Pentagon Aims To Buy Up Book

jamie writes "Operation Dark Heart, a book about the adventures and frustrations of an Army officer who served in Afghanistan, has ruffled some feathers at the Pentagon. From the article: 'The Defense Department is attempting to buy the entire first printing — 10,000 copies — of a memoir by a controversial former Defense Intelligence Agency officer so that the book can be destroyed, according to military and other sources."

Comments

Re:Is this really censorship?

[Dunbal]

Your tax dollars at work...

Founding Fathers do facepalm

[0111 1110]

I think our government should just abolish the first amendment. They clearly don't believe in it. This just makes me so sick. Where is wikileaks when you need them?

Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm

[Sarten-X]

The first amendment is irrelevant. From TFA, the military's attempting to keep hidden the real names of intelligence officers involved with some actions. Any criticism of the military actions is still likely in the second edition, which is already approved. The first amendment does not grant the right to endanger others by means of speech. It grants the right to hold and express any opinions you want, and Congress will not render such expression illegal.

Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm

[perpenso]

I think our government should just abolish the first amendment. They clearly don't believe in it. This just makes me so sick. Where is wikileaks when you need them?

The author is a vet and had the military review the book. After publishing someone thought something had erroneously been left in. The author and publisher are cooperating, a new version is already being printed without the part in question. Buying the first printing of books may be the simplest way to deal with them. The military reviewers goofed not the publisher so the publisher should not suffer any loss. Given that the author and publisher do not want to reveal anything sensitive and are cooperating with the government I don't see censorship. Censorship is when someone wants to publish and is prohibited, not when someones says is all this ok with you ... no ... ok lets edit.

Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm

[sumdumass]

Your history is a little too molested for my taste. the real destruction of the US constitution started during the civil war time and really became institutionalized during FDR. You are at minimum 100 years off and generalship at least 30 years off the most noticeable disregard of it.

FDR said at a speech that the government shouldn't be involved welfare or social issues two years before he was elected president. He then did did an about face and trampled all over it. In 1930 FDR said:

As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been
surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely,
people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.

This s[eech was given considering the Volstead Act. He states that he knows they need a constitutional amendment in order to act on matters of the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. Yet he totally ignores that two year later as president, creates a standoff with the supreme court in which they ended up backing down and bending the interstate commerce clause in order to save face, and this was the biggest disregard for the constitution by the government in recent times and it's still being conducted to this day. Why you just now think it's happening is a mystery to me. but it still happening is not surprising at all seeing how when you allow one infraction, others will follow.

Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm

[Sycraft-fu]

Something I think many forget, or never know is that part of a security clearance is a non-disclosure agreement. You agree not to disclose classified material. It is as binding as any other NDA, and in fact has criminal penalties behind it. Now that doesn't mean you can never talk about anything. Things get declassified, after long enough passes this tends to happen by default (50 years usually).

However it does mean that you have to be careful what you disclose. In general, the government works with people in this regard. You want to write a book about something that is legal for you to disclose, they'll review it to make sure nothing goes in there that shouldn't. In this case, it sounds like the events can be talked about, but not the names. Makes sense.

What happened here is that it got missed somehow. They noticed they missed it, but to until after the printing run was done. So "mea cupla," they ask the author to change it, and teh publisher to do another run. However the first run is still done, the money spent. So they buy it up. Now everyone is happy.

Re:Is this really censorship?

[KarrdeSW]

I think at the point that they are using any resources (yours or their own) to make some determination as to what you can/cannot read. That is censorship.

Blurb totally misleading.

[Jartan]

The blurb is intentionally misleading here. The govt gave the OK for the book but then upon a later review they were worried about some names released and a 2nd printing has already been agreed upon by both parties. They are just deciding what to do with 10k books that were already printed. Obviously the publisher spent money to already print them so they aren't going to just destroy them.

Re:Blurb totally misleading.

[BlakJak-ZL1VMF]

mod parent up, case dismissed, nothing to see here, move along...

misleading blurbs FTL.

Re:Blurb totally misleading.

[0123456]

Don't US officers have to agree to let the military vet any books about their experiences if they want the job?

Re:Blurb totally misleading.

[MaskedSlacker]

The publisher is in the clear, but if classified info is in there the author can go straight off to prison. The issue here is that the DoD erroneously okayed the first edition on that issue.

Re:Print More

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize you're just posting to spam your link, however if you look at the article it answers your question.

It was initially cleared for printing by the military. A different military organization later took a look at the book and had some objections. The author appears to have edited newer editions of his book to comply with what the military wanted (changing names I think) however the first 10,000 books were already printed.

The military now wants to buy the first edition out so that people will only be able to buy the newer, revised editions.

Re:Is this really censorship?

[zippthorne]

But when the first printing sells out, the publisher is only going to print more. Clearly this is a scam to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of this "former officer", paying a hefty fee to the publisher to launder the dough.

We finally have the missing step

[Yvan256]

1. write a book about a subject
2. the subject must be something that someone or some organization wants to cover up
3. the said someone or organization buys all your copies in order to cover up the subject
4. profit!

it's part of the deal for ex-spooks

[YesIAmAScript]

The government cannot censor material before it is printed by regular people. But if you worked for the government and write about intelligence you learned while there, then the government can review it and "suggest" redactions before it is printed.

That's what happened here, it's just they printed 10,000 copies that were insufficiently redacted, so those will be destroyed, the company compensated and then more copies with the proper redactions printed. As to the jokers making comments about digital copies, those would be destroyed and no one compensated, because the "buying up books" here isn't to get them off the market, they won't be going to market anyway. It's just to compensate for expenses of printing books they cannot now put on shelves as-is.

This is censorship, because it is the government restricting speech. But is is a special case of info from a government employee, and that is allowed under the law, whether you agree with it or not. It has been this way for some time, I used to have a paperback from the early 70s that advertised the government went to court to stop its publication because the author worked for the CIA before. That book was eventually published with some redactions as this one will too.

Re:Is this really censorship?

[deapbluesea]

But when the first printing sells out, the publisher is only going to print more.

Did you even RTFA? Let me sum up since you seem to be too lazy:

The first run was printed after the author received permission from the Army Reserve. The Pentagon got wind of it after the first printing and discovered that there was a lot of material that shouldn't have been printed in the first place. The publisher and author then worked with the Pentagon to redact the questionable material, but that left the publisher with 10000 books sitting in a warehouse that can't be sold.

Since the Army Reserve is really the unit that screwed up in this case by not sending the manuscript up the chain for higher level review, the responsibility for paying for all those books rests with the DoD in general. It's actually the honourable thing to do in this case - along with firing whoever signed off on it in the Reserve component.

Re:Is this really censorship?

[tacarat]

I fail and read the article. The book will still be publicly available after things like specific names and other sensitive bits of information get sanitized. By not doing so, lives and missions are placed in jeopardy with little real benefit for society. The publisher will be releasing the book for the public, but the DOD is compensating them for the loss they'd incur from not being able to sell the original printed products.

Does the public have the right to all the information? Sure, in time. There are procedures under the Freedom of Information Act to get it later on, like when revealing it will cause minimal damage (and probably just PR damage). Demanding to know it right now just because of curiosity? Would you like identifying information to be posted on 4chan? There are many "reasonable and normal" people out there who would react in the same way as them.

RTFA - There will be a 2nd printing

[darkwing_bmf]

For all the people say "LOL they'll just print more" or "OMG censorship is bad!" here are the relevant parts of the story:

"[T]he Defense Intelligence Agency objected to the use of the names of American intelligence officers, among other issues." and "A new print run, without the disputed passages, is being prepared by the publisher."

This compromise is reasonable and legal. We still get the story but the intelligence officers names won't be published.

Re:Is this really censorship?

[Jurily]

It's actually the honourable thing to do in this case - along with firing whoever signed off on it in the Reserve component.

Once you accept that "a lot of material that shouldn't have been printed in the first place" indeed shouldn't have been printed, sure.

However, it's still censorship. The only question is whether we approve of it.

Re:YOUR tax dollars is paying for it

[flajann]

AND it's paying for your enormous deficit, which is likely to bankrupt US pretty soon..

Ok, you've got two unwinnable wars, then what?

The US went bankrupt many years ago. Why do you think all the gold was confiscated back in 1933

http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html

and Nixon took the USD completely off the gold standard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

You only resort to these extreme measures if you have a negative ROI. If you have sustained negative ROI, that's actually worse than actual bankruptcy, which is an admission that you failed and promise to restructure. Nope, the rampant spending continues, and the fiat money flows. The broken system becomes even more broken, as fiscal fantasy becomes even more out of line with fiscal reality.

That party cannot continue forever, I don't think.

Re:Ignorance: America's biggest gift to itself.

[Americano]

I'm sorry, before I can take your post seriously, I require full disclosure, in the form of all of your personal information, Anonymous Coward.

Please submit it for open discussion, and then we can continue talking about how the only way to discuss anything is with all information being freely available to the public.

I mean, fair is fair, right?

Re:Is this really censorship?

[Zixaphir]

Because you can't read the damned book. God.

Re:Is this really censorship?

[siddesu]

Yes, it is called "voluntary" censorship, and worked very well for many years in the Soviet Union where famous authors would hide or modify their manuscripts for publishing.

It was derided and criticized by the West all along, and many books that were "unpublishable" in the USSR in their "unabridged" format were moved to the West and printed there.

Re:Is this really censorship?

[hairyfeet]

Personally I believe the only way forward is for ALL drugs to be legal, and here is why: I'm sorry if I don't get this quote right, or if I attribute it to the wrong person,(I believe it was from William F. Buckley Jr) but it really helped explain it simply..."If I put a bottle on a table with a skull and crossbones on it, and I say to you "This is poison, it will destroy your health, marriage, family, and finally kill you" and you push past me and down the bottle? STUPID YOU! Why should I have to saddle MY family and MY country with billions in debt and taxes to build cages and armed guards around that bottle?"

As for TFA, frankly with the amount of pure bald faced lies we have seen coming from the military (we're winning? civilian deaths are low! the government there works!) I wouldn't trust them to tell me water was wet if it was raining on my head.If you want people to support you then you have to stop CONSTANTLY LYING. So until they do a 180 on their current SOP I'm gonna have to vote for them being lying scumbags and call this censorship. After all, if you go ahead and trust the person of has repeatedly lied to you over and over and over again, who is the fool?

Re:Is this really censorship?

[digitalchinky]

I gather you don't really quite understand how society works. "Stupid You" if you take the drugs right? I think we both agree. But, how many stupids are there in the world? How many people exist that are too immature and not evolved enough to have the sense not to swallow the entire content? Who pays to clean up that mess? I can understand moderation - but our newspapers are littered with stories of people who don't do moderation.

Which is cheaper - the army surrounding the bottle, or paying to have a support net to catch the stupid when they fall?

For as long as I exist, I have to depend on others doing the right thing just to stay alive, all of us do. Mostly this works out pretty well given average life spans and such. You are honestly suggesting we legalize all drugs? No controls at all? What about the medical profession, prescriptions exist for good reason, far more than just limiting supply to drug users.

I'll side with you as soon as you can eliminate society from your equation.

Re:Is this really censorship?

[anagama]

I was gonna mod you "flamebait" because there is no "FUCKING RETARD" option. Instead however, I'll respond to this:

The book will still be publicly available after things like specific names and other sensitive bits of information get sanitized. By not doing so, lives and missions are placed in jeopardy with little real benefit for society.

Our current state secrets regime is based on a Supreme Court case, United States v. Reynolds, which protected Boeing from revealing information regarding the deaths of three engineers in a plane crash because it would endanger national security. From the blurb for Claim of Privilege:

But the Air Force, at the dawn of the Cold War, refused to hand over the accident reports and witness statements, claiming the documents contained classified information that would threaten national security. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court, which in 1953 sided with the Air Force in United States v. Reynolds. This landmark decision formally recognized the "state secrets" privilege, a legal precedent that has since been used to conceal conduct, withhold documents, block troublesome litigation, and, most recently, detain terror suspects without due-process protections.

Even with the case closed, the families of those who died in the crash never stopped wondering what had happened in that B-29. They finally had their answer a half century later: In 2000 they learned that the government was now making available the top-secret information the families had sought long ago, in vain. The documents, it turned out, contained no national security secrets but rather a shocking chronicle of negligence.

In other words, the very case that gave us the state secrets BS that Obama is latching on to harder than Bush II, was based on a COVERUP of NEGLIGENCE, not for any actual national security reasons. Boeing and the Air Force killed these smart geeks, and then LIED to protect their ass. That's what the state secrets doctrine is about -- it isn't about protecting anyone but the fuckwads ruining our country. Wake up already.

You can also listen to the TAL report, it is the second story.