The pieces, all authored by the same man, clearly contradict each other. Is Sunstein, then, saying that dissent is a GOOD thing during the Bush administration, where MANY questioned what Bush and his administration were up to, but NOT during the Obama administration? And, remember, when Bush got caught at the "infiltration tactics" the political left railed against him for it, yet now we have something very similar being proposed from a prominent person in the Obama administration, yet almost no one seems to be bothered by it or even talking about it.
My proposition is this: Sunstein is spewing forth the same old worn out tactics, but under a new disguise"and the died-in-the-wool Democrats, as well as others, are buying it hook, line and sinker as if it were something of a great revelation to be beheld!
Greenwald states that there is no proof that the program has been installed"but there is no need to "install it" because it is not a new program. What the suggested program IS is business as usual. The Bush administration, certainly guilty of "cognitive" infiltration, weren't the first to employ these kinds of Anti-First Amendment tactics. In fact, the new film Camp FEMA brought to our attention that "over the course of four Presidential administrations, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover ordered FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize' the activities" of different organizations. The narrator in the film goes on to say that "the purpose of the FBI's counterintelligence program was a series of covert, and often illegal programs, conducted by the United States government and aimed squarely at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States." (Emphasis mine)
So, while the newer Sunstein paper is disturbing, it isn't new"it is a regurgitation of something VERY old. J Edgar Hoover led the FBI for 48 years and died in 1972! Again, is Sunstein really try to pass his ideas off as a new tactic or is he thinking of resorting to something very old?
Something else pointed out in the Lewis/Franchi film is that in the book War at Home, author, and attorney, Brian Glick outlines the four methods used by the FBI's CoIntelPro: infiltration, psychological warfare, harassment through the legal system, and extralegal force and violence. The Sunstein paper seems to echo some of these egregious practices, but his reasoning is simple"if the government officials are "well-intentioned" then it's okay. What if ALL of the former administrations thought their actions were "well-intended?" Or maybe we should ask another question. Will the double standards and deception ever end?
As for "conspiracy theories," Sunstein, as well as right-winger Sean Hannity and former Clinton buddy Dick Morris, has had to concede that some of these formerly "insane" or "fringe" theories have actually been proven true. Yet, even realizing that some of what they consider "conspiracy theories" are true, he believes it's okay for the government to "cognitively infiltrate" the groups perpetrating these "theories." Greenwald states that "The most chronic and dangerous purveyors of "conspiracy theory' games are the very people Sunstein thinks should be empowered to control our political debate," the government and people like himself.
So, should we be afraid of the power and influence wielded by Cass Sunstein on a President that is his close friend, but more importantly, the President that he advises? In light of how long this type of behavior has been going on in the United States, I'd say we'd be better served to be leery of ANYONE who takes it upon "his" administration to exhibit any such behavior at all!
It is time that we face some hard facts. Our government does not represent the "common people" that make up the grandest vision of what the United States of America should be and our government certainly does not have the best interest of those that elected them at heart. Obama promised many things, but most of all, he promised change. We all hoped for more, but for the most part, it is what we feared it would be, the same ole same ole. Sunstein's paper is interesting, but, again, nothing new.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
