Slashdot Mirror


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."

13 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Is this really censorship? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your tax dollars at work...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  2. Re:Is this really censorship? by KarrdeSW · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Blurb totally misleading. by Jartan · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Blurb totally misleading. by BlakJak-ZL1VMF · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      misleading blurbs FTL.

      --
      -.-. --.-
  4. Re:Print More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  6. Re:Is this really censorship? by deapbluesea · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
  7. Re:Is this really censorship? by tacarat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Common sense will be the death of us all"
  8. Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. Re:Is this really censorship? by Zixaphir · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
  10. Re:Is this really censorship? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  11. Re:Is this really censorship? by anagama · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  12. Re:Founding Fathers do facepalm by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.