Thursday, July 18, 2013

Borderless Cyber PSYOP Raises Legal Issues



Unless you have been living under a rock, you know that the world is all atwitter over documents released by former NSA Contractor, Edward Snowden. You should also know that these disclosures have raised significant concerns about domestic surveillance. It is not a great leap of faith to see how attention could be focused on other forms of government action, especially defense or law enforcement activities that may encroach upon the rights of US Citizens.

From a PSYOP/MISO perspective, the Washington Post in its 7 July 13 edition ran an article “Somali American caught up in a shadowy Pentagon counterpropaganda campaign” (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/somali-american-caught-up-in-a-shadowy-pentagon-counterpropaganda-campaign/2013/07/07/b3aca190-d2c5-11e2-bc43-c404c3269c73_story_1.html which is also the photo source).

The article notes that the DOD cannot conduct PSYOP in the US nor “target U.S. citizens at any time, in any location globally, or under any circumstances.” (Source of the quote not referenced in the article.)

The article describes actions taken by Navanti, a contractor (http://navantigroup.com/) in Somalia. The article quotes public records as stating “Navanti was working as a subcontractor for the Special Operations Command to help conduct “information operations to engage local populations and counter nefarious influences” in Africa and Europe. “ The article also raises issues with respect to the impact of those actions towards a Somali American resident in Minneapolis.

Warsarme, had posted extensively on line and it appeared that he was a likely supporter of al-Shabab, an Islamist militia which has been declared a terrorist organization.  Navanti claims that as soon as it realized he was based in the US they turned his information over to the government. Warsarme for his part was quoted: I’m an American citizen,” Warsame said in an interview at a cafe in Minneapolis, home to the largest concentration of Somali refugees in the country. “I don’t support al-Qaeda. I don’t support al-Shabab. I don’t send them money. I’m not supporting killing anyone.”

For the MISO community this is a giant red flag. We need to engage aggressively in our mission and we need to be able to defend our actions legally as well. Unfortunately, it is not clear if there is any US agency that has the domestic responsibility for countering influence activities that are contrary to US interests.

The 1st Amendment is one of the ways we are set apart from other nations. The text of the Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=bill_of_rights_transcript_content.html&title=The%20Bill%20of%20Rights%3A%20A%20Transcription)

The text says nothing about government’s right to observe the speech nor does it say anything about trying to counter that speech. Cyber Influence is growing in importance and unlike kinetic trajectories, it is often impossible to predict where cyber campaigns will impact.

That being said, we all know perception is reality and that one thing MISO/PSYOP doesn’t really need is more Congressional scrutiny.

As always, reader input solicited.


4 comments:

Jaim said...

Larry typed: "Cyber Influence is growing in importance and unlike kinetic trajectories, it is often impossible to predict where cyber campaigns will impact".

Larry, are you suggesting that a broader, multi-message campaign should be mounted in areas where US influence wanes?

Jaim said...

Lary typed: "Cyber Influence is growing in importance and unlike kinetic trajectories, it is often impossible to predict where cyber campaigns will impact".

Larry, are you suggesting that there is a missed opportunity here? There is no organization chartered to undertake such a role outside of military circles?

Regards,

J

Lawrence Dietz said...

@ Jain, my point was that given the nature of cyber influence, campaigns in one AO may unintentionally impact another area.

Lawrence Dietz said...

WRT to an agency with the responsibility - that's a good question. Normally Dept of State would be responsible for Public Diplomacy which may be the right answer, but needs to be clearly articulated in policy.