Slashdot Log In
Soldiers Can't Blog Without Approval
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed May 02, 2007 09:41 AM
from the how-else-will-we-know-what-they-ate-for-lunch dept.
from the how-else-will-we-know-what-they-ate-for-lunch dept.
denebian devil writes "Wired.com has obtained a copy of updated US Army rules (pdf) that force soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages without first clearing the content with a superior officer. Previous editions of the rules asked Army personnel to "consult with their immediate supervisor" before posting a document "that might contain sensitive and/or critical information in a public forum." The new version, in contrast, requires "an OPSEC review prior to publishing" anything — from "web log (blog) postings" to comments on internet message boards, from resumes to letters home. Under the strictest reading of the rule, a soldier must check with his or her superior officer before every blog entry posted and every email sent, though the method of enforcing these regulations is subject to choices made by the unit commanders. According to Wired, active-duty troops aren't the only ones affected by the new guidelines. Civilians working for the military, Army contractors — even soldiers' families — are all subject to the directive as well, though many of the people affected by these new regulations can't even access them because they are being kept on the military's restricted Army Knowledge Online intranet. Wired also interviewed Major Ray Ceralde, author of the new regulations, about why this change has been made."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Absolutely Necessary (Score:5, Informative)
Today we are going to be traveling along road X and going to destination Y around noon. Boy, it is going to be hot. While there, we are going to be picking up an informant. He would be in big trouble if he is found out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
From: Ted Striker
Subject: Re: Let's get seafood
Elaine Dickinson wrote:I can't tell you that. It's classified.
Love, Ted.
Re:Absolutely Necessary (Score:4, Interesting)
To Whom it May Concern:
Today we are going to be traveling along road X and going to destination Y around noon. Boy, it is going to be hot. While there, we are going to be picking up an informant. He would be in big trouble if he is found out.
No, that's not the reason for this.
The reason for this is that the Administration is painting a picture of poor abused soldiers being robbed blind by the evil, evil Democrats who want to steal their money and make them stay there without any armor or weapons or food. And these poor, poor soldiers love Iraq and the mission sooooo much that they just never, ever wanna go home. Ever!
Of course, the reality is that these soldiers and national guardsmen are pretty much sick and tired of being there, know just as well as anyone else that the whole affair is a lost cause, and frankly want to go home. NOW. Or rather, months and months ago when their tours SHOULD have been up, but were not due to shady probably-illegal-definately-immoral "stop loss" tricks to keep them there.
You can't have a misinformation or propaganda campaign starring soldiers if you let the soldiers actually talk. See: Tillman, Pat (and coworkers) or Lynch, Jessica. No, you have to silence them all, save a select few you can bully or bribe into towing administration line.
Simply put, this is a measure to shut the soldiers and their families up and keep their true feelings from coming to light, so the Administration can continue to lie about them. Nothing more.
Parent
Army Knowledge Online info is wrong (Score:2, Informative)
I would expect better fact checking, but then I remembered this slashdot.
Haveing many of the people affected by these new.. (Score:2)
This is needed (Score:3, Insightful)
This won't last long (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn straight! (Score:5, Insightful)
Soldiers are much like prisoners, they have some freedoms, but at the end of the day you're on someone else's time and in a place and they make all the rules, both good and bad. If you sign up (or get sent there) you play by the rules ment to keep everyone safe.
Re:Damn straight! (Score:4, Informative)
It was actually as much about casualty reporting as it was about OpSec. Families were hearing that their loved one had been killed in a blog before the military could tell them.
In other cases a wife would find out her husband had been killed when a neighbor came by with their condolences.
Its also about the rumor mill on more "mundane" things: Soldier Bob tells his wife that his Sergeant is having an affair with another female soldier. The Soldier Bobs wife tells the Sergeants wife. The rumor may not be true, but a marriage is going to have a hard time surviving that when they are thousands of miles appart for 12 to 24 months.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sgt. Joe sends his weekly email home to his family. The email includes a link to a National Geographic picture of the Bay of Yemen, and his email says "This is where Daddy is going to be next week."
A week later, the USS Cole gets bombed.*
This impacts (and endangers) not only Sgt. Joe, but everyone else on board that vessel, potentially even everyone deployed to the Bay of Yemen.
The danger here isn't so much that soldiers are going to intentionally give away
Censorship is normal ... (Score:5, Informative)
The original poster acts as though this is some new super-secret nefarious plot to keep secrets from the American public. The simple truth is that there has always been censorship of personal correspondence from war zones. This was true of WW2, Korea and, for all I know, of the Civil and Revolutionary Wars. Nobody likes it, least of all the poor junior officers who have to censor letter after letter, but it's a basic military necessity.
It's the military, not the cub scouts. Get over it.
Re:Censorship is normal ... UCMJ (Score:3, Informative)
But, hey, if it gives people the excuse to start spouting their holier-than-thou dogma about censorship, let's just let the
Did you even RTFA? (Score:5, Insightful)
No! You cannot apply the freedoms to the military that you do to the general public. Period. They're in a different league all together. The fact that you can't see that is very disconcerting.
And - damn it! - get rid of the damned Slashdot template of trying to turn this into a political issue by bringing "incumbent party" into it! I read TFA and there is NOTHING in there about politics, so stop trying to inject your own! This is absolutely nothing new and is not uncommon during a time of war.
From TFA:
If fact, if you had bothered to read TFA, which you obviously did not, the one blogger that they specifcally mentioned is a "pro-victory" blogger, hardly someone who goes against the current administration. Having read a bit of his blog, it is clear to me that he supports the idea of victory in Iraq, which IS the view of the political party that is in the White House! So, if anything this article demonstrates how this action goes against the views that are supported by the incumbent, political party! So, your little quip attempting to place blame on discouraging "them from espousing political opinions that are are disliked by the incumbent political party" is just an attempt for you to throw politics into this.
Keep your baseless attempts to make everything political out of Slashdot and move them over to Digg where they belong.
Parent
SSDD (Score:5, Insightful)
Military censorship of all troops' correspondence is not exactly new.
No big surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
-Peter
Makes sense, doesn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Loose lips and all that.
Of course this will be used to keep them from telling any news of events that don't run so lovely to keep the spirit on the "home front" up. I doubt, though, that this is the main concern. Those news get out, this way or another, because some of those soldiers will and do come home, and there ain't much that could keep them from talking.
Lots of info can be extracted from the blogs (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the story I remembered is as follows:
Mr. Smith was sent to battle, and he sent a letter once a week to Mrs. Smith to tell her that he's safe. Mrs. Smith's friend would always asked for the stamps on the letter because she was a stamp collector. I
tool for selective enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, if we like you, say anything you want. If you don't, we're going to dig through every single thing you do when your hands touch a keyboard and find something to hang you with.
This is going to sound like standard old-soldeir grumbling, but
Now it seems like things are going more toward a Soviet model. Absolute obedience, top-down flow of information, shut up and do what you're told every single time; running the entire military like basic training. Well, guess what? Saddam Hussein's vaunted "fourth largest army in the world" was trained and equipped on Soviet lines, and we went through it like a hot knife through butter. Analysis after the end of the Cold War strongly suggests that if the balloon had ever gone up, the same thing would have happened on a grand scale in Europe. Authoritarian armies can win wars (Nazi Germany was just as authoritarian as the USSR, of course, but the German army was surprisingly flexible) but the cost is terrible -- as some German general is supposed to have remarked after the war, "We killed four of theirs for every one of ours they killed, but there was always a fifth Russian." Yeah, you can win wars like that, but (unless you're as bug-fuck insane as Stalin) you don't want to.
Also? Shit like Abu Ghraib flourishes in an atmosphere of secrecy. Now, I'm not going to claim with 100% certainty that there was no abuse of prisoners in Desert Storm; there probably was. I can say that, if it had been widespread and systematized as it clearly is in Iraq, as a medic I would probably have known it was going on. And I never saw anything like that. We took better care of Iraqi prisoners than their own army did, which is one reason so many of them were so quick to surrender. Keeping things open is the best way to ensure that everybody plays by the rules, and that in turn can reduce bitterness after the fighting is over and keep us from having to fight more wars in the future.
I look at those kids over there now, kids like I once was, and it seems to me they have more to fear from their own chain of command than they do from the enemy. That's fucked up.
Won't change anything (Score:2)
The UCMJ has a huge number of laws used to keep "discipline and order" within the military
Loose lips sink ships... (Score:3, Informative)
In public debate, transparency and freedom of speech are paramount to maintaining the security of our liberties. Free speech is a crucial aspect of ensuring that a free society remains free.
But on the battlefield, the public debate has already ended. The security of society and its liberties is dependent upon the ability of military to do their job, and this requires that many things be kept secret from the enemy.
When I was in the military, all of us understood that an unrestricted flow of information to the public was a Bad Thing(TM). Speech has consequences, and updating the reg to include email and blogs is to be expected. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it took so long.
Most soldiers will tell you this is a matter of common sense. When I was in, we had only occasional access to email, and even then it was understood that we shouldn't put anything in an email which could be used against us or the Army.
Loose Lips Sink Ships (Score:3, Funny)
Wow... proper use of the word "loose" on slashdot!
Why do they need to blog... (Score:4, Funny)
Common Sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Far too easy to give away something that could compromise the security of a unit or a mission -- even if unintentionally. Taking this sort of precaution just makes common sense. The military is likely far more concerned with this type of a scenario than some soldier giving away some horrible conspiracy that everyone in the military is in on (in most part because these types of things would be impossible to hide and if they do come out are fringe exceptions rather than the rule). Most of the blogs out there from troops are of a personal nature or in fact shed light on the fact that things are really not going as badly as is portrayed in our media here.
However, as someone else mentioned, it's probably not going to be too realistic to enforce in the long run.
FUD at its finest... (Score:3, Informative)
Civilians cannot be prosecuted for violating Army regulations - period. Saying the reg applies to contractors and family members is one of the best examples of journalistic disingenuousness I've seen in quite some time.
The Army can take action against a contractor up to and including cancelling the contract but they cannot take any action against an individual contract employee except to escort that employee off the installation and have him prosecuted by an agency that *does* have law enforcement capability - they also can't prevent family members from doing anything but can impose administrative sanctions against the family member. The Army has no law enforcement power against American civilians.
Simply put a civilian cannot be prosecuted for violating AR 530-1. There are other laws that *do* apply to civilians, but this ain't one of them.
There are plenty of good reasons for this (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, it does inhibit forms of free speech. Its always hard to strike a moral balance in such cases when life and death are in the balance. In the past all mail was filtered and censored during times of war. This is nothing really new as far as I can tell.
The UCMJ: The Abridged Bill of Rights (Score:5, Informative)
Much like other laws in the states, they are not always enforced but the rules are there. Military personnel have voluntarily sacrficed their normal civilian freedoms as part of the terms of service. I don't think it's fair to cry foul if the military wants to censor communications. We might not agree with decisions from the White House, Capitol Hill, or the Pentagon, but people wearing those uniforms are bound by duty and oath to honor and obey their orders.
Cpl Catdevnull
USMC 1987-1991
For the record... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:For the record... (Score:5, Funny)
After reading the comments at -1, the posters there say that he's quite a busy guy...
Parent
Re:For the record... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. That's what software is for. We know they're listening to every phone conversation using speech recognition; it is even easier to read every email. You don't live in the condition of privacy you seem to think you do. Soldiers, probably less so.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Soldier's what can't blog? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes...When I was in elementary school I was suspended for 1 week because I got into a fight at school. In return my father was reprimanded and went 1 week without pay. This was in 1999, so unless they've changed things, soldiers are responsible for the actions of their immediate family members, including but not limited to Grandparents and grandchildren.
Parent
Re:Soldier's what can't blog? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps by the simple expedient of educating them that breaking OPSEC can kill. Which is the whole point of the exercise, despite the deranged ravings already showing up on
Plus if the carrot doesn't work there IS the stick which an AC has already posted about in another reply to your post.
BUt really, just what is the big freaking deal here people? What is NEW? The military has ALWAYS been paranoid about secrecy during wartime, or has everyone forgotten all those over the top posters from WWII? But I think I know what really has most of
Ok, that was flamebait but dammit some of you loons make it all too easy.
Parent
Re:what soldiers? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you hate free speech so much, leave. Go to some non NATO country.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
grunt's gutt feeling is.
Based on the conversations I've had with my friends that are in the military we are screwed.
Re:that's OK (Score:5, Insightful)
Couple that with reviewing all of a soldier's private emails, you may as well just ban soldiers from use of the internet altogether.
Parent
The email thing is wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, I'll go hire someone to write for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Censoring other communication is for the same reason as any other censorship: hiding the truth. It is quite clear that the Administration does not want the opinions of the men on the ground to be known to the general public. It's bad enough from their point of view that no one outside the Administration has *anythi
Speaking as an Army employee (Score:3, Informative)
BS. Every soldier, family member, or Army civilian has access to AKO. If a member of a soldier's family does not then all the have to do is put in the request and it doesn't take very long at all.
Secondly Army regulations can only apply to people directly working for the Army. This means soldiers and Army civilians. The families a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In a situat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I can't really say what the Army teaches, as I never wore a green uniform. All of the OPSEC training I've ever sat through was much more concerned with, as you said later, patrol times & the like. (In my case, port call dates, fuel stops, etc.) And since it's a matter of public record where ships are homeported, it's the simple matter of looking at the big numbers on the side & g
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not.
From TFA (pdf):
Re:This just in:National Security requires just th (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
You must've never served... (Score:4, Informative)
However, you also swear to adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which during your tenure as a soldier, sailor, or airman, specificaly denies you a whole shedload of rights that a civilian commonly enjoys. IIRC, only the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are still yours to exercise (almost) fully. The rest are either restricted heavily, or gone entirely for you. You basically suborn yourself (and are protected by) the UCMJ.
To make it even worse, even years and/or decades after you get out of the military... if a crime or fatality springing from gross negligence happened during your enlistment or commission, or was due to something you did or did not do, and there's strong evidence that you might be at fault? the US Military has the perfect right to recall you to active duty for long enough to get court marshalled for it. As an example: If I had ever screwed up on one of the aircraft I worked on nearly 16+ years ago, and it leads to a pilot or bystanders or etc. getting killed? Well, they get to drag me back into the USAF and make me testify (and possibly face liability or charges) before a board of inquiry. In such a case, it would prolly be done to determine whether or not it happened due to gross negligence or if it was something that couldn't have been helped, or...? Pretty good incentive for making sure you do your job right and document the crap out of your work, isn't it? It gave me some very tight work habits that carry through to this day.
As to your original topic... while yes it is censorship, it also managed to teach such things as discretion, tact, and consideration. Between the reminders and instruction, and reading real-life cases concerning how certain inmates at Leavenworth got there? It was enough to sober up even the rebellious kid that I was at the time. I don't think there were too many other areas in life back then that could've given such lessons in such a stark, certain, and very easy-to-grok format.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)