Humint Events Online: Scumball Intel Law Professor Proposes Yet Another 9/11 Shill Program

Friday, January 15, 2010

Scumball Intel Law Professor Proposes Yet Another 9/11 Shill Program

(See update below)
In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated "cognitive infiltration" of groups that advocate "conspiracy theories" like the ones surrounding 9/11.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he 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.

As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is in charge of "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs," according to the White House Web site.

Sunstein's article, published in the Journal of Political Philosphy in 2008 and recently uncovered by blogger Marc Estrin, states that "our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a 'crippled epistemology,' in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources."

By "crippled epistemology" 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."


Sunstein argued that "government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories." He suggested that "government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald does a good job on this story, without any real bashing of "9/11 conspiracy theories":
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.
But it's precisely because the Government is so often not "well-motivated" that such powers are so dangerous. Advocating them on the ground that "we will use them well" is every authoritarian's claim. More than anything else, this is the toxic mentality that consumes our political culture: when our side does X, X is Good, because we're Good and are working for Good outcomes. That was what led hordes of Bush followers to endorse the same large-government surveillance programs they long claimed to oppose, and what leads so many Obama supporters now to justify actions that they spent the last eight years opposing.

17 Comments:

Blogger nickname said...

This is just a nervy Orwellian move to criminalize check and balance of the government by sophist means. If you read the article it ends with the suggestion of creating British-like libel laws that will be used to take legal action against those who promote "conspiracy theories". This is another example of recent overly-broad definitions being used to confront previously protected rights.

What the article doesn't tell you is it is more likely government agents are promoting some of the more lunatic theories themselves in order to group ALL conspiracy theories into one easily dismissible definition. This 'lunacy' will then be dealt with through these new Constitution-violating laws.


The conspiracy behind 9-11 isn't claims of the Pentagon being hit by a missile or the Twin Towers being brought down by explosives, the conspiracy is more likely a false flag operation and subsequent cover-up. I suggest you read Peter Lance's book 'Cover-Up' if you want to see the real government conspiracy behind 9-11. This article has skipped some very important facts and details on its way to its quick conclusion about 9-11 conspiracy theories.

No, this man needs to be asked in public about TWA Flight 800 and the evidence of a government conspiracy and cover-up behind it for people to understand and get a sense of what is really being done here. We don't need new anti-Constitutional laws to deal with any conspiracy theory problem in this country, we need more enforcement of the present existing Constitutional laws that the government is in open defiance of. It's more than apparent that these moves are caused by the government realizing it has too difficult a time getting away with its violations and that it looks too bad in comparison, so it needs to dispense with the check and balance Constitution in order to have an easier time with its real practices.


In my mind this new conspiracy law will be used to prevent eventual disclosure of CIA involvement in the Kennedy Assassination and more recent domestic government conspiracies such as the '93 WTC bom bing, Waco, Ruby Ridge, 9/11 etc.

Has DU been used as a test site to gauge response to censorship by gov't agents? You do have to admit that calling itself "Democratic UNDERGROUND", while being overrun by professional propagandists/disinformation agents
who have the run of the place...is
a bit Orwellian.

8:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He suggested that "government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."


Of course, one of the Op-Plans of that article is to make it look like all that is something that might occur, if approved.

When in reality, all that has always been ongoing.

We know who created the internet, and who runs all the conspiracy forums. And even here...



But what that perp won't say is that every time an American Jury had a chance to rule on the official govt conspiracy theories put out by the American regime, they spoke out that they were always total lies, or such.

These trials include
1. Jury statements from the Jim Garrison/JFK case (despite being hampered by illegal rulings by the judge),
2. the appellate libel trial of Eduardo Howard Hunt vs Spotlight magazine,
3. The libel trial of Dr. Charles Crenshaw against JAMA (AMA Journal)
4. The civil trial of James Earl Ray vs the Govt and others in the murder of Rev. Martin Luther King. Brought by William Pepper.

In all those cases, the jury either ruled that the US Govt was guilty of assassination and conspiracy, or jury members said that was what they believed but were hampered (Garrison case).

So when given the chance, the American People have declared that the Regime's conspiracy theories were the ones that were lies and worse.

Anonymous Physicist

8:29 AM  
Blogger engineer said...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

Enter "conspiracy (9/11)

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Conspiracy+%289%2f11%29

Pages and pages of a summary. Is this designed to confuse?

Is this a tactic?

Two or three points cannot be contradicted.

9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i posted a comment re: 9/11 @ that very raw story article yesterday and it lasted all of an hour before it was removed.
h.

10:47 AM  
Blogger John said...

In Orwell's "1984", the hero, Winston, was tortured until he could say, and truly believe, that two plus two equals five. Even though the "official" politically correct view of events is as ridiculous and improbable as two plus two equal five, the elites, the party leaders, do not want the masses laughing at them. When they kill the next country, city, family, they want to be able to say, with moral and political conviction, "When we kill, it is different from the others, it is good and moral for us to kill, because we are defending the American Way of Life."

I maintain that hundreds of minders have been on blogs and chat rooms for several years already creating confusion and doubt and breaking up any sort of momentum. I also maintain, that some of the leaders of the 911 discussion are in fact put there to create the impression that maybe two plus two does not add up to 5 but closer to four and a half.

12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

leaders of the 911 discussion are in fact put there to create the impression that maybe two plus two does not add up to 5 but closer to four and a half.

good one!

12:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent blog, these shills can go fuck themselves, truth is on our side.

1:30 PM  
Blogger nickname said...

Here are a few excerpts from a book about the JFK assassination:

Triangle of Fire by Bob Goodman

The Cover-Up:
pp. 91-92: Goodman reports that the widow of a retired Air Force
Intelligence man told him her husband had been offered a job in
1974 in Dallas writing disinformation about the JFK assassination along with a few other people.

The group included a lady
from Dallas, a friend of theirs, and two others. All were civilians.

The lady worked for a Dallas law firm. Oil money paid the tab.
p. 94: The disinformation layers were: Communists/Russia, Castro/Cuba,
The C.I.A., and the Mafia.

p. 98: Goodman refers to the Dallas group as "the disinformation
society," and notes areas of research with which they won't
cooperate: Dal-Tex, H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, Gen. Charles
Cabell, the Del Charro Hotel, Dallas Citizens' Council. (all
neglected areas of research in the mainstream community;
the exceptions include Penn Jones and Anthony Summers).

p. 100: JFK eliminated funding for the White Russian Solidarists, many of whom in the Dallas area were associated with the oil industry.

Speaking of WHITE RUSSIANS in the Dallas area, I know that's true because I had WRussian relatives there and one of them was an
OIL man. The Dallas Morning News
did a story w/photograph of three
of my relatives. It can be seen and read on the Dallas Historical Society web page.

NOW, who do we know in the Dallas
area?

1. bolo boffin
2. Lithos
3. SDuderstadt (can't prove it, but he might well be Lithos)

DU censors. Have some. Today.

3:54 PM  
Blogger engineer said...

Supporting the validity of the official version (except for retards) is tantamount to approval of the real version, actually. Why not just be honest. Best to go with a winner.

Authors pretend (vehemently/passionately, for effect) to be against the transgressions on the part of the US in the ME, and yet steadfastly support the official version. Read the comments: they take the bait (on websites where such articles appear).

This is a contradiction of major proportions. The citizens approve of the "Wars" (and trust their government to protect them) BECAUSE their security has been placed in jeopardy, stemming from the official version of 9/11. Homeland Sickery (170,000 new bureaucrats, like a fungus), Patriot Act, etc., all based on this version of the event.

Invading another land is standard practice. Good for a scolding. Perpetrating a 9/11 is not. So the authors cover their butts.

Example:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24385.htm

“"so long as the United States seeks an enemy that does not exist," 

Not seeking one but this sounds really good.

"At a cost of a few million dollars and 19 lives, al-Qaida compelled the United States to spend a trillion dollars, destroy America’s reputation "

Weird. What is their agenda?

6:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point that "engineer" makes about "authors ...support the official version"--is so true. While a very young student I took a class "intro to political science" and the teacher was a young cia case officer getting his phd. Over and over again, he said the most important thing you have to realize, is that the elites, the powerful, can, and will, do anything to maintain their power.
This "doing anything", includes creating and maintaining the big lie. Any writer that deviates from the big lie is simply not a writer anymore, or at least not a paid writer.
Look at how both Biden and OBama, on two different nights at the Democratic Convention, had to repeat the central article faith in their nomination acceptance speech: "Al Quaeda attacked us...etc" This sentence was identical in both speeches. Hmm.

The financial elite of Asia had billions wrapped up in high tower projects on 9/11 and they stopped construction to see if their designs were vulnerable to terrorist attack. After a short time, they determined the American official version was a joke, that the central columns were simply removed as structural entities. The Pentagon, threatened, created an alternate ending, suspecting that their pants were down. With a computer simulation, they showed the jet engines taking out the central columns like a bowling ball. Sort of like a tennis ball taking out all the houses in the neighborhood.
The elites of oceania can enforce their article of faith within oceania, but the elites of China and Eurasia are building the world's tallest skycrapers betting against the official version.
Everything that has followed 911 is an extreme war crime that could be prosecuted if it became generally obvious that the same elites that benefit from the wars also attacked the United States on 911. This is what "they" are really really worried about.
The loophole in U.S. jurisprudence is that all legal rights go out the window in case of a national security threat. Even the courts, the department of justice have been turned into enemies of the people. It makes me think of something President Eisenhauer said:" Heaven help us all if those Texas oil crazies ever get into office".

12:29 PM  
Blogger nickname said...

Leave it to Dwight David Idleflower
to come up with a limited hangout
that must make many hearts on Wall
Street and elsewhere swell with pride.

1:43 PM  
Blogger engineer said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=3&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1208693401-y6y8U1U7S17Fxjf/TY8mIg&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

"Many Americans, polls showed, were uneasy about invading a country with no clear connection to the Sept. 11 attacks."

Linked in the article:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org

"Al Qaeda is a terrorist network of Islamic extremists created by Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States."

Does this writer believe this? Does not matter. The age of pragmatism. Nice job writing for the NYT. Tacitly approves of the real version.

"Terrorists" are serving life terms in US prisons, but only based on the authenticity of the official version. Don't matter.

1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "terrorists" serving life terms in US prisons are nothing but patsies tortured to admit anything to make the pain stop. The judges, lawyers, FBI agents, are told that if they want a wife, food, a life, they have to make the sham happen. The New York Times is a completely pathetic exercise.

1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not know if it so much "the age of pragmatism" as it is people are willing to sink to the lowest depths to keep a pay check. Americans, at the core, have no shame. No crime is too great to promote one's self, and the home team. Directly, and indirectly, the New York Times is guilty of war crimes contributing to the deaths of millions of innocent people. Would not suicide be more honorable than going to sleep at night knowing that your "job" is helping to create a consensus for genocide?

2:08 PM  
Blogger engineer said...

Top down. Judges, media, media slaves, TV robots, police, public schools, all, beholden up, not down. Works well once you abandon pride, decency, and honor.

5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, what kind of progress has been
made since Biblical times?

Doesn't sound like very much.

6:35 PM  
Blogger engineer said...

Actually, societies have lost ground, significantly. Perhaps monotonically, in a sense.

Certainly has for the non-humans, and that is not so positive for the humans, as a sign of things in general. A bellwether.

6:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger