truthaction.org

[Rancho Truth]

Link to Sage, the publisher:
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6/

[EDIT: removed link to megaupload; these papers are copyrighted. This issuel can be purchased from Sage for $25, and is accessible through many college databases, if anyone is a student]

Abstracts:

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/783
Sense Making Under “Holographic” Conditions: Framing SCAD Research
Matthew T. Witt1 University of La Verne, CA, USA, and Alexander Kouzmin2 Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales (NSW), Australia; University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia (SA), Australia
The ellipses of due diligence riddling the official account of the 9/11 incidents continue being ignored by scholars of policy and public administration. This article introduces intellectual context for examining the policy heuristic "State Crimes Against Democracy" (SCAD) (deHaven-Smith, 2006) and its usefulness for better understanding patterns of state criminality of which no extant policy analytic model gives adequate account. This article then introduces papers included in this symposium examining the chimerical presence and perfidious legacy of state criminality against democracy.
Key Words: state crimes against democracy • empiricism • shock and awe • holographic state
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 783-794 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764209353272

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/795
Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government
Lance deHaven-Smith1 Florida State University, Tallahassee,
This article explores the conceptual, methodological, and practical implications of research on state crimes against democracy (SCADs). In contrast to conspiracy theories, which speculate about each suspicious event in isolation, the SCAD construct delineates a general category of criminality and calls for crimes that fit this category to be examined comparatively. Using this approach, an analysis of post—World War II SCADs and suspected SCADs highlights a number of commonalities in SCAD targets, timing, and policy consequences. SCADs often appear where presidential politics and foreign policy intersect. SCADs differ from earlier forms of political corruption in that they frequently involve political, military, and/or economic elites at the very highest levels of the social and political order.The article concludes by suggesting statutory and constitutional reforms to improve SCAD prevention and detection.
Key Words: state crimes against democracy • conspiracy theory • assassinations • constitutional reform • political corruption • National Security Apparatus • criminogenic
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 795-825 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764209353274

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/826
Negative Information Action: Danger for Democracy
Christopher L. Hinson1 This article explores evidence of, and provides insight into, secrecy-related information actions that are sometimes used to circumvent established government policy and law. These information actions may also be used to cover up such circumventions after the fact. To better understand secrecy as a negative information action and its impact on democracy, secrecy-related information actions are described according to methods, information technologies, and knowledge support. Negative information actions are willful and deliberate acts designed to keep government information from those in government and the public entitled to it. Negative information actions subvert the rule of law and the constitutional checks and balances. Negative information actions used by government officials to violate policies and laws during the IranContra Affair are identified, analyzed, and categorized by type. The relative impact of negative information actions on enlightened citizen understanding is demonstrated using a Negative Information Action Model by assigning a location according to type on a continuum of enlightened citizen understanding. Findings are compared with democratic theory and conspiracy doctrine.
Key Words: conspiracy doctrine • democratic theory • enlightened citizen understanding • government secrecy • group-danger rationale • information policy • negative information action • SCAD • state crimes against democracy
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 826-847 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764209353276

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/848
In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public
Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11
Laurie A. Manwell1 University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada,
Protecting democracy requires that the general public be educated on how people can be manipulated by government and media into forfeiting their civil liberties and duties. This article reviews research on cognitive constructs that can prevent people from processing information that challenges preexisting assumptions about government, dissent, and public discourse in democratic societies. Terror management theory and system justification theory are used to explain how preexisting beliefs can interfere with people’s examination of evidence for state crimes against democracy (SCADs), specifically in relation to the events of September 11, 2001, and the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. Reform strategies are proposed to motivate citizens toward increased social responsibility in a post-9/11 culture of propagandized fear, imperialism, and war.
Key Words: state crimes against democracy • terror management • system justification • government • media
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 848-884 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764209353279

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/885
The USA PATRIOT Acts (et al.): Convergent Legislation and Oligarchic
Isomorphism in the “Politics of Fear” and State Crime(s)
Against Democracy (SCADs)
Kym Thorne1 University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia and Alexander Kouzmin1,2,3 University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
The irrelevance of habeas corpus and the abolition of "double jeopardy," secret and protracted outsourcing of detention and torture, and increasing geographic prevalence of surveillance technologies across Anglo-American "democracies" have many citizens concerned about the rapidly convergent, authoritarian behavior of political oligarchs and the actual destruction of sovereignty and democratic values under the onslaught of antiterrorism hubris, propaganda, and fear. This article examines synchronic legislative isomorphism in responses to 9/11 in the United States, the United Kingdom and European Union, and Australia in terms of enacted terrorism legislation and, also, diachronic, oligarchic isomorphism in the manufacture of fear within a convergent world by comparing the "Politics of Fear" being practiced today to Stalinist—Russian and McCarthyist—U.S. abuse of "fear." The immediate future of Anglo-American democratic hubris, threats to civil society, and oligarchic threats to democratic praxis are canvassed. This article also raises the question as to whether The USA PATRIOT Acts of 2001/2006, sanctioned by the U.S. Congress, are examples, themselves, of state crimes against democracy. In the very least, any democratically inclined White House occupant in 2009 would need to commit to repealing these repressive, and counterproductive, acts.
Key Words: USA PATRIOT Act • "War on Terror," politics of fear • policy and oligarchic isomorphism • state crimes against democracy
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 885-920 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764209353280

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/921
Pretending Not to See or Hear, Refusing to Signify: The Farce and Tragedy of Geocentric Public Affairs Scholarship
Matthew T. Witt1 University of La Verne, CA, USA
This article opens with an inventory of how popular culture passion plays are homologous to the stampeding disenfranchisement everywhere of working classes and the emasculation of professional codes of ethics under siege by neoliberal initiatives and gambits. The article then examines a recent example of contemporary,"deconstructive" scholarly analysis and inventory of presidential "Orwellian doublespeak." The preoccupation among contemporary critical scholarship with "discourse analysis" and language gambits is criticized for displacing interrogation of real-event anomalies, as with the porous account given by the 9/11 Commission for what happened that fateful day. The article concludes by explaining how critical scholarship consistently falls short of unmasking Master Signifiers.
Key Words: neoliberalism • poststructuralism • racism • discourse analysis • 9/11 • habeas corpus • thermodynamics
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 921-939 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764209353281
_________________
http://911reports.com/
http://www.historycommons.org

[Rancho Truth]

discussion at 911blogger http://www.911blogger.com/node/22774

I will be very interested to know the reaction of the scientific community to these papers. I've briefly looked at them all, and skimmed the papers 'In Denial of Democracy' by Manwell and 'Beyond Conspiracy Theory' by deHaven-Smith, which seem to have more focus on 9/11 in particular, and I looked at the sources Manwell and de Haven-Smith used.

de Haven-Smith paper's says there have been documented State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs) and that there are patterns and similarities between them from which meaningful conclusions can be drawn, and recommendations made. He makes numerous speculative assertions, some of which he treats as factual in reaching conclusions, others he acknowledges are speculative, including controlled demolition of the WTC, but he doesn't acknowledge competing hypotheses, whether the official version or work done by 9/11 researchers. For example, this statement, "Evidence also indicates that the Pentagon was hit by a missile rather than a passenger plane." (pg 818)

The above statement references Note 2, which says,
"2. A large and growing literature challenges official accounts of the events of 9/11. See, for example, Griffin (2004, 2005), Hufschmid (2002), Paul and Hoffman (2004), and Tarpley (2005). There is also a “9/11 Truth Movement,” which is producing a detailed studies of 9/11 issues and anomalies. For example, see www.911truth.org, www.911scholars.org, and www.911essentials.com." (821)

So, as evidence of a '9/11 Truth Movement', in addition to 911truth.org, the only other sites he cites are Fetzer's 911scholars.org and a relatively minor site, 911essentials.com, which seems to represent the worst of the 'New World Order conspiracy theorist' stereotype. There's no mention of the Jersey Girls and the other family members who agitated for a full investigation and have gone on record as skeptical of the 9/11 Commission and supporting a new investigation, or of any of the whistleblowers (Rowley, Shaffer, Edmonds, Singh, etc.). Also omitted were many prominent 9/11 researchers, activists and orgs- Hoffman, Jones and Scott's research is cited- but why cite a minor site like 911essentials.com and omit JO911S, STJ911.org, ae911truth.org, 911blogger.com, cooperativeresearch.org, justifcefor911.org, truthaction, etc.?

Throughout the paper, in addition to numerous credible (but not peer-reviewed) sources, he also cites dubious sources such as Jim Fetzer, Webster Tarpley, Eric Hufschmid, Morgan & Henshall and David Ray Griffin (yes, DRG's support for fake calls, all manner of 757 didn't the Pentagon theories, and citation of the work of racists, holocaust deniers and Wood, Fetzer, Reynolds, CIT and other dubious sources make me consider him a dubious source).

In the paper, de Haven-Smith gives numerous examples of alleged SCADs, and I agree it's likely they're crimes by people connected to the deep state, but they have not been proven as such by official investigations or court cases, there's no scholarly consensus they're state crimes, and while the alternative explanations may be popular, they're also controversial. If he mentions torture, rendition or warrantless wiretapping as examples of SCADs i missed it- and these are things Bush and Cheney admitted to on national TV and even in these cases, it's disputed whether crimes were committed or whether it was legal, and no one's been held accountable. If he examines in depth why that is the case, i missed it, though he touches on it briefly here and there. Peter Dale Scott has done great research in this area and he cites him. Unfortunately Scott has not published in a journal on this subject (that I know of) though Road to 9/11 was published by a reputable university press.

Manwell's paper analyzes psychological blocks to considering evidence and explanations that implicate the state in crimes incl. 9/11, and I didn't see red flags/problems like I pointed out in de Haven-Smiths, but it cites de Haven-Smith's recent and other papers, as well as Fetzer (although he's one of many cited to support the same claim).

As i said, I'll be very interested to see the reaction of the scientific community to these papers.
_________________
http://911reports.com/
http://www.historycommons.org

[Rancho Truth]

Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff of ProjectCensored have commented on this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17922
State Crimes Against Democracy by Prof. Peter Phillips and Prof. Mickey Huff

New research in the journal American Behavioral Scientist (Sage publications, February 2010) addresses the concept of “State Crimes Against Democracy” (SCAD). Professor Lance deHaven-Smith from Florida State University writes that SCADs involve highlevel government officials, often in combination with private interests, that engage in covert activities for political advantages and power. Proven SCADs since World War II include McCarthyism (fabrication of evidence of a communist infiltration), Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (President Johnson and Robert McNamara falsely claimed North Vietnam attacked a US ship), burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in effort to discredit Ellsberg, the Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, Florida’s 2000 Election (felon disenfranchisement program), and fixed intelligence on WMDs to justify the Iraq War.1

Other suspected SCADs include the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, the shooting of George Wallace, the October Surprise near the end of the Carter presidency, military grade anthrax mailed to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, Martin Luther King’s assassination, and the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001. The proven SCADs have a long trail of congressional hearings, public records, and academic research establishing the truth of the activities. The suspected SCADs listed above have substantial evidence of covert actions with countervailing deniability that tend to leave the facts in dispute.2

The term “conspiracy theory” is often used to denigrate and discredit inquiry into the veracity of suspected SCADs. Labeling SCAD research as “conspiracy theory” is an effective method of preventing ongoing investigations from being reported in the corporate media and keep them outside of broader public scrutiny. Psychologist Laurie Manwell, University of Guelph, addresses the psychological advantage that SCAD actors hold in the public sphere. Manwell, writing in American Behavioral Scientist (Sage 2010) states, “research shows that people are far less willing to examine information that disputes, rather than confirms, their beliefs . . . pre-existing beliefs can interfere with SCADs inquiry, especially in regards to September 11, 2001.”3

Professor Steven Hoffman, visiting scholar at the University of Buffalo, recently acknowledged this phenomenon in a study “There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification.” Hoffman concluded, “Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as ‘motivated reasoning,’ which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. In fact, for the most part people completely ignore contrary information.”4

Sometimes even new academic research goes largely unreported when the work contradicts prevailing understandings of recent historical events. A specific case of unreported academic research is the peer reviewed journal article from Open Chemical Physics Journal (Volume 2, 2009), entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust for the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” In the abstract the authors write, “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction and is used in controlled demolitions of buildings.5

National Medal of Science recipient (1999) Professor Lynn Margulis from the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst is one of many academics who supports further open investigative research in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Margulis recently wrote in Rock Creek Free Press, “all three buildings were destroyed by carefully planned, orchestrated and executed controlled demolition.”6 Richard Gage, AIA, architect and founder of the non-profit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc. (AE911Truth), announced a decisive milestone February 19, 2010 at a press conference in San Francisco, CA. More than 1,000 architects and engineers worldwide now support the call for a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center complex on September 11, 2001.7

Credible scientific evidence brings into question the possibility that some aspects of the events of 9/11 involved State Crimes Against Democracy. Psychologically this is a very hard concept for Americans to even consider. However, ignoring the issue in the context of multiple proven SCADs since World War II seems far more dangerous for democracy than the consequences of future scientific inquiry and transparent, fact-based investigative reporting. Anything short of complete, open discourse based on all the evidence about these critical issues in our society relating to the possible continuation of SCADs is simply a matter of censorship.8

Peter Phillips is professor of sociology at Sonoma State University, President of Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored, former director of Project Censored, and coeditor of Censored 2010.

Mickey Huff is associate professor of history at Diablo Valley College, Director of Project Censored/Media Freedom Foundation, and co-editor of Censored 2010.

Notes

1 Lance deHaven-Smith, “Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government,” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, (February, 2010): pp. 795-825. For more studies on SCADs and related issues see all articles for American Behavioral Scientist, Sage publications, Vol. 53, No. 6, (February, 2010), online at http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6/.
For more background reading on this subject with specifics on the controversial cases mentioned in this paragraph, see the following scholarly works: Robert Abele, The Anatomy of a Deception: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Decision to Invade Iraq (New York: University Press of America, 2010); Bob Coen and Eric Nadler, Dead Silence: Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail (Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint, 2009); Daniel Ellsberg, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers (New York: Viking Adult, 2002); Steve Freeman and Joel Bleifuss, Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006); Robert Griffith, The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate. (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1987); David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (New York: Olive Branch press, 2008); Mark Crispin Miller, Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008 (New York: Ig Publishing, 2008); Kenneth O'Reilly, Hoover and the Un-Americans: The FBI, HUAC, and the Red Menace (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983); Robert Parry, Trick or Treason: The October Surprise Mystery (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1993); William Pepper, An Act of State: The Execution of Marin Luther King (Updated) (New York: Verso, 2008); Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq (New York: Tarcher and Penguin, 2003); selected works of Peter Dale Scott, including Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993, 1996), Drugs Oil and War (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, March 2003), The Road to 9/11 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War (Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2008); Norman Solomon, War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning us to Death (New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2005); Lawrence Walsh, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1997); Gary Webb, Dark Alliance: The CIA, The Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2nd Edition, 2003);
2 Ibid.
3 American Behavioral Scientist, Sage publications, February, 2010, Vol. 53, No. 6, online at http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6/. Specifically, see Laurie A. Manwell, “In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11,” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, (February, 2010): pp. 848-884.
4 “How We Support Our False Beliefs,” Science Daily (Aug. 23, 2009) online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090821135020.htm. For the full study see Steven Hoffman, Ph.D., et al, "There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification," Sociological Inquiry, Volume 79 Issue 2, (2009): pp. 142-162.
5 Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (April 3, 2009): 7-31, online at http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm.
6 Lynn Margulis, “Two Hit, Three Down, the Biggest Lie,” Rock Creek Press, February 2010, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 6, and online at http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/353434420/two-hit-three-down-the-biggest-lie
7 Richard Gage, AIA, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, Press Conference, February 19th, 2010, SF, CA, online at http://www.ae911truth.org/info/160. See the Conference announcement video online at http://www.youtube.com/ae911truth#p/c/891B0945A34D98F7/0/R35O_QQP8Vw
8 For more on issues of media censorship see Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff, eds., Censored 2010 (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2009).


Project Censored: http://www.projectcensored.org/
Daily News at: http://mediafreedom.pnn.com/5174-independent-news-sources
Validated News & Research at: http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/
Daily Censored Blog at: http://dailycensored.com/
Blog: http://mythinfo.blogspot.com/
_________________
http://911reports.com/
http://www.historycommons.org