally quit the organization on January 7, 2007. His final words: “Wikileaks is a fraud... working for the enemy”.

Four years after its creation, we still don’t know who funds the whistleblower site.

Wikileaks, Hackers, and “The First Cyberwar”

The shady circumstances around Julian Assange’s arrest for “sex crimes” have triggered what some mainstream media have called the “first cyberwar”. The Guardian for instance, another Wikileaks partner, warns us with this shocking title: “WikiLeaks backlash: The first global cyber war has begun, claim hackers".

Some people suspect that this is a false flag operation intended to control the Internet.

It is no secret that hackers are often recruited by governmental authorities for cyber security purposes. Peiter Zatko a.k.a. “Mudge” is one of them. Here is an excerpt of a Forbes interview with Assange regarding his connection to Peiter Zatko:

Assange:Yeah, I know Mudge. He’s a very sharp guy.

Greenberg: Mudge is now leading a project at the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to find a technology that can stop leaks, which seems pretty relative [sic] to your organization. Can you tell me about your past relationship with Mudge?

Assange: Well, I... no comment.

Greenberg: Were you part of the same scene of hackers? When you were a computer hacker, you must have known him well.

Assange: We were in the same milieu. I spoke with everyone in that milieu.

Greenberg: What do you think of his current work to prevent digital leaks inside of organizations, a project called Cyber Insider Threat or Cinder?

Assange: I know nothing about it.

Peiter Zatko is an expert in cyber warfare. He worked for BBN Technolgies (a subsidiary of Raytheon) with engineers “who perform leading edge research and development to protect Department of Defense data... Mr. Zatko is focused on anticipating and protecting against the next generation of information and network security threats to government and commercial networks.” (Peiter "Mudge" Zatko, Information Security Expert Who Warned that Hackers "Could Take Down the Internet in 30 Minutes" Returns to BBN Technologies, Business Wire, 1 February 2005, emphasis added)

In another Forbes interview, we learn that Mr. Zatko is “a lead cybersecurity researcher at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA], the mad-scientist wing of the Pentagon.” His project “aims to rid the world of digital leaks”. (Forbes, emphasis added)

There also seems to be a connection between Zatko and former hacker Jacob Appelbaum, a Wikileaks spokesperson. Zatko and Appelbaum were purportedly part of a hacker group called Cult of the Dead Cow.

Appelbaum currently works for the Tor Project, a United States Naval Research Laboratory initiative. The sponsors of that project listed on its website are:

NLnet Foundation (2008-2009), Naval Research Laboratory (2006-2010), an anonymous North American ISP (2009-2010), provided up to $100k. Google (2008-2009), Google Summer of Code (2007-2009), Human Rights Watch, Torfox (2009) and Shinjiru Technology (2009-2010) gave in turn up to $50k.

Past sponsors includes: Electronic Frontier Foundation (2004-2005), DARPA and ONR via Naval Research Laboratory (2001-2006), Cyber-TA project (2006-2008), Bell Security Solutions Inc (2006), Omidyar Network Enzyme Grant (2006), NSF via Rice University (2006-2007).

Zatko and Assange know each other. Jacob Appelbaum also played a role at Wikileaks.
The various connections tell us something regarding Assange's entourage. They do not, however, provide us with evidence that people within these various organizations were supportive of the Wikileaks project.

Recent Developments: The Role of the Frontline Club
Over the last seven months, the London based Frontline Club has served as de facto U.K "headquarters" for Wikileaks. The Frontline Club is an initiative of Henry Vaughan Lockhart Smith, a former British Grenadier Guards captain. According to NATO, Vaughan Smith became an "independant video journalist [...] who always hated war, but remained [...] soldier-friendly". (Across the Wire, New media: Weapons of mass communication, NATO Review, February 2008)

Upon his release from bail, Julian Assange was provided refuge at Vaughan Smith's Ellingham Manor in Norfolk.

The Frontline Club is an establishment media outfit. Vaughan Smith writes for the NATO Review. (See NATO Web TV Channel and NATO Nations: Accurate, Reliable and Convenient). His relationship to NATO goes back to 1998 when he worked as a video journalist in Kosovo. In 2010, he was "embedded with a platoon from the British Grenadier Guards" during Operation Moshtarak in Afghanistan's Helmand Province. (PBS NewsHour, February 19, 2010). According to the New York Times, The Frontline Club "has received financing for its events from the Open Society Institute". (In London, a Haven and a Forum for War Reporters - New York Times, 28 August 2006)
Concluding Remarks: The Cyber Warfare Narrative

Wikileaks is now being used by the authorities, particularly in the US, to promote the cyber warfare narrative, which could dramatically change the Internet and suppress the freedom of expression Wikileaks claims to defend.

Peter Kornbluh, analyst at The National Security Archive, argues that "there's going to be a lot of screaming about Wikileaks and the new federal law to penalize, sanction, and put the boot down on organizations like Wikileaks, so that their reactions can be deemed illegal."

Ultimately, Wikileaks could spark off, intentionally or not, entirely new rules and regulations.

Julie Lévesque is a journalist at Global Research, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

September 16, 2007

Hey teachers! Having trouble finding course materials that rebrand Canada as part of the North American Union?

Arizona State University is your one-stop go-to place to find everything you need to - what was that happy phrase the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America used again? oh yeah : "to launch an educational project to teach the idea of a shared NA identity in schools".

Just look at these handy course materials :

Teaching Modules: Backgrounders and Cases
Building North America Into Your Course
North American Economic Integration: General Overview
Analyzing North American Integration
Managing North America
North American Structures and ¨Sites¨of Integration
Continental Strategies of Selected North American Companies

*snip"

"The Next Plateau in North America- What's the Big Idea? Mapping the North American Reality" :

North American Forum on Integration

H/T to ToeDancer at Bread and Roses for the Arizona State U. link

http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2007/09/spp-back-to-shool-edition.html

September 05, 2007

UPDATED SYLLABUS, “PROPAGANDA AND US FOREIGN POLICY”
by John H. Brown

Liberal Studies Degree Program, Georgetown University, Fall 2007

E-mail: johnhbrown30@hotmail.com

“Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.”

--Pope Gregory XV, founder of the Propaganda Fide, a committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church having the care and oversight of foreign missions (established in 1622), quoting Mark 16:15

“Tell all the truth, but tell it slant --
Success in circuit lies…
The truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind”

--Emily Dickinson

“Grau, teurer Freund, ist alle Theorie
Und gruen des Lebens goldner Baum.”
[Grey, dear friend, is all theory/and green the golden tree of life.]

--Goethe

Course Summary

Since World War I propaganda has been an essential element of international relations, used by governments and non-state actors to pursue their interests by influencing and manipulating foreign public opinion. A word with negative connotations for many, propaganda is nevertheless one of the defining concepts of the modern era. Indeed, in the aftermath of 9/11, terrorism has been called “propaganda, a bloody form of propaganda” by RAND expert Brian Jenkins.

The purpose of this course is to examine the nature, history, use, and morality of propaganda. The organization is chronological. It focuses on how propaganda has been employed in US foreign policy during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The relationship of propaganda to traditional, public, and cultural diplomacy is examined in detail. The use of propaganda by totalitarian states and terrorist groups is studied. By taking this course students should have a better understanding of propaganda and its problematical but important role in the world today.

Students are expected to read not only historical materials on propaganda, but also contemporary treatments on the subject from the mass media and specialized journals. Roughly one third of the class period is devoted to present-day issues pertaining to propaganda; the remaining time focuses on the historical evolution of the use of propaganda, primarily by the U.S. government.

Course Objective

This course will focus on the following questions:

• What is propaganda and how did it evolve?
• What is the relationship between war and propaganda?
• How does propaganda relate to traditional diplomacy?
• What is the link between domestic and foreign government propaganda?
• How do the United States government and the American public view propaganda?
• How do propaganda and public diplomacy differ? Are they alike?
• Who is a propagandist? What motivates his/her actions? What are his/her the moral choices?
• What are the concepts and techniques of propaganda?
• How does one judge the effectiveness of propaganda?
• What is the purpose and relevance of propaganda in an era of instant communications, advanced technology, and international terrorism?
• How are major media covering propaganda issues today?

Course Outline

SEPTEMBER

(1) Course Procedures; Introduction: History, Diplomacy, Propaganda (9/4)

(2) What is Propaganda? (9/11)

(3) Carrying the Gospel of Americanism: Advertising Wilsonian Ideals in World War I (9/18)

(4) The US Anti-Propaganda Movement between the Wars; Totalitarian Propaganda (9/25)

OCTOBER

(5) Victory is Our Aim: US Information Programs in World War II; mid-term exam (10/2)

(6) Telling America’s True Story: US Public Diplomacy in the Cold War
(10/9)

(7) Twentieth-Century USG Propaganda: Did It Make a Difference? (10/16)

(8) Terrorism and U.S. Public Diplomacy (10/23)

(9) Guest speaker; Final Exam (10/30)

Course Readings

Books to be Purchased:

George Orwell, 1984. Note: Students should begin reading 1984 at the start of the course and be ready to discuss it during class 7.

Frank Ninkovich, U.S. Information and Cultural Diplomacy (1996)

All other materials are available on reserve at the Lauinger Library

Graduate students (but not undergraduates) are expected to read/skim carefully the “Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review” (PDPBR) compiled on a near daily basis by their instructor which will be sent to them by e-mail. Undergraduates however will be expected to read the PDPR for a week when they are assigned to give a report on it (one report max: see below, “News Reports” ).

The PDPBR can be found at: LINK

*snip*

• When?

What is the nature of the historical setting in which the propaganda we are considering is being conducted? How does this setting differ from the previous period? What are the forces of changes, of continuity?

• Who’s in charge?

Who are the propagandists? How are they selected? What are their motivations? How do they justify their actions? What impact do their individual actions have on policy? What organizations handle propaganda? How were these organizations established and how did they evolve? How are they structured? How do propaganda organizations coordinate with other state/government/private entities, including the executive and legislative branches? What is their rapport with intelligence services and the military?

• What’s the message?

Does the propaganda message(s) have an overriding theme? How does the message fit with overall policy plans? How truthful and accurate is the message? How is it developed and formulated? On what information, assumptions, traditions is it based? How is the message presented and “packaged”? What methods are used to “soften” a “tough” message? What emotions does the propaganda appeal to?

• What’s the purpose?

What are the specific and general aims of the propaganda? Why is it being used?

• What are the methods/tools?

What communications tools are used? What is new /unique about them? What propaganda medium (oral, visual, print, electronic) predominates in a given historical period? Does the medium “fit” the message/purpose?

• What’s the audience?

To what segments of a society is the propaganda directed (elite groups --“class” or large entities—“mass” )? Is the audience foreign and/or domestic? What is the size and specific make-up of the audience? What is the reaction of the audience to the message? How well do the propagandists know their audience?

• What’s the result?

Has the propaganda persuaded, or changed the behavior of, the audience? How are the results of the propaganda measured/evaluated? What is its short-term and long-term impact?

*snip*

Detailed Course Outline
Note: Some of the reading assignments and themes may change between now and the end of the course

(1)
September 4
Course Procedures; Introduction: History, Diplomacy, Propaganda

Topics: Reasons for your interest in the course. Talents to be developed by course: Asking pertinent questions from a text, reporting, and use of the historical imagination. Absolute necessity of class participation. Other requirements and grading. Instructor’s career in public diplomacy.

The value of the historical approach, of “thinking in time.” Perspective of course is not on the psychological/sociological aspects of propaganda, although this perspective will be occasionally considered. The rise of public opinion. Domestic and foreign government propaganda. Traditional diplomacy and propaganda. Propaganda and classical rhetoric.

Readings:

• Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1973) (table of contents, xix-xxii) [example of sociological/philosophical approach to propaganda]
• Leonard Doob, Propaganda: Its Psychology and Technique (1925), appendix [example of psychological approach to propaganda]
• “Public Opinion” Wikipedia [required reading] LINK
• Dean Acheson, “The American Image Will Take Care of Itself,” The New York Times Magazine (February 28, 1965). [For bio of Acheson see LINK
• Richard Holbrooke, “Get the Message Out,” The Washington Post, October 28, 2001 [for bio of Holbrooke see LINK
• Plato, Gorgias (selected passages) [will be read in class] LINK

(2)
September 11
What is Propaganda?

Topics: Distinctions between propaganda, education, and advertising.
Propagandistic practices before the twentieth century. The Sacra Congregatio di Propaganda Fide. When the word “propaganda” acquired its modern meaning. Towards a working definition of propaganda.

Readings:

• Definitions of/observations on “Propaganda” (see syllabus appendix)
• Definitions of “Propaganda” (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989)
• “Collegio di Propaganda Fide” – illustrations at LINK
• Lindley Fraser, Propaganda (1957), 3-14
• Terence H. Qualter, Opinion Control in the Democracies (1985), 107-144
• Philip M. Taylor, Foreword to the Encyclopedia of Propaganda (1998), xv-xix
• Harold D. Lasswell, “Propaganda,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (1937), vi. 11, 521-528
• Walter Joyce, “Can a Moral People Use Propaganda,” in The Propaganda Gap (1963), 66-73
• Daniel Lerner, “Policy and Propaganda Process,” in Psychological Warfare Against Nazi Germany (1949), 2-6

Viewing

• Catapult The Propaganda
LINK

(3)
September 18
Carrying the Gospel of Americanism:
Advertising Wilsonian Ideals in World War I

Topics: American isolationism vs. the U.S. missionary tradition. Antecedents to WWI U.S. propaganda: the Declaration of Independence as a “propaganda” document. The Wilson Administration and its explanations of U.S. war aims to foreign publics. The role of the Committee on Public Information. George Creel: America’s first professional government “publicist/propagandist.”

Class Exercise: Historical role-playing, 50 minutes, three speakers, each to speak ten minutes and then answer questions from the audience, i.e. the rest of the class:

• Date: May, 1917. Place: Committee on Public Information. Setting: Per instructions from the White House, three CPI representatives are meeting with a group of American academics, writers, and filmmakers to persuade them to offer their talents to support America’s propaganda campaign in World War I—a campaign not only directed against Germany, but also aiming to convince neutral countries (e.g., Switzerland) to join the Allies’ war effort. The audience is eager to know what propaganda is and if it can be used for honorable purposes, given what they have heard about German propaganda. The audience is also not sure why the U.S. has entered the war, and why it is in American national interests to be involved in a bloody European conflict.

Readings:

• “American Revolution,” Wikipedia LINK
• The US Declaration of Independence LINK
• Walter Isaacson, “ A Declaration of Mutual Dependence (The New York Times
July 4, 2004) LINK
• David Krugler, “Precedents for Propaganda, 1890-19[20s],” in The Voice of America and the Domestic Propaganda Battles (2000), 14-23
• “World War I” Wikipedia
LINK
• Woodrow Wilson, “Second Inaugural Address” (Monday, March 5, 1917)
LINK
• Woodrow Wilson, “War Message” (April 2, 1917) LINK
• Peter Britenhuis, “The Selling of the Great War,” The Canadian Review of American Studies (Fall 1976), 139-150
• Aaron Delwiche, “Wartime Propaganda: World War I Demons, Atrocities, Lies”
LINK
• George Creel, How We Advertised America: The First Telling of the Amazing Story of the Committee on Public Information that Carried the Gospel of Americanism to Every Corner of the Globe (1920), ix-xviii, 3-15, 237-249
• Harold D. Lasswell, Propaganda Technique in the World War (1938), 195 (starting at second paragraph)-196 (ending with third paragraph), 214-221
• Gregg Wolper, “Woodrow Wilson’s New Diplomacy: Vira Whitehouse in Switzerland, 1918,” Prologue (Fall 1992), 227-239.

Viewings

• American Posters of World War One from the collection of Roger N. Mohovich LINK
• Propaganda Posters - United States of America (worldwar1.com) LINK

(4)
September 26
The US Anti-Propaganda Movement between the Wars; Totalitarian Propaganda

Topics: Negative U.S. public opinion toward propaganda following WWI. Walter Lippmann and public opinion. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis. “Scientific” propaganda research. Nazi Propaganda: How does it differ from the propaganda of the democracies in the period under consideration?

Class Exercise: Historical role-playing, 40 minutes, three speakers, each to speak max ten minutes and then answer questions from the audience, i.e. the rest of the class:

• Date: 1937. Place: The Institute for Propaganda Analysis. Setting: a group of students from Columbia University that is interested in propaganda has come to the Institute to learn more about what propaganda is and how it functions. Two speakers from the Institute will brief the students on this topic. True to the stated purpose of the Institute, the speakers should expose the dangers of propaganda and warn against the methods it uses. They should also examine how democracy and propaganda are not compatible, as well as underscore the differences between education and propaganda. Finally, the speakers should discuss the threat posed by Nazi propaganda, specifying how it is used to control and manipulate publics for evil purposes. The students—the class—should react critically to the speakers’statements that propaganda is not to be trusted.

Readings:

• Erika G. King, “Exposing the ‘Age of Lies’: The Propaganda Menace as Portrayed in American Magazines in the Aftermarth of World War II (Journal of American Culture, Volume 12, Spring 1989, no. 1), 35-39
• George Sylvester Vierek, Spreading Germs of Hate (1930), 3-39
• J. Michael Sproule, Propaganda and Democracy. The American Experience of Media and Mass Persuasion (1997), 16-21, 129-150
• Stephen Vaugh, “Prologue to Public Opinion: Walter Lippmann’s Work in Military Intelligence,” Prologue (Fall 1983), 151-163
• Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (1922), 29-32, 248-249.
• Philip Taylor, “Propaganda in International Politics, 1919-39,” in P. Finney, The Origins of the Second World War (1997)
Hideya Kumata and Wilbur Schramm, “The Propaganda of the German Nazis,” Four Working Papers on Propaganda Theory (1955)

Viewings
• Propaganda Techniques – You Tube: An instruction film from the ‘40s or early ‘50s. LINK
• Nazi Propaganda
LINK
• Animated Soviet Propaganda Trailer LINK

(5)
October 2
Victory is Our Aim:
US Information Programs in World War II

Topics: FDR’s attitude toward propaganda. The ideas that led the U.S. into war. The role of the Office of War Information (OWI). The World War II propagandist.

Readings:

• “World War II,” Wikipedia LINK
• “Chronology,” 1939-1945 (4 pages)
• Thomas Sorensen, The Word War, 8 (beginning with last paragraph) – 21 (to end of second paragraph)
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “The Four Freedoms” LINK
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, “The Atlantic Charter” LINK
• Elmer Davis, “OWI Has a Job,” Public Opinion Quarterly (Volume 7, Issue 1, Spring 1943), 5-14.
• Joseph Barnes, “Fighting with Information: OWI Overseas” Public Opinion Quarterly (Volume 7, Issue 1, Spring 1943), 34-45.
• Alan M. Winkler, The Politics of Propaganda: The Office of War Information, 1942-1945 (1948), 149-157
• Clayton D. Laurie, The Propaganda Warriors: America’s Crusade against Nazi Germany (1996), pp. 233-240.
• “What is Propaganda” [Constructing a Postwar World: The G.I. Roundtable Series in Context] (can be skimmed)
LINK
• W[illiam] E. D[augherty], “The Creed of a Modern Propagandist,” in William E. Daugherty, ed, A Psychological Warfare Casebook (1955)

Viewing

• propaganda numa numa: American made propaganda from the world war 2 era [comics-style]. LINK

Mid-Term Exam (on Classes I-V): The exam will consist of matching questions and topical questions requiring succinct responses.

(6)
October 9
Telling America’s True Story: US Public Diplomacy in the Cold War

Topics: U.S. Information and Cultural Programs, 1946-1953; Smith-Mundt Act (1948); Truman’s “Campaign of Truth.” The CIA’s involvement in cultural propaganda in the early cold war. The establishment of USIA (1953). Propaganda and public diplomacy: similarities and differences.

Readings:

• “Cold War,” Wikipedia LINK
• George V. Allen, “Propaganda: A Conscious Weapon of Democracy,” The Department of State Bulletin (Volume XXI, no. 546, December 19, 1949), 941-943
• Harry Truman, “Going Forward with a Campaign of Truth,” Department of State Bulletin, May 1, 1950, 669-672
• Hans Tuch, “A Concise Chronology of the U.S. Information Agency,” in USIA: Communicating with the World in the 1990s: A Commemorative Symposium (1994), 35-44
• “Smith-Mundt Act” Wikipedia LINK [required reading]
• Lois W. Roth, “Mission of the United States Information Agency” (Adopted by the President and the NSC, October 22, 1953); “The Kennedy Statement of Mission” (January 1963); “Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (CU): The CU Program Concept” (March 12, 1974); “The White House – memorandum for: Director, International Communication Agency” (March 13, 1978) – Appendix I-IV, in Public Diplomacy and the Past: The Search for an American Style of Propaganda
• Frank Ninkovich, U.S. Information and Cultural Diplomacy (1996), 17-35
• Nicholas J. Cull, “Public Diplomacy’ before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase” (Public Diplomacy Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, April 18, 2006)
LINK
• Mary Gawronski, “Definitions of Public Diplomacy”
• United States Information Agency: A Commemoration [can be skimmed]
• Madeleine Albright, “The Importance of Public Diplomacy to American Foreign Policy, U.S. Department of State Dispatch (October 1999), 8-9
• Reorganization Plan and Report—Submitted by President Clinton to the Congress on December 30, 1998, Pursuant to Section 1601 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, as Contained in Public Law 105-277 III. The Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Missions
LINK
• Dell Pendergrast, “State and USIA: Blending a Dysfunctional Family” LINK
• Arthur A. Bardos, “’Public Diplomacy’: An Old Art, A New Profession,” The Virginia Quarterly Review (Summer 2001), 424-437
• John Brown, “The Purposes and Cross-Purposes of American Public Diplomacy” (American Diplomacy, August 2002) LINK)
• Kenneth A. Osgood, “Hearts and Minds: The Unconventional Cold War,” Journal of Cold War Studies, Vol. 4, no. 2, Spring 2002, 85-107
• John Brown, “Should the Piper be Paid? Three Schools of Thought on Culture and Foreign Policy during the Cold War” The Public Diplomacy Press Review (July 4-7, 2005) For full text, please scroll down to section C. LINK
• Thomas W. Braden. “I’m Glad the CIA is ‘Immoral.’” The Saturday Evening
Post, 20 May l967

Viewings

• American Propaganda Film an example of “free” US media LINK
• Psychedelic cartoon by the United States Information Agency LINK
• Cold War [Soviet] Propaganda LINK
• Duck and Cover
LINK

Class Exercise: Historical role-playing, 60 minutes, four speakers, each to speak max ten minutes and then answer questions from the audience, i.e. the rest of the class:

Place and date: American Embassy Paris, 1952. The CIA station chief has approached the Ambassador to inform him that the Agency has been provided with special funds to support cultural presentations and programs, including concerts, exhibits, and lectures throughout France. Agency funds are also available to support magazines, even of the left, that would generally support the United States and its policies and be critical of the Soviet Union. The source of the funding would not be disclosed to the public. Congress would not be told either, so as to avoid criticisms on the Hill. Only a few top State Department employees would be told of the funding.

The Ambassador, a political appointee, is unsure whether the Embassy should accept these funds for its cultural program. In a classified memorandum, he asks members of the Public Affairs Section to advise him what to do.

In a meeting attended by the Ambassador (your humble instructor) and the heads of Sections at the Embassy (political, economic, consular, etc—i.e., the rest of the class) two members of the Public Affairs Section argue that the Embassy should accept the funds; two argue that the Embassy should not. Each speaker should speak no more than ten minutes and then be ready to answer questions from the Ambassador and the rest of the “Embassy.”

Items—presented here in no particular order—for role-players to keep in mind as they prepare the talking points:

• Soviet propaganda has been on the offensive in Western Europe since the Cold War began and we must fight it with every available means.
• French intellectuals, generally of the left, are often critical of American culture, which they see as vulgar and commercial.
• The U.S.S.R. has a multitude of admirers in France. For many Frenchmen, not only did the Soviet Union help defeat Nazism, but it has created an equitable social system where workers are duly rewarded for their work.
• There is a strong possibility that the Communists could gain power in France, thereby giving the Soviet Union increased international influence, if not tipping the Cold War in its favor. If France goes Communist, other western European countries could do so as well.
• The Soviets covertly support cultural events. Why shouldn’t we?
• State Department funding for cultural programs is miniscule, especially in comparison with the Soviets. Congress is unlikely to fund more cultural activities because it believes the government should stay out of culture, which is a private matter.
• Many seasoned foreign policy practitioners consider the use of culture as a tool for promoting national interests a waste of time and money. Better would be better spent on information programs that deny the falsehood perpetrated by the U.S.S.R. about the United States.
• If CIA funding is “leaked” publicly, what would be the consequences?
• Isn’t covertly subsiding culture, even for the best of purposes, turning it into propaganda? And are we not lying to those who would receive CIA funding by not telling them who is really paying them?
• The Soviets constantly accuse the American Embassy of being a nest of spies. If the Cultural Section uses CIA money, aren’t these accusations at least in part correct?

(7)

October 16
Twentieth-Century USG Propaganda: Did It Make a Difference?

Topics: Discussion of Orwell’s 1984 as an effort to understand the nature of twentieth-century propaganda. New communications technologies and their impact on propaganda. The meaning of “soft power.” Is twentieth-century propaganda still viable and relevant in a globalized world with rapidly improving information technologies?

Readings

• George Orwell, 1984 (read as course progressed)
• Stanley B. Cunningham, The Idea of Propaganda: A Reconstruction (2002), 203-207
• Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1973), ix-xviii
• James Shanahan, “The End of Propaganda?” in James Shanahan, ed., Propaganda Without Propagandists (2001), 1-9
• Aldous Huxley, “Propaganda in a Democratic Society” LINK
• John Brown, “Two Ways of Looking at Propaganda” (Public Diplomacy Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy (June 29, 2006) LINK
• Ralph K. White, “Resistance to International Propaganda,” in William E. Daugherty, ed, A Psychological Warfare Casebook (1955), 617-625
• Ralph K. White, “Propaganda: Morally Questionable and Morally Unquestionable Techniques,” Propaganda in International Affairs (The Annals of The Academy of Political and Social Science, volume 398, November 1971), 26-35
• Frank Ninkovich, U.S. Information and Cultural Diplomacy (1996), 46-63

Viewings (and hearings)

• The ending of 1984 by George Orwell
LINK
• 1984-Oceania’s anthem
LINK
• Famous 1984 Apple superbowl ad
LINK
• Orwellian Society [BBC]
LINK

(8)
October/23
Terrorism and U.S. Public Diplomacy

Topics: What is terrorism? How is it related to propaganda? The war on terrorism. Recent criticisms of U.S public diplomacy in effectively dealing with the Arab world. Brief discussion of what is required for final exam.

Class debate: Resolved: “The War on Terrorism Cannot Be Won Without Public Diplomacy”

Six students will take part in the debate (three pro, three con), each speaking seven minutes, and then entertaining questions from the audience (the rest of the class). The speakers should define public diplomacy and terrorism, and base their arguments on news reports dealing with U.S. actions against the terror network headed by bin Laden.

Readings

• “War on Terrorism,” Wikipedia LINK [note caveat]
• George W. Bush, “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People” LINK
• Harry Henderson, Terrorism (2004), 3-30
• Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations,” Foreign Affairs (Summer 1993, 72/3, 1993)
LINK
• Samuel P. Huntington, “If Not Civilizations, What? Samuel Huntington Responds to His Critics (Foreign Affairs, November/December 1993)
LINK
• Public Diplomacy: A Review of Past Recommendations: CRS Report for Congress (September 2, 2005)
LINK

Viewings

• Fox News Propaganda War On The War On Terror
LINK
• The War On Terror
LINK
• Swaying the Public for War
LINK
(9)
October 30
Guest Speaker; Final Exam

Guest speaker: David Firestein, “American Public Diplomacy Today.”

David J. Firestein joined the Foreign Service in 1992, and has served at US embassies in Beijing and Moscow, as well as at State’s headquarters in Washington. He is author of three books and some 130 published articles. Firestein has taught at Moscow State University of International Relations (MGIMO), the University of Texas (Austin), and George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

Articles/presentations by/about Mr. Firestein:

LINK
LINK
LINK

Final Exam (90 minutes): To prepare properly for this exam, students should be able to answer the following questions:

Reading

• John Brown, “Historical Patterns of US Government Overseas Propaganda, 1917-2004” (Phil Taylor’s Web Site, the Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds, UK)
LINK

APPENDIX (A)

PROPAGANDA (quotations and observations)

“Why Lie When You Can Spin?”

--Columnist Clarence Page, regarding Pentagon paid-for news; “When Press Is Paid to Lie, the Truth Always Comes out” (Chicago Tribune, December 4; see below item 23)
LINK

‘We must accept propaganda as a major weapon of policy, tactical as well as strategic, and begin to conduct it on modern and realist line.”

--George F. Kennan; cited in Kenneth Osgood, “Total Cold War: Eisenhower’s Secret Propaganda Battle at Home and Abroad” (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 2006), p. 38

“When you are persuaded by something, you don’t think it is propaganda.”

--Stanford psychologist Lee D. Ross; cited in Shankar Vedantam, “Two Views of the Same News Find Opposite Biases” (Washington Post, July 24)
LINK

“The reason I tell you the truth is so that when I lie, you will believe me.”

--An unnamed information warrior; cited in Daniel Schulman, “Mind Games” (Columbia Journalism Review)
LINK
QUOTATION VIA
LINK

“[T]he images of [Saddam’s] execution and his body seem to point to a new era in the way images are used politically, what might be called a post-propaganda era. So many images that were supposed to have such profound impact on public perception—the now infamous ‘Mission Accomplished ’photo op or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s bloody head tastefully framed for the cameras—have failed to connect with the reality of either public opinion, or the facts on the ground. This image means progress, we’re told, but there isn’t any progress. This image is a final chapter, but the blood still flows. For a public media campaign to work, at least some of the politically calculated captions placed on images must, in the end, turn out to be true.”

--Philip Kennicott, “For Saddam’s Page In History, A Final Link On Youtube” (Washington Post, December 30, 2006):
LINK

“‘[Senator] Fulbright had outspokenly opposed international propaganda in our government. When he coldly queried [USIA Director Leonard] Marks on the meaning of propaganda, Marks replied respectfully, “If I say you are chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that’s a fact; whereas if I say you are the finest chairman in the history of the Senate, that’s propaganda.” Fulbright shot back: “No, you’re wrong— that’s a fact!’”

--Cited in Fitzhugh Green, American Propaganda Abroad (1988 ), p. 54

“[Propaganda] came to be used by English and Continental writers in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when some who were anticlerical and anti-Catholic identified this type of material with the publications of the [De Propaganda Fide].” “Propagating the faith” was judged by these writers as sheer “propaganda.” However, the term lost its original connection with anti-Catholicism, and it is currently used to identify the vast body of political, partisan, and high-pressure mass communication designed to promote persons or causes in the modern world.”

--Catholic Encyclopedia (1966)

“John Adams… commented that revolutionary propagandists ‘tinge the mind of the people; they impregnate them with the sentiments of liberty; they render the people fond of their leaders in the causes, and averse and bitter against all opposers.’” quoted in

--Halsey Ross, Propaganda for War, p. 1. quoting John C. Miller, Sam Adams, Pioneer in Propaganda (1936), p. 113.

“Nothing but defeat in war will suffice to produce any change not desired by those who control publicity.”

--Philosopher Bertrand Russell, “Government by Propaganda,” in the volume These Eventful Years: The Twentieth Century in the Making as Told by Many of Its Makers; Being the Dramatic Story of All That Has Happened Throughout the World during the Most Momentous Period of All History; with 160 Full-Page Illustrations and Numerous Maps (London: The Encyclopedia Britannica Company, Ltd.; New York, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1924), p. 383.

“The war to make the world safe for democracy made democracy unsafe for America.”

--Federal Judge Hon. George W. Anderson (1920); cited in George Sylvester Vierek, Spreading Germs of Hate (New York: Horace Liveright, 1930), p. 279

“In the year 1915, the enemy started his propaganda among our soldiers. From 1916 it steadily became more intensive and at the beginning of 1918, it had swollen into a storm cloud. One could see the effects of this gradual seduction. Our soldiers learned to think the way the enemy wanted them to think.”

--Adolph Hitler; cited in Philip M. Taylor, Munitions of the Mind: War Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Nuclear Age (Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England: P. Stephens, 1990), p. 172.

“I cannot convince a single person of the necessity of something unless I get to know the soul of that person, unless I understand how to pluck the string in the harp of his soul that must be made to sound.”

--Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels; cited in Richard Taylor, “Goebbels and the Function of Propaganda,” in David Welch, Nazi Propaganda: The Power and the Limitations (London & Canberra: Croom Helm; Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes & Nobles Books, 1983), p. 38.

“The injection of the poison of hatred into men’s minds by means of falsehood is a greater evil in wartime than the actual loss of life. The defilement of the human soul is worse than the destruction of the human body.”

--Lord Ponsonby (1926); cited in cited in Philip M. Taylor, Munitions of the Mind: War Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Nuclear Age (Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England: P. Stephens, 1990), p. 179.

“News is the shocktroops of propaganda”

--Sir John Reith, cited in Philip M. Taylor, “The New Propaganda Boom,” The International History Review (Volume II, Number 3, July 1980), p. 498.

“The other day there was put into my hand a circular issued from the War Office asking officers to supply articles and stories for propaganda purposes showing admirable qualities of our troops and the bad qualities of the Germans. …. After telling what is wanted this amazing instruction is given: ‘Essential not literal truth and correctness are necessary. Inherent probability being respected the thing imagined may be as serviceable as the thing seen.’”

--Ramsay MacDonald, in a statement (1918) to the organ of the Scottish Independent Labour Party concerning British propaganda; cited in Ralph Haswell Lutz, “Studies of World War Propaganda, 1914-1933,” The Journal of Modern History, Volume 5, Issue 4 (December, 1933), p. 511

“It is difficult to suggest by what means diplomacy can mitigate the dangers of this terrible invention.”

--Sir Harold Nicolson, regarding propaganda; cited in his Diplomacy (Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, 1988), p. 93.

“Now, by the press, we can speak to nations; and good books and well written pamphlets have great and general influence. The facility with which the same truths may be repeatedly enforced by placing them in different lights in newspapers, which are everywhere read, gives a great chance of establishing them. And we now find that it is not only right to strike while the iron is hot but that it may be very practicable to heat it by continually striking.”

--Benjamin Franklin; cited in Philip M. Taylor, Munitions of the Mind: War Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Nuclear Age (Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England: P. Stephens, 1990),” pp. 117-118.

“It is necessary for America to have agents in different parts of Europe, to give some information concerning our affairs, and to refute the abominable lies that the hired emissaries of Great Britain circulate in every corner of Europe, by which they keep up their own credit and ruin ours.

--John Adams; cited in above, p. 118.

“After all, what is a lie? ‘Tis but the truth in masquerade.”

--Lord Byron, cited in John Hargrave, Words Win Wars (1940), p. 37.

“We were hypnotized by the enemy propaganda as a rabbit is by a snake.”

--Erich Ludendorff, Germany’s chief strategist during World War I, cited in David Welch, Germany, Propaganda and Total War, 1914-1918 (2000),
p. 250

“Propaganda is the penalty we pay for democracy.”

--George Vierek, Spreading Germs of Hate (1930), p. 34

“...furious Propaganda, with her brand,
Fires the dry prairies of our wide Waste Land;
Making the Earth, Man’s temporal station, be
One stinking altar to Publicity.”

--L. W. Dodd, “The Great Enlightenment,” in The Great Enlightenment: A Satire in Verse: With Other Selected Verses (1928), p. 44., cited in Alfred McClung Lee How to Understand Propaganda (1952), p. 19.

“[Propaganda was], as one official wrote in 1928, ‘ a good word gone wrong.’”

--K. R. M. Short, ed., Film and Radio Propaganda in World War II. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, (1983), p. 25

“We look
But at the surface of things; we hear
Of towns in flames, fields ravaged, young and old
Driven out in troops to want and nakedness;
Then grasp our sword and rush upon a cure
That flatters us, because it asks not thought;
The deeper malady is better hid
The world is poisoned at the heart.”

--Wordsworth, The Borderers, Act I, quoted in James Morgan Read, Atrocity Propaganda 1914-1919, no page

“Propaganda is nothing but a fancy name for publicity, and who knows the publicity game better than the Yanks? Why, the Germans make no bones about admitting that they learned the trick from us. Now the difference between a Boche and a Yank is just this – that a Boche is some one [sic] who believes everything that’s told him and a Yank is some one who disbelieves everything that’s told him. The Boche believes all this rubbish his own government has been telling him; see how he swallows a few facts. Boy, bring me a German printing press and four airplanes.”

--Stars and Stripes, January 3, 1919, cited in Captain Heber Blankenhorn, Adventures in Propaganda, p. 162.

“Formerly the rulers were the leaders. They laid out the course of history, by the simple process of doing what they wanted. And if nowadays the successors of the rulers, those whose position or ability gives them power, can no longer do what they want without the approval of the masses, they find in propaganda a tool which is increasingly powerful in gaining that approval. Therefore, propaganda is here to stay.”

--Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928), p. 27

“Propaganda is an instrument; it may employ truth instead of falsehood in its operation (as Wilson did, and as the O.W.I intends to do); and it may be directed to worthy instead of unworthy purposes. To condemn the instrument, because the wrong people use it for the wrong purposes, is like condemning the automobile because criminals use it for a getaway.

--Elmer Davis, “War Information,” in Daniel Lerner, ed., Propaganda in War and Crisis: Materials for American Policy (New York, George W. Stewart, 1951), p. 276.

“But what is propaganda, if not the effort to alter the picture to which men respond, to substitute one social pattern for another.”

--Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (1950), p. 26.

“Propaganda is made first of all, because of a will to action, for the purpose of effectively arming policy and giving irresistible power to its decisions.”

--Jacque Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1966), p. x

Propaganda, as a technique for “controlling attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbols [is] no more moral or immoral than a pump handle.”

--Harold Lasswell, as quoted by Brett Gary, The Nervous Liberals: Propaganda Anxieties from World War I to the Cold War (1999), p. 64

“Hitler maintained that in Britain propaganda was regarded ‘as a weapon of the first order, while in our country it was the last resort of unemployed politicians and a haven for slackers.’”

--David Welch, Germany, Propaganda and Total War, 1914-1918 (2000), p. 254

“The cure for propaganda is more propaganda.”

--Bruce Bliven, quoted by Edward Bernays (page not shown) in Doob, Propaganda: Its Psychology and Technique (1935), p. 197

“The deadliest danger of propaganda consists of its being used by the propagandist for his own edification.”

--Wallace Carroll, Persuade or Perish (1948), p. 7.

“If you’re imperially-minded, which the Americans were at the time [60s, Cold War], you don’t think much about whether it’s wrong or not [being part of the propaganda “aparat"]. It’s like the imperial British in the Nineteenth Century. You just do it.”

--Stuart Hampshire, quoted in Frances Saunders, Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (1999), 378-79

“What is truly vicious” observed the New York Times in an editorial on September 1 1937, “is not propaganda but a monopoly of it.”

--Alfred McClung Lee and Elizabeth Briant Lee, eds., The Fine Art of Propaganda (1939), p. 18

‘’The way to carry out propaganda is never to appear to be carrying it out at all.”

--Richard Crossman, quoted in Frances Saunders, Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (1999) introduction, no page [p. 1]

“War propaganda is a shell in which the truth rattles around somewhere. Journalists try, with varying degrees of success, to find it among the din of false echoes. Governments try to impose their meaning on the noise.”

--Anne McEvoy, The Independent, October 10, 2001, p. 3

“More than forty years ago, I was a pioneer in radio, a sports announcer. And I found myself broadcasting major league baseball games from telegraphed reports. I was not at the stadium…

Now, if the game was rather dull, you could say, “’It’s a hard-hit ball down toward second base. The shortstop is going over after the ball and makes a wild stab, picks it up, turns and gets him out just in time.’”

Now, I submit to you that I told the truth, if he was out from shortstop to first, and I don’t know whether he really ran over toward second base and whether he really made a one-handed stab, or whether he just squatted down and took the ball when it came to him. But the truth got there, and in other words, it can be attractively packaged.”

--Ronald Reagan, speaking at the Voice of America’s fortieth anniversary ceremonies, Washington D.C., February 24, 1982; cited in Alvin A. Snyder, Warriors of Disinformation: American Propaganda, Soviet Lies, and the Winning of the Cold War (1995), n.p.

“’Terrorism is fundamentally propaganda, a bloody form of propaganda,’

Brian Jenkins, a terrorism expert at the Rand Corp; cited in The Washington Post, October 11, 2001, p. A8

“Maybe we’re losing that battle for Afghan hearts and minds in part because the Bush State Department appointee in charge of the propaganda effort is a C.E.O. (from Madison Avenue) chosen not for her expertise in policy or politics but for her salesmanship on behalf of domestic products like Head & Shoulders shampoo. If we can’t effectively fight anthrax, I guess it’s reassuring to know we can always win the war on dandruff.”

--Frank Rich. The New York Times, October 27, 2001

“The administration is proclaiming American ideals for all to hear—and is fighting a propaganda war against al-Jazeera television, a transnational satellite network...To succeed in the propaganda war, for example, it is not enough to say you are fighting terrorists and not Muslims, and it is not enough to help Afghans with food packages. To succeed in winning hearts and minds, you also need to rein in human-rights abuses by your new allies, such as Uzbekistan’s Soviet-style dictatorship.”

--Sebastian Malaby, “Practical Idealism,” Washington Post, October 22, 2001
12/07/01

The Encyclopedia Britannica (1911 edition) does not have “Propaganda” as an entry; the 1997 edition has nine-page coverage of the subject.

APPENDIX B

John Brown Postings and Publications

On Going Projects

• The Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, posted on a near-daily basis at LINK
Note: This posting was cited as one of ten “Best Blogs of 06,” by David E. Kaplan of the U.S. News & World Report.
LINK

Articles

A) Scholarly, historical, literary

• “A Wake-up Call” [review of What They Think of Us: International Perceptions of the United States Since 9/11, David Farber, editor, Princeton University Press, 2007], Foreign Service Journal (September 2007)
LINK
• “Public Diplomacy Goes ‘Pubic’” (Public Diplomacy Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, July 11, 2007)
LINK
• “Public diplomacy as a global phenomenon, 2006: An internet-based overview of the English-language world media — Part 1” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (Volume 3, issue, April, 2007): 179-190; earlier version available at: LINK
• “Subtlety one of the paradoxes of propaganda: the effective forms don’t appear as if they’re intentional” (San Francisco Chronicle, April 29, 2007)
LINK
Earlier and fuller version (with footnotes) at Public Diplomacy Blog (April 16, 2007), USC Center on Public Diplomacy
LINK
• “Una Diplomacia Alternativa” [on public diplomacy] Culturas (no. 241) (La Vanguardia, January 31, 2007)
• “The Perils of Propaganda: Lessons from the Cold War” [review of three new books on propaganda in the Cold War] (Place Branding: A Quarterly Review of Branding, Marketing and Public Diplomacy for National, Regional and Civic Development, 2006)
• “Art for Art’s Sake?” [review of Fallout Shelters for the Human Spirit: American Art and the Cold War by Michael L. Krenn, The University of North Carolina Press, 2005] Foreign Service Journal, December 2006, pp. 76-78.
LINK
• “Arts Diplomacy: The Neglected Aspect of Cultural Diplomacy,” in William P. Kiehl, Editor, America’s Dialogue with the World (Public Diplomacy Council, 2006)
LINK
• Reply to question: First, What Was the Best Single Episode of Public Diplomacy Ever, and Secondly, What Has Been the Most Influential Element of Soft Power of All Time? (Other respondents include Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Nicholas Cull, Patricia Kushlis, Nancy Snow), Beacon: Soft Power in the 21st Century—and More, July 24-28)
LINK
• “Two Ways of Looking at Propaganda” (Public Diplomacy Blog, University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, June 29, 2006)
LINK
• “A Russian Dream in Washington: The Hillwood Museum,” English [Journal for Russian Teachers of English], No. 7 (1-15 April) 2006, p. 56-57; posted at LINK
• “Fight against Terror Is a Latter Day Edition of Indian Wars” (San Francisco Chronicle, February 5, 2006) LINK ; fuller version: “’Our Indian Wars Are Not over Yet’: Ten Ways to Interpret the War on Terror as a Frontier Conflict” – TomDispatch.com (January 19, 2006) LINK
• “Three Schools of Thought on Culture and Foreign Policy during the Cold War” (Place Branding: A Quarterly Review of Branding, Marketing and Public Diplomacy for National, Regional and Civic Development, Issue 4, November 2005); also at LINK
• “Doing as Little Mischief as Possible” (Part of the series, “Joining the Foreign Service, How and Why” (American Diplomacy, September 2005) LINK
• “‘A Boot Stamping on a Human Face’: Orwell’s 1984 as a Process of Defacement,” English [Journal for Russian Teachers of English], No. 15 (1-15 August) 2005, p. 33-35] LINK also on line at LINK
• “American Public Diplomacy in the Cold War [book review]” (Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Winter/Spring 2005), pp. 125-130
LINK
• “Changing Minds, Winning Peace”: Reconsidering the Djerejian Report,” American Diplomacy (September 5, 2004) LINK
• “Historical Patterns of US Government Overseas Propaganda, 1917-2004” (Phil Taylor’s Web Site, the Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds, UK)
LINK
• “The Lessons of Jazz [Review of Satchmo Blows Up the World: Jazz Ambassadors Play the Cold War by Penny M. Von Eschen]” Foreign Service Journal, March 2005, 55-56)
• “Is the U.S. High Noon Over? Reflections on the Declining Global Influence of American Popular Culture” (Cultural Commons, Center for Arts & Culture, July 2004) LINK longer version in English (Journal for Russian Teachers of English, No. 7, 16-22 February 2004, pp. 28-29) LINK
• “The Anti-Propaganda Tradition in the United States,” (Public Diplomacy Web Site, Sponsored by United States Information Agency Alumni Association) LINK
• Comments on the history of the United States Information Agency (USIA), published in Arts & Minds: Cultural Diplomacy amid Global Tensions (2003)
• “The Purposes and Cross-Purposes of American Public Diplomacy” (American Diplomacy, August 2002)
LINK)
• “The Disappearing Russian Embassy Archives, 1922-49” originally published by Prologue, Volume 14, 1982), pp. 5-13 and republished in Russian translation in the Russian Academy of Sciences’ journal SShA (June 2001)
• “Mobilność i etika: czyli uwag na temat amerykańskiego charaketeru narodowego” [“Mobility and Morality: Some Observations on the American National Character”], Tygodnik Powszechny (January 7, 1990)
• “The Free Economic Society and the Nobility, 1765-96: Some Observations,” Canadian-American Slavic Studies (Fall 1980), pp. 427-35
• “The Publication and Distribution of the Trudy of the Free Economic Society, 1765-1796,” Russian Review (July 1977), pp. 341-50
Free Economic Society,” The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, volume 12

B) Current Affairs

• Karen Hughes’ Youth Enrichment Camps: Indoctrination at an Early Age? (Whirled View, August 22)
LINK
• The Second Coming of Karen Hughes (Huffington Post, August 9, 2007)
LINK
• “The Cho in the White House: An Ex-Diplomat Considers the World and Virginia Tech (TomDispatch.com, April 24, 2007)
LINK
• “Karen Hughes and Her ‘Diplomacy of Deeds’” (Common Dreams, April 9, 2007)
LINK
Shorter version at Tompaine.com (April 9, 2007)
LINK
• “How the World Will See the Surge” (Common Dreams, January 9, 2007)
LINK
• “Washington’s Iraq Chimeras” (with Ray McGovern) (Tompaine.com, November 22, 2006) LINK
• “Improving America’s Image” (Tompaine.com, November 2, 2006): LINK
• “Reading Fyodor D. at The Pool: Laura Bush’s Affection for a Russian Novelist”
- (San Francisco Chronicle, October 15, 2006 LINK ; also at
LINK
• “Willie Horton Redux: Karen Hughes Breaks Her Silence” (PRWatch.org, Center for Media and Democracy, September 15, 2006)
LINK
• “Why We Fight: Rumsfeld Turns to France for Inspiration” (Common Dreams, September 1)
LINK fuller version at
LINK
• “Questions for Karen Hughes” (Common Dreams, August 20, 2006)
LINK
• “Elected Silence Sing to Me: Karen Hughes on the Middle East (Truthout, July 18, 2006)
LINK
• “Bush the New Internationalist? Don’t Count on It” (Common Dreams, June 6, 2006)
LINK
• “America’s Fading Glow” (TomPaine.com, June 5, 2006)
LINK
• “On Waking Up Sleepless in the Middle of the Night” [Memo to President Bush Regarding Iraq] (TomDispatch, April 23, 2006)
LINK
• “Has Bush L-IED Again?” (Common Dreams, March 16, 2006) LINK
• “Bush and Milosevic” (Common Dreams, March 13, 2006) LINK
• “Of Propaganda and Policy,” TomPaine.com (March 10, 2006) LINK
• Spreading Bush’s Gospel (TomPaine.com, January 30, 2006) LINK
• “Bushprop Strikes (Out) Again” (Tompaine.com, December 21, 2005) LINK
• “Morality Mission: How Karen Hughes Sees Her Job” (Common Dreams, November 23, 2005)
LINK
• “What’s WHIG all about? An Open Letter to Karen Hughes” (Common Dreams, October 19, 2005)
LINK
• “A Failed Public Diplomat” (TomPaine.com, October 6, 2005)
LINK
• “Bush’s Story Isn’t History” (TomPaine.com, September 9, 2005) LINK
• “Defending the Neocon War” (TomPaine.com, July 26, 2005) LINK
• “Fear as Foreign Policy” (TomPaine.com, June 14, 2005)
LINK
• “Fixing Alhurra: Some Small Steps” (American Diplomacy, June 2005) LINK also posted in Arab News (June 8, 2005) as “Some Thoughts on How to Fix Al-Hurra” LINK
• “Diplomatic Joy Ride” (Moscow Times, May 24, 2005)
LINK

~ What must be done next ~

Website: http://www.MoveToAmend.org Mission: We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to: * Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. * Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count. * Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments. Company Overview: On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, The People rule.

Proposed change to the US Constitution

We the People

I. Powers and Rights Reserved To We the People, Never Delegated or Violated Without Consent

A. The People are expressly defined as human beings and does not refer to corporations or contractual relationships.

B. No contract, agreement, or promise may ever bind any human to refuse to enforce the law, or prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest.

C. We the People may believe anything, including the possible belief that this Constitution must be discarded and replaced with a superior document which defends the People and protects their power to enforce this Constitution against the Government.

D. The People are educated to apply the lessons of history to ensure rights are preserved, power asserted, and this Constitution is protected from domestic and foreign enemies.

E. The People have the enforceable right and power to review any public document and access any public official.

F. The People have the enforceable right to engage in any speech, communication, or discussion on issues of war crimes, government incompetence, or allegations of reckless government planning and maladministration.

G. Government officials, agencies, departments may not invoke any power or right they have denied to the People.

H. The People have the right to affordable housing. Where none is available, the government is denied the power to prosecute anyone for not living in a home, or residing in a public park, open forest, or public lands.

I. The People have the enforceable right to freely travel, without questions, and without delay. Any law enforcement officer, agents, or contacted security official who uses any ruse, scheme, or deception to engage in pretextual stops shall be enforced as a violation of this Constitution.

J. The People have the enforceable right to compel govenment officials, contractors, and securty personnel to identify themselves, disclose their policies and procedures, and respond to complaints about violations of this Constitution, the Supreme Law, or laws of war.

K. The People may not be subject to any electronic surveillance except on probable cause and a warrant before a judicial tribunal. The President, Congress and others are expressly denied the power to enact, create, use, or rely on quasi-judicial tribunals to self-certify warrants to conduct surveillance.

L. All denied powers to the US Government in this Constitution are reserved to the People to be used to defend the Constitution.

II. Powers and Rights Reserved to States

A. States shall have authority to enforce any law within their jurisdiction. Failure to enforce the laws of war shall be prosecuted as a war crime.

B. States shall, when the Federal Government refuses to enforce the Constitution or Supreme Law, enforce the national and international law against contractors, legal counsel, state or US government officials.

C. Any state may start impeachment investigations or proceedings against the President, Member of Congress, or US government official on issues of international laws of war, domestic rebellion, or violations of the Supreme Law oath of office, or Geneva Conventions. The States shall, upon receipt of an impeachment investigation or conviction from any other state, shall within 10 days debate that resolution. If convicted by 2/3 of the States, that US government official shall be removed from office. Any effort to thwart State efforts to enforce the US Constitution through impeachment investigations or impeachment proceedings at the State level may be construed as a subsequent violation of this Constitution and laws of war.

D. The States may, without notice, organize themselves to collectively defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the United States government. The States Governors have the standing power, right, and authority to use deadly combat force to enforce this Constitution against US government officials.

E. A failure of any State official to enforce the laws of war shall be subject to a war crimes trial within 90 days of discovering that evidence. Where there are credible allegations of war crimes, a failure to investigate shall be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty.

F. States have the power to enforce contract obligations between contractors and the US government which affect the rights of their State citizens. Failure to enforce these contractual obligations against the contractors or US government could be construed as a subsequent violation under the laws of war and US Constitution against legal counsel, state officials, or court officers.

III. Independent Branch

A. All US government, contractor-provided, and legal counsel data shall be retained in an independent branch.

B. The President, Congress, and Judicial branches have no power, right or claim to not fully fund this Independent Branch.

C. The Independent Branch conducts electronic surveillance of the US government, stores that data, and ensures there are independent, safe, retained records of all US government transaction, including conversations and memos between legal counsel and government officials. Once created for the government or connected with any legal or illegal activity, these records are public records.

D. The data may be seen only upon a showing of reasonable belief or suspicion by the United States Congress, Court, or Executive Branch that the information may be useful in enforcing the Constitution, Supreme Law, or Geneva Conventions.

E. Private citizens may view any data, unless the US government provides sufficient, detailed evidence why that request for information should not be met for bonafide, lawful secrets. Any effort to hide evidence behind a claim of "state secrets," where that claim is linked with an effort to bypass the Constitution, oath of office, Supreme Law, or laws of war may be punishable by the death penalty.

F. All government data belongs to the People. Any legal counsel working for the US government shall ensure that the People's right to reliable information is protected. A failure to protect this information could be construed as a war crime.

IV. Prosecutorial Branch

A. All prosecutorial options are denied of the President.

B. The Prosecutorial branch has the power to raise independent combat power, support them, and may lawfully use that deadly combat force to confront Members of Congress, the Judicial Branch Officers, or the Presidents upon showing of probable cause for war crimes.

C. The prosecutorial power is the exclusive power of the prosecution branch. However, anyone may make a claim of illegal activity, and enforce the laws of the United States and States respectively. Any effort to block anyone from unilaterally attempting to enforce the laws of war through discovery, investigation, and open discussion of those alleged war crimes shall be construed as a possible subsequent offense under the laws of war.

D. Legal counsel are subject to public review, audit, and can be required, with fair notice, of a requirement to demonstrate before any court their compliance with the laws of war.

E. Legal counsel may be denied authority to conduct discovery during any investigation when that discovery is linked with efforts that would thwart war crimes investigation, enforcement of the Supreme law or Geneva Conventions.

V. Judicial Branch

A. The Judicial Branch is above the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch only in order of precedence. The Judicial Branch is a co-equal branch, and closest to the People and Constitution. It is least responsive, and most slow to the People's daily interests to enforce the Constitution and Supreme Law or Geneva Conventions.

B. Where the Judicial Branch does not timely enforce the Constitution, Supreme Law, or laws of war, the States and People retain the power and right to investigate and prosecute allegations of US government illegal activity, war crimes, or violations of the Supreme law.

C. All precedents under the laws of war are binding on the Judicial Branch, US government, and the People through enforcement actions.

D. Any decision by any judicial officer not to fully enforce the laws of war, Supreme Law, or this Constitution may be construed as a war crime, subject to the death penalty.

VI. Legislative Branch

A. The Legislative Branch is listed after the Judicial Branch because it is less responsive to the People.

B. The Members of Congress may be stopped between sessions and held to account for their failure to enforce the laws of war.

C. Refusing to investigate or impeach the President, Judicial Officers, or any current or former US government official for alleged war crimes, maladministration, illegal warfare, or other crimes against the People, States, or US Government shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to not fully assert ones oath of office, and punishable by the death penalty under the laws of war.

D. There are three chambers to the Congress. The Senate and House have a legal duty to fully enforce the laws. Any decision to not timely review evidence of impeachable offenses, or not investigate war crimes or maladministration could be construed as subsequent offenses under the laws of war.

E. The Superior Chamber shall decide, before any debate, whether the proposed bill is or is not Constitutional. This determination is subject to approval, challenge, and rejection by the People, States, and Judicial Branch.

F. The Congress is denied the exclusive power to make rules. Any rule which prohibits any investigation into alleged malfeasance in re the laws of war, Supreme Law, or oath of office is illegal, and may be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.

G. The Congress shall comply with public audits, and timely provide within 45 days of an audit report a statement of remedy, and outline a plan within 90 days to fully comply with all legal obligations under the Statute, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.

H. The Congress may raise and support an army, and independently order that army only against the President when the President refuses to enforce the laws of war, or comply with his legal obligations under this Constitution.

VII. Executive Branch

A. The Executive Branch is led by three Presidents, co-equal with non-overlapping jurisdictions. The Executive Branch has one power: Executive Power. All actions taken under that one power are lesser authorities not powers. The Executive Branch has no power to create new powers or assign itself broader power.

B. The Executive Branch is listed last because it is the least responsive to the People, and the greatest threat of tyranny to this Constitution. The President is a clerk, not a King or Emperor. The President only manages programs. The President has no power to ignore, rewrite, or refuse to enforce the law. Each of the three Presidents shall have an ongoing requirement to demonstrate to the People and States and Congress and Courts compliance with the Constitution, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.

C. The Domestic Affairs President is responsive to the States and US Government on internal affairs.

D. The Foreign Affairs President shall have exclusive power to interact with foreign powers. The Foreign Affairs President is denied any power to violate the laws of war, or use covert activity against American citizens.

E. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs President are denied the power to thwart any lawful State action to organize with foreign powers and agents to defend the US Constitution, enforce the laws of war, or protect the rights and powers of the People and States against domestic encroachments by the US government, legal counsel, or other US government officials.

F. The Commander in Chief shall only have power to lead combat operations during war time. Congress shall conduct ongoing, public reviews whether the Commander in Chief is or is not competent in managing combat operations. The Presidents and Commander in Chief are denied the power to prohibit Congress from using electronic surveillance or use separately raised and supported armies to conduct this oversight during wartime and peacetime.

G. The Executive Branch is denied the power to block anyone from getting access to illegal activity related to the laws of war.

H. During Peacetime, the Commander in Chief shall periodically cooperate with ongoing Oversight of US combat forces to ensure they are combat ready, fully trained on the laws of war, and prepared to lawfully be used to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.

I. The Executive Branch and Presidents and officers, agents, contractors, and personnel are denied the power, right, or authority to order anyone to ignore any statute, law, legal requirement, or obligation under the Constitution.

J. The Executive Branch has no power or authority to directly contact the Legislative Branch by name. The President may only request, not order other branches of government. All Communications between the Executive and Legislative Branch shall pass through the Prosecutorial Branch, and retained in the National Archives. Those records are available for public inspection at any time. The People have the enforceable right to compel the Executive Branch, Legislature, and Judicial Branch to produce documents.

K. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judicial Branch, and Prosecutorial Branch, and States are denied the power to wage warfare, information warfare, or harass American civilians through his agents, combat troops, or third parties in the United states or from overseas. Any funds used for this illegal purpose belong to the People and States. Contracts used to enforce, compel, or organize this illegal activity are not enforceable, and contrary to public policy.

L. The Presidents are denied a presumption of competence until proven. The President shall always have the burden of proof, and is expressly denied a presumption of good faith until demonstrated with overwhelming evidence in public. An election result is not proof of competence nor does it satisfy a presumption of good faith, only of mastery to win an election through legal or illegal methods and deception.

M. The Executive Branch and Presidents and subordinate agency head, contractor, and employees are expressly denied any assurance any conversation he has related to illegal activity, war crimes, unlawful acts, or other threats to the US Constitution shall remain secret behind any shield, scheme, agreement, or technology. Any order a President or anyone gives to anyone to hide, destroy,not provide, or conceal evidence of illegal activity may be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty. This restriction against following illegal orders may not be bypassed by claiming the order was from a non-person, electronic device, or other non-Constitutionally recognized entity, database, policy, guide, or other document.

N. The Presidents are denied the power to use any combat force, technology, or other military weapon or plan against American civilians, except in cases of internal rebellion which only the Congress shall approve in writing. When the Congress fails to act, or abuses its authority, the State Governors may lawfully use deadly combat force to detain and enforce the laws of war prohibiting illegal use of force against American civilians.

O. The Presidents are denied the power to induce any civilian to take any action that might deny them on any Geneva protections as a civilian. Any order, ruse, scheme, propaganda, or unreliable information to induce anyone to wage war, information warfare, or any action to harass civilians is punishable by the death penalty, and may be enforced as a violation of the laws of war.

P. The President, when delegating any power to any agency head, agrees that that agency shall be organized as if it were a separate, lesser, and not coequal branch. Those agencies shall fully cooperate with the other branches of government to ensure power within the branch or department is divided. There is no single agency, division, or office in the Executive Branch that is beyond ongoing oversight by the other four branches.

Q. The President shall have no power to block the Congress, States, Judiciary, Prosecutorial, and Independent Branch from a having co-equal status to oversee, manage, and organize that lesser branch. If the President refuses to substantially comply with that requirement, Congress may not lawfully provide funding for that agency, and the funds return to the States and People.

LadyBroadoak Visionary Planetary Healing Tutorial

December 24, 2010

Who's Who at Wikileaks?

September 16, 2007

September 05, 2007

ShareThis

~ What must be done next ~

~ Please sign and pass on ~

Search This Blog

Facebook Badge

Followers

BlogCatalog

Current information clusters

War crimes/Impeachment/arrest swicki then "Peak oil, peak dollar KlusterfucK swicki

Lady Broadoak

Translate Blog

Blog Archive

LINKS, real good stuff!

Proposed change to the US Constitution

sitemeter

About Me

Labels