Slashdot Mirror
Army Psy Ops Units Targeted American Senators
Weezul writes "The US Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in 'psychological operations' to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war. An officer who tried to stop the operation was railroaded by military investigators. (see also the Hatch Act of 1939)."
A historically sensational and anti-military publication prints an article vaguely detailing something "bad" that one guy said happened, while making no attempt at looking at the other side. Since this is Rolling Stone, it must be fact. After all, it's not like they're Fox News.
Having spent some time in the Army, and having had some exposure to PsyOps attempts... I have concluded that PsyOps earns its stripes at the strategic level, not the tactical level: they don't really mold minds on an individual basis.
Steering whole units OVER TIME with ruses, not a room-full of VIPs in a few afternoons with jedi mind tricks.
If you really think that PsyOps is some jedi mind trick bullshit, you've watched too many movies. At best it is some pogues in the woods with loudspeakers on thier HMMWV trying to make the enemy scouts tell their commander that they hear tanks when there really aren't any.
These aren't psychologists, hypnotists, or jedis... they operate based on very basic ideas and techniques. And already /. is filled with comments from pasty basement dwellers who love Clancy books and SciFi movies, commenting with wild-eyed amazement at the thought of such amazing intrigue.
THL phish sticks
I managed not to snort while laughing, but it took effort.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
But that's not how it went. The Psy-Ops guys were asked to study the dignitaries in order to find our how to manipulate them, and to sit in on meetings with them without identifying their role. They weren't asked to show off how articulate they were.
No, he's saying that the laws as originally legislated would have prevented a lot of the recent banking problems. It wasn't until people disobeyed them, legislated additional loopholes, or decided not to enforce it that things started to really spiral out of control.
Or, that's what I believe he's saying.
If it's not too much to ask, could you please elaborate a little so kiddies like me can understand what's going on? I'm trying to go through it but it's a lot to work with for someone who started with Clinton.
In order to form your own opinions, I would suggest you read at least a putatively objective account of the legislation being referenced. Biased explanations by those who are already pushing their point are unlikely to help you in this regard. Reading these will give you a start, but you had better be prepared to develop your own ideas about economic theory and political theory as well. Despite economists' belief that they study a science, and the words "political science" used by those who study political theory, neither resembles more traditional scientific disciplines. Both are more about pushing theories than proving them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garn–St._Germain_Depository_Institutions_Act