National Defense Authorization Act

The Court then asked: Give me an example. Tell me what it means to substantially support associated forces.

Government: I’m not in a position to give specific examples.

Court: Give me one.

Government: I’m not in a position to give one specific example.        

We all remember last years NDAA bill which was passed including a little caveat allowing the US government to indefinitely detain American citizens they deem to be aiding or embedding terrorism. Just a few days ago, on May 15 2012, Judge Katherine Forrest ruled that Section 1021 of the NDAA would be enjoined, or prohibited from use. This case will undoubtedly be brought to a higher courts decision and let's hope they stick with the ruling.

What is the most likely reason for the government not being able to give even one example of what it is to support the enemy though?  It's simple, the list is so long they don't know where to start.  Writing this blog could probably be considered under the law a form of helping the enemy, if spun the right way.  All of this madness leads us to present day, when Reps. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Adam Smith from Washington are attempting to use this years draft of the bill for, believe it or not, an even more diabolical plot.

The two representatives added an amendment to the bill that would allow the US government to disperse propaganda, initially aimed at foreign audiences, inside the continental United States.  "Is this serious?!" were my first thoughts.  The bill doesn't actually call for propaganda as much as it repeals two preexisting laws that we're created to ban it in the first place.

The rationale behind such an act is that it would be used on the Internet which has become borderless and allows for foreign propaganda to reach Americans in it's current inception.  So the best bet isn't to educate citizens and show them how to find the truth, but to create even more lies that sway opinion in the direction that the government wants it.  Which honestly they do already, this would just allow them to take it a step further.

BuzzFeed had this to say about the bill.

The amendment's passage in the House as part of a group indicated that key members in both parties either back it or haven't been paying attention. The change — which would give the Department of State and Broadcasting Board of Governors a free hand in what it sees as a borderless Internet propaganda war against Al Qaeda — has been on the intelligence community's wish list for years. 

 The House amendment repeals the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987, which were enacted during the Cold War to prevent against the spreading of propaganda to U.S. audiences.

They go on to say:

Though the amendment says, “No funds…shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States,” public statements issued by Thornberry and Smith promise just the opposite: the ability to use taxpayer dollars to spread government-issued material produced overseas at home, especially online.

Is this really what we need our tax dollars spent on, spreading more lies and hate throughout the country to influence popular opinion?  We already spend so much on bombing foreign children, subjugating peaceful protesters, and creating biological weapons.  Can we really afford to spend an extra dollar on dispersing propaganda as well?

UPDATE 5/25:

The version of the defense appropriateions bill that passed through markup in the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday afternoon does not include an amendment to "strike the current ban on domestic dissemination" of propaganda says Glen Caplin, Communicaitons Director for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who is a member of the committee.

Even though the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that passed through Senate committee includes no mention of altering the Smith-Mundt Act, it remains possible for an amendment allowing for domestic propaganda to be introduced on the Senate floor, or added when the House and Senate versions of the bill are reconciled.

BuzzFeed