US Military 'Banned' From Viewing Wikileaks

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."

Comments

Wouldn't it be against the rules anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the material is currently classified, wouldn't it be against the UCMJ or other military policies to view such material?

Re:Wouldn't it be against the rules anyways?

[Omnifarious]

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?

[ultranova]

My irony-detector sometimes goes haywire when I encounter discussion of issues that have to do with politics. I've read so many comments that I thought have to be a joke but turned out to be serious that I hesitate to trust my ability to discern the difference between authentic idiocy and the clever opera buffo.

This is known as Poe's Law, and it basically states that it's impossible to tell actual stupidity from a parody of stupidity.

Tip of the iceberg?

[IICV]

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.

Sounds more like a clarification

[91degrees]

This was already restricted information. The rank and file had no right to it and presumably there are laws that state they should not access it.

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.

[gandhi_2]

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

[camperdave]

If you don't want to be there, shouldn't you be allowed to leave?

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

[LowlyWorm]

I disagree. Civilians can read what they choose. The military could stop it. They have the weapons to do so if they choose. They have not. In a very structured and disciplined environment such sacrifices are to be expected. The military has its own courts and no draft is in effect. I am normally very adamant about free speech issues and I have contributed to organizations that promote these views but the military should be granted some latitude.