Obama Appointee Advocates Government Infiltration of Citizen Groups

In a 2008 paper co-authored with Adrian Vermeule, Obama appointee Cass R. Sunstein (Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) has some disturbing views regarding how the government should deal with political dissidents whom he labels “conspiracy theorists”. The full paper is available for download here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

The most disturbing section is where Sunstein describes possible government responses to political dissidence. He states that the government might enact a BAN on conspiracy theorizing, impose taxes on the activity, or use government or hired private parties to (covertly) engage in “counterspeech”. Sunstein goes on to state:

“Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.”

Reconcile that statement with his “possible responses”, and it’s clear that we have an official in the Obama White House who imagines a scenario where the Federal government might BAN “conspiracy theorizing”. Later in the paper he admits that: “Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true.” Add that tidbit into the mix and we have an Obama adviser advocating the covert infiltration of dissident groups to interfere with discussion and dissemination of . . . the TRUTH! This puts Mr. Sunstein clearly in the ranks of “domestic enemies of the Constitution”.

Sunstein states "The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper." To which I have the answer.

When the official narratives promulgated by central government and mainstream media sources are so obviously deficient in their facts and offer less than satisfying explanations, it lends an inherent credibility to alternative theories which might be largely speculative, but nevertheless fill the voids that "mainstream" sources fail to address. Furthermore, a history filled with numerous examples of government story lines which have been proven false by later revelations
creates natural doubts as to the authenticity or comprehensiveness of any official government narrative. Government attempts to secretly marginalize or stifle such alternative viewpoints (exactly what the paper advocates) also strongly suggest that such dissenting opinions represent a "danger" to the established power structure above and beyond that posed by a simple falsehood or unsubstantiated “theory”.

Mr. Sunstein cites statistics from various polls indicating that anywhere from 33 to 49% of respondents have serious doubts about the official story of the September 11th attacks. To the extent that there are widespread doubts about the truth, authenticity, thoroughness or conclusions of any sort of government study or investigation it is incumbent upon THE GOVERNMENT (by, of and for the people) to do thorough investigative work, gather relevant facts, and release ALL necessary information to satisfy the curiosity of the citizens to the maximum degree possible. Case in point, is the fact that the 9-11 commission does not address the destruction of World Trade Center building #7, and concludes that the sources of funds used to carry out the attacks is “unimportant”. The failure of the government to address these critical issues is an insult to the citizens of The United States. Government attempts to secretly undermine individuals and organizations which are questioning these ideas only undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the government itself.

If the government and official sources are so concerned about the "truth" and "facts" being available, and so averse to what they decry as misinformation from “conspiracy theorists” why would they attempt to spread the “truth” by COVERT means? Rather than infiltrate the groups using stealth methods, why not create an open, moderated forum (perhaps on C-SPAN) where government experts go head to head with the so called “conspiracy theorists” and use their preponderance of evidence to thoroughly debunk such ideas?

Just an idea:

Episode #1: 9-11 attacks: Government experts vs. Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley and a rep from “Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth”.

Episode #2: Financial Crisis : Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner vs. Thomas Woods, William Black and Karl Denninger

Why is the government afraid to do this? Are they so doubtful of their ability to confront political dissidents with factual and logical refutation that they must attempt to undermine alternative viewpoints in anonymity?

Note: This story is now breaking from multiple news sources, I don’t know who really “broke” the story, but Glenn Greenwald at salon.com credits the following blogger with digging up this 2008 paper

“http://theragblog.blogspot.com”