US Military 'Banned' From Viewing Wikileaks 390
Following up on its risible demand that Wikileaks return the Afghanistan documents, the Pentagon has banned military members from viewing the documents. The Washington Times obtained copies of Navy and Marine Corps messages to their troops saying that accessing the documents even from a personal computer is "willingly committing a security violation." Wired notes that terrorists everywhere are under no such restriction. Reader carp3_noct3m writes "I am personally left almost speechless at this disconnect from reality demonstrated by the military. I am a USMC Iraq war vet, and find these policies completely ridiculous. They show the inability of our supposedly technologically knowledgeable military to fuse this knowledge with policy, mostly due to the political pressure that has erupted to 'take care of' the Wikileaks problem."
Wouldn't it be against the rules anyways? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the material is currently classified, wouldn't it be against the UCMJ or other military policies to view such material?
Tip of the iceberg? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is the bit of fulmination we're seeing from outside the government a symptom of some serious pressure being applied within? I mean first it was Marc Thiessen calling for the United States Government to basically declare war against a person, and now this irrational command.
I just can't help but wonder if these things aren't just signs of a lot of behind-the-scenes scurrying.
We still don't know much about the contents... (Score:2, Interesting)
Things have to be a little more subtle than "information wants to be free".
Sounds more like a clarification (Score:3, Interesting)
The laws are still in effect and even if there's no intention to prosecute, they should be reminding soldiers of their duty to obey the law if there is a rumour going around that this does not apply.
It makes perfect sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the thing, guys.
If you knew how military officers work, it goes like this: Something is wrong, they do *SOMETHING*. It doesn't matter what it is, they just have to be seen doing something.
Some news organizations say the military isn't accepting PTSD? Fine, every returning troop is basically TOLD they have PTSD. The VA sells it to you. The military psychs try to talk you into it. They make videos, brochures, send people out to spread the word, loud and clear: It's okay to admin you have PTSD (even if you don't)!
The military ALWAYS has an answer. Parachuting into powerlines? Wigle your body front to back in cadence to the song "Wire Wire Wire". Does it work? Who knows...but they had to have an answer in case someone asks.
A few people kill themselves? Oh jeezus...double the Suicide Prevention briefs. More powerpoints. More online classes. More assessments and dollars spent! Does it help? Who knows...if it doesn't then we will double it again! We'll keep them in suicide classes 24/7 just to keep an eye on them!
So someone is mad about wikileaks? A general gets an email, and before you know it...here we are.
Re:Military Policies in General (Score:2, Interesting)
That usually isn't as much of a problem when the soldiers support the cause of the war.
Re:Military Policies in General (Score:4, Interesting)
If you allow people to leave when they want to, then the moment the bullets start flying, you would lose all your troops. You are given the choice to stay or go when you enlist. If you enlist, you relinquish the right to decide whether to stay or leave. That decision is up to your superior officer.
Re:It's all about (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wouldn't it be against the rules anyways? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Morale issue perhaps? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm thinking the motive is to prevent damage to morale, but I can't see how the order is any less destructive on morale than the contents of these documents.
It's possible. But I have an alternative theory. This is the beginnings of legal action.
I've noted from my own experience in the past that where the US Government might fall behind, they tend to compensate with law. A script kiddie might get a chuckle out of having gotten away with logging in to IRC from a .gov address. But two years later, they may be shocked at having Feds showing up at their front door wanting them to go for a drive. Law is a long, laborious, and painstaking process. But as the Government is an entity of the law, they will use it to their best ability when all else fails.
Sure - we might all be chuckling about the futility of demanding the return of documents and forbidding troops from viewing digital copies of those documents; Streisand Effect on the global stage. But what if US Government agents already understand this? What if these are simply the steps they have to legally follow to establish that these documents have not, in any way, been released to the public? What if they are establishing Wikileak's position and limiting future legal maneuvering? What appears to be ludicrous could only appear to defy explanation because we don't yet have a good view of the tactic being put in to action.
Of course, time may also show that this is simply bureaucrats acting out without a firm grasp of reality. It wouldn't be the first time. I've certainly witnessed that as well. But one shouldn't immediately jump to this conclusion.
Re:Wouldn't it be against the rules anyways? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Military Policies in General (Score:3, Interesting)
If a person knows they are a poor fit in their role in the military and really doesn't think they can adapt, there are some options to get a formal discharge and get out. These work better when it's not just a response to personal danger, as it's assumed you understood that it's a dangerous occupation when you signed. In my own time serving, I saw people who had legitimate moral issues, and some of whom had effectively become pacifists, and others who were having psychological issues and experiencing severe stresses. In fact, I saw some people who had more trouble with stresses from non-combat service than many combat veterans did. Unfortunately, there was sometimes a tendency to assume in either case they were just cowards, but there are some safeguards in place, to at least try and deal with the cases where it's, as you put it, unhealthy, either for the individual or others around them.
The whole reason to have multiple categories of discharge is to deal with this issue, so that someone can leave, even under strained terms with the system, without it automatically resulting in a dishonorable discharge. People discharged after less than 180 days in service usually get an entry level discharge, which nominally has no good or bad connotations, and general discharges are usually used where the person was in longer but became either physically or psychologically unable to continue. The easiest way to get into real trouble is to just up and leave before seeking an official resolution such as these routes.
Re:Wouldn't it be against the rules anyways? (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that US soldiers who'd find tactical use of this material likely already had access to it (re: old news). Any tactical value to this information to be gathered from the leak is going to be gained by those who didn't have access; namely the US military's adversaries.
I can think of at least one example off the top of my head where that's not necessarily true:
Knowing what information has been disclosed is of tactical advantage to the soldiers - for example, if all the brouhaha about informants' names being disclosed is true it will be useful to the people who deal with informants to know if their contacts have been outed or not. Because of the bureaucracy and politics regarding something this high-profile that information is unlikely to make it's way "through channels" to people on the ground in a timely fashion.
Re:Wouldn't it be against the rules anyways? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the deal.
I've got a security clearance. Basically, this means that if there's a document that is Classified up to the level I have, I can not look at it. That's not a typo. The other portion to that is that I have to have a "need to know". I can't look at any document I feel like reading.
So, if I a) am cleared to read it and b) I have a need to read it, I can read it. There are forms and tons of bullshit that go with reading a classified document. Part of that bullshit is a debriefing.
If you're a normal person w/o a clearance, you follow a different set of rules than people with a clearance. One of those things is that I have to do -- by law, and not a slap / fine law, but PMITA law -- is report any classified documents that I discover out in the open. (If someone's left it on their desk, I've got to put it in the box, take the box to the room, sign the box in, then fill out the breach paperwork. Fucking sucks...) If you go onto wikileaks, read your guts out. I don't give a fuck. If I go to wikileaks, I've got to report any classified material that I find. It's stupid, but it's the rules. (This is for actual Classified stuff, not some corporate stuff that they want to stamp to make it seem super-secret.)
It's possible that they're just trying to prevent a huge fucking paperwork nightmare. I'm not sure what sort of military value could be attained by banning wikileaks otherwise. Morale, maybe?
Re:Wouldn't it be against the rules anyways? (Score:0, Interesting)
Yeah, that works up until about the age of two. After that you have this thing called Object Permanence [wikipedia.org]. If they don't have the ability to remember something even though it's been moved/hidden how could they ever expect to win a war?
Re:Catch-22: related anecdote from Tom Clancy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wouldn't it be against the rules anyways? (Score:5, Interesting)
When talking of the actions of government, using the word 'criminal' is quite problematic. Governments are the entities that have the power to classify some actions as 'criminal' and some not. Whenever I see someone use that word to condemn someone's actions with regards to a government, I see someone using a circular self-justification. "It's wrong because the government said it's wrong!"
Personally, I place a lot more stock in arguments grounded in something anybody can judge for themselves without reliance on an authority. After all, the whole reason we have a system of law is the hope that public laws which anybody might judge will end up being more moral than the arbitrary dictates of an authority like a king.
Additionally, classified secrets are much like trade secrets. Once the cat is out of the bag, they are no longer considered secrets. So I believe your interpretation of the law is in error as well.
So basically, your argument boils down to "It's wrong because I think it's wrong!", not even "It's wrong because the government said it's wrong!".
Lastly, I think your balance between collateral damage to civilians vs. damage to civilians from retaliatory murder is a little off. I suspect the number of civilian casualties numbers in the thousands or 10s of thousands at a minimum. So if you wish a numerical calculus of death, then clearly the civilian casualties as 'collateral damage' form a much greater number and more moral culpability.
Re:Wouldn't it be against the rules anyways? (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me get this straight. You read my post above and your thoughts went something like: "Is this guy serious? omg i think he's serious! wtfbbq!" -clicks reply, indignant-
Was it the fact that I liked a baby to the military-industrial complex that tipped you? Or the non-sequitur that I presented as a "scientific" experiment?
Reading your post made me a little bit sad. :-/
Re:Devil's Advocate... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wouldn't it be against the rules anyways? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is known as Poe's Law [tvtropes.org], and it basically states that it's impossible to tell actual stupidity from a parody of stupidity.
Re:Sounds more like a clarification (Score:2, Interesting)