Slashdot Mirror
Soldiers Can't Blog Without Approval
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."
"Soldier's Can't Blog Without Approval" was not the title I gave it. Perhaps CmdrTaco has just had a long day.
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.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
First off, I'm not in the Army. I am, however, in the Navy and there have always been regulations about what can and cannot be shared with the public. OPSEC (Operational Security) is something every active duty military member is familiar with. There are filters in military email servers to flag emails that may violate OPSEC, but nothing like what the article describes. As a microISV and a Sailor, I wouldn't dream of putting everything I post through any military channel. Bottom line: this is an unpractical regulation and it won't last long.
It won't be a popular opinion but all content in a war zone needs to be carefully filtered, while "we shot three arabs today" won't cause my trouble "we shot three arabs in Baghdad today" might do so. Hence anything going in or out in any form must be checked to see if it gives their operations away.
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.
I like muppets.
for the military.
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.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
Military censorship of all troops' correspondence is not exactly new.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I would say this is more than just a "PITA" for the soldiers. No one would argue that soldiers should have unhindered freedom of speech, considering the sensitivity of their job. It's understandable that soldiers (or their commanders) have to censor what they say about troop locations, operations, etc. But this level of control over blogs and emails could potentially be very stifling to the point of effectively eliminating soldier blogs altogether. What about the soldier who happens to disagree with an (unclassified) Army policy (e.g. treatment of gays in the military). Of course their opinion is no secret if they're blogging about it, but the blog does in some situations offer a bit of anonymity. But if a soldier has to clear such blog entries through a superior officer every time they're posted, in essence waiving their opinion in their superior's face, the soldier may decide not to post it at all for fear of internal political/social repercussions.
Couple that with reviewing all of a soldier's private emails, you may as well just ban soldiers from use of the internet altogether.
When I was in the Army we were often told, "We're here to defend Democracy, not to practice it." OPSEC (OPerations SECurity) is vital to both mission success and protecting soldiers lives. I'm an complete nut when I comes to the first amendment, but combat soldiers absolutely DON'T (and shouldn't) have that right.
-Peter
Consider the average soldier. Don't get me wrong, I've served my time too, but let's be honest here, there are more than a few that don't think past the next meal. Can you see a blog entry like "bleagh, again another boring patrol down road $somewhere at 1130 tonight, can't they come up with something new"?
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Despite the absolutist language, the guidelines' author, Major Ray Ceralde, said there is some leeway in enforcement of the rules. "It is not practical to check all communication, especially private communication," he noted in an e-mail. "Some units may require that soldiers register their blog with the unit for identification purposes with occasional spot checks after an initial review. Other units may require a review before every posting."
... the service is really a mess these days. When I was in (1989-1997, including service in Desert Storm) it was generally understood that one of the great strengths of the American military, as opposed to most other countries' militaries, was our the general American-ness of the way we talked with each other and with the civilian world. Soldiers (in the generic sense: soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines) were expected to bitch, quite loudly and often in public, when something wasn't working right. Because that's how things got fixed. Yeah, we were supposed to work through the chain of command, if possible, but everyone including the chain of command knew that wasn't always going to work. And this understanding, and the bitching that it allowed, was what led to constant improvement in tactics, weapons, logistics, and everything else that keeps an army fighting.
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.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Armies which require their soldiers to behave like ants are at a considerable disadvantage against armies which expect their soldiers to behave like well-disciplined people. There's a difference.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Restrictions on what soldiers can say during wartime are nothing new. "Loose Lips Might Sink Ships" was a WWII slogan the gov't created.
Wow... proper use of the word "loose" on slashdot!
Lose = not win
or write letters to people? Fox and all their friends are there to tell everyone how well things are going. There soldiers are not qualified to be tellers of things. Too much for the public to misinterpret. If a soldier has a bad day and tells his family about it, why, they could think the whole thing is going badly. Remember, free speech only works when it is approved through proper channels. PS: I assume that any serviceman/woman would know enough not to put operational stuff in a private blog or e-mail.
"...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."
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 are not held by these same regs, although a family member blogging something stupid could threaten a security clearance for someone. If you want something to apply to the general civilian population other than government employees then you have to get Congress to pass a law to cover it.
I just figured someone who actually knew what the hell they were talking about should chime in here. And the reason for the regs changing is that soldiers were putting SBU (sensitive but unclassified) information on blogs so that family back home could see it and not thinking about the fact that so could the rest of the world (including hostiles in the area). The Army fully understand soldiers wanting a connection to home, but they also realize the dangers in not controlling information.
Example: A soldier posts something about a family member back home in whatever town they came from. Maybe they were even thoughtless enough to mention where this person works, goes to school, whatever. Now any terrorist that wants to doesn't have to target the soldier, they go to the family's house back home where most people assume it is safe and kill them in the middle of the night. You can imagine what even one or two incidents like this do to moral in the field.
This is not some big conspiracy theory as I'm sure many people here will immediately cry out about.
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.
I'm curious as to how the US Army plans to stifle the free speech of a civilian family member. "Hey tell your lousy spouse not to blog anything negative about the war otherwise we'll give you an Article 15 in retaliation."
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
When you enlist or you are commissioned as an officer in the US Military forces, you sign paperwork that waives some of your "normal" civilian rights. Recruits and commissioned officers submit to a new bill of rights known as the "Uniform Code of Military Justice." The UCMJ is very clearly an abridged form of your rights as a US citizen. Sailers, Airmen, Marines, and Soldiers, while under contract to serve, understand this. This is not to say that the UCMJ is overly restrictive or oppressive--it's just not as wide open as your rights as a civilian (and it should not be).
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
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
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.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
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.
> I'm curious as to how the US Army plans to stifle the free speech of a civilian family member.
/. about 'censorship.'
/. pissed about this article... that last line. How dare they imply you idiots 'are in this war' or that you are Americans!
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.
Democrat delenda est
If you hate free speech so much, leave. Go to some non NATO country.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.