Posted on 06/11/2008 9:54:40 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h5658eh.txt.pdf
Here it is, section 1075, page 559, of the “Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)”.
The Senate bill seems to be a backup in case someone reads the 888 page appropriations bill and attempts to take out Sect 1075.
Beat me to it. Absolutely.
Next they’re going to complain because they can’t get anyone in the military to answer questions, and they’ll blame it on some imaginary gag order.
Odd, innit, the relationship between certain public books and Congressional actions? McClellan’s book, Wilson’s book, some of the 911 books, Clark’s book and subsequent TV special, Earth in the Balance, Silent Spring, and for all we know The Fog. Almost as though the book is used as propaganda to justify Congressional action.
9 SEC. 1075. PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO PROPAGANDA.
10 (a) PROHIBITION.—No part of any funds authorized
11 to be appropriated in this or any other Act shall be used
12 by the Department of Defense for propaganda purposes
13 within the United States not otherwise specifically author
14 ized by law.
15 (b) REPORTS.—Not later than 90 days after the date
16 of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the
17 Department of Defense and the Comptroller General of
18 the United States shall each conduct a study of, and sub
19 mit to the Congress a report on, the extent to which the
20 Department of Defense has violated the prohibition on
21 propaganda established in section 8001 of Public Laws
22 107–117, 107–248, 108–87, 108–287, 109–148, 109–
23 289, and 110–116, the Department of Defense Appropria24
tions Acts for fiscal years 2002 through 2008.
1 (c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the
2 term ‘‘propaganda’’ means any form of communication in
3 support of national objectives designed to influence the
4 opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of the people of
5 the United States in order to benefit the sponsor, either
6 directly or indirectly.
It was the defense appropriations bill, see above.
The Democrats hate our military. They just won’t say it out loud, so they try these little end-runs instead.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
law enforcement activity associated with counter-drug, counter-terrorism,
and national security investigations and operations.
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by the Congress.
This section, 8001, is in every military appropriations bill as far back as I can see- it's always been illegal to emit "propaganda" without congressional approval.
“Democrats Try to Make Military Press Conferences Illegal”
I’m no fan of the Dems, but you are wrong on this headline. More importantly, your incauracy and total misuderstanding of DoD’s principles of information foment the nut-root right and the Larouche-... well, whichever side they’re on.
First off, it is illegal for military personnel to target propaganda at the America people (”No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.”)
PSYOPs are different. The purpose of PSYOP is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the unit’s objectives.
See the difference? “within the United States” and “Foreign.”
Once more: “within the United States” and “Foreign.”
DoD in interacting with the press has the policy to “ available timely and accurate information so that the public, the Congress, and the news media may assess and understand the facts about national security and defense strategy.”
Additionally, “A free flow of general and military information shall be made available, without censorship or propaganda, to the men and women of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
and
“Information will not be classified or otherwise withheld to protect the Government from criticism or embarrassment.”
Do yourself a favor and read the DoD Directive here: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/512205p.pdf
...you sure this story isn’t out of NK?
Nope...this is out of the same country that has nominated the Marxist Barack Hussein Obama for president.
I guess that would keep them from having “Congressional hearings” during which they insult the top generals (Petraeus et al).....
No word on the Marxist Media propaganda being dished out daily for Obama and the Democrats?
(This is stunning)
Send it to Mark Levin!!
Today.....for his show.
It's been illegal for the military to use congressionally approved funds for “publicity or propaganda” for some time now.
But a full-blown congressional hearing into every statement made by the military to see if it's a factual exposition or illegal propaganda will be a waste of time and would be, in my opinion, a propaganda tool used by congress at best and at worst a means to put our military leaders on trial.
Couple this with Obama’s plan to hold war crimes trials “if needed”, and there's cause for concern about just where this will lead.
And just who determines what is propoganda? Military statements about the status of the war can be subjective and therefore categorized as propoganda just because they don’t believe them to be correct. On any level, it still amounts to censorship with a little hypocrisy thrown in for good measure...they can get their negative message out with no positive feedback from the Military to counteract it. It is wrong and un-American.
I’m concerned when the Dems are headed but that’s a differnt issue than propagandizing the U.S vs. PSYOP’s to foriegn “audiences.
Factuality is a bedrock of the relationship between military “spokesmen” and the media. If you lie you will be found out (I.E. Pat Tillman, the USS Iowa, Gulf of Tonkin). When you are found out you have zero credibility — zip, zero, nada - - and rebuilding it is difficult at best.
If the press lies or gets in wrong, what happens? Most often they are denied access to the prinicpals. When your colleagues are interviewing or getting info from the higher ups and you’re getting squadoosh, you paper/network is, shall we say, not happy. If you can’t get a story, then why should they have you on the payroll.
Do your Dhim friends really acknowledge that the leadership of their party, their representatives in Congress, are anti-military?
Usually what you’ll hear is “We support the military, BUT...” and a firm denial that they have a negative opinion of the military.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.