- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Thomas c --
"The Illegality Issue
As I understand it, the propaganda operation must be "covert" to be illegal. According to Barstow's article, the Pentagon took affirmative steps to assure that the fundamental nature of the relationship with the analysts would not be disclosed.
Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.
In addition, the Pentagon's briefings of the Generals were kept separate from the Pentagon's press briefings. This is obviously evidence that the operation was intended to be covert.
Propaganda in at least this context is intended to "persuade" by means of deceit. It is, therfore, by definition "covert". The "complications" simply don't exist.
1. The media is not reponsible for the Pentagon's decision to use propaganda, or for the Pentagon's setting up the propaganda operation, or for the actions of the propgandists, including the fake "analysts" who knew they were participating in a propaganda operation.
2. The media is responsible for ITS actions -- whether willful or failure due to incompetence, though it appears the media couldn't have cared less that they were spreading lies, even when they knew they were -- and still are -- doing that.
"Ultimately the legal issue is likely to come down to whether the Pentagon merely asked the Generals not to volunteer the nature of their Pentagon contacts or whether the Pentagon and the Generals took affirmative actions to conceal them."
1. Ignorance of the law is no exuse.
2. The fake "analysts" KNEW what they were doing was propaganda: we aren't talking about an optionless enlistee: we are talking about career military BRASS, up to and including GENERALS.
