Slashdot Mirror
Are Marines Censoring Web Access for Troops in Iraq?
Gavin86 and others have submitted links to This Wonkette article (profanity warning) about the Marines Corps blocking access to some Web sites for their people in Iraq. This article was a follow-up to an earlier Wonkette post. Before I posted these links, I looked for verification of this problem but found nothing but links to Wonkette, so I cannot say for sure whether this is true. Hopefully, alert Slashdot readers (like you) will post confirmations if, indeed, there are any to be found. Meanwhile, if this is true, it's eerily reminiscent of an experience I had when I visited Saudi Arabia in January, 2004.
The Wonkette post contains this list of sites blocked and not blocked, allegedly sent by a Marine serving in Iraq:
I spent several hours in my Riyadh hotel room one evening checking sites suggested to me by Slashdot coworker Jamie McCarthy via IRC (which was not blocked by the Saudi filters). Among them were sites decrying Holocaust denial, which were blocked, although many sites espousing the old Protocols of the Elders of Zion antisemitic lies were not.
A number of sites that talked about human rights -- especially women's rights -- were also blocked. Sites that glorified Islam were, of course, fine. Interestingly, Jamie and I found that some (but not all) sites that were blocked when the 2002 Harvard Law School article, Documentation of Internet Filtering in Saudi Arabia, was released had been unblocked by the time of my visit.
And when I met with Eyas S. Al-Hejery, the man in charge of Saudi Arabia's Internet Serice Unit and told him about some of the blocked sites Jamie and I had found, including several innocuous Israeli government ones, he agreeably unblocked them.
I have no way of knowing whether Eyas reblocked those sites as soon as I left his country, but he told me more than once that he did not, himself, decide which sites should be blocked but only reacted to complaints from Saudi Arabia's infamous religious police and submissions from concerned citizens, which he said numbered up to 200 per day, total, while he only received a "trickle" of requests to unblock sites.
Now comes a big question: If the charges of Marine Internet blockage are true, will the Marines unblock incorrectly-blocked Web sites as quickly as Eyas did in Saudi Arabia?
But first, another big questions must be answered: Is the Wonkette story true? It's been up and spreading around the Internet since March 1st, and no official Marine spokesperson has bothered to either debunk it or admit that yes, the Marine Corps is blocking Web sites for political reasons.
It's going to be interesting to see if, here in a country where we supposedly hold freedom of speech dear, we expect our overseas troops to submit to the same sort of censorship that is an everyday thing in Saudi Arabia, a famous breeding ground for the Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism our Marines are supposed to be fighting against.
- Wonkette - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.wonkette.com/) is categorized as: Forum/Bulletin Boards, Politics/Opinion."
- Bill O'Reilly (www.billoreilly.com) - OK
- Air America (www.airamericaradio.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion."
- Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com) - OK
- ABC News "The Note" - OK
- Website of the Al Franken Show (www.alfrankenshow.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion."
- G. Gordon Liddy Show (www.liddyshow.us) - OK
- Don & Mike Show (www.donandmikewebsite.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.donandmikewebsite.com/) is categorized as: Profanity, Entertainment/Recreation/Hobbies."
I spent several hours in my Riyadh hotel room one evening checking sites suggested to me by Slashdot coworker Jamie McCarthy via IRC (which was not blocked by the Saudi filters). Among them were sites decrying Holocaust denial, which were blocked, although many sites espousing the old Protocols of the Elders of Zion antisemitic lies were not.
A number of sites that talked about human rights -- especially women's rights -- were also blocked. Sites that glorified Islam were, of course, fine. Interestingly, Jamie and I found that some (but not all) sites that were blocked when the 2002 Harvard Law School article, Documentation of Internet Filtering in Saudi Arabia, was released had been unblocked by the time of my visit.
And when I met with Eyas S. Al-Hejery, the man in charge of Saudi Arabia's Internet Serice Unit and told him about some of the blocked sites Jamie and I had found, including several innocuous Israeli government ones, he agreeably unblocked them.
I have no way of knowing whether Eyas reblocked those sites as soon as I left his country, but he told me more than once that he did not, himself, decide which sites should be blocked but only reacted to complaints from Saudi Arabia's infamous religious police and submissions from concerned citizens, which he said numbered up to 200 per day, total, while he only received a "trickle" of requests to unblock sites.
Now comes a big question: If the charges of Marine Internet blockage are true, will the Marines unblock incorrectly-blocked Web sites as quickly as Eyas did in Saudi Arabia?
But first, another big questions must be answered: Is the Wonkette story true? It's been up and spreading around the Internet since March 1st, and no official Marine spokesperson has bothered to either debunk it or admit that yes, the Marine Corps is blocking Web sites for political reasons.
It's going to be interesting to see if, here in a country where we supposedly hold freedom of speech dear, we expect our overseas troops to submit to the same sort of censorship that is an everyday thing in Saudi Arabia, a famous breeding ground for the Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism our Marines are supposed to be fighting against.
Fighting for freedom are we?
Military commanders are worried about troop morale, and will intervene to keep whatever they consider disruptive away. They can and will punish spreading of dissent or other insubordination. Sometimes very severely.
The military also censors what it's members can say. This is necessary to avoid inadvertantly informing an enemy, but like everything else, it can be abused. Also part of service life. It ain't pretty.
Q: Are Marines Censoring Web Access for Troops in Iraq?
A: I would hope so.
Morale of the troops is more important than giving them access to what MoveOn.org has to say about the job they are doing. They can engage in political discourse when their tour is over, but for now everything about their life is being managed for the sake of keeping them in the best possible combat-ready state of mind and health. Wide-eyed idealism is for civilians. Soldiers do best (read: live longer) with a narrower focus.
Before people start all the suppressing soldiers rights chatter... this is nothing new and I'm sure its being done to all the forces, not just the Marines. The military has always kept a tight grip on incoming and outgoing information. In WWI and WWII, mail was looked at for sensitive information and photographers had their pictures looked at. The was especially true in Vietnam. I'm not justifying it, but I don't think most people are in a position to judge if you yourself haven't led troops in combat or fought in a war yourself. Having served in the Marines myself, I can say that good morale is vital to a mission's success. It's so important that it may even be worth losing some freedoms to maintain it. Anyone who has served in the armed forces will tell you that you give up your rights when you enlist. The military is a serious game and normal rules don't apply often. May seem strange to many, but its reality.
gasmonsoAre you free to surf any website you want on your company network? Do any of us really think that the military lets troops surf anywhere they please on a government owned and operated network that is there for "Official Use Only"? The same network that carries Command & Control data that is vital for operational information.
I think if I were a Marine/Soldier/Sailor/Airman in the zone, I'd rather be limited in what websites I can surf from the combat zone in exchange for having the available bandwidth that lets an alert message come in about an impending attack.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy and go well with ketchup.
Keeping the troops segregated from anyone but pro-war Republicans isn't part of the military's job. ;p
Its not that military is censoring, it's that it's censoring with a clear political bias. When you add in recent appearances of military personnel in uniform as participants in political events in clear violation of the law, it is appearing more and more like the US military is becoming a subsidary of the Republican Party.
If Marines are connecting to the internet though a DoD network, plenty of sites are being blocked. Thousands of sites are blocked at all military post. Also it's pretty obvious that any email, forum posting, or blog entry that they send are also cached. That being to make sure they aren't sending information that they should not be. (Anything that can comprimise the mission, sensitive information, or the lifes of their buddies) What's the big deal? How many corporations do the same thing?
While I can agree that members of the military give up some rights because of their job, they still should enjoy the basic constitutional rights that all Americans have. For example, Troops in the Army who live on base are not allowed to have any political posters of any kind. There are no signs of "I support X for congress". Military troops also have less rights in criminal cases. They don't always get a jury, sometimes it is a tribunal. There have been cases when their contract for service has expired but they are forced to continue service.
On the other hand, when we enter another nation, we must respect their laws. There is no freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia. If they want to censor the internet, it is their right. The USA can not dictate to Saudi Arabia how to live, what values to have. Muslim nations have a right to form religious states where their doctrine determines laws. Just like the USA can form a state based on our values.
Preposterous.
One of my closest childhood friends commented to me in 1999 that on a carrier (the ship, not the service provider) their web access was censored.
Furthermore, they were forbidden by their CO from watching any news other than Fox News in the mess. Apparently, due to personal preference of the CO, not because of military policy... but after checking with and other parts of his ship, they all had the same mess/recreation policy.
See, dissenting points of view could harm troop morale, and diminish their effectiveness. The military is allowed to get away with a lot of things in the name of protecting morale. You wouldn't want any doubters to risk the lives of brother soldiers/shipmen/airmen because of their conscience, would you?
The armed forces, including all the men and women in them, are responsible for the execution of war -- not the morality of war. The Congress is responsible for those decisions, so the armed forces have no reason to hear dissenting points of view. Right?
Since the Revolutionary War in the US, that has been how it has worked. Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, and all that. As long as Congress is respnsible for the ethical decisions of war, then censoring information accessible to the troops is fine. Oh wait...
Apologies in advance for the tongue-in-cheekiness.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Of Course! Not to sound like a red-dog republican, but of course they censor the internet for the troops. Their job(and thier life) depends on being focused on their job, not what's going on at the Underground Asian Showgirls(TM)website. Censorship is something that has always and will always occur in the Military. When you join the military you give up several freedoms due to how a military works. There is no free press, free speech, and free will(within limits), etc. in the military.
All you "everyone has a right to do whatever the hell they want" people need to get your collective head out of your collective rears so you can see what actually happens in the world.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
To bad we can't get any moderation any more.
The Consertives are going nuts pusing their agenda and the liberals are going nuts pushing their agenda. The moderates are accused of being too Liberal and Consertive. The Media has both are both Consertive and Liberal controlled. The Consertives give tax breaks to the that only help the Rich. The liberals make government services that only the rich (Who are normally higher educated) can figure out and go threw the burocracy and get access too. Globalization is only bad for the party that is not in power, otherwise it is a good thing. The Liberals support Unions who protect the workers rights, The consertive are against Unions who makes operations so expensive that the companies are forced to lay off all the workers. The Consertive are for Right to Life except for the Death Penality, the Liberals are for ProChoice except for when you choose to keep the child who may have down-syndrome, or if the guardians wish to keep someone alive and it is to expensive not to. The Consertives want to kill the public school system so the rich only have access to good schools. The Liberals want to keep the current failing school systems and throw more money into what doesn't work.
My God justs becuase their are two view points it doesn't mean that one side is right and the other is wrong. They could be both right and what is usally happening both are wrong. We can debate these sides for ever, but why doesn't anyone try a new approach.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Your claims are a mix of fact, fantasy and fiction. While out of uniform, or in one's residence signs of support for a party or a candidate are perfectly acceptable. There is always a right to jury at a courts martial, and unlike in the civilian sector you can be certain that those judging you are your peers. The cases where the contract "expired" but they were forced to continue serving are mostly a misunderstanding from the civilian sector of how the contract works.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
If you were truly a Proud American (tm) and a believer in the rightness of the military action in Iraq, you'd have joined up and would be serving right now. No disclaimers about why you can't really afford to do it today allowed.
By the way, exactly what are your friends "severing"?
Safeguards like this are put into place to prevent leaks that could compromise the troops.
The military has NEVER been 'open' during action for this reason, so why should it start now just because its 'the Internet'?
Get real.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I am currently a network admin for the USAF. Please remember that this has nothing to do with politics. This has everything to do with government employees using government computers.
If what they are doing is not required for the mission then they do not need to be doing it on a limited bandwidth out of Iraq.
Furthermore it is a COMSEC issue when military personnel currently stationed in a hot zone to discuss their duties on messageboards.
It has been a long standing policy since I have been in that government computers are not for PERSONAL use.
I dont hear people complaining State side that webmail, gmail, yahoo mail, and hotmail access are blocked from on base/government computers. I know ACC blocks them.
So what is the big deal? It looks like someone is running their mouth without knowing what they are talking about.
Welcome to freedom of speech I guess...
File a FOIA request for a copy of the block list for the Armed Forces Internet. Simple. Then you can read the whole list and parse out any meaningful information. Honestly, I'm not even a journalist and it seems completely obvious to me. This is the whole reason the FOIA process exists: to give transparency to the operation of the federal government.
Now, perhaps there's a chance that the federal government will come back with some kind of excuse like "releasing the block list gives aid and comfort to the enemy" but that alone would be a story worth the price of admission. Wonkette is an idiot, so of course this simple idea wouldn't occur to her or her readership. I'm I hope that a real investigative journalist picks up the story so he or she can actually do some investigating and find out the truth. I think that it would be hilarious to compare the Chinese block list with the American block list. Wouldn't it be a hoot to find out that the Americans are blocking more?
-JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Various posters are commenting about similar situations in their workplaces where they can't visit any website they choose for one reason or another.
Most are missing the point. Why are they only censoring sites that tend to be anti-war or liberal in nature? I can accept arguments for general Internet censorship while in the armed forces, but I've yet to see a good argument for why only sites that espouse a particular viewpoint should be censored while others should not.
Plenty of us do. Luckily, Most people vote party-line and are idiots. Right and left wingers tend to cancel each other out, leaving the rest of us, who can actually form our own opinions outside of political bias, to control the elections. Meanwhile, they are shouting lies and half-truths fed to them by their sheephearder overlords in the media and Washington, DC.
I'd just like to thank them for making my vote one of the ones that really count. Suckers!
Commercial email programs are locked out due to security concerns and leaks over routes and time tables or other sensitive information.
If Joe Schmoe can use Yahoo, or Hotmail then he can purposely or accidentally leak out sensitive information about real operations that could put lives in danger.
It would be nice to trust everyone, but let's face it a lot of the USMC are 18 and 19 year old kids, and as much training and coaching as they are given are prone to mistakes just like anyone else.
One email from a Marine to thyeir girlfriend about when the convoy leaves the base and where they are going, to keep her from being worried, will undoubtedly endanger the lives of the entire convoy.
The military is a different animal and the USMC is whole separate community. The rules and policies are there to fight battles and keep the Marines alive. Unless you have been a part of that community you will not understand. There are many activities that Marines do regularly that normal society or civilians would gasp at and balk at and they have.
The USMC has a mission to accomplish and if screening a few websites helps to accomplish that mission then they will do it.
I don't think anyone is upset that streaming audio and video are blocked. I think the problem is that it's A-OK to head over to Rush Limbaugh's website and read his Oxycontin-induced ramblings, yet you are not allowed to go to Wonkette's website and read her tequila-induced ramblings.
No, he just called him on the truth. Look at the facts:
1) Sites that don't favor the administration: Blocked
2) Sites that do favor the administration: Not Blocked
3) Both have streaming audio.
Regardless of whether soldiers have a right to uncensored internet access, congress needs to look into biased filtering.
If the military wants to block political-opinion websites, that's fine, but block ALL political opinion websites. The category and reason for blocking is "Politics/Opinion" , not "Liberal Politics/Opinion" or "Politics/Opinion that the Bush administration doesn't like".
$8.95/mo web hosting
Third Amendment - Protection from quartering of troops. = lost. The army can assign you to bunk with someone or someone to bunk with you at any time, for any reason.
You lost me by #3. If a soldier owns a house next to base, the government cannot order the soldier to house other soldiers without the owner's consent.
The barracks is government property.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Which is weird because Al does USO shows ALL THE TIME... but i guess the subject matter of his shows aren't political..
Yup. It sure is a good thing that nations like Islamic Republic of Pakistan don't have nuclear weapons. That would mean the end of the world.
And shortsighted individuals who claim that our only reason for being in Iraq is WMD and Oil tend to piss me off.
Shortsighted? Point blank, as a fact, the only reason that the US agreed to send troops to Iraq was that the Bush administration told us that they knew that Saddam had WMD, that they knew where they were, and that if we waited for the smoking gun it would likely be "a mushroom cloud" (that's a quote). They also told us that Saddam was connected to 9/11, that he had the ability to attack within 45 minutes, that there was no need to plan for the "occupation" since we would be welcomed as liberators, and that the costs would be minimal because the oil fields would pay for it. If they had not told us all these things, none of which, as it turns out, were true, We The People would not have given them permission to invade.
Get this through your head: the only reason the US invaded Iraq was that we were told a bunch of un-truths. If it pisses you off, join the club, though you might want to direct your anger at the people who made the original statements, rather than at the ones who point them out.
--MarkusQ
As for the websites, it's not a matter of political bias, it's a matter of morale and welfare management that causes the apparent political slant to which sites get blocked. Rush is an idiot, but he's an idiot that isn't constantly saying "Pull the troops out now, they're fighting an illegal war, etc, etc". If he began to do so, you can be sure he'd be blocked as well. It's easier to maintain a fighting force's morale by limiting their exposure to that kind of speech, and it's within the rights of the military to do so.
Great, but don't forget that these military folks are also voters. It seems to very, very convenient for one side or the other to define a common political view as "bad for morale". Then they can block their opponents outright. If political speech is so dangerous to morale, the filtering is at least as dangerous to our democracy, since it allows one side or the other to sculpt the political opinions of a large portion of the voting population.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. That you got a +5 shows that the mods don't know anything about the military either.
* First Amendment - You have the right to speech, press, religion, and assembly. The restrictions are that you do not have those rights while on base, in uniform, or on duty. Of course, most employers don't like you holding political protests while at work and on the clock. You are expressly allowed to contact your your elected officials.
* Second Amendment - You have the same right to bear arms as everyone else. You cannot carry them on base, but neither can any civilian. Security regulations apply. The same is true of most courthouses and other government buildings.
* Third Amendment - The government cannot force quartering of troops in your private residence. A bunk in the barracks is not a private residence, that's owned by the government. Just like a dorm room is owned by the college. If you have your own house or apartment off-base (as most military members do), no one can force you bunk up with anyone.
* Fourth Amendment - The military can only search your personal effects on base. And they can search any civilian's personal effects on base too. If you happen to live on base, then you do not have any private areas. Off-base, it appies the same as with anyone else. It's not like the MPs can search your private home for no reason.
* Fifth Amendment - You do have due process, the process is simply different in a military court than in a civilan criminal court. You are protected from self-incrimination. Double jeopardy cannot occur.
* Sixth Amendment - The number of people on the panel trying the case depends upon the severity of the case. For offenses like murder, it is not at all unlike a jury trial. For minor offenses it may be only a judge (or commanding officer, in the case of NJP). You are provided with counsel. You are allowed to call witnesses. You are allowed to cross-examine witnesess against you.
Your give good reasons for justifying blocking in general, and even blocking political sites in particular. I don't object to either per se. But the problem doesn't lie in the general blocking of political sites. The problem is that, assuming the information is accurate (which is admittedly in question), the blocking appears only done on some of the political sites, with a bias in the blocking based on the political lean of the site. That would be a lot harder to justify. Not impossible, but harder.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
And apparently, you have no clue about how the military operates. Now, let the man in peace to do his job. Jesus CHRIST! If I had a trout, I'd smack you upside the head with it!
Yes, it IS about control, and YES, you can service Afghanistan through Baghdad. But again, like I keep saying on Slashdot, what part of CLASSIFIED do you people not get? That means, you don't get to know the details because you don't NEED to know. You can want to know all you want.... and I'm an EXPERT in the field, and I can get to know all I want. Doesn't mean they are gonna tell me.... k?
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.