This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Government Nanny Censoring "Conspiracy Theories" is Also Responsible for Letting Bush Era Torture and Spying Conspiracies Go Unpunished
Cass
Sunstein was the main adviser to the Obama White House advocating
against prosecuting Bush administration officials for torture, illegal
spying, and other crimes.
As constitutional expert professor Jonathan Turley wrote in 2008:
Close
Obama adviser (and University of Chicago Law Professor) Cass Sunstein
recently rejected the notion of prosecuting Bush officials for crimes
such as torture and unlawful surveillance.
***
The exchange with Sunstein was detailed by The Nation’s Ari Melber. Melber wrote that Sunstein rejected any such prosecution:
Prosecuting
government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service,
[Sunstein] argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive
efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight
appearance” of it.Sunstein did add that “egregious crimes should not be ignored,” according to one site, click here.
It is entirely unclear what that means since some of us take the
views that any crimes committed by the government are egregious. Those
non-egregious crimes are precisely what worries many lawyers who were
looking for a simple commitment to prosecute crimes committed by the
government.
***
The main concern with Sunstein’s reported comment
is how well they fit within the obvious strategy of the Democratic
party leaders: to block any prosecution of either President Bush or his
aides for crimes while running on those crimes to maintain and expand
their power in Washington. The missing component in this political
calculus is, of course, a modicum of principle.
***
Here’s
the problem about “avoiding appearances.” There seems ample evidence
of crimes committed by this Administration, in my view. To avoid
appearances would require avoiding acknowledgment of those alleged
crimes: precisely what Attorney General Mukasey has been doing by
refusing to answer simple legal questions about waterboarding.
How
about this for an alternative? We will prosecute any criminal conduct
that we find in any administration, including our own. Now, that
doesn’t seem so hard. There is no sophistication or finesse needed.
One need only to commit to carry out the rule of law.
The
combination of Obama’s vote to retroactively grant immunity for the
telecoms and Sunstein’s comments are an obvious cause for alarm. We
have had almost eight years of legal relativism by both parties. For a
prior column on the danger of relativism in presidents, click here A little moral clarity would be a welcomed change.For further discussion of the Sunstein statements, click here and here.
See also this interview with Keith Olbermann:
Former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald points out:
The aforementioned Obama friend, Cass Sunstein [is also the] protector of Bush lawbreakers, advocate of illegal Bush spying and radical presidential powers, and fierce critic of blogs as "anti-democratic".
Sunstein is also the guy who proposed that the government use its power to suppress "conspiracy theories".
As Greenwald wrote in January:
Cass
Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.
Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court,
Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for
"overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality,
and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School,
Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S.
Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent"
advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups
and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate
views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the
Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in
government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.
The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
Sunstein
advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be
accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social
networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the
Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible
voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those
who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to
those who appear independent while secretly acting on
behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating
false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to
explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of
powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."
As I've previously noted, conspiracies are a well-accepted legal principal, and it is commonly accepted that conspiracies occur every day, and only those conspiracies which involve powerful people are ridiculed as being nutty or dangerous.
So Sunstein is really saying the government should use its power to protect powerful people.
Greenwald continues:
Sunstein's
closeness to the President, as well as the highly influential position
he occupies, merits an examination of the mentality behind what he
wrote. This isn't an instance where some government official wrote a
bizarre paper in college 30 years ago about matters unrelated to his
official powers; this was written 18 months ago, at a time when the
ascendancy of Sunstein's close friend to the Presidency looked likely,
in exactly the area he now oversees. Additionally, the
government-controlled messaging that Sunstein desires has been a
prominent feature of U.S. Government actions over the last decade,
including in some recently revealed practices of the current
administration, and the mindset in which it is grounded explains a great
deal about our political class. All of that makes Sunstein's paper
worth examining in greater detail.
* * * * *
Initially,
note how similar Sunstein's proposal is to multiple, controversial
stealth efforts by the Bush administration to secretly influence and
shape our political debates. The Bush Pentagon employed teams of
former Generals to pose as "independent analysts" in the media while secretly coordinating their talking points and messaging about wars and detention policies with the Pentagon. Bush officials secretly paid supposedly "independent" voices, such as Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher,
to advocate pro-Bush policies while failing to disclose their
contracts. In Iraq, the Bush Pentagon hired a company, Lincoln Park,
which paid newspapers to plant pro-U.S. articles while pretending it came from Iraqi citizens. In response to all of this, Democrats typically accused
the Bush administration of engaging in government-sponsored propaganda
-- and when it was done domestically, suggested this was illegal
propaganda.
For background on current government propaganda efforts, see this.
Greenwald notes:
Indeed, there is a very strong case to make that what Sunstein is advocating is itself illegal under long-standing statutes prohibiting government "propaganda" within the U.S., aimed at American citizens:
As
explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research
Service, "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by
public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert
propaganda." By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party.Covert
government propaganda is exactly what Sunstein craves. His mentality
is indistinguishable from the Bush mindset that led to these abuses,
and he hardly tries to claim otherwise. Indeed, he favorably cites both the covert Lincoln Park program as well as Paul Bremer's closing of Iraqi newspapers which published stories the U.S. Government disliked, and justifies them as arguably necessary to combat "false conspiracy theories" in Iraq -- the same goal Sunstein has for the U.S.Sunstein's
response to these criticisms is easy to find in what he writes, and is
as telling as the proposal itself. He acknowledges that some
"conspiracy theories" previously dismissed as insane and fringe have
turned out to be entirely true (his examples: the CIA really did
secretly administer LSD in "mind control" experiments; the DOD really
did plot the commission of terrorist acts inside the U.S. with the
intent to blame Castro; the Nixon White House really did bug the DNC
headquarters). Given that history, how could it possibly be justified
for the U.S. Government to institute covert programs designed to
undermine anti-government "conspiracy theories," discredit government
critics, and increase faith and trust in government pronouncements?
Because, says Sunstein, such powers are warranted only when wielded by
truly well-intentioned government officials who want to spread The
Truth and Do Good -- i.e., when used by people like Cass Sunstein and Barack Obama:
Throughout, we assume a well-motivated government that aims to eliminate conspiracy theories, or draw their poison, if and only if social welfare is improved by doing so.
Dick Cheney was one of the main guys pushing for torture. illegal spying and other unlawful activity in the past. See this and this. Would you have trusted him to decide what allegations against the government were acceptable and which should be suppressed using the power of the state?
Of
course not. But Sunstein isn't very different. As discussed above,
Sunstein is also a fan of illegal spying and radical presidential
powers, and Sunstein despises alternative media as being
"anti-democratic". So what Sunstein considers to be good and for the
benefit of the social welfare is obviously very different from what the
Founding Fathers thought - or most Americans now think - this country is
all about.
And Sunstein was the main guy saying
that Bush era crimes (i.e. conspiracies by certain officials to
torture, to illegally spy on Americans, etc) should go unexamined and
unpunished. So he is really just for protecting the powerful against
accusation, investigation and prosecution. Underneath his words, that
is Sunstein's sole, guiding principal.
Back to Greenwald:
Thus, just like state secrets, indefinite detention, military commissions and covert, unauthorized wars,
what was once deemed so pernicious during the Bush years --
coordinated government/media propaganda -- is instantaneously
transformed into something Good.
* * * * *
What
is most odious and revealing about Sunstein's worldview is his
condescending, self-loving belief that "false conspiracy theories" are
largely the province of fringe, ignorant Internet masses and the Muslim
world. That, he claims, is where these conspiracy theories thrive
most vibrantly, and he focuses on various 9/11 theories -- both
domestically and in Muslim countries -- as his prime example.
If
everyone who questions the government's version of 9/11 is a conspiracy
theorist who should be challenged with state power, then alot of 9/11 Commissioners, congress people, and high-level intelligence and military officials are all in hot water.
More from Greenwald:
It's
certainly true that one can easily find irrational conspiracy
theories in those venues, but some of the most destructive "false
conspiracy theories" have emanated from the very entity Sunstein wants
to endow with covert propaganda power: namely, the U.S. Government
itself, along with its elite media defenders. Moreover, "crazy
conspiracy theorist" has long been the favorite epithet of those same
parties to discredit people trying to expose elite wrongdoing and
corruption.
Who is it who relentlessly spread
"false conspiracy theories" of Saddam-engineered anthrax attacks and
Iraq-created mushroom clouds and a Ba'athist/Al-Qaeda alliance
-- the most destructive conspiracy theories of the last generation?
And who is it who demonized as "conspiracy-mongers" people who warned
that the U.S. Government was illegally spying on its citizens,
systematically torturing people, attempting to establish permanent bases
in the Middle East, or engineering massive bailout plans to transfer
extreme wealth to the industries which own the Government? The most
chronic and dangerous purveyors of "conspiracy theory" games are the
very people Sunstein thinks should be empowered to control our political
debates through deceit and government resources: namely, the
Government itself and the Enlightened Elite like him.
It
is this history of government deceit and wrongdoing that renders
Sunstein's desire to use covert propaganda to "undermine"
anti-government speech so repugnant. The reason conspiracy theories
resonate so much is precisely that people have learned -- rationally --
to distrust government actions and statements. Sunstein's proposed
covert propaganda scheme is a perfect illustration of why that is. In
other words, people don't trust the Government and "conspiracy
theories" are so pervasive precisely because government is typically
filled with people like Cass Sunstein, who think that systematic deceit
and government-sponsored manipulation are justified by their own
Goodness and Superior Wisdom.
***
Just to get a sense for what an extremist Cass Sunstein is (which itself is ironic, given that his paper calls for "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups," as the Abstract puts it), marvel at this paragraph:
So
Sunstein isn't calling right now for proposals (1) and (2) -- having
Government "ban conspiracy theorizing" or "impose some kind of tax on
those who" do it -- but he says "each will have a place under
imaginable conditions." I'd love to know the "conditions" under which
the government-enforced banning of conspiracy theories or the
imposition of taxes on those who advocate them will "have a place."
That would require, at a bare minimum, a repeal of the First
Amendment. Anyone who believes this should, for that reason alone, be
barred from any meaningful government position.
Its looking more and more like four more years of Cheney.
- advertisements -
Outstanding, George!
As for Sunstein, he can kiss my ass. Cognitively or otherwise. And, I would suggest, if there is any evidence that he is pursuing such traitorous activities as he advocates, he should be appropriately tried and punished.
"Laws" are only for us peons. The government, coporations and the extremely wealthy simply ignore unenforced laws or buy retroactive legalization of their illegal activity. "Justice" for the transgressions of the oligarchy are N/A. Forget about it...
It's really getting blatant isn't it. It's in our face, they don't even try to hide it anyomore with legal mumbo jumbo. Worked for AT&T, Works for Goldman. Also worked for all those companies who helped cart around the kidnapped. Dismissed for "state secrets." Let's see, we already know they were kidnapped, we already know by whom, we already know where, we already know they were tortured and we already know they were released.
DJ,
Who are you referring to when you say "Worked for AT&T, Works for Goldman"?
do you mean what am I referring to?
Yes, sorry, I'm confused... are you saying Sunstein worked for AT&T and Goldman? Or Obama did? Or something else?
no, simply referring to the immunity granted AT&T for their blatant 4th violation (working with/for the govt of course) and a host of Goldman things like the silly SEC civil settlement, their hand in fraudulently covering the Greece debt etc
Got it, thanks!
Big mouth democrats letting you down GW?
Talking a good game, high and mighty, but when it comes time to stand behind the accusations, well.
Are you calling George out? At least he HAS a web site and is trying to educate the people on much of the wrong that is happening here in the states.
So, what have you done, other than ripping on someone with an informed opinion?
George, you're wasting your [usually valuable] column space on a [very] minor pawn in the game. Don't just follow Glenn Beck ... there are better sources.
The link to the paper doesn't work. All links I found in google come up with an error. (down the memory hole?) Anyone have a working link.
Seems our newest supreme court member thinks Sunstein is a great legal mind! Trouble ahead!
Hmmm ... there are several commen elements between the two. One is Harvard Law. Another is their relationship to Obama ... and the third, I just can't put my finger on it.... lol.
Cold rooms and water boarding are not torture. Torture is shoving a glass rod into someones pee hole and breaking it with a hammer.
Then I hope that you one day get "not tortured".
"Cold rooms and water boarding are not torture. Torture is shoving a glass rod into someones pee hole and breaking it with a hammer."
Well, that is nice. What else can your creative little mind think of? SO i suppose it was all just recreation then? You are a tool if you actually believe this. Of course, the debate is framed around water-boarding, and you're right in your assertion that it is not the worst thing we've done. Crushing testicles; is that torture? (it is difficult to know if you've never been hit in the nuts). Splitting hairs like this is not constructive. This Jack Bauer mentality is a cancer on our collective psyche. Your thoughts are diseased, friendo.
BTW, how long do you usually last under simulated drowning?
Oh I'm not saying I would last long at all... I'd probably spill the beans if water boarded.
But its not torture. Torture involves maiming or crippling someone, physical injury that won't recover, like losing an eye or a pinky finger.
Barking dogs and dunk tanks and walk-in freezers just don't meet that criteria. They are unpleasant, which is the goal when you are dealing with one of your foes in a warzone who will not talk.
GW comes off sounding like a HuffPo parrot when he uses their talking points.
You say, "Oh I'm not saying I would last long at all... I'd probably spill the beans if water boarded."
This is interesting. So, by this logic, I could water-board you into saying that water-boarding is torture. Lol, I guess it does work then. Still, we shouldn't use it. There is no serious evidence to support the notion that it works for anything other than taking away any moral high ground that we used to have.
It's destructive to create these little sub-catergories in your mind: discomfort, non-torture abuse, torture light, torture, hard core torture. It's all illegal, and as a human being, any of it should probably disgust you. What I don't understand is why you would try to defend abuse of any kind. If you don't believe in the rights of your enemy, you don't believe in your own rights. We're better than the terrorists, or at the very least, we should do our best to be. This ain't it, dawg.
"We're better than the terrorists, or at the very least, we should do our best to be."
So very true. Thanks for reminding some of us.
They did other types of torture too.
Oh, and as Robert Parry - the reporter who broke the Iran-Contra story for the Associated Press and Newsweek - points out:
Cheney pronounced himself “a big supporter of waterboarding,” a near-drowning technique that has been regarded as torture back to the Spanish Inquisition and that has long been treated by U.S. authorities as a serious war crime, such as when Japanese commanders were prosecuted for using it on American prisoners during World War II...
And the first head of the Department of Homeland Security - Tom Ridge - said waterboarding is torture.
In fact, all of the top experts on torture say that waterboarding is torture.
You sound like a NY Times columnist... "All the top experts agree with me so I won't address the argument". LOL... nice one.
If your definition of torture is so loose, then it is safe to say your articles torture me on a daily basis. You big torturer. :P
"your articles torture me on a daily basis"
Well then, don't read them, jerk.
You can walk/click away from your 'pain'.
Can't believe this 'torture' argument is still going on.
Psychopaths need torture, not for information but to maintain
their illusion of control.
Twisted little boys who skin cats and cut off
dog's tails grow up to create places like Guantánamo.
Even though they think they are grown-ups of serious intent,
with dangerous equipment at hand,
they are still twisted little boys with all their inadequacies.
.
Welcome to the age of the US, the age of duplicity. At least, people in the past were honest about what they were doing. They were no trying all the time to redefine what they were doing in hope it would match their words.
Look at this pussy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0
That was NOT water boarding. He wasn't restrained. To do it right he would have had them do it to him for a while, restrained. That was shock jock therapy.
They're all marxists in the white house. Death panels had nothing to do with health care... Obama is in over his head regarding basic governance and he has nothing but thugs around him.
Sunstein is the new Goebbels. Sunstein also thinks all money belongs to the government because they print it, circulate it, and we get to enjoy it and use it which is a privilege. Cass, WE are the government, you are the temporary hired help.
Any utopian mystical cult ought to know better than to think their messiah would show up from Chicago. Marxists lie, and when the promises don't come true, they scapegoat and use force and coercion for more control. Promises still not working for you?... Repeat.
Don't get me started....
Your next assignment is to learn what Marxism is, because you obviously have no idea.
They are fascists in Washington, not Marxists.
Alex Jones has been telling us this shit was coming for the past 15 years, oh yea I forgot he's kooke.....
Exacto-mundo.
We are living through a period when so many Conspiracies are no longer Theories.......
Too late...
As a working man I've almost always voted "D" but anymore the difference is getting less all the time. I plan to vote against all incumbents, however being from Ohio I refuse to elect a banker governor.
Bill Clintons' embrace of the rights plan to send all the manufacturing jobs overseas did the trick for me!
The Democrats are the "good cop" to the Republicans "bad cop".
Vote Libertarian...except for AG. Owens(Constitution Party) seems pretty solid for that post.
red = blue
(r) = (d)
<s> We should all believe and NEVER question the Ministry Of Truth. </s>
Amazing how it just doesn't matter anymore.
Anyone for a new season of "Lost"? As in credibility.
Why in the world would any organization or government worry about and attempt to suppress Conspiracy Theories were they not true?
Exactly ... the suppression is as much proof as anything. It does not take a lot of digging to find that the ministry of truth and the MSM are lying to us every day. They think that we are not just stupid, but incredibly stupid.
The ONLY people who protest otherwise are those who are working for them and those who have buried their heads in the sand.
red + blue and when the host dies it turns purple