|
CISNEO March, 2007
Newsletter
06:
April/May | June
|
October |
November
07: February
PROGRAM/MEETING
Tuesday, March 13, at Christ
United Methodist Church. Regular Meeting begins at 7:30pm.
Board Meeting at 6:30pm.
Our program will be a video on the recent
re-creation of the famous Stanley Milgram obedience
experiment where subjects are tested to see how far they
will cross ethical boundaries in order to please authority
figures. (February meeting was cancelled due to snow)
Dues for 2007
Our Dues for the year 2007
are now due. Cost is $20 for an individual, $30 for
families. Please bring to the meeting or send to the
address above. Please make checks payable to CISNEO.
SAVE ACME
RECEIPTS
Dorothy Jemson is again
collecting Acme receipts which we use a fund raiser for
CISNEO. Please forward them to Dorothy at 1461 Westvale
Ave., Akron, Ohio 44313.
Judge
Approves Disclosure of Company's Efforts to Discredit
Blogger-Critic
New York Law
Journal, March 6, 2007 By Anthony Lin
A New York federal magistrate
judge has ruled that a controversial executive seminar
company cannot invoke attorney-client privilege to prevent
disclosure of its efforts to discredit one of its most
well-known critics. NXIVM Corp., formerly known as Executive
Success Program Inc., operates a series of seminars that
some say are intended to foster a cult-like following. One
of the group's most outspoken critics has been anti-cult
blogger and deprogrammer Rick A. Ross. NXIVM has sued Ross
in New York and New Jersey for violating its copyright by
disseminating NXIVM course materials.
In 2003, the group hired
Joseph J. O'Hara, an Albany-based businessman and lobbyist
also admitted to practice law in Washington, D.C., to draft
a plan to deal with the negative publicity stemming from its
litigation with Ross. While employed by NXIVM, O'Hara
engaged private investigation firm Interfor, which produced
a report on Ross, including information on his personal
banking transactions and telephone calls. The report was
also shared with Sitrick and Co., a Los Angeles public
relations firm hired by O'Hara to counter Ross. Interfor
also set up a "sting" operation, luring Ross to a November
2004 meeting with a supposedly distraught mother who claimed
her daughter was involved with NXIVM. At the time, Ross and
NXIVM were engaged in litigation with both sides represented
by counsel. Ross has claimed he was questioned at the
meeting about the lawsuit and his legal strategy, without
knowing Interfor had been hired by NXIVM. The distraught
mother was portrayed by an actress. O'Hara, who formally
severed his business relationship with NXIVM in March 2005,
was sued by the group a few months later for allegedly
defrauding members Clare and Sara Bronfman, daughters of
Edgar Bronfman Sr., of $2 million in loans and payments. The
following year, O'Hara informed Ross about the Interfor
report and sting operation. NXIVM's efforts against Ross
were also shared with a reporter at the Albany alternative
weekly Metroland, which published a story about them.
NXIVM asked Northern District
Magistrate Judge Randolph Treece to grant a protective
order, arguing that information about the Interfor report
and sting were both covered by attorney-client privilege.
But Treece ruled in NXIVM Corp. v. O'Hara, 05-Civ.-1546,
that both fell within exceptions to the privilege and could
be subject to discovery by Ross. The magistrate judge found
that much of the work O'Hara was involved with at NXIVM did
not merit protection because he was acting as a marketing
and public relations consultant rather than a lawyer. But he
said the parties clearly intended for such a privilege to
apply after July 2004, at which time O'Hara re-constituted
his Washington law practice, purely for the purpose of
invoking attorney-client confidentiality. The magistrate
judge found that the Interfor report was an attorney
work-product, but ruled that any protection had been
stripped by NXIVM's sharing of the report with Sitrick with
the goal of discrediting Ross in the press. "Delivering the
Interfor Report to Sitrick was a deliberate, affirmative and
selective strategic decision to disclose this information
for another benefit other than aiding the lawyer pitched in
the battled of litigation," Treece wrote. "The benefit was
for the control of the airwaves and print media, which NXIVM
hoped to profit ... A party cannot selectively share a work
product and then expect it to remain as a shield." The
magistrate judge said information about the sting operation
was subject to the crime-fraud exception to the
attorney-client privilege. He said O'Hara, who attended
meetings with Interfor at which the sting was discussed,
should have known the fake meeting constituted a highly
improper ex parte contact, and his acquiescence could be
construed as an endorsement of the plan.
Harness the
power of persuasion
Montreal Gazette,
February 17, 2007 By Donna Nebenzahl
Getting people to do what you
want is easy. It's a matter of understanding six principles
and being aware of people's basic biases - and then using
them to influence their behaviour
If you want to influence
people, don't tell them who's boss. "You know from
experience that if you try to persuade using your positional
power, most of the time it will backfire on you," said
training and development consultant Heath Slawner. And even
if you can get someone to do what you want because "you're
the boss," they'll either quit doing it when you're not
around or they won't innovate or ask questions.
That's human nature. So it's
imperative, in order to bring your own agenda forward, that
you find ways to persuade the other person to move in your
direction, even if it means changing their own direction in
order to do so. It was at a juncture in his career - the
Wharton School graduate had left film marketing and
production in Los Angeles to return to Montreal - that
Slawner learned about the work of social psychologist Robert
Cialdini. "He was looking at what can we learn from science
when it comes to influencing other people, about what causes
people to say yes to someone's request," Slawner said.
He realized that his clients
- including Merck Frosst, the United Nations and Reader's
Digest, at Hart Resource Development, where he was a trainer
and consultant - would benefit from learning the techniques
of persuasion.
So Slawner became the first
trainer in Canada formally certified in the Principles of
Persuasion, a workshop in Cialdini's method. He offers
training workshops as well as keynote presentations. "It's
pretty intellectual stuff, with a lot of nuance to it," he
said. "People are using these principles all the time; it's
just a matter of understanding them, and the biases we have
as human beings."
The six principles Cialdini
proposes are not mutually exclusive - it depends on the
situation as to which principle or principles are to be
used. Each one is based on human behaviour, elaborated in
countless studies.
The first
one is reciprocity.
"It tells us
that people feel obligated to give back to those who have
given to them," Slawner said. This is a deceptively simple
principle, with some interesting applications, based on the
notion that if you're the first person to give, you stand a
better chance of getting back. This mindset works in all
kinds of situations. Take networking, Slawner says, which
can be tedious and feel so contrived. But if you go into a
networking situation not thinking what it can do for you but
what you can do for someone else, all kinds of situations
open up.
Or, consider that when you
want to make a request, the order in which you make it can
have a major impact on whether you will get it or not.
"As human beings we don't want to hear the word 'no,'"
Slawner said. The strategy is to start off with a bigger
request, the one that is more likely to receive a negative
answer. Then, when you move to a smaller request, you're
more likely to get what you want.
There is an important caveat,
which is that you don't make things up in order to act
strategically. "The key is all of this needs to be done
ethically; in applying the principles, it's extremely
important," Slawner said.
The next principle is
consensus, which tells us that when people are
unsure what to do, they look to what others in similar
situations are doing. We should never underestimate the
guiding role that others play in our choices, Slawner says.
Like in business, when testimonials work as a way of
assuring a new client, you try to influence someone in the
workplace by letting them know what similar people are
doing. And make it positive, he says. "Don't say: 'These
six people haven't done this.' But that, 'These nine people
have.' You want to normalize the behaviour you're seeking
from other people and you do this by using consensus
information."
Another principle is authority,
because when people are unsure what to do, they often defer
to legitimate experts, Slawner says. This becomes persuasive
information in an argument. "Of course, it depends on who
your target sees as an expert; and it's all the better if
you can position yourself as one."
Consistency is the fourth principle.
"Nobody wakes up in the morning looking to be erratic. We
have a preference to align with our commitments," he said.
Let's say you want your company to adopt a course of action.
If you can align your request with the company's values,
you're going to make it harder for that company to say no to
you. "What we find is that values are one of the strongest
ways you can influence someone," Slawner said. "It's not
about changing your request, it's just about the way you
make the request. Our challenge is understanding what it is
that people hold important."
The next
principle is scarcity.
This, too, is
deceptively simple: people want more of what they think is
scarce. They're afraid to lose out on opportunities. So you
can position your request by talking about what people stand
to lose and make sure you use any new information at your
disposal to make your case.
Information is an important
tool, Slawner says, and describes it more like a bagel than
wine. Rather than letting it age, you want it fresh and
hot. "If you have exclusive information, you've got
something that is scarce and people will value it more
highly because it's new and fresh. So you should share it
right away," he said. "And you may start to see how
sharing information is a way you can invoke reciprocity."
The last principle is
liking, which means that people prefer to say yes to
someone they have a rapport or connections with - someone
they know and like. These principles apply in all types of
business activities, from fundraising to leadership and
coaching, Slawner said. What it means is understanding that
human beings have certain biases, and what activates their
decision-making processes can have a deep impact on your
results and your relationships.
The six principles of
persuasion
Reciprocity: People feel
obligated to give back to those who have given to them.
Consensus: When unsure of
what to do, people tend to follow the lead of others in
similar situations.
Authority: We defer to
legitimate experts.
Consistency: People
prefer to align with their commitments, beliefs and
values.
Scarcity: People want
more of what they can have less of.
Liking: We prefer to say
yes to those we know and like.
Based on the
research of Dr. Robert Cialdini, president of Influence At
Work, author of Influence: Science and Practice and
Influence: the Psychology of Persuasion.
Mates 'til
the death
The Australian,
February 19, 2007 By Sally Neighbour
Terrorist cells are like
cults whose members form close bonds and attack their own
communities
"HE seemed a really kind man.
He taught the really bad kids and everyone seemed to like
him." So said a former pupil of Mohammad Sidique Khan, the
30-year-old teaching aide who led a cell of bombers who blew
up three trains and a bus in London in July 2005, killing 56
people.
"I know my son. He's honest,
he's got a clean record, and he has never been in trouble."
These are the words of the tearful father of one of 22 men
arrested in Melbourne and Sydney and soon to face trial on
charges of belonging to a terrorist group and preparing for
a terrorist attack. Testimonials like these are often
repeated as families, friends and communities struggle to
confront the new face of terrorism - the emergence of "home
grown" terror cells around the world.
The first wave of the
Islamist jihad, masterminded by bearded fanatics living in
caves in Afghanistan, was shocking enough, but somehow
simpler to comprehend. Much harder to fathom is this second
wave, a phenomenon the British authorities call neighbour
terrorism - middle-class family men from the suburbs of
London and Melbourne, Sydney and Toronto, willing to wreak
death and destruction where they were born and grew up. This
troubling trend has academics and counter-terrorism
specialists around the worldwide redoubling their efforts to
understand the causes of radicalisation - in short, what
makes a terrorist.
"There is much about the
nature of Islamist terrorism that is not fully understood,
including in particular the fundamental question of the
'transmission belt' from religious belief to terrorism,"
Peter Varghese, head of Australia's Office of National
Assessments, told a security conference in Canberra last
year. ONA has teams of analysts working full-time to
apprehend a threat that Varghese describes as "growing and
spreading to more countries", stemming from a large, diverse
and fluid network, that is more often inspired by al-Qa'ida
than directed by it.
As Varghese pointed out, no
study has been able to explain why some people become
terrorists. But a clear pattern is emerging. A key feature
is what he calls "socio-psychological factors and questions
of identity". Terrorist cells have "striking parallels" to
cults, Varghese explained. "One thing we frequently see in
the trajectory of terrorists is a conversion experience that
occurs within a small, tight-knit group. The dynamics of
such groups tend to reinforce personal conviction,
especially among individuals whose other social networks
have frayed or can't match the intensity of bonds forged in
what is for them an existential struggle." This assessment
is echoed by former CIA field officer turned psychiatrist,
author and government adviser, Marc Sageman, in his book
Understanding Terror Networks. Cutting through the jargon,
Sageman uses a simpler term - he calls it the "bunch of
guys" theory.
Sageman knows Islamic
extremists better than most, having worked with the Afghan
mujahidin in the late 1980s during the anti-Soviet war, the
crucible for the present global jihad. After studying the
lives of 172 terrorists, Sageman found the most common
factor driving them was the potent social bonds within their
terrorist cell. Most started as friends, colleagues or
relatives - just "a bunch of guys" drawn ever closer by
bonds of friendship, loyalty, solidarity and trust, and
rewarded by a powerful sense of belonging and collective
identity. Sageman cites a string of cases to demonstrate
his theory - Mohammed Atta's Hamburg cell of 9/11 bombers;
the three brothers at the core of the Bali bombing team -
Muklas, Amrozi and Ali Imron; and the would-be millennium
bombers who planned to attack Los Angeles airport in 2000.
These and other cells reveal
a three-step process in becoming a terrorist. First comes
social affiliation through friendship, kinship or
discipleship (as in the followers of Abu Bakar Bashir). Next
comes progressive intensification of beliefs and faith
within the group. The final step is encountering a link to
the jihad, and then joining it. This is usually a
"bottom-up" process; most are "enthusiastic joiners" not
brainwashed recruits. Sageman's study shows, as others
have, that the common stereotype of the terrorist as poor,
desperate, naive or just plain "mad" is a myth. There is
simply no psychological profile of a terrorist and no
evidence that mental illness, personality disorder or
childhood trauma feature among their ranks.
Three-quarters of the terrorists in Sageman's sample were
upper or middle class. They were typically more educated
than average, skilled, upwardly mobile and married with
children. Many, especially the leaders, were educated in the
West, multilingual and cosmopolitan. (The late Azhari Husin,
the Australian-educated PhD professor who became Jemaah
Islamiah's master bomb-maker and his colleague from the
University of Technology in Malaysia, JI's current
operational leader Noor Din Mohammed Top are two examples).
Another key finding of Sageman's work is that most of the
terrorists went to secular schools. Only 23 per cent had
exclusively Islamic education. (The exception is Indonesia,
where the level of religious schooling was much higher.)
Furthermore, only about half were religious in childhood.
The rest experienced a "shift in devotion" later - a crucial
factor in their transformation, but not the cause. This
concurs with Varghese's observation that most terrorists
have little history of extremism, or even religious piety.
Contrary to popular belief, religion is clearly not the
driving force.
These themes are explored
further by Harvard Law School professor and long-time
terrorism specialist, Louise Richardson, in her book What
Terrorists Want. Richardson has studied dozens of terrorist
groups, from the Palestinian zealots of antiquity and the
assassins of medieval times to the IRA in her native
Northern Ireland where she grew up a child of the troubles.
Richardson's starting point is that terrorism is neither a
new strategy nor the work of a bunch of mad fanatics, but
rather "an age-old political phenomenon that can be
understood in rational terms". Richardson writes: "Group,
organisational and social psychology are more helpful than
individual psychology in explaining terrorist behaviour."
Drawing on interviews with dozens of terrorists, she says
many speak of an "intense feeling of camaraderie within the
group" and "an overarching sense of the collective", which
consumes the individual. Richardson identifies a "lethal
cocktail" of three key ingredients that make a terrorist: a
"disaffected individual", an "enabling community" and a "legitimising
ideology".
The idea of the "disaffected
individual" resonates strongly in Australia. Think of the
troubled Sydneysider Mamdouh Habib, who spent nearly three
years in Guantanamo Bay; the alcoholic divorcee Jack Roche,
currently serving nine years for conspiring to bomb the
Israeli embassy in Canberra; or the Adelaide cowboy turned
Taliban fighter, David Hicks. Converts such as Roche and
Hicks are drawn to Islam by its empowering ethic of
egalitarianism, brotherhood and social justice. For a young
man in search of meaning, Sageman says fundamentalist Islam
offers "elegance and simplicity" and "a single solution
devoid of ambiguity". As interpreted by the extremists, it
also offers a justification for acts of violence.
As for the cause of the
average recruit's "disaffection", alienation is a powerful
recurring theme. Out of Sageman's group of 172 terrorists,
115 (70 per cent) joined the jihad movement while in a
country other than their homeland, as students, refugees,
workers or fighters living abroad, while cut off from their
family, friends and culture. Another 14 were
second-generation immigrants. These figures add up to a
total of 78 per cent who were "socially alienated, or
temporarily disembedded, from their societies of origin".
Sageman concludes that "this absence of connection is a
necessary condition" for joining the global jihad.
After joining, the cell
becomes the new recruit's world. As the bonds within it grow
ever stronger, his ties to all other groups grow weaker.
This "in-group love" is strengthened by what Sageman calls a
"common bond of victimhood based on Islam". And it is
paralleled by growing "out-group hate", which in turn is
sharpened by the identification of a common enemy - such as
the US and its allies. The internet plays a pivotal role in
strengthening the sense of belonging and collective identity
enjoyed by those who join, and enhancing their disconnection
from the outside world. In cyberspace they become part of a
much larger virtual community, without the constraints of
earthly society. As Sageman writes, this "ideal virtual
community" has strong appeal for alienated youths living in
immigrant communities in the West.
This process of disconnection
helps explain how a young man takes the final step to
carrying out a terrorist act. "They become embedded in a
socially disembedded network, which, precisely because of
its lack of any anchor to any society, is free to follow
abstract and apocalyptic notions of a global war between
good and evil." Much the same conclusions can be found in
the Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London
on July 7 2005, which describes how the kind and dedicated
teaching aide known as Sid organised the London cell with
his friend Shehzad Tanweer, a "friendly, mature and modest"
university graduate, who worked in the family fish and chip
shop, drove a red Mercedes Benz bought for him by his father
and played for a local cricket team.
The report finds that the
process of indoctrination for the London bombers was
principally through "personal contact and group bonding".
While sometimes attendance at a radical mosque or contact
with an extreme spiritual leader can be influential, a more
critical factor is the role of personal mentors and then
bonding within a group, in which members "begin feeding off
each other's radicalisation". The report notes, "There is
little evidence of overt compulsion. The extremists appear
rather to rely on development of individual commitment,
group bonding and solidarity". The notion of cultural and
social alienation also applies to the London cell. Clive
Walker, a terrorism specialist of the University of Leeds,
home town of the bombers, has expanded on this theme. He
sees the London cell as "a group of young men caught between
the conservative and unreplicable culture of their parents
and the apparently unappealing culture of the West".
Walker writes: "The problem may not lie in mosques at all,
but in the problems of a second generation ethnic minority".
A minority whose members feel alienated from the social and
cultural values of the larger community around them. This
certainly rings true in Australia, where most of the men
charged with terrorism have been second and third generation
Australians, brought up in the displaced cultures of their
parents.
While religion is clearly not
the main driver, it does play a crucial role for the
terrorists who embrace it. In Richardson's words, "it
provides a unifying, all-encompassing philosophy or belief
system that legitimates and elevates their actions".
Richardson cites Osama bin Laden, whose oft-repeated
demands are clearly political - the removal of foreign
forces from Saudi Arabia, an end to hostilities in Iraq and
Afghanistan - but who utilises religion to legitimise his
actions and persuade followers that their struggle is
sanctioned by God. It is this conviction that makes the
terrorist who claims to be inspired by his religion the most
terrifying of all.
"Islamic fundamentalists tend
to see the world in terms of an enduring and cosmic struggle
between good and evil," Richardson writes. They are
therefore less prone to compromise, "more fanatical, more
willing to inflict mass casualties more absolutist, more
transnational and more dangerous".
Sally Neighbour is a senior
reporter with The Australian and Four Corners and the author
of In the Shadow of Swords, on the trail of terrorism. |
