This is not the time to be defending the military against its own actions in violation of everything they are taught from basic training on, beginning with that oath.

And there's the rub: in practice, "the military" inevitably gives mixed messages on that subject, depending on the situation at hand. And that has a tragic aspect to it- especially under the circumstance of war, which is in itself an admission of failure, the admission of a tragic ending. No matter what banners may fly and what crowds may cheer at the outset, the essence of war is summed up in the words of verse 31 of the Tao Te Ching.

My early apprehension of that conundrum is one of the reasons that I never seriously considered a military career, or even enlistment in the National Guard or Reserves, once I became of age to be eligible to join. But alongside my rejection of militarism is recurring admiration for a great number of the military veterans I know, or whose stories I've read about. They know how to be decisive; they're resourceful; they don't quit easy; they don't bag on projects at the first sign of resistance or difficulty; they know what stoicism and sacrifice and real shoulder-to-the-wheel work is. In my observation, all too many Americans lack many, most, or all of those laudable traits.

Any social movement for fairness and justice and ecological sanity and ethical dealing would be much enriched and empowered by an infusion of those characteristics. I'm still wondering about the "the moral equivalent of war" that can forge that sort of character and sense of mission and idealism in a human society...what will it take?

One more point, on the topic of libertarianism: the way it's most commonly expressed by its informal advocates- including myself- "libertarianism" is more of a philosophical stance than an ideological dogma. There should be no urgency to reify such libertarians as "true believers" in a political sense, or to otherwise caricature us- much less to posit everyone self-identifying as a "libertarian" to be a dire political threat to liberal or progressive initiatives. There simply aren't enough ideologically committed libertarians extant to pose such a threat. And most of the dogmatic ideological libertarians are simply too laissez-faire to ever coalesce into a "movement" of political activism.

I suggest engagement, issue by issue. You'll see what a multifarious bunch of contrarians we are. Speaking personally, I have no ironclad allegiance to a political ideology of any sort. By contrast, I like to think that my ethical principles are non-negotiable (although I can't guarantee what would happen if they were ever subjected to unexpectedly severe critical duress.)

L.W.M. --

It is legal for the gummint to lie to us.

What is not legal is for the gummint to use our own tax dollars to ie to us using the "independent media" or "free press" as an undisclosed conduit for that propaganda or lies or whatever.

So it is legal for the gov't to use our tax dollars to lie to us -- in order to, say, illegally invade and occupy a non-threatening sovereign nation -- using the "independent media" or the "free press" so long as it does it openly, without using propaganda [because propaganda isn't lying]?

According to John Dean, it is a felony for the Executive to lie to Congress and We the people.

The practical premise of discussing 'domestic propaganda,' which is what Glenn is writing about, is that the Pentagon is treating the domestic population, the US population, the same way it treats targeted populations for info ops abroad. Now, we KNOW that info ops in war theaters include 'ideological warfare', and also that some activities traditionally more likely to be managed by CIA have been appropriated by the Pentagon. Rumsfeld created a whole division at the Pentagon, known among other things as P2OG, which was to appropriate certain types of tasks previously regarded as CIA responsibilities, including some false flag ops, which themselves had their explicit scope extended, to the point of performing fake terrorist strikes. So I think it's fair to assume that 'ideological warfare' against the domestic US population is part of the current Pentagon package, and hence, that some 'libertarians', theoretically, could be Pentagon agents of influence!

I got to admit though that Scott Horton is an excellent guy, I love his radio interviews. I can't imagine him being one of 'them'!

L.W.M. --

"Prisons are poor subsitutes

"for facilities that are better designed to deal with drug abuse and other mental health problems and issues that society prefers to ignore. But they cost money and taxes are for socialists, or something..."

Paying taxes for health care is "so-shul-ism". Paying taxes to maintain a prison system isn't "so-shul-ism".

I don't get the difference either.

A mugging by an addict not prevented by the criminal sanction has a victim.

The criminal sanction against mugging doesn't prevent anyone from doing it now, addict or non-addict. And the dealers we create by the black market in drugs are more than wealthy enough to buy you and I many times over. You seem to be buying the gummint's hype, that crime is related to drug use. In the sense that the hungry will steal bread, I suppose it is.

I told you he was a scary liberal.

I fail to see where it is against the law. They can withold information just by classifying it. Bush can get up and say anything he damn well pleases. "Social Security is aboutto go broke and we must privatize it!" It's called "catapulting the propaganda". Has he broken the law? I do not think so.

It is against the law for them to use our tax dollars to propagandize us (lie to us) in the manner I described in a previous post, sing the "independent" media as a conduit for that propaganda without proper attribution, but the distinction between public diplomacy and propaganda is murky at best.

http://www.seftondelmer.co.uk/

gorgeous stuff on WW2 black propaganda.