This is unusual.

"An amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill, BuzzFeed has learned.

The amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the Pentagon, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee's official website.

The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns.
The bi-partisan amendment is sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State.

....

The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. “It removes the protection for Americans,” says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”

According to this official, “senior public affairs” officers within the Department of Defense want to “get rid” of Smith-Mundt and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies—like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

....

A U.S. Army whistleblower, Lieutenant Col. Daniel Davis, noted recently in his scathing 84-page unclassified report on Afghanistan that there remains a strong desire within the defense establishment “to enable Public Affairs officers to influence American public opinion when they deem it necessary to "protect a key friendly center of gravity, to wit US national will," he wrote, quoting a well-regarded general."

....

The defense bill passed the House Friday afternoon.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to-lift-propaganda-ban

Based on the massive misinformation campaign in the buildup to the War in Iraq, I don't think the government was paying too much attention to the ban on US propaganda anyway!

The level of propaganda spending noted in the article is mindboggling (< which is the point!):

"The Pentagon spends some $4 billion a year to sway public opinion already, and it was recently revealed by USA Today the DoD spent $202 million on information operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last year."

As someone who's spent 20 years in public relations, I've said before on this Board that many people aren't aware that 98% of the news and other media that you see is crafted for your consumption by PR people. Government, law enforcement, education - all have spokespersons and pre-approved messages.

I watched an interesting program this morning call "The Presidents Book Of Secrets" on The History Channel. In a roundabout way it proves Josephine's point.

Notice Presidential promises before they are elected and then after election they don't do them. Like President Obama was going to close Guantanamo Bay. Once they are sworn in and told the actual truth about what is going on in the world they either reverse course or don't do anything.

They're preparing for a military dictatorship, martial law or a war that requires extensive drafting, such as one on Iran or North Korea. Didn't they already pass the indefinite detention act, which obviously would be needed to facilitate the incarceration of ethnic or religious minorities, whether citizens or not? This is just a logical continuation on that path. How else are you going to justify hauling possibly millions of people into camps? First, you dehumanize and demonize them, then you start raiding their homes, shooting their dogs, beating their wives, brutalizing their kids and hauling the lot of them to an unknown location, to be held indefinitely or as long as they serve a purpose. If this can be done to a minority, perhaps the same techniques can be applied to the majority as well. Once you've headed down that road, there really is no turning back. You have to go all the way and keep filling the camps with more and more people. Of course, they'll all be called deviants, subversives, enemies of the people, terrorists, whatever, so the real people will have nothing to worry about. Real people can feel good about themselves for turning in their neighbors. Till it's their turn to be ratted upon, that is... Don't worry, nothing will happen before the election, so there's plenty of time to leave the country if you think your name is on some list somewhere. Do you have opinions? Your name is on a list. Have you been on the losing side in politics? You're on a list. Have you ever participated in a protest, any protest, against anything? You're on a list. Have you sued a megacorporation, like Monsanto? You're on a list. Do you look suspicious? You're on a list. Do you have a suspicious online history? You're on a list. 

@janne - I'm on a list!

Re: indefinite detention - This one really scares me, overriding our constitutional right to due process.

1984?

Josephine, you need to get a new identity, preferably somewhere abroad. How about renting a boat in Florida, taking it to Cuba and applying for political asylum? 

The scary thing about indefinite detention is the fact that the people who voted for this, already de facto owned due process. They could already make people disappear, but now they want to do it in wholesale, openly, as if it were an inalienable right that comes with being elected. In practice, democracy has been hijacked and replaced with the mechanisms of totalitarianism. You can elect new people, if you like, but will those people be willing to give up the infinite authority their predecessors voted for them? No, of course not. Since when has any establishment given up that much power without bloodshed? The power over liberty, life and death is simply too good to give up. Once they have it, they cling onto it like crazy. If necessary, they'll imprison anybody who challenges their right to detain people at will. If necessary, they'll kill anybody who challenges their right to kill. Was there any mention about feeding the people indefinitely detained? If the law doesn't require feeding or medicating detainees, how long does it take for indefinite detention camps to become concentration camps? I can tell you. It takes about two weeks. No active measures need to be taken. All you have to do is forget to order food for the detainees or forget to allocate a food budget. Turning off the water takes even less time than that. Or, why not just forget to build any plumbing? In a few more weeks, whole undesirable sections of the population no longer exist. All this can be achieved without anybody actually signing a traceable document that orders people to die. It'll be called a regrettable administrative error, not mass murder. After all, the Third Reich is gone and so are their crude methods. This time, it'll all be run by bureaucrats, who can't be blamed for their incompetence any more than they have till now. 

1984? No, 2012. 

I'm more spooked that Obama just appointed some Monsanto VP as Senior Advisor to the FDA Commissioner.

Ugh.

I second kr "Ugh". :))

Not to hijack this thread but have any of you seen this?

http://www.thrivemovement.com/

Didn't Monsanto finance Obama's campaign? They want a return on their investment. That means genemods will soon be the only legal food you can buy. Non-Monsanto products will be outlawed as unhealthy and their producers will be sued for billions, driven into bankruptcy and imprisoned, if at all possible. Those who resist being raided by the Monsantopol, will probably be shot. Like I said above, once you get into this game, you have to go the whole hog. Monsanto's very good at this and has repeatedly proven its absolute ruthlessness all over the world. They'll create famines and starve millions to death, if it makes them a bit more profit. I very much doubt there's one single soul worthy of being called human among the Monsanto executives. The biggest shareholders are no better either. If there's one thing I could choose for Pluto in Capricorn to destroy, it would be Monsanto. Mankind can't afford Monsanto any more than I can afford starting a bonfire in my room.

What do we need an asteroid collision or a supervolcano for, when we have Monsanto? Those guys will be the death of us all, unless we grow some balls and exterminate them first.

And it isn't all propaganda now?

well, along with Salazar selling off wilderness left and right, we're just peachy...

"1984? No, 2012. "

Ooou, that's some spooky crap. And so true in so many frightening ways. :(

But having grown up with one parent from a propaganda making machine of a country overseas....I never really thought America didn't use the same tools as other nations use. I just think that here, it's done a little more delicately, so it's easier to digest. I don't think this kind of advertising, and use of social media is new to this country.

But I do think the methods used, and boundaries crossed may have changed a lot in the past few years. Saddening all around. I might be a closet cynic, but I tend to think the best of everyone until they prove me wrong, and that includes my home country. :(