Dr. Johnson is Associate Professor of National Security Affairs at Marine Corps University’s Command and Staff College. Prior to joining the faculty in 2009, she taught at The Georgetown Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University and the School of International Service at American University. Dr. Johnson has spoken on topics related to military ethics across the services in the United States and at service schools abroad. She has published numerous articles and book chapters and is currently writing a book on emerging trends in military ethics. Her most recent work, “The Wizard of Oz Goes to War: Unmanned Systems in Counterinsurgency” is forthcoming in Strawser (ed.) Killing by Remote Control: The Ethics of an Unmanned Military. You can follow her on Twitter.

John Little: Let me start by saying that Blogs of War will never knowingly be the launching point for a leak of classified information – no matter how big the scoop. I consider protection of classified information to be a patriotic duty even if one is not directly tasked with that responsibility. At the same time it is impossible to ignore the fact that anyone who discusses or studies intelligence is able to do so, in large part, because of a long history of unauthorized disclosures. Once a story drops in a major publication the damage can’t be undone or minimized. The information is distributed too quickly and too widely. Given that, what responsibility do ordinary Americans, commentators, and journalists have after the initial disclosure?

Rebecca Johnson: I agree whole-heatedly that protection of classified information is everyone’s responsibility – even those who aren’t in direct government service. American lives and missions really are at stake, and it will be a cold day in hell before I do something I know could sacrifice either. I’m not persuaded by the argument that once information is leaked it’s too late to minimize damage. That may be true, but to me, it’s irrelevant. Journalists and government sources both have their own missions and motivations for what they do. I can’t do anything about what brings classified information into the public realm. I can – and must – accept responsibility for my own actions. That means my sharing of classified information (because even if it’s leaked, it’s still classified), puts me not only on the wrong side of the law, but on the wrong side of my duty to work to make the country more secure. People know I work in national security are more likely to take what I share as actual US policy. I think I have to be more careful than analysts who aren’t related to the government or regular private citizens. They might not read a specific story in the paper, but if I share what I consider to be the ‘important bits’, then I’m highlighting the potentially most damaging elements of the leak for anyone to see. I won’t do free work for enemies of the United States. I know they’re perfectly competent to identify the damaging parts of leaks themselves, but again, I’m not responsible for them. I’m only responsible for me.

Ordinary Americans have a responsibility as well. Everyone knows (but often forget) not to telegraph troop movements. Posting on Facebook that you can’t wait to see Tommy when he gets back from Afghanistan next week may not violate federal law, but it’s not the smartest thing to do. Americans also have a responsibility to be involved and communicate their opinions to the government. Here, I would simply caution that leaked classified information by definition gives only a very small part of the picture. Taking one leak and using it to indict some facet of US policy is shortsighted and sure to be inaccurate. Here, I would encourage folks to give a story time to develop, turn to a multitude of sources from different perspectives, and keep their eyes focused on what’s really important – the strength of the country, not scoring partisan or personal points.

John Little: But patience and careful consideration are in short supply. Is there a way to introduce a common ethical framework back into this arena (as opposed to a purely legal one) when it looks like the dysfunctional relationship between media and social media exhibited in the Sandy Hook School shooting is the new norm? The notion of personal responsibility doesn’t exactly appear to be on the rise either.

Rebecca Johnson: If they’re in short supply, then it’s probably a good idea to practice more! I just don’t buy this line of argument. The people working the issues are the ones generating the classified material to begin with; they don’t magically see it for the first time once it’s leaked (very often, at least!). It’s the public — and primarily those of us who work in this area, but maybe not a specific issue directly — who want to know what’s happening on the ‘high side’ and create a lot of the churn following a leak. I am a true believer in our particular system of democratic governance but I couldn’t care less about feeding personal egos or people’s desire to be ‘in the know’. There are times when people claim disclosure is in the name of democratic transparency, but what they really mean is that it’s in the name of advancing their particular agenda or sense of personal entitlement. Anyone who’s in this business to be the center of the ‘look what I know’ universe would be better served just staring in a mirror all day. It would be far more helpful for everyone.

I see Sandy Hook differently, primarily because we’re not talking about national security and classified information. It does, however, highlight both sides of social media – important information is shared quickly and efficiently, but the impulse people (not just journalists) have to be the one who shares the information first resulted in the wrong man being accused of a horrific crime in a very public, terribly painful way. Did he find out that he was accused of mass murder on twitter before or after he learned that his brother had killed his mom and 26 other people on Facebook? That is the very real cost of social media and citizen journalism. In terms of a common ethical framework, I would suggest the following (and I’m speaking here to your basic user of social media – I’ll leave journalism ethics to the professionals):

• Sourcing in everything. If you don’t know the credibility of a source, ask before you share. If that takes you extra time, oh well. If you’re not in a position to be breaking news, it probably doesn’t matter if you’re 15 minutes behind the curve. No one will remember you weren’t first out of the box tomorrow, and it could spare you from looking like a complete jackass if you share something that turns out to be wrong.
• Ask yourself what good would come from sharing a particular piece of information. If you’re just piling on, or potentially exposing someone’s (or the country’s) vulnerability, maybe don’t RT. When big stories break there is a group dynamic that takes over that motivates people to share more than they should. If you lack the judgment and impulse control to moderate what you share on social media, then really – REALLY – take the time to practice developing that skill. It will serve you well in life.
• Remember that no one really cares what you think anyway. You honestly don’t have to vocalize every single thing you know or suspect to be true. I’m active on social media, so I won’t pretend to be immune to this temptation, but there seems to be a sense in which people use social media to feed self-importance. Folks who follow me on twitter know I tweet all sorts of irrelevant nonsense. It’s actually intentional. I ain’t all that, and chances are, you ain’t either. Get over yourself. You don’t have to share what you know. You certainly don’t have to let yourself get caught up in a story as it’s developing if you lack the skills to moderate yourself effectively. Just stop.
• Do you want to be right, or do you want to be effective? There are all sorts of baiters lurking on social media trying to draw people into saying something they shouldn’t. You don’t have to correct every knucklehead who gets a story wrong. Really. Work your issues and let stupid take care of stupid. It can be stomach churning to watch stories build in a direction I know to be wrong, but that’s life. People would do well to remember why they’re on social media to begin with and not let one-off distractions compromise their larger goals.

John Little: Lastly, do you think we are doing enough to prepare incoming public servants and soldiers with the burden that comes with having access to sensitive information in an environment that also encourages persistent personal broadcasting?

Rebecca Johnson: This is a great question. No. This is true of both PERSEC and OPSEC. Every day for a month I had Facebook recommend that I friend an individual whom I’ve never met but who serves in a Cabinet level position in the current administration. Finally I friended the individual (who — *sniff* — has yet to accept my friend request) and posted a courtesy message on my wall that whichever of my friends who knows the principal may want to have a gentle conversation about privacy settings. If this is the level of security for senior leaders, imagine the lack of preparation and accountability at more junior levels. I have found myself correcting my own students numerous times for PERSEC issues on social media, and my students are seasoned professionals.

In terms of OPSEC, most service members are pretty good at keeping quiet on things they shouldn’t discuss; here I would say the breakdown comes not in preparing people not to leak classified information, but in reminding people that there is a lot of open source material that still should not be shared – at least by them. Since DOD changed its policy on the use of social media, each of the services has adopted guidelines and operating procedures, but these tend to be communicated by Public Affairs Officers, rather than by commanders or small unit leaders. I’ve had the good fortune of working with leaders who embrace social media rather than run from it, and that definitely helps in building a culture of responsible social media engagement. Still, I know this isn’t the norm.

In the military, familiarity on the part of unit leaders with what social media is and the general common sense prudential rules for how to leverage it goes a long way to training subordinates in responsible practices. I’m not saying leaders should be monitoring their people’s twitter feeds; I’m saying that familiarity puts leaders in a better position to actually lead in this area. In civilian organizations (including DOD) where there is a mix of career public servants and political appointees, it can be harder to get everyone on the same page in terms of what’s appropriate to share. I’m less familiar with what individual agencies do to regulate social media use on the part of their employees, but I would suggest that the obligatory “these views do not represent” disclaimer people cram into their profile is not enough.

Banning or over-regulating the use of social media is obviously not the answer either; it’s a fact of life and has the ability to make us all better at what we do. For me, it comes down to responsible engagement. My boss likes to say that we have two ears and one mouth for a reason – so we will listen twice as much as we speak. When it comes to social media I’d push it even further. We have two ears, two eyes, and one mouth. We’d all do better to stay on receive mode and be judicious in when and why we shift into transmit.

Warfare takes place across four domains: land, air, sea and space. Recently – in search of a comparative advantage over the enemy – cyberspace was included as the fifth domain. In the future, this will no longer be the case, the human mind will be the sixth and perhaps the only domain of warfare.

Current technologies are shaping our ability to not only influence, but also to penetrate the human mind. As such, warfare is moving into information spaces such as cyberspace, as well as into the mind itself – through the emerging technology of the Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) as we recently argued on Wired. However, unlike the widely criticised COIN strategy, this is more than just winning hearts and minds. War in the sixth domain is about controlling the human mind, either by shaping emotional and cognitive responses, or by outright exploitation of man-machine technology. It is, in a sense, coercive persuasion through internal and external stimuli.

Sound like something from a science fiction movie? Perhaps; but the future is not as far away as we think. Information operations (IO) – the effort to inform and shape perceptions, attitudes, behaviours, and understanding through the circulation of information – have always been a pivotal part of warfare.

Traditionally, an IO campaign was based on targeted information filtered through one-way communication channels. However, the spread of online networking technologies and the digitalisation of global news media means that the public now has greater access than ever before to events happening across the world, and can engage with them in real-time. As a result, we are seeing an increased emphasis on real-time IO unfolding across interactive multimedia platforms as forces such as Israel and Hamas compete to influence the human mind and dominate both public and private information and communication spaces.

So far, real-time IO using online networking technologies have relied on sympathisers seeking out or reaffirming information amongst their like-minded community. This means they take an active role in accessing and receiving an IO message. In the sixth domain of warfare, this role will be more passive as recipients are delivered messages involuntarily. By harnessing the technology behind personalised advertising, combatants could implant ideas and messages directly into the minds of their targets, eliminating any potential barriers between sender and receiver.

Imagine impressionable targets waiting at a bus stop where high-definition cameras scan their faces, retrieve their biometric details (which, presumably have been linked through a number of online networking technologies) and subsequently deliver a customised message to a nearby digital advertising board. Or perhaps, using audio spotlight technology, combatants could target potential recruits by delivering a message inside their head – a message that no one else can hear. Each target would receive a personalised message that accounted for their gender, socio-economic status, political background, personal biases, and social network characteristics. In a world in which we are increasingly “plugged in”, this kind of personalisation is not nearly as farfetched as it sounds. These technologies are well and truly here, and it’s not inconceivable that they’ll be used as effective real-time IO tactics to influence what people think and feel about conflicts happening at home and abroad.

If future technologies will allow us to intensify IO campaigns to influence minds, what might such technologies mean for the manipulation of minds when we use it concurrently with BCI?

In August of this year, the 21st USENIX Security Symposium took place in Washington. In addition to the usual contemporary topics of interest to IT security professionals such as password protection and cyber-security education, there was one additional topic that has significant implications for the future of defence and national security: “The Brain”.

What was once the purview of futurists and conspiracy theorists has now become a startling reality – the creation of tools and methods to harness the power, thoughts and desires of the brain to undertake both simple and complex operations. With this new reality comes new dangers. Researchers at the Symposium demonstrated how easily the brain could be hacked for private and secret information using cheap accessible technology designed for video games and keyboards. Essentially, technology that has been developed to enhance our lives may prove to be one of our biggest liabilities as our understanding of the brain significantly increases, leading us to question what one blogger recently referred to as the need for neurosecurity.

Whether it is a human controlling a metal exoskeleton or monkeys controlling a robotic arm, the increased technological capacity for brains and computers to interact is an area for further exploration, and it holds implications for the future of warfare, especially if exploited.

Control of the sixth domain would effectively mean that domination of the enemy’s mind both externally (IO) and internally (BCI) is possible, thereby altering the individual into a mind-controlled weapon. The risks here – if successfully applied in a nefarious manner – are that such individuals would have the ability to kill, maim or sabotage without conscience, but no capacity to question the command to do so – even if it contravened the Law of War or the Rules of Engagement.

Clausewitz argued that the application or threat of violence was the most effective method of coercion. A successful combination of IO and BCI manipulation (the sixth domain) would reduce war to just phase zero, eliminating the necessity for traditional warfare across the former five domains.

Twitter started buzzing overnight and many are weighing in. Rosen is a pretty divisive figure and that is evident in the early reactions to this story. It should be said that many journalists and national security types who routinely disagree with Rosen are taking a wait-and-see position on this. I think the best course of action at the moment is to sit back and watch this play out on the Nir Rosen Twitter monitor.

Update III:

Carl Prine has fired off another defense of Rosen along with this translated statement from the “Revolutionary Council of Homs — Media Bureau”:

Fellow revolutionaries and media activists:

In the last few days, some rumors circulated regarding US journalist Nir Rosen, accusing him of being an agent for the Assad regime, because of his relationship with one of the regime’s agencies, which is due to the nature of his work. We believe that this matter should have not been dealt with before looking into the history of this journalist and checking with those who have dealt with him directly, as they would best know the details and necessities associated with the work of journalists. Therefore, we encourage all activists to avoid spreading unconfirmed rumors, especially those that may include accusations of treason. We refuse the mistreatment of Mr. Rosen, and we welcome him and any other independent journalists and invite them to Syria in any way possible to show the world the truth of what is going on, as long as they work professionally and with the highest degree of morals associated with their profession.

Update II:

Rosen responds in a lengthy guest post on Carl Prine’s Line of Departure:

In Syria my articles have not been pro-regime or anti-regime. From the beginning opponents of the regime accused me of being its agent while supporters of the regime accused me of serving Qatar, Saudi Arabia or America. These are stupid accusations and I never lowered myself to respond to them before. My goal was to provide an anthropology of Syria’s descent into civil war so people could understand what is happening there. I am more proud of my work in Syria than anything I have previously done. It is a clear eyed account which does not idealize or romanticize anybody but while sober it is always empathetic.

Update:

Rosen’s only comment so far:

“The allegations about me are completely untrue. I will be responding in a longer format in 24 hours when I am back online so please wait”

I’ll link his response when it becomes available.

Follow them at @SenJohnMcCain and @Sn00ki – if you have a strong stomach. For what it’s worth @Sn00ki is the more conservative of the two.

Wikileaks is an especially powerful concept that resonates with the especially naive but this project subverts democratic institutions, ignores the rule of law, and exposes heroic sources to imprisonment, torture, even death. If Americans want greater transparency, or other policy changes, they have democratic processes at their disposal. Creating that change, through those processes, is the only legitimate way for Wikileaks supporters and free culture types to achieve their goals.

Apply these tools to people who have no absolutely voice, no recourse, no hope and you might have a leg to stand on but no rational person can argue that U.S. citizens fit that profile. As it stands now these people are enemies of this state, enemies of legitimate freedom, and enemies of democracy.

On the Web:
Frontline: Top Secret America
Washington Post: Top Secret America

We accept that we operate in an environment that limits the amount of information we can share. However, the fact is, the men and women of the Intelligence Community have improved our operations, thwarted attacks, and are achieving untold successes every day.

In recent years, we have reformed the IC in ways that have improved the quality, quantity, regularity, and speed of our support to policymakers, warfighters, and homeland defenders, and we will continue our reform efforts. We provide oversight, while also encouraging initiative. We work constantly to reduce inefficiencies and redundancies, while preserving a degree of intentional overlap among agencies to strengthen analysis, challenge conventional thinking, and eliminate single points of failure. We are mindful of the size of our contractor ranks, but greatly value the critical flexibility and specialized skills they contribute to our mission.

The challenges that lie ahead are difficult and complex. We will continue to scrutinize our own operations, seek ways to improve and adapt, and work with Congress on its crucial oversight and reform efforts. We can always do better, and we will. And the importance of our mission and our commitment to keeping America safe will remain steadfast, whether they are reflected in the day’s news or not.

David C. Gompert

Via DNI.gov (PDF)

The project in their own words:

“Top Secret America” is a project nearly two years in the making that describes the huge national security buildup in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

When it comes to national security, all too often no expense is spared and few questions are asked – with the result an enterprise so massive that nobody in government has a full understanding of it. It is, as Dana Priest and William M. Arkin have found, ubiquitous, often inefficient and mostly invisible to the people it is meant to protect and who fund it.

The articles in this series and an online database at topsecretamerica.com depict the scope and complexity of the government’s national security program through interactive maps and other graphics. Every data point on the Web site is substantiated by at least two public records.

Because of the nature of this project, we allowed government officials to see the Web site several months ago and asked them to tell us of any specific concerns. They offered none at that time. As the project evolved, we shared the Web site’s revised capabilities. Again, we asked for specific concerns. One government body objected to certain data points on the site and explained why; we removed those items. Another agency objected that the entire Web site could pose a national security risk but declined to offer specific comments.

I suspect the hype around a bunch of open source intelligence framed in spooky videos and flashy graphics is a little overblown. I’ve had little success digging through the site on my own (more on that below) so it’s difficult to say. I’ll be surprised if any significant new information flows from this but the scope of this work and level of contractor involvement may surprise many people and therein lies the risk. The direct national security threat is minimal but the public relations impact is already significant.

I tried to look up my former employer, SAIC, and explore their “top secret relationships” but found only database errors. I’m sure whatever bug or bandwidth issues the site is facing will be resolved soon though. I doubt SAIC is rooting for the Washington Post web team:

Major companies like Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) are said to be worried about a database that Washington Post researchers have compiled linking contractors to the location and function of their contracts. That’s because SAIC performs many classified functions for the government, and at least one intelligence agency occasionally uses SAIC facilities as cover for its own operations. That’s how intermingled the worlds have become.

This intermingling isn’t new, and isn’t just a post 9/11 phenomenon, but that event did (not surprisingly) trigger exponential growth in all directions. Managing this growth is a herculean task but declaring it unmanageable and unworkable is a bit of a stretch. The system presents countless opportunities for reform and improvement but it largely works. It’s easy for critics to point to events like the Times Square bombing attempt but how do they account for what is essentially a tranquil homeland in the face of so many threats?

In a perfect world this would spark productive discussion about how the intelligence community is resourced and managed. What we’ll get though is political grandstanding, conspiracy theories, and potentially another layer of bureaucracy. Of course, another other story could always blow up and shift the public’s attention before this one takes root. Lindsay Lohan, the DNI is counting on you.

Update:
The Atlantic Wire has a roundup.

Brought to you by the same folks who created the Tiger Woods accident recreation. This is, on many levels. a frightening turn for journalism but it’s just too funny to pass up.

NY Daily News: NBC News reported that Duncan Boothby quit his role on the general’s public relations team. According to a senior military official, he was “asked to resign.”

Politico: Rolling Stone’s executive editor on Tuesday said that Gen. Stanley McChrystal did not raise any objections to a new article that repeatedly quotes him criticizing the administration.

HP: Afghanistan’s president believes that U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is the “best commander” of the nearly 9-year-old war and hopes that President Barack Obama doesn’t decide to replace him, the Afghan leader’s spokesman said Tuesday.

First Read: Sen. John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown Tuesday that Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s critical comments about the White House were “a mistake” and “poor judgment.”

Thomas P.M. Barnett: I just read the Rolling Stone piece and found the tone of disrespect somewhat stunning.

It isn’t looking good for the general:

The top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been summoned to the White House to explain biting and unflattering remarks he made to a freelance writer about President Barack Obama and others in the Obama administration.

The face-to-face comes as pundits are already calling for McChrystal to resign for insubordination.

McChrystal has been instructed to fly from Kabul to Washington today to attend Obama’s regular monthly security team meeting tomorrow at the White House

It sounds like McChrystal wasn’t pulling any punches – and let his aides get far too friendly with a visiting reporter:

In the eight-page article, released to reporters on Monday ahead of publication, McChrystal appears to belittle Vice President Joe Biden and accuses Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Kabul, of undermining his war plan within the administration.

Asked by the Rolling Stone reporter about what he now feels of the war strategy advocated by Biden last fall – fewer troops, more drone attacks – the article reports that McChrystal and his aides attempted to come up with a good one-liner to dismiss the question. “Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal reportedly jokes. “Who’s that?”

Later in the article, McChrystal turns more serious when asked about cables sent last fall to Washington by Eikenberry. The cables called into question the major troop increase advocated by McChrystal’s team and the U.S.’s backing of Afghan President Hamid Karzai – views that the ambassador had not previously raised with McChrystal or his staff.

“I like Karl, I’ve known him for years, but they’d never said anything like that to us before,” McChrystal is quoted as saying. “Here’s one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, ‘I told you so.’”

McChrystal issued a statement last night:

He said he has enormous respect for the Obama administration, and the piece fell short of his principles of “personal honor and professional integrity.”

“I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened,” said McChrystal, adding that he remains “committed to ensuring” the successful outcome of the almost nine-year-old Afghan war.

Reaction:

Marc Ambinder
What in the heck was Gen. Stanley McChrystal thinking? I mean, I know what he was thinking: he was tired of being the victim of what he believes is a concerted effort on behalf of Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and others to undermine everything he was given 18 months to do. He was tired of being perceived in the press as a neoconservative killer, Dick Cheney’s hired assassin, or disloyal to President Obama and his staff. He was angry at being blamed for leaking the draft of his report to the President to Bob Woodward. (He did NOT leak the document). He was miffed that a large number of mid-ranking soldiers and battalion commanders and enlisted guys didn’t support his strategy.

The Moderate Voice
Relations between McChrystal and the White House have never been stellar. So let’s just say that now in the wake of this profile they are less stellar — a lot less stellar — than they’ve been ever before.

Hot Air
Compare and contrast the McChrystal/Eikenberry relationship with that of Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, whom Foreign Policy noted last year never allowed their disagreements to go public. This isn’t the first time McChrystal’s spoken publicly about matters the White House would prefer remained in-house, either. Remember last year when The One freaked out over his speech in London calling for more troops?

The Campaign Spot
Many people I know think highly of McChrystal, and he has earned his accolades. But a general in the American armed forces cannot, on the record, mock or deride thevice president and the U.S. ambassador, much less the president of the United States. You and I can; we’re just some schmoes; we don’t report to him in the chain of command. I’m sure many generals have thought many colorful expressions of criticism toward presidents over the years, but they cannot blab them to reporters.

Outside the Beltway
What happens to McChrystal at this point is up to Obama, but given the General’s public statements it’s hard for me to see how the White House and Pentagon can keep him in place. This is insubordination, and there’s really only one appropriate response.

You might think this radical call for government control of the media is at odds with the First Amendment and the ideals of its authors. Not according to Lloyd and his fellow travelers, who portray their vision of a government-funded press as a continuation of the American tradition. The Founders, they say, weren’t committed to protecting a profit-seeking press from government control. Instead, their primary concern was making sure the press could effectively educate and inform Americans, and they obsessively sought to subsidize the press in order to achieve that goal.

Let’s review the facts. During the founding era, America was buzzing with newspapers–all of them privately owned and for-profit. Profit-seeking was so much a part of the American press that, as Professor Paul Starr notes, “The word ‘advertiser’ appeared in the title of 5 of 8 dailies published in 1790 and 20 of 24 dailies in 1800.” The Founders did not curtail this profit-seeking press or supplement it with a government press. Instead they created a limited, rights-protecting government that secured freedom of speech and of the press. They were keenly aware that a free country depended on the free communication of ideas; indeed, it was America’s burgeoning press that had helped transform the colonists from loyal subjects into intransigent rebels, something that would have been impossible had the British government controlled or restricted the press.

Lloyd’s plan is point for point a repudiation of the Founders’ ideals.

Lloyd advocates billions in new taxes on the private media, while the Founders reviled the 1765 Stamp Act, which sparked the chain of events climaxing in the Revolution, in large measure because it taxed the press.

Lloyd calls for “federal regulations over commercial broadcast and cable programs regarding political advertising and commentary, educational programs for children” and even “the number of commercials” they can run, while the Founders solemnly declared that “Congress shall make no law” abridging the freedom of speech.

Lloyd advocates a government-run “public” media that would force you to support through taxes ideas you may oppose, while the Founders recognized the individual’s freedom of conscience, which includes the right not to support views you object to.

The most Lloyd can dig up to substantiate his claim that a sprawling “public” press and crippling restrictions on the private press are consistent with the Founders’ ideals is an obscure 1792 act that reduced postal shipping rates for newspapers. According to Lloyd, the Founders’ “advocacy of the Postal Act of 1792 put communication service and a subsidy for political discourse at the center of our republic.”

It was not a subsidy but freedom that the Founders put at the center of our republic. Even if we grant Lloyd that the Founders supported the Postal Act because they saw a modest role for government in promoting the spread of news, an objective assessment of such support would have to conclude that it contradicts their fundamental commitment to a free press. The reporting of news must be left to the voluntary actions of private individuals–any news subsidy inevitably sets the stage for government control of the press (just observe Washington’s intrusion into the affairs of today’s bailout recipients).

At the deepest level, Lloyd’s is an act of moral embezzlement. He is using what is at most a minor inconsistency on the part of the Founders to smash their achievement and destroy America’s free press. The FCC’s adoption of his proposals would not continue the American tradition. It would end it.

Don Watkins is an analyst with the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

Are you participating in a “Tea Party” rally in your hometown . . . or, do you have plans to attend a counter-rally? Will you brave the lines at your local post office or do you plan to hit the send-button for e-filing just before midnight? What are your views as this year’s tax deadline arrives: do you think taxes are a burden to pay, or the patriotic duty of every citizen?

Share your personal experiences of Tax Day 2009 on video with C-SPAN. It’s simple:

1. Upload your video to your favorite video sharing web site (YouTube is preferred, but we also support Viddler, Vimeo, Qik, Facebook and several others).

2. Revisit this page after 12 noon ET on Tax Day (Wednesday, April 15th) and send us the link to your video.

Videos don’t need to be dazzling Hollywood productions. We want your authentic, creative voice – a video that demonstrates your views and personal experiences on Tax Day 2009. Some of the videos submitted may be shown on the networks of C-SPAN on cable.

Michelle Malkin has an excellent rundown on the movement and your options for independent coverage of the events.

The housing plan referenced by Gibbs can be found on the White House Blog.

CNBC is also hosting a related poll – Would You Join Santelli’s “Chicago Tea Party?”

I thought Iraqis were a bit more restrained than this. This is the sort of behavior you’d expect from Keith Olbermann or Helen Thomas.

Bush was, as usual, cool under fire:

Zaidi yelled “Dog, dog!” as he was surrounded by Iraqi security officers, who tackled him and began to beat him. Zaidi was later removed from the ornate room in the heavily fortified Green Zone where the news conference was taking place.

Bush was not injured and joked about the incident minutes later: “If you want the facts, it’s a size 10 shoe that he threw. Thank you for your concern; do not worry about it.”

Zaidi, colleagues said, was kidnapped by Shiite militiamen last year and was later released.

Zaidi would do well to consider this point, made on Twitter, by Cameron Kaiser:

btw, to those snickering over Bush+shoes, remember throwing shoes at Saddam would’ve meant death, and that would’ve been lenient.

In the past, “newspapers have been able to recapture the advertising that was lost,” Morton said. But in previous recessions, “the Internet had not become so attractive for advertising and readers’ attention.”

“This time, there’s a very large question” about the newspaper business’ ultimate recovery, he said. “What’s different this recession is we’re awash with newspapers for sale, and there aren’t any buyers.”

Morton estimates at least 30 daily newspapers have been offered for sale across the country, including some owned by three chains — Cox Enterprises, Landmark Community Newspapers and the Journal Register Co.

Alan Mutter, a former newspaper editor who now runs a blog about the industry, said retail-store advertising in newspapers has been “reasonably stable” so far, but “there’s every reason to believe that next year will be worse.”

He sees newspaper classified ads as a revenue source in deeper trouble: Consumers now hunt for jobs, houses and cars on Internet websites, which have become so specialized that there’s even a job site for anesthesiologists.

“The same thing has happened across the board for all kinds of advertising,” he said.

Newspaper classified advertising “has been superseded by a highly vertical, highly searchable world. Consumers like it,” Mutter said.

Some get that, got it a while ago even, and while business may not be booming they are hanging tough in a difficult market:

In Houston, Chronicle readers appear to have an appetite for both the print and online products.

Along with most large newspapers, circulation for the printed Chronicle has declined, according to the latest report from the Audit Bureau of Circulations. At the same time the Chronicle has seen increases in home delivery circulation in Houston and key suburban neighborhoods, and its Web site chron.com has seen a 20 percent jump in visitors who don’t buy the Chronicle. The bottom line is the Chronicle’s combined audience of online and print products is up 4 percent over last year.

Expect most newspapers to continue to evolve to meet the needs of their readers, providing content across multiple platforms, from cell phones to computer desktops. And yes, the Houston Chronicle printed newspaper is part of that equation.

It’s exactly what the loyal reader in the doctor’s office wanted to hear.

A new video has been released which shows the initial encounter:

NewsBusters has audio of a caller asking CNN why this story is not being covered:

A man called in to CNN’s Helpline on Tuesday wondering why the network hasn’t reported the Black Panthers who were seen standing in front of a Philadelphia polling station this morning, one of them carrying a billy club.

According to the caller (audio available here), he was going to vote for Obama until a friend told him about this incident. The caller said, “Now Fox has broadcast this, and I want to know why CNN has not broadcast this yet.”

I wonder…

Updates:

Police arrive on the scene:

Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

This is a fantastic find but don’t call it an October surprise. It may be October but the fact that Barack Obama is a radical socialist cloaked in meaningless “hope” and “change” marketing babble is not a surprise at all.

That said, Obama’s dangerous interpretation of our constitution and his socialist agenda should be the only topics discussed by the McCain camp in the closing days of their campaign.

Update:
The McCain-Palin camp responds:

“The American people continue to learn more about Barack Obama. Now we know that the slogans ‘change you can believe in’ and ‘change we need’ are code words for Barack Obama’s ultimate goal: ‘redistributive change.’ In a previously uncovered interview from September 6, 2001, Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn’t been more ‘radical’ and described as a ‘tragedy’ the Court’s refusal to take up ‘the issues of redistribution of wealth.’ No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench – as insurance in case a unified Democratic government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes deserve it. Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack Obama calls it change,” McCain senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said in a statement.

Others Blogging:

HillBuzz – We are Democrats here are HillBuzz telling you the Democrat in this race scares us — because we know what socialism is from spending time in Europe in the 80s, and we know it does not work and is not what America needs.

Atlas Shrugs – So he doesn’t think it can be done through the courts but he thinks it can be done legislatively. That is why a Liberal Supermajority is crucial.

Wizbang! – It is surreal that this country is close to potentially electing a president who intends to govern with such clear disregard to the same Constitution he will be sworn to defend and protect. But imposed Socialism won’t be un-Constitutional. It will instead be a heralded “transformation” in the name of “political and economic justice.”

Right Pundits – He does not discuss the rights or wrongs of taking for each according to their ability and giving to each according to their need. Instead, he talks about the best ways to go about changing the system in a way that would best facilitate those changes. He concludes that it is best changed through administrative mandate because attempts to change it through legislation is too cumbersome. He also points out that the Constitution is a negative document, telling us what the States and the Federal governments CAN’T do. Instead, he says, it should address the what the States and Federal governments SHOULD do. In other words, he sees our money as belonging to the government. He wants to take our money and he will decide how to spend it. The democrats in Congress and the Senate are already deciding how they will spend it.

NewsBusters.org – Once again we have another story that has been picked up in a big way by the Blogosphere but is currently being ignored by the mainstream media. And this time the story is huge.

Protein Wisdom – In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” — and in so doing, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.” Well, then. Fine . But this is not the America I knew…

Michelle Malkin – Joe The Plumber, you barely scratched the surface.

Mark Epstein – Sometimes you just HAVE so smile. After weeks of Obama campaign denials, after Joe Biden got uppity with a Florida television station over the legitimate question concerning Obama’s marxist beliefs, after weeks of promotion and protection by the mainstream media, after millions of illegal dollars made their way into the Obama campaign coffers, and after Hollywood’s disgusting love affair with Obama, the truth comes out: Obama is a socialist, and YOU can hear him say so in his own words! Ah, but it gets even better–Obama wants to rid the country of its constitutional framework!

Pierre Legrand’s Pink Flamingo Bar – Course if we had an honest press corp stuff like this wouldn’t depend on people like me to find. But since we do not have an honest press corp thank you Free Republic! Naturally this is a bombshell. This is the scariest candidate to be this damn close to becoming the President.

Webloggin – And please note, Obama uses and reuses the word “redistribute.” No hiding here behind colorful, user-friendly expressions such as “spread the wealth.” What Obama clearly envisions is a government program that takes away your money (and your incentive to work hard and make it the American way), so that the money can go to those Obama deems worthy.

Chuck Thinks Right – The only question now is, can the media keep things like this hidden for 8 more days.

Related:
Barbara West and Joe Biden: The Interview Barack Obama Doesn’t Want You to See