Senator Kerry Looking Into Pentagon Propaganda
By Jon Bartholomew
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:39:28 AM EST
Sen. John Kerry has launched a petition drive asking that the General Accounting Office investigate the Pentagon's role in producing retired military experts to spread favorable press coverage of the Bush administration's prosecution of the Iraq war.
The major TV news outlets have done little if any coverage of this story - which broke two weeks ago - either out of embarrassment or self-preservation. Under federal law, it is illegal for the government to spread propaganda within the borders of the U.S.
Fox does bad job of guarding henhouse?
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:38:57 AM EST
No findings yet, so we won't pass early judgment, but suffice to say that this administration has a poor track record when it comes to keeping partisanship out of their political business. It's not a good sign when the official in charge of policing against unlawful partisan activities by the government gets raided by the FBI. The office of the official responsible for protecting federal workers from political interference was raided by F.B.I. agents on Tuesday as part of an investigation into whether he himself mixed politics with official business. Propaganda Machine "Suspended"
By Jon Bartholomew
Posted on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:04:17 PM EST
A propaganda program run by the Bush administration we reported on last week has been "suspended" by the Pentagon according to news reports out now.
This program was (is) an abuse of our trust in the media, as these military analysts were presented as "unbiased experts" when in fact they were mouthpieces for the administration. The administration abused their control of military contracts to ensure that these analysts would say what they wanted to say.
While it is good that the Pentagon has suspended the program. That doesn't help the fact that this program helped build support for the Iraq War. And given the impact of that on all of our lives, it means there is still justification for Congress to investigate whether laws were broken by this flimflammery.
Administration's Propaganda Machine Exposed
By Jon Bartholomew
Posted on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:54:33 PM EST
The New York Times yesterday published an expose' of how the Bush administration manipulated the trust America has in the media and the trust the media has in its analysts.
What this investigation shows is the following:
* The Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld recruited former military officials to be their mouthpieces in the media but under the guise of being independent experts;
* These military analysts were fed talking points by the administration but were not to reveal their relationship with the administration;
* Many of these analysts were involved with securing military contracts for themselves or others, and benefitted from the increased access - and conversely were intimidated into not straying from the talking points for fear of losing contracts;
* The development of this propaganda machine began before 9/11 and was utilized to generate support for attacking Iraq and is now being used to make Iran the new boogieman;
* Former Attorney General Gonzales also used the propaganda machine to justify the use of warrantless wiretapping.
This story is breaking and we expect many more details to emerge. But there are several points to be made here. First, it was wrong for the administration to use the carrot and stick of military contracts to deceive the American public. Second, it was wrong for the administration to betray the trust of the American public by trotting out spokespeople under the guise of being independent. And third, it was wrong for the news networks to not look into the conflicts of interest of their supposed independent analysts.
We encourage Congress to investigate this matter further so the public can understand exactly what happened here. If it is shown that the administration tied government contracts to political support in a public forum, heads should roll.
FISA bill passes House; no retroactive legal immunity for telecoms
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:54:24 PM EST
While the Senate was willing to grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that submitted to the White House's request for them to spy on Americans without a warrant, the House today voted to renew the surveillance bill without granting such legal immunity. The House on Friday narrowly approved a Democratic bill that would set rules for the government's eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails inside the United States.
The bill, approved as lawmakers departed for a two-week break, faces a veto threat from President Bush. The margin of House approval was 213 to 197, largely along party lines.
Because of the promised veto, "this vote has no impact at all," said Republican Whip Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri.
The president's main objection is that the bill does not protect from lawsuits the telecommunications companies that allowed the government to eavesdrop on their customers without a court's permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. More on the immunity debate below. Senate Debating Domestic Spying
By Mike Surrusco
Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:56:59 PM EST
UPDATE: In a sad and unsurprising vote, the Senate passed the FISA renewal with retroactive legal immunity for the telecom companies. The battle moves to the House, where hopefully our elected officials will remember that they are there to uphold the rule of law and protect the process of justice, especially when it comes to determining whether telecommunications firms unlawfully allowed the government to spy on American citizens. - Josh Zaharoff
...
Senate is now debating the FISA bill. On January 22, Common Cause did a letter with other groups to Senator Reid opposing immunity for telecommunications companies. Excerpt: We now know that communication service providers turned over our private calls, emails and records to the government in the absence of a court order or other lawful requirement to do so. This violates both criminal and civil laws. Currently, citizens and consumers are trying to advance their rights in court, some seeking damages, and some seeking a simple declaration that the activity was illegal and a court order stopping it from happening in the future.
Killing all the pending cases will have two effects. First, it deprives consumers the opportunity to assert their own privacy rights before a neutral arbiter, which had been statutorily guaranteed since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides a civil cause of actions so that Americans can enforce their rights when the communications companies and the government infringe on them. Robbing them of this opportunity through legislation not only frustrates the pending cases, but undercuts the accountability structure in the statute, which will only encourage law breaking in the future.
Second, it serves to bury government misconduct. Granting retroactive immunity shields not only the telecommunications industry, but the government actors that induced them to break the law in the first place. Despite numerous subpoenas, Congress has been completely frustrated in its attempts to discover what the Administration has done with our private information. These cases may be the last chance for citizens to actually determine who ordered the interception of their phone calls and how those intercepted communications have been used against them.
Signing Statements
By Mike Surrusco
Posted on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:17:54 PM EST
Back in April of 2006 the Boston Globe reported that President Bush had issued more than 750 so-called signing statements since the beginning of his tenure. As the Globe reported then: President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Well, last night when President Bush signed the 2008 defense authorization bill, he singled out four of the bill's 2,887 sections which may "impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations...protect national security"... etc. The President will comply with these sections "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President." One of the four, of course, was the Commission on Wartime Contracting intended to investigate the now-legendary waste, fraud and abuse of the contracting process during what was to be the reconstruction of Iraq. So, good citizens, rest assured that our President will not comply with any requirements of this investigation of his administration's mishandling of contracting in Iraq that will inhibit his ability to protect our national security, or rather give comfort to our enemies. I know I feel safe in the knowledge we may never find out how Halliburton keeps getting open-ended contracts in spite of their performance.
Break the law
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:46:58 PM EST
UPDATE:The FISA bill that did not contain retroactive immunity for the telecom companies failed in the Senate today, 60-34, and the rest of the debate and voting will take place on Monday. ... In a moment the Senate will take up the issue of FISA--I'm writing this with the hope that the debate takes more than a few minutes, and perhaps stretches into the next couple days. The big question for me and for many of us is whether the bill will contain a provision granting blanket, retroactive immunity to telecom companies that allowed the government to spy on Americans without a warrant.
The issue hasn't changed over the past few months: this is a question of whether it's okay to break the law or not, and whether, if an individual or company appears to have broken the law and violated the Constitution, that person or company will be held accountable. Granting retroactive legal immunity to the telecom industry before the Congress has had a chance to investigate their actions and before challenges to their actions in court have been concluded amounts to undermining the process of justice and rule of law in this country.
That's a big question. Meanwhile, Credo Action (formerly Working Assets) has put together an action center that points a spotlight on the presidential candidates and the debate on FISA. More below the fold.
|
Common Blog
