SAC/SOG has several missions. One of these missions is the recruiting,
training, and leading of indigenous forces in combat operations.[24] SAC/SOG and its successors have been used when it was considered desirable to have plausible deniability about U.S. support (this is called a covert operation or "covert action").[15]
Unlike other special missions units, SAC/SOG operatives combine special
operations and clandestine intelligence capabilities in one individual.[11] These individuals can operate in any environment (sea, air or ground) with limited to no support.[9]
The CIA's formal position for these individuals is "Paramilitary
Operations Officers" and "Specialized Skills Officers." Paramilitary
Operations Officers most likely attend the Clandestine Service Trainee
(CST) program, which trains them as clandestine intelligence operatives
and an internal paramilitary training course. The primary strengths of
SAC/SOG Paramilitary Officers are operational agility, adaptability, and
deniability.
They often operate in small teams, typically made up of two to eight
operatives (with some operations being carried out by a single officer),
all usually with extensive military tactical experience and a set of
specialized skills that does not exist in any other unit.[11]
As fully trained intelligence case officers, Paramilitary Operations
Officers possess all the clandestine skills to collect human
intelligence – and most importantly – to recruit assets from among the
indigenous troops receiving their training. These officers often operate
in remote locations behind enemy lines to carry out direct action (including raids and sabotage), counter-intelligence, guerrilla/unconventional warfare, counter-terrorism, and hostage rescue missions, in addition to being able to conduct espionage via HUMINT assets.
Paramilitary Operations Officers are trained to operate in a multitude
of environments. Because these officers are taken from the most highly
trained units in the U.S. military and then provided with extensive
additional training to become CIA clandestine intelligence officers,
many U.S. security experts assess them as the most elite of the U.S.
special missions units.[32]
Required to become a clandestine intelligence officer,
Paramilitary Operations Officers are trained to a high level of
proficiency in the use and tactical employment of an unusually wide
degree of modern weaponry, explosive devices and firearms (foreign and domestic), hand to hand combat, high performance/tactical driving (on and off road), apprehension avoidance (including picking handcuffs and escaping from confinement), improvised explosive devices, cyber warfare, covert channels, HAHO/HALO parachuting, combat and commercial SCUBA and closed circuit diving, proficiency in foreign languages, surreptitious entry operations (picking or otherwise bypassing locks), vehicle hot-wiring, Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), extreme survival and wilderness training, combat EMS medical training, tactical communications, and tracking.
An agent provocateur
is a person who commits or who acts to entice another person to commit
an illegal or rash act or falsely implicate them in partaking in an
illegal act, so as to ruin the reputation or entice legal action against
the target or a group they belong to.
The expression "discrediting tactics" in politics refers to personal
attacks against a public figure intended to discourage people from
believing in the figure or supporting their cause
Thursday, September 5, 2019
Character assassination
Character assassination (CA)
is a deliberate and sustained effort to damage the reputation or credibility of an individual[1]
The term could also be selectively applied to social groups and institutions. Agents of character assassinations employ a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their goals, such as raising false accusations, planting and fostering rumors, and manipulating information.
Character assassination happens through character attacks. These can take many forms, such as spoken insults, speeches, pamphlets, campaign ads, cartoons, and internet memes. As a result of character attacks, individuals may be rejected by their professional community or members of their social or cultural environment. The process of CA may resemble an annihilation of human life as the damage sustained can last a lifetime. For some historical figures, that damage endures for centuries.
CA may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.
The phrase "character assassination" became popular from around 1930.[2]
This concept, as a subject of scholarly study, was originally introduced by Davis (1950)[3] in his collection of essays revealing the dangers of political smear campaigns. Six decades later Icks and Shiraev (2014)[4] rejuvenated the term and revived academic interest by addressing and comparing a variety of historical character assassination events.
Character attacks are by definition intentional:
they are launched to damage an individual's reputation in the eyes of others.
If a person's reputation is damaged accidentally, for instance through a thoughtless remark, that does not constitute a character attack. Since character attacks are concerned with reputation, they are also by definition of a public nature. Insulting someone in private does not lead to character assassination.
Each character attack invariably involves five aspects or pillars: the attacker, the target, the medium or media, the audience and the context. This last category can refer to the political system in which the attacks occur, the cultural environment, the level of technology, or any other factors that shape and determine character attacks.
Many character attacks take place in the political sphere, for instance in election campaigns. However, prominent figures from other spheres can also become the targets of character attacks, such as religious leaders, scientists, athletes and movie stars.
Moreover, character assassination appears to be a near-universal, cross-cultural phenomenon that can be found in many, if not most, countries and historical periods.
believe that the attacker's motivation is often based on the intent to destroy the target psychologically or reduce his/her public support and/or chances to succeed in a political competition. For example, during elections, attacks are often used to sway undecided voters, create uncertainty with tentative voters, or prevent defections of supporters.
Fundamentally, an attack on one's image, reputation, or brand is dependent on relevant audiences’ perceptions. For instance, studies in the field of motivated reasoning show that consumers are highly selective of what they deem is “believable” information, preferring to accept what is most congruent with existing attitudes, expectations, or actions, such as a candidate's voting record. The “hybrid” processing model suggests that voters structure their candidate impressions or respond to candidate CA using two types of information: updated or ad-hoc. Anxiety, or an emotional state of uncertainty and tension, can influence consumer's attitudinal shifts.
CA should also be addressed in relation to image studies. When organizations and leaders find themselves in crises, they are particularly vulnerable to attack via scrutiny and criticism that challenge their legitimacy or social responsibility. Their reputation is then judged in the court of public opinion, which focuses on a mix of publicly positioned principles, including ethics, social and political values, or cultural or religious beliefs. Acceptance or rejection of a candidate requires the candidate to be compatible with existing image components.
The theory suggests that the level of reputation threat is determined by whether the public believes the organization caused the crisis, the organization's crisis history, and the organization's prior relational reputation with the public (such as voters, stakeholders, etc.)
Instantaneous or drive-by character attacks often occur. Such quick character attacks are usually opportunistic. On the other hand, the slow pace of character-poisoning is based on long-term hopes. Since the 1960s, the famous Russian author and dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn was accused of being a Jew, a traitor, a Nazi collaborator, a prison snitch, and a paid foreign intelligence agent.[6]
character assassination
is an intentional attempt, usually by a narcissist and/or his or her codependents, to influence the portrayal or reputation of someone in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative or unappealing perception of him or her.
It typically involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts, the spreading of rumours and deliberate misinformation to present an untrue picture of the targeted person, and unwarranted and excessive criticism.[7]
Fearmongering or scaremongering is the spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger or the habit or tactic of purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue.
Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work describe a five phase model of how a typical workplace psychopath climbs to and maintains power. In phase four (confrontation), the psychopath will use techniques of character assassination to maintain their agenda.
Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip magazines and websites. Even when the facts behind smears and campaigns have been demonstrated to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation remains tarnished regardless of the truth. Smears are also effective in diverting attention away from the matter in question. The target of the smear has to address the additional issue of correcting the false information, rather than being able to focus on their response to the original issue.
CA is also a form of negative campaigning. Opposition research is the practice of collecting information on someone that can be used to discredit them. A smear campaign is the use of falsehoods or distortions. Scandalmongering can be used to associate a person with a negative event in a false or exaggerated way.
Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip magazines and websites. Even when the facts behind smears and campaigns have been demonstrated to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation remains tarnished regardless of the truth. Smears are also effective in diverting attention away from the matter in question. The target of the smear has to address the additional issue of correcting the false information, rather than being able to focus on their response to the original issue.
Common negative campaign techniques include painting an opponent as soft on criminals, dishonest, corrupt, or a danger to the nation. One tactic is attacking the other side for running a negative campaign. Negative campaigning, also known more colloquially as "mudslinging", is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies.
is a deliberate and sustained effort to damage the reputation or credibility of an individual[1]
The term could also be selectively applied to social groups and institutions. Agents of character assassinations employ a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their goals, such as raising false accusations, planting and fostering rumors, and manipulating information.
Character assassination happens through character attacks. These can take many forms, such as spoken insults, speeches, pamphlets, campaign ads, cartoons, and internet memes. As a result of character attacks, individuals may be rejected by their professional community or members of their social or cultural environment. The process of CA may resemble an annihilation of human life as the damage sustained can last a lifetime. For some historical figures, that damage endures for centuries.
CA may involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.
The phrase "character assassination" became popular from around 1930.[2]
This concept, as a subject of scholarly study, was originally introduced by Davis (1950)[3] in his collection of essays revealing the dangers of political smear campaigns. Six decades later Icks and Shiraev (2014)[4] rejuvenated the term and revived academic interest by addressing and comparing a variety of historical character assassination events.
Character attacks are by definition intentional:
they are launched to damage an individual's reputation in the eyes of others.
If a person's reputation is damaged accidentally, for instance through a thoughtless remark, that does not constitute a character attack. Since character attacks are concerned with reputation, they are also by definition of a public nature. Insulting someone in private does not lead to character assassination.
Each character attack invariably involves five aspects or pillars: the attacker, the target, the medium or media, the audience and the context. This last category can refer to the political system in which the attacks occur, the cultural environment, the level of technology, or any other factors that shape and determine character attacks.
Many character attacks take place in the political sphere, for instance in election campaigns. However, prominent figures from other spheres can also become the targets of character attacks, such as religious leaders, scientists, athletes and movie stars.
Moreover, character assassination appears to be a near-universal, cross-cultural phenomenon that can be found in many, if not most, countries and historical periods.
believe that the attacker's motivation is often based on the intent to destroy the target psychologically or reduce his/her public support and/or chances to succeed in a political competition. For example, during elections, attacks are often used to sway undecided voters, create uncertainty with tentative voters, or prevent defections of supporters.
Fundamentally, an attack on one's image, reputation, or brand is dependent on relevant audiences’ perceptions. For instance, studies in the field of motivated reasoning show that consumers are highly selective of what they deem is “believable” information, preferring to accept what is most congruent with existing attitudes, expectations, or actions, such as a candidate's voting record. The “hybrid” processing model suggests that voters structure their candidate impressions or respond to candidate CA using two types of information: updated or ad-hoc. Anxiety, or an emotional state of uncertainty and tension, can influence consumer's attitudinal shifts.
CA should also be addressed in relation to image studies. When organizations and leaders find themselves in crises, they are particularly vulnerable to attack via scrutiny and criticism that challenge their legitimacy or social responsibility. Their reputation is then judged in the court of public opinion, which focuses on a mix of publicly positioned principles, including ethics, social and political values, or cultural or religious beliefs. Acceptance or rejection of a candidate requires the candidate to be compatible with existing image components.
The theory suggests that the level of reputation threat is determined by whether the public believes the organization caused the crisis, the organization's crisis history, and the organization's prior relational reputation with the public (such as voters, stakeholders, etc.)
Instantaneous or drive-by character attacks often occur. Such quick character attacks are usually opportunistic. On the other hand, the slow pace of character-poisoning is based on long-term hopes. Since the 1960s, the famous Russian author and dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn was accused of being a Jew, a traitor, a Nazi collaborator, a prison snitch, and a paid foreign intelligence agent.[6]
character assassination
is an intentional attempt, usually by a narcissist and/or his or her codependents, to influence the portrayal or reputation of someone in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative or unappealing perception of him or her.
It typically involves deliberate exaggeration or manipulation of facts, the spreading of rumours and deliberate misinformation to present an untrue picture of the targeted person, and unwarranted and excessive criticism.[7]
Fearmongering or scaremongering is the spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger or the habit or tactic of purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue.
Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work describe a five phase model of how a typical workplace psychopath climbs to and maintains power. In phase four (confrontation), the psychopath will use techniques of character assassination to maintain their agenda.
Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip magazines and websites. Even when the facts behind smears and campaigns have been demonstrated to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation remains tarnished regardless of the truth. Smears are also effective in diverting attention away from the matter in question. The target of the smear has to address the additional issue of correcting the false information, rather than being able to focus on their response to the original issue.
CA is also a form of negative campaigning. Opposition research is the practice of collecting information on someone that can be used to discredit them. A smear campaign is the use of falsehoods or distortions. Scandalmongering can be used to associate a person with a negative event in a false or exaggerated way.
Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip magazines and websites. Even when the facts behind smears and campaigns have been demonstrated to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation remains tarnished regardless of the truth. Smears are also effective in diverting attention away from the matter in question. The target of the smear has to address the additional issue of correcting the false information, rather than being able to focus on their response to the original issue.
Common negative campaign techniques include painting an opponent as soft on criminals, dishonest, corrupt, or a danger to the nation. One tactic is attacking the other side for running a negative campaign. Negative campaigning, also known more colloquially as "mudslinging", is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)