Obama staffer wants "cognitive infiltration" of 911 conspiracy groups

[EmeraldCityGrl]

"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."


http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/

I find this article disturbing on so many levels I'm not sure where to start. He really is suggesting they have government sponsored trolls on sites like DU. Re-educate the masses
and dispel those silly conspiracy theories. Really, what is he so worried about that this would even be suggested? Obama really has a knack for choosing the most objectionable
appointees.

[grasswire]

1. what's next.......an enemies list? (eom)

[cutlassmama]

2. Le sigh. Guess I'll be on their list then. LOL

[bkozumplik]

3. i think its aready done

no laws against it, useful. I dont know why a lot of sleezeballs wouldnt be paying bloggers to get their "message" out.

[clear eye]

4. Just go to the Latin America forum and look for posters claiming

that the current gov't of Honduras is not a coup. Despite the completely contrary position they promote compared w/ the postings of most DUers, they are so very polite. No Freepers they. They just take a tiny bit of disagreement by one member, and spin it into something opposing the generally held beliefs of forum participants while pretending to agree w/ the slightly dissenting member, even though the member whose comment they piggybacked on did not say what they claim. When you know what to look for, it stands out like a sore thumb. These posters are working, not participating like other DUers.

I find it works to bury their remarks in excerpts of articles that substantiate the majority position. The more they politely question and imply they know better, the more stuff I pour into the thread. They soon learn their innuendo gets them nowhere.

[sandnsea]

5. He also wrote all of these books

And why do the targets of the right always end up being targets of the left with the exact same attacks.

Having records "disappeared" (as well as ditching embarrassing people from his past under the bus) was just one aspect of attempts to avoid scrutiny. Another manifestation of this dynamic, was the constant use during the campaign of the "race card" to brand any critics as racists or smear artists (even Sean Wilent of the liberal The New Republic noticed this strategy)...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/cass_sunsteins_despicable_idea.html



http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=552

Sunstein, Cass R. Worst-Case Scenarios (Harvard University Press 2007).

Sunstein, Cass R. The Second Bill of Rights: Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever (Basic Books 2004).

Sunstein, Cass R. Why Societies Need Dissent (Harvard University Press 2003).

Sunstein, Cass R. Risk and Reason (Cambridge University Press 2002).
(translations forthcoming in Spanish, Chinese, and Farsi, paperback 2004)

Sunstein, Cass R. Republic.com (paperback ed. 2002).
(multiple translations, including Spanish, Italian, Japanese, and Chinese, new afterword, 2002)

Sunstein, Cass R. "The Laws of Fear," 115 Harvard Law Review 1119 (2002) (reviewing ).

Bibliography

[clear eye]

9. The New Republic is NOT liberal.

It has been a bait and switch rag since ~1970 when the editor had an apostasy and replaced its earlier liberal content w/ articles entitled w/ liberal catch phrases to ensnare liberals into reading them, but made up of apologies or defenses of rightwing positions. So if an article in The New Republic echoes something from the Cato Institute, for instance, it's just a rightwing publication amplifying the rightwing ideas of the think tank.

Nor is it intellectually honest to smear the OP by equating it w/ whatever was said in The New Republic. Where do you find anything about disappearing records or people or claims of unfairly playing the "race card" in the OP?

Seems to me all of this and your list of Sunstein's voluminous ouevre is simply a distraction from the OPer's actual objection to Sunstein's implementation of gov't disruption of the free exchange of ideas and info by private citizens in open forums. Do you actually feel that the appointment of someone w/ this orientation should be defended? Does it not make sense that in the U.S. w/ its tradition of civil liberties, people on the left, the right, and the center, too, would be disturbed by behavior of this sort by the gov't.?

[EmeraldCityGrl]

17. Thank you clear eye...

you said that much better than I could have.:)

[sandnsea]

23. I'm not referring to the New Republic

I'm referring to the entirety of the article I posted and the attacks in it, including the attacks about internet censorship that match those in the OP. Some report from 5 years ago is not policy that is being implemented today. If they're going to go through someone's writings to characterize the person, the honest thing to do is to go through all the writing. And if they don't, then you have a source that is dishonest and it doesn't matter whether it's TNR or Raw Story that's doing it. My observation is that it appears as if the left is digging through writings from the right to attack. Because it sells.

[clear eye]

24. Up is down; day is night; and people who are trying to defend

the right to express opinions w/o gov't interference are "attacking".

I recognize disinformation when I see it, as do most DUers. No sale.

[sandnsea]

26. A.N.S.W.E.R.

I recognize disinformation when I see it too, and it comes from the far left most of the time these days. Wake Up.

[clear eye]

28. Are commies under your bed disturbing your sleep?

Sorry, I can't keep you company at night.

[sandnsea]

29. bwahaha

No, they're turning people like you into blithering idiots.

[Joe Chi Minh]

36. I think you might profit from reading this article:

http://kwitsach-hadera.livejournal.com/342105.html

[clear eye]

6. Read: Office of Disinformation & Red tape

in charge of undermining privacy and information degradation.

[midnight]

7. Well that does explain some posts here.... That is to say at du in general...

[ima_sinnic]

8. our taxpayer dollars at work on propaganda and disinformation against ourselves

and it's not only the Executive branch working overtime to prevent any real investigation or even questioning about 9/11, but also Democrats in Congress, preparing propaganda about the Health Insurance Profit Protection Act to make it look like something good:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7456201

[Raster]

10. Go visit the dungeon. It becomes VERY apparent that we already have government-sponsored

disinformation trolls whose only purpose on DU is to shut down any discussion of 9/11 conspiracy. Seriously. There are persons in the 9/11 dungeon that have "patrolled" for years. Years. And seldom visit any other areas of DU. A couple in particular NEVER LEAVE.

[ima_sinnic]

13. yes I've noticed that

and when they're questioned about why they care so very VERY much, implying that they might have motives that aren't on the up & up, they go sobbing to the mods and have those questions deleted.

I've seen one of them out of the dungeon lately, trolling on behalf of health insurance corps, ridiculing those who question forced serfdom and obeisance to corporations.

[Igel]

22. And that is the flaw in Sunstein's suggestion.

Groups that are inoculated against questioning their views tend to have tactics and techniques for keeping their groups pure and walling off those who make trouble. There are set answers for why some people don't need to be heard, set answers for why some arguments shouldn't be taken seriously, some evidence that is assumed to be unimpeachable, so utterly above the possibility of peche, so why even try to impeach it? Cognitive dissonance can be tolerated, confirmation bias makes cognitive dissonance not so common.

It would make it very tricky to "cognitively infiltrate" and corrupt the discourse for most groups. It's why the usual "we're waging a war of ideas" against those who would be terrorists is fairly silly. The best we could do would be to keep some on the fence from hopping down the terrorists' side, those who haven't built up a resistance, those who are still open to hearing, those who aren't around people who provide methods for the fence-sitter to ignore what's said.

Still, if you're going to try to steer those groups that most Muslims say aren't Muslim (or most Xians say aren't Xian) onto a new track, that's how you have to do it. Barring actually sequestering them and deprogramming them.

[clear eye]

27. No, the "flaw in Sunstein's suggestion" is that it is wholly imcompatible w/ the letter and the

spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Some of us still think that matters.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

30. What a sad existence.

On another note, this policy will extend to theories other than 911. Then you get into what defines a conspiracy theory.
I don't understand the negative connotation of being a conspiracy theorist when time and time again we learn our
government has lied to us and withheld the truth. The "Internets" has changed the game by allowing common people to
share information and put two and two together for themselves. It's become harder and harder to keep the peasants pacified
with lies and deception.

[eridani]

11. I think that this has been going on for years

In fact, I think the trolls are precisely those pushing the real bullshit about "no plane hit the Pentagon" and controlled demolition. The purpose is to discredit the really very reasonable suggestion that the some sort of hints about an attack may have been deliberately ignored. May or may not be true, but the question sure the hell is reasonable.

What is bottom line fact is that Cheney/Bush were way too busy planning the invasion of Iraq in 2001 to pay any attention to terror threats. The anti-terror commission met only a couple of times, and never after the August 6th memo.

[Politicalboi]

38. WTF

"In fact, I think the trolls are precisely those pushing the real bullshit about "no plane hit the Pentagon" and controlled demolition".
How long have you been investigating 9/11? The real bullshit is the governments story. If you can tell me why the Pentagon having 35 minutes after the 2nd tower was hit to do nothing to protect themselves or downtown D.C. I have 2 towers to sell you in NY. Yes we're the trolls. LOL! For security purposes, nothing they did made sense. I know, you weren't there how do you know. But does it make any sense the Pentagon would NOT defend the WH or the Capitol building, or themselves for that matter. Makes no sense to me. It's trolls like you that take what the government tells you even though it doesn't make ANY sense. Those towers fell 10 stories a second. Nothing in their way to slow it down, but we are left to believe fire cause it. And don't forget WTC 7 which no plane hit, but fell just as fast due to "fire". It's laughable.

[eridani]

45. Not saying I believe the official story

However, I think LIHOP is a hell of a lot more reasonable than MIHOP.

[HereSince1628]

12. Die gedunken sundt frei, or

diu bant mac nieman vinden, diu mîne gedanke binden,
etc., etc.


And so it is that the German tradition of free-thinking becomes replaced with the Totalitarian/Nazi fantasy of Mind-control.
I shouldn't be, but I always am, surprised of the earth that sprouts these notions. Fear is a warm wet incubator for these things.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

31. Great quote. Is it yours?

[HereSince1628]

35. No...it's old stuff from Gen Ed requirements 35 years ago..

Every now and then that stuff turns out to be timely, again.

[Myrina]

41. I speak German and have no idea what the hell you wrote.

:shrug:

[HereSince1628]

49. Well I learned them as phrases in a poetry class

So it's likely that I both don't remember them correctly and didn't spell them correctly.
The gist of it is

'thoughts are free'

and "belts can't bind things held in my thoughts'

[Demeter]

14. I'd Be More Impressed If Scientific and Forensic Research Was Done and Reported to the Public

especially rummaging through files in our so-called "intelligence" agencies.

Oh, and punishing the war criminals, starting with BFEE and Cheney/Halliburton, and working backwards. Both of these would make governmental pronouncements more credible.

[Don Caballero]

15. Not sure how to think about this one

While the 9/11 conspiracy theories are disturbing and have been debunked over and over again, the idea that government agents would infiltrate these nutty groups is equally disturbing. The conspiracy theorists may be harming our democracy but they must be allowed to operate.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

16. Exactly Don C. Regardless how whacked out I think

A group or individual's theory might be, I find it frightening that our government would sponsor what equates to mid control operations.
Most of the public is quite capable of coming to their own conclusions as to the validity of these groups. Once these groups are targeted
what happens next? Is the next step prosecution and prison?

"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."

Who determines what iqualifies as an "extremist theory?" I suppose Sunstien's department would make that determination. This is one guy I'm going to keep an eye on.

[clear eye]

25. Notice Sunstein doesn't say "debunking" their premises, but "raising doubts about their factual

premises". He doesn't care whether the premises are true and can be debunked or not, as long as agents can "raise doubts" about them, because it has been decided that the contentions being made are somehow disadvantageous to the government. His strategy is completely unAmerican, flies in the face of a number of amendments in the Bill of Rights, and stinks of totalitarianism. It is really quite horrifying. I'm seeing an aspect of Obama I would hope never to see in a POTUS. This gets public, and he will not have a 2nd term. People all over the political spectrum were unhappy w/ his vote on FISA. I don't think you & I are anywhere near alone in our reaction to this abomination.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

32. How are they harming our democracy ?

They are a very small minority, they get no press, they, for the most part stick to themselves.

I don't feel threatened in the least bit.

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. What a stout fellow you are! Even-handed to a fault.

[Doctor_J]

18. Instead, infiltrate the 9/11 perp groups

starting with Cheney's country club

[Myrina]

19. Ok, so then we have to ask: WHY?

What does this administration want a heads' up on, or to keep a lid on?
Who are they protecting? And why?


:shrug: Follow the crumbs ...

[EmeraldCityGrl]

33. If Sunstein wasn't appointed to The Department of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, if he was appointed to the Dept. of Energy or some unrelated dept. this wouldn't
be of great concern. But given his position, he has the resources to implement these ideas.

[Uncle Joe]

34. Something or someone in the past that still retains an inordinate amount of power.

Don't look in you rear view mirror, focus on the future, "objects may be closer than they appear."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x229556

[BridgeTheGap]

20. Doesn't the CIA already have this covered? n.t

[villager]

21. Might explain some of the troll-ism here...

n/t

[Politicalboi]

39. Bring it on assholes

Maybe they would be willing to show us one of the hundreds of video taken at the Pentagon to PROVE their THEORY. Maybe they can tell us why the Secretary of Defense was helping with victims instead of doing his fucking job. Or why the Pentagon didn't defend DC that morning. Or what The Dick meant about the "Stand Down" order that day. Come on trolls bring it on. I'm not talking about controlled demolition (Even though I believe that too). I'm taking about the rule of government, and how it failed so badly that day, but nobody was left to blame except middle easterners.
How can this happen? Did they know a plane wasn't going to hit the WH or Capitol? How did they know? Doesn't the Pentagon have radar? Didn't they see the incoming "plane"? Doesn't the Pentagon have SAMS? How come they weren't manned? The Pentagon is not a fucking shopping mall. It's a DEFENSE building. I guess though when it comes to defending itself, it failed. Even though they had about 35 minutes to prepare. LOL! What a crock. Is this the government we fucking paid for? Having a Pentagon as defenseless as a kitten. No one could write a movie about this and have it believed. It's fiction. Maybe if they would answer some simple fucking questions, and show us the other Pentagon videos we can decide for ourselves. But the actions of that morning was not the US government we all thought we had. The secret service didn't even rush Knucklehead out of the school. He stayed there for 40 minutes after the first plane hit, with an airport 4 miles away from him. How did they know he was safe? Maybe they didn't care. (Who could blame them?)

[abq e streeter]

40. Good -i'm tired of these conspiracy theorists who dare question the Bush admininstration's version

of events. It's not like like they ever lied to us about anything else.

and, as always just in case it's somehow needed here::sarcasm:

[KoKo]

42. Obama needs to "Nip this One" before it get's "Outta Hand." It's Dreadful!

It's as if Obama endorsed Steve Forbes and Grover Norquist with Cheney thrown into the package.

Sunstein's proposal needs to be NIXED...DISSED ....BROUGHT DOWN IMMEDIATELY!

[clear eye]

47. Seems to me that would most easily be done if he fired the guy

publicly.

[Arkana]

43. Pretty sure he means conspiracy theories like "The Jews made 9/11"

but OK

[clear eye]

46. Why do you believe that? None of the quotes include it.

And no matter where it starts, the right to "freely assemble" w/o gov't interference is a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. It's shocking to see any U.S. citizen, especially a DUer, willing to casually give that up.

May I remind you of one of the quotes you posted to your profile--"If you give up your values in the hope of winning, you end up losing and having no values--so you keep losing." --Howard Dean?

[yurbud]

44. there already are sponsored trolls. I'm not talking about people who disagree, but those who do so

from a programmed list of responses and never seem to actually respond to anything without getting back to their list of pat talking points that don't even sound clever when the nitwits on network tv say them.

[natrat]

48. and may i add FUCK YOU Agent Mike you pos