Pentagon Makes Good On Plan To Destroy Critical Book

mykos writes "Remember when the Pentagon said they were arranging a taxpayer-funded, government-sponsored book burning a couple weeks ago? Well, they made good on that threat, purchasing 9,500 copies of the book to be destroyed. The publisher, St. Martin's Press, has redacted anything the Pentagon told them to redact in the upcoming second run of the book. They Department of Defense has not yet paid for the burned books, but says they are 'in the process.' Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. April Cunningham gave this statement: 'DoD decided to purchase copies of the first printing because they contained information which could cause damage to national security.' Whew, looks like we're safe now."

Comments

Talk about censorship

[betterunixthanunix]

Why exactly is the publisher cooperating? On the one hand, the DoD is going to pay for every copy, so the publisher has guaranteed revenue if they print uncensored copies. On the other hand, if the publisher cares about getting this information out, why would they redact it?

Something about this smells funny.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Hatta]

What makes you think a book publisher cares about getting information out?

Re:Talk about censorship

[Devout_IPUite]

The Pentagon didn't really 'buy' the books. They paid for them. There's a difference.

Some body at the pentagon "Oh, shit, this has classified intel in it. Call up the publisher"

Some body at the publisher "We'd love to help protect national security, but we don't want to take a multi thousand dollar hit to costs"

Some body at the pentagon "Yes, we can compensate American citizens for damages incurred by helping us protect national security"

Some body in the press "OMG THE PENTAGON IS BURNING BOOKS!"

Captain Picard *headpalm*

The question we should be asking is not "Should the pentagon be burning books?", it's "Should the pentagon have (so much) classified information?"

Re:Talk about censorship

[Seth024]

They were always willing to cooperate but they already made the first run. It's just the DoD paying for the damages of forgetting to censor something in the book beforehand.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Hungry_Myst]

"forgetting to censor something" They didn't "forget" to censor anything, they weren't planning on it. The DoD just came in after and told them they had to.

Re:Talk about censorship

[h00manist]

Some body in the press "OMG THE PENTAGON IS BURNING BOOKS!" Captain Picard *headpalm*

Someone else in Pentagon "Office of Information Management for US Citizens" -- "Who was the ignorant jackass that ordering public books burnings when they could simply be 'placed in storage until the relevant information is de-classified'."

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

What's to smell funny? You're under the illusion that when someone does something that you perceive as being "good" and at the same time profitable that they're doing it for noble reasons. Bullshit. It is possible to fight the "good fight" and make cash at the same time. Sometimes people don't even care if it's "good", they're just in it for the cash. This is called a win-win situation. If people were smart they'd force this way of thinking onto their buddies in the government but the two party system makes petty infighting more profitable for the parties.

You're living in a fantasy land if you really think the majority of people on the street today do what you think is the right thing for unselfish reasons. Most people do the right thing because it helps them get shit on less by the powers that be. Some are smart enough to make doing the right thing also make them some money. These people get away with hoodwinking you into thinking that they're a swell guy while maintaining a living.

These concepts should not have to be explained to adults.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell is that +1 insightful? "Paid for" covers production cost. "Buy" is retail price. There is most certainly a difference.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Storage in a SCIF for 50 years would cost orders of magnitude more than simply destroying the books and reimbursing the publisher for the printing costs. (I used to certifiy SCIFs and have a good idea of how much they cost to maintain and operate.) Also, I seriously doubt the books will be be burned. Like the vast majority of destructed classified material in the US, it will probably be mulched, and the mulch will be delivered to a paper plant where it is recycled.

Re:Talk about censorship

[camperslo]

This doesn't seem to be a case of forced censorship at all. The publisher agrees that the names that slipped through in the first batch shouldn't be in circulation because it puts lives in danger. No scandal or opinion is being suppressed here.

It's a fairly safe bet that the costs the publisher gets reimbursed for won't be the full retail book price. It's normal for clearance to be required when someone involved with classified missions releases information. The government is covering the cost of a screw up in that review process as it should. Yes, the mistake has resulted in some wasted money, but they did the right thing.

Re:Talk about censorship

[EdZ]

Basically:
1) Publisher contacted Pentagon, said "we have this book, can you check nothing classified has been inadvertantly included"
2) Pentagon: "Sure, everything is fine, go ahead"
3) Publisher prints book
4) Pentagon: "Oh shit, we missed (thing that is still classified), you can't sell this!"
5) Publisher: "Couldn't you have told us that before we spent all this money on an unsellable book?!"
6) Pentagon: "Our bad, we'll 'buy' the existing copies, destroy them, and you can print a second run with free publicity"
7) Publisher: "Sure thing"

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear.

In addition to the difference in costs, "buy" also implies that the seller has a choice, whereas "paid for" could just as well mean that the publisher was forced (openly/directly or not) to turn over the books but that the government at least decided to reimburse them for it.

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>The Pentagon didn't really 'buy' the books. They paid for them. There's a difference.
>>>Some body at the pentagon "Oh, shit, this has classified intel in it. Call up the publisher"

So? This is a difference that matters not. (Like whether I paid the hooker with dollars or euros - the end result is the same.) I can not lay my hand on any part of our Union Constitution that gives the general government power to censor information.

If the Pentagon left classified information (i.e. info that they are holding americans without trial), then too bad for them. Let them do a better job. A democratic Republic can not work if the leaders treat the People like Serfs (or children). The People have a right to know because the people are the source from which all legitimate authority comes from. Thank God for places like wikileaks so the tyrants can not hide their actions in the dark.

As for the publisher, shame on them. "Collaborator" is the proper term. They should let the people know, via the liberated press, what is really going on behind closed doors. Just as the publishers did during the Watergate or McCarthy scandals.

Re:Talk about censorship

[tomhath]

Do you think it's in anyone's interest to allow the publication of the names of people who are collecting intel after the government has spent years training them and putting them in positions to actually collect information? This is very much like the Valerie Plame outing a few years ago, at the time some people acted like it was the crime of the century.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you beat up a homeless guy if you were paid for it and you wouldn't be punished for it?
I know that I wouldn't but perhaps I am living in a fantasy land.

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>Mod parent up.

Good grief. I can't believe how readily you (and others) are to watch your right to speak, print whatever you wish, and basically be a Free Individual be taken away. The central Union government is demoting you to the level of a Serf (slave) and you cheer them on. I can just imagine Slashdot ~80 years ago: "They weren't mistreating the Gypsies and Jews. They were just asking them to carry IDs and wear the symbol of their religion on their sleeve. There's nothing with that."

And somebody replies:

"Mod parent up."

Re:Talk about censorship

[heptapod]

You're an idiot. Censorship is still censorship even if the book is bought up then burned claiming it's legitimate because they bought the book and have the right to do anything with it that they want short of violating ACTA or the DMCA.

The Pentagon slipped up being overzealous. The Wikileaks fiasco showed us that nobody reported on the data made available to the internet. Mainstream medial outlets were besides themselves asking "Was this ethical?" and masturbating over what it means to be a journalist. Had the Pentagon shrugged and allowed the book to be published nobody would've cared beyond the media exclaiming "Secrets! In this book!" completely avoiding any issues meant to be brought to light by Mr. Shaffer's memoir.

Those secrets would've remained hidden in plain sight. Everyone would continue to not care about Afghanistan and the status quo would have remained without burning books.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Seth024]

From the article of the original slashdotted article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090907747.html)

"Shaffer's book was reviewed and cleared in writing by the Army Reserve earlier this year."

They did clear it. Afterwards they realized they forgot something and are paying for the damages of the first run.

Re:Talk about censorship

[HungryHobo]

from my reading of it the last time this was on slashdot the author is quite happy with the arrangement.
The publisher is quite happy with the arrangement.
And the pentagon is quite happy with the arrangement.

Unless the author or publisher is being threatened in some way this doesn't strike me as like the government trying to shut down a newspaper or silence a reporter.
I don't even see what all the fuss is about.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Grimbleton]

Writers != Publishers

Re:Talk about censorship

[drinkypoo]

I can just imagine Slashdot ~80 years ago: "They weren't mistreating the Gypsies and Jews. They were just asking them to carry IDs and wear the symbol of their religion on their sleeve. There's nothing with that."

Well, I don't care about the gypsies, because I don't live in a caravan.

And I don't care about the Jews, because I like to eat pork.

Hey, how dare you take that book away from me? If you don't give it back I'll... hey, where did all the Jews and Gypsies go? I was hoping those guys would stand up for me as fellow downtrodden. I sure can't count on these television-watchers to help me... They're not going to get upset unless someone takes away their Faux News.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

but why should we foot the bill?

Re:Talk about censorship

[canajin56]

Yeah, but the author has changed his mind from last time, going on CNN to say how this is intimidation and retaliation, and how burning a book in the digital age won't stop freedom, etc. But, basically, he was naming names and specific cities and buildings, and he was discussing classified operations in detail. The Pentagon wants some of that redacted. He says "I sumbitted it for approval!" but the Pentagon says he was supposed to submit it to them, not just to his superior officer. (He kept it within his unit). Last time, it sounded like both he and the publisher agreed with everything. But now he's talking to CNN about how everything they removed is "ludicrous" and none of it was important, and so on.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Antique Geekmeister]

Yes, it is. Revealing them can allow us to realize whom we've been trusting with our money, our information, and to set policies. For example, Manuel Noriegas's status as a recipient of CIA intelligence and funding and trainee of the "School of the Americas" contributed to his eventual takeover of Panama and control of its cocaine trade. Don't you think it would have been helpful to know exactly what money or support he got from the US, and useful to know what gangsters we're currently supporting and funding worldwide? And wouldn't it have been helpful to know, in advance of the war, that the claims about Iraq purchasing "yellowcake" uranium ore came from, so that they could be exposed before a war costing billions of US dollars and thousands of US lives, and which cost us any hope of lasting victory in Afghanistan?

Re:Talk about censorship

[copponex]

Some body at the pentagon "Oh, shit, this has classified intel in it. Call up the publisher... "The question we should be asking is not "Should the pentagon be burning books?", it's "Should the pentagon have (so much) classified information?"

According to the NYT article,

The Defense Department’s handling of Colonel Shaffer’s account of his experiences in Afghanistan in 2003 appears to have been bungled from the beginning. The Army reviewed the manuscript, negotiated modest changes and approved it for publication in January.

Then, in July, the Defense Intelligence Agency saw a copy, showed it to the N.S.A. and other agencies, and decided that some 250 passages contained classified information. But advance copies were already out to potential reviewers and the Military Book Club, and the first 10,000 copies were in a warehouse. Those are the copies the Pentagon is arranging to buy and pulp.

So the Army cleared it, but then the nebulous "Homeland Security" apparatus decided that the Army didn't do a good job. Keep in mind, this is the same intelligence community that missed the collapse of the Soviet Union, missed the WTC bombing in '93, missed the attacks in Kenya, missed the attacks on the Cole, missed 9/11, missed WMD in Iraq... do I really have to continue?

There's a fucking secret army of contract killers that aren't part of the government, a vast secret police that has virtually abolished every thing we pretended was civil liberties and due process, but in newspeak, that's called patriotism.

Paying your fair share of taxes while our nation is engaged in two wars which supposedly are an existential threat to our way of life... well, that's fucking communism.

It's enough to drive a person insane.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

A publisher, who knows what's in the book, could see the listed items as being a threat to troops and whatnot, while seeing the info itself as not particularly important.

I think you live in a fantasy world of Standin' Up To Da Man, where you release info, even if it's hurtful to what your nation's engaged in, on principle.

Why does the idea of a publisher, who relies on freedom of speech, keep in mind, being a good citizen make you suspect ulterior motives or threats?

Re:Talk about censorship

[SydShamino]

Sony, EMI, Universal, and Warner are "artists" at heart?

Did your rant against the current administration get in the way of your common sense? You usually do better than this.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you live in a fantasy world of Standin' Up To Da Man, where you release info, even if it's hurtful to what your nation's engaged in, on principle.

Keep in mind that commodore64_love would have supported this move 150% had it been done during the Bush years. His mention and capitalization of Current Administration just further proves how much of a partisan ideologue he really is.

Re:Talk about censorship

[nurb432]

The question we should be asking is not "Should the pentagon be burning books?", it's "Should the pentagon have (so much) classified information?"

Depends on what the data in question was. Some things really would effect our security. ( others, not so much )

Since i missed the first story, does anyone know what really was in the books that was so bad? Or is it still the abstract 'names, techniques and places' excuse?

Re:Talk about censorship

[rajafarian]

Of course such a move violates our 9th and 10th Amendment rights.

I'm not sure (you may be right) but I'm a little concerned that disclosure of ACTA is being labeled as a matter of national security and the Executive office wants to get itself an Internet kill switch. I can't help but feel our federal government is setting itself up to perform "biblical" levels of censorship.

Re:Talk about censorship

[bistromath007]

There has to be one person at the bitch with a conscience. Why hasn't that person heard of BitTorrent?

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

You are (living in a fantasy land)... considering that there are probably a bunch of people out there that WOULD beat up a homeless guy for cash; especially if they wouldn't be punished for it!

Re:Talk about censorship

[whereiswaldo]

I've never heard that in daily conversation. Ever hear the expression "bought and paid for"? Or "what did you (pay|buy it for) - wholesale or retail?"

Re:Talk about censorship

[DewDude]

The publisher is cooperating because if they don't...the government will find some way of sacking them.

The DoD didn't pay for it, taxpayers did. As a taxpayer, I do not support book burning.

This highly violates first amendment rights on so many levels.

Welcome to Socialist America people. We're screwed.

Re:Talk about censorship

[jmac_the_man]

They should let the people know, via the liberated press, what is really going on behind closed doors. Just as the publishers did during the Watergate or McCarthy scandals.

If they were doing this in secret, you wouldn't be reading about it on Slashdot. As it stands, Fox has run at least two stories on it. CNN has another. This is all over the media.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's great advertising, and the Pentagon probably can't/won't burn the books forever.

Most people would never have heard about this book if the Pentagon weren't burning it.

And, like you said, they just sold out of the first printing...

The ads write themselves, really: "Read the best selling book the Pentagon doesn't want you to see."

Re:Talk about censorship

[creat3d]

I think you live in a fantasy world in which there really is a threat to national security whenever Da Man says so...

Re:Talk about censorship

[Trevorm7]

Captain Picard *headpalm*

*facepalm*

Re:Talk about censorship

[Dan541]

How is this Censorship?

They are selling a product.

Re:Talk about censorship

[joey_skunk]

The publisher is cooperating because the writer probably signed an agreement to allow the Fed to read and edit any published works. That is why the publisher is cooperating, because there is a legal agreement in place. The only reason we are hearing about this is because the Pentagon was sleeping at the switch when this happened.

The Pentagon redacted the portions that had the names of CIA Agents and Contacts. Allowing the published book to have these names would jeopardize the lives of these Agents in the field and the US ability to gather information on the Taliban. It is hardly an effort to curtain US freedoms, but rather preserve them.

The author is getting a free ride out of the whole affair, since his book is now a bestseller. Having looked at the book myself, the redacted portions are actually far and few between. Just a couple of words and sentences. The majority of the book is intact.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Dan541]

The publisher will make record sales. Good incentive to keep publishing.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Kreigaffe]

jesus christ you're stupid, that's not even close to what this book is about. it's pretty clear you've not read the fucking article and have no clue what the book's topic is nor why the military would want to keep details included in that book under wraps for a while yet.

protip: ongoing military actions.

they kinda don't like letting the bad guys know how and where they're conducting secret surveillance and that sort of shit.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Kreigaffe]

The publisher is cooperating because.. get this.. they, and the author, have been interested in cooperating the whole time with the goal of not releasing any sensitive information.

The. Whole. Time.

None of them wanted to put out anything that could endanger anyone's life or compromise any useful surveillance operations going on in the first place, they just weren't positive exactly what would encompass sensitive information. They asked the military to look it over and point out anything that would be too sensitive to release, which was done, but later when other people took another look they saw stuff that the first group didn't realize was sensitive.

Whose fucking first amendment right is being infringed when the author doesn't want to put out sensitive info in the first place? Is the author protesting this? No? From where I sit, the author didn't want to say any of these things that are being redacted in the first place, but just wasn't sure what the things he didn't want to say were.

Re:Talk about censorship

[RobertLTux]

well i could see a few things

1 the publisher is a Patriot and is being paid for the books anyway
2 The Pentagon most likely has hotline access to the DOJ/DOT (and nobody wants to go through a "in depth audit going as far back as is legally possible")
3 who wants to bet that the werehouse were the books were stored are within Plausibly Deniable range for a nice "live fire training mission" or maybe the publishers offices are or....
4 something even more nasty that i have not considered

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

But Publishers include writers.
There's an overlap.

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>even if it's hurtful to what your nation's engaged in

It is not wrong to desire an end to Killing (both innocent men/women/children and our own soldiers). THAT is what my government (not nation) is currently engaged in and frankly I don't care if my actions "harm" the government if the final result if peace instead of death.

The government is also engaged in spying on its own citizens, holding them without trial, entering homes without warrant, and this information should be revealed, not locked up in a safe in the Pentagon, Congress, or White House buildings. Darkness is for the Oligarchs to hide their deeds. Exposure benefits the People, and liberty as a whole.

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>the author has changed his mind from last time, going on CNN

Oh good. Got the video available on youtube or some other site? If true it reminds me of how Tom Clancy faced a mini-interrogation after he published Red Storm Rising. They accused him of knowing too much about US weapons and their capabilities, and had considered banning the book, until Mr. Clancy proved that all of his information came from public sources (like Janes).

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

... frankly I don't care if my actions "harm" the government if the final result if peace instead of death.

but what if the results is *more* death (of both soldiers and innocents) ?

And how do you know if the result will be better or worse?

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

Here's the exact quote (one version of it anyway)

"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
"Then they came for the incurably retarded, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't them.
"Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
"Then they came for me and by that time, no one was left to speak up." - Christian Pastor Niemoller who spent all of WW2 in jail:

The point of this speech is the same as Captain Picard's "with the first word censured, the first link in the chain is forged" speech. Every step is a step closer to YOU losing your liberty.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Entropius]

The point of a democracy is that I, or due process of law, decide what is harmful to national security -- not some random people at the Pentagon.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHA!

Doesn't affect me. I'm already Insane!

/who said that?!??

Re:Talk about censorship

[Entropius]

Because it's a general principle throughout history that people knowing more generally results in better, not worse, outcomes.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Entropius]

And there's precedent -- see the Pentagon Papers.

Re:Talk about censorship

[theshowmecanuck]

Most publishers are "artists"

Bullshit. Holy fucking rube Batman, how naive can you get?! Publishers are BUSINESSES. They are in it to make money. If they weren't they would publish any piece of shit that an "artistic author" submits. Newsflash: they don't. They only publish books that they think will make them money. The only time they will even approach being anti-censorship is to support a book that will make them a LOT of money. In this case, I am willing to bet money that the publisher actually wants want the Pentagon to buy up books and destroy them for at least one of two reasons: 1) Once destroyed they can print more of the books and the Pentagon will buy those and destroy them too (i.e. they make money on the complete sale of both (or more) book runs); or 2) The suppression by the Pentagon initiates a 'Streisand Effect' creating more interest in the book and even greater sales once the Pentagon gives up (assuming they don't find some quasi-legal way to block printing altogether). In neither case is the publisher interested in art. They are only interested in revenue. Their shareholders can't eat art, or buy a new car on a dividend of art. To most shareholders only portraits of people like Benjamin Franklin, or better yet Grover Cleveland count as true art.

Re:Talk about censorship

[rubycodez]

our soldiers are mass murdering innocents in the ratio of over ten civilian deaths to one soldier's death. your argument would be laughable if blood wasn't running like a river

Re:Talk about censorship

[HiThere]

Actually, Sony were artists, in a technical vein, until they merged with BMG.

For that matter, many of the people working for Universal and Warner are artists. Just not the ones in management. (And definitely not the companies.) Can't say about EMI, as I know nothing of their history or composition. For all I know calling them artists might be like calling the RIAA artists.

Re:Talk about censorship

[HiThere]

Sorry, but no. Most editors are "artists" at heart and anti-censorship. If you go back around 30 years, most publishing houses were controlled by people who were "artists at heart and anti-censorship". That's no longer true.

Most publisher these days have been bought up by larger companies, and the publishing business generally has little to do with the goals of the owning conglomerate. Those who work directly in the publishing arm of the conglomerate may still feel the same way, but policy and many actions are dictated by those who, for instance, are more interested in selling liquor (Heublein, e.g.)

Some have speculated that this is a part of a concerted effort to ensure that the media forward the conservative political agenda, and it's difficult to come up with any other reason why such relatively unprofitable enterprises would have been bought by conglomerates. But this isn't actual proof. OTOH, it is worth noting that political demonstrations no longer receive much media coverage, even though one would think them as newsworthy as ever. (Or even more so, as now they are rarer.) (Again, this isn't proof. Merely an interesting coincidence. But I know which way I'd bet if offered a wager.)

Re:Talk about censorship

[turbotroll]

Joseph Goebbels would have been proud.

Re:Talk about censorship

[thynk]

I hope you'll provide some examples of that, because I can't recall a single time where the population at large was involved in determining national security. I'm far from an expert here, but I wouldn't find it hard to believe that the 'random' people at the Pentagon are less than random, and placed in that position by due process (by law).

Re:Talk about censorship

[BrokenHalo]

Keep in mind that commodore64_love would have supported this move 150% had it been done during the Bush years. His mention and capitalization of Current Administration just further proves how much of a partisan ideologue he really is.

From a non-US-citizen perspective, the difference between the US Republican and Democrat parties doesn't amount to that much. They are both extremely conservative, and the use of the the term "ideologue" would be somewhat amusing if it weren't actually a bit sad.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Dasuraga]

You do know classified information isn't just illegal activities right? Most of the time it's just time-sensitive information

Re:Talk about censorship

[Dasuraga]

I don't know what you were watching. Most things I read discussed the Task Forces, high civilian casualties, and the Pakistani suspicions. But the question of the ethics of it are also important.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Writers != Publishers

If they didn't love books they probably wouldn't be in the business.

Publishing is like gambling, they fork up the money to the printer, then try and sell the books. If the book doesn't sell well enough the publisher is out the money for the printing.

If they were just in it for the money, they would be printing the books, the printer gets paid whether or not the book actually sells.

Re:Talk about censorship

[cstacy]

As for the publisher, shame on them. "Collaborator" is the proper term. They should let the people know, via the liberated press, what is really going on behind closed doors. Just as the publishers did during the Watergate or McCarthy scandals.

Why should an American necessarily want to let "people" know what is going on behind closed doors? Why should they not want to "collaborate" with their military for the sake of their own security? Why do you assume that all military secrets are scandals? Unlike in some other countries (such as the U.K.), the U.S. does not have a "state secrets act" that prevents citizens from revealing secrets. (If you are working for the government and have signed an agreement not to reveal things, which is what happens when you get a security clearance, that's a different matter.) Unlike people in other countries, we the people are free to publish secrets. What's going on in this story is the decision not to reveal secrets to our enemies. Why don't you think that makes sense?

Re:Talk about censorship

[drinkypoo]

The point of this speech is the same as Captain Picard's "with the first word censured, the first link in the chain is forged" speech. Every step is a step closer to YOU losing your liberty.

I guess I'll choose to take the negative moderation as a sign of being heard. The alternative is to stop posting :p

Re:Talk about censorship

[Scrameustache]

Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. April Cunningham gave this statement: 'DoD decided to purchase copies of the first printing

Why exactly is the publisher cooperating?

Because publishers always cooperate when someone decides to buy the entire first print of one of their books. It's exactly what they live for.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Scrameustache]

Sony, EMI, Universal, and Warner are "artists" at heart?

Have you read their EULAs? I mean really read them? It brings a tear to my eyes when I do, man.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Scrameustache]

The Pentagon didn't really 'buy' the books. They paid for them. There's a difference.

Explain how?

Re:Talk about censorship

[KrazyA1pha]

Your argument is frankly silly. We could extend that same argument to the videogame industry where there are plenty of videogame publishers in an identical situation who, fairly obviously, care about little more than money.

Re:Talk about censorship

[genner]

Some body in the press "OMG THE PENTAGON IS BURNING BOOKS!" Captain Picard *headpalm*

Someone else in Pentagon "Office of Information Management for US Citizens" -- "Who was the ignorant jackass that ordering public books burnings when they could simply be 'placed in storage until the relevant information is de-classified'."

Duh it's cheaper to burn them then have them take up storage space for a few decades.

Re:Talk about censorship

[sco08y]

Had the Pentagon shrugged and allowed the book to be published nobody would've cared beyond the media exclaiming "Secrets! In this book!" completely avoiding any issues meant to be brought to light by Mr. Shaffer's memoir.

Those secrets would've remained hidden in plain sight. Everyone would continue to not care about Afghanistan and the status quo would have remained without burning books.

While there are people in the DOD who certainly do handle PR, there are other people who handle intelligence, others who handle counter-intelligence, etc.

Most people in the DOD don't care in the slightest what's on TV. To them, that's someone else's job. The intel folks, who are probably calling the shots, want stuff redacted because they've got ongoing military and intelligence operations that can be disrupted if the enemy gets that information.

The operations that this guy was a part of probably didn't stop when he got out. Other people are probably there. They still have sources and agents in the field. Even if no one is killed, they could lose years of progress. It may be hard to understand, but keep in mind that the enemy is already intimately familiar since this is his area of operations. He could use small details from this book to figure out where the operators had been, and he can actually go to those sites and mine them for more information, and check it against other intelligence efforts, until he could find our current operations.

It's silly for the DOD to always invoke "national security" every time anything is leaked, but there is a real potential for damage. Considering that the total cost of these books is less than one truck, vs the millions for setting up an operation, it makes perfect sense what they're doing. The only real criticism I have is that they didn't work better with the publisher to handle this in a competent manner, and I think someone ought to lose their job over it.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Bahamut_Omega]

Could we put the people at the book burning to death by burning at the stake? Sure it would be messy & painful, but at least we could likely add the conservative faggots on to roast as well.

Re:Talk about censorship

[sumdumass]

So are you saying that if more American soldiers ended up dieing, all would be fine according to you?

Here is how preposterous your comment is. American soldiers are fighting a known enemy who kills more innocent civilians and children then the American soldier even thought to. Last year alone, it was more then 2/3rds the civilian collateral casualty rates. In fact, the argument could be made since democracy was imposed in the area, that if the forces of the Taliban and terrorists organizations would stop killing innocent civilians and participate in the democratically elected government for whatever change they wish to impose, that our soldiers wouldn't be killing anyone.

Giving this information out could do little to stop any so called mass murder by our soldiers and directly cause an increase in murder and civilian deaths by the Taliban and it's allies. You shouldn't let your ideology blind you from the facts. Otherwise you will only be pretending to be righteous when you are in fact no worse then who you accuse.

Re:Talk about censorship

[sumdumass]

What is so hard to understand that it's illegal to divulge national security secretes? The publisher and all connected with printing the book once they knew the information was blocked by national security classifications would be all facing jail time if they went ahead and published it.

But this isn't even that difficult of a situation. The author needed to get the contents of the book cleared before he could publish it, they cleared it then changed their mind stating that they missed something, the publisher already started a run, so the writer and the government want the book changed in order to not divulge national security interests. It's not a difficult concept, I haven't heard of the author claiming he is being censored to his detriment, the only gripe here is that government money is being spent on buying up the first run of books.

So I guess the bigger question might be, why wouldn't they redact it. Why they are is pretty well known, unless you know of something that would make the people involved (not your fantasy life), claim they don't want to redact it, then tell us.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

they could at least recycle it...

Re:Talk about censorship

[SirGarlon]

Why exactly is the publisher cooperating?

Because if they don't, men with guns will come to their offices, arrest everyone, and impound all the computers and manuscripts they can find. Maybe 3 years down the road a court will exonerate them but that will be cold comfort now that their business is destroyed.

Re:Talk about censorship

[sumdumass]

What's ludicrous is the apparent self promotion of the book.

So let's look at it from another perspective, perhaps the authors perspective. He wrote a book, submitted it to his CO instead of the pentagon for review. Ok honest mistake. The pentagon wanted some things removes, he was fine with that but printing had already started. So the government buys the first run of the print so no one is out any money and this guy isn't facing jail time for disclosing national security information or top secrete information. Along comes his publicists and says we need to spend X money to promote the book or else it won't sell that much. The publicists then says, we can save some of that money if you claim you are being censored unfairly and object to everything the government removed even though you are ok with it all.

So the author does an about face, goes all over national Television claiming he was wronged and the government spending a crap load of money to buy the first run of books is proof. He then adopts the claim that what the government removed was insignificant to the content of the book so buy it, it's still good. Hell, I bet you will buy the book just to see if you can tell what was removed from it.

It's nothing but a win-win for the author and his change of heart can be summed up as not letting a disaster go to waste. He benefited from writing the book, from getting it cleared the wrong way, from making the appropriate changes, and now he is benefiting from complaining about it.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhh, we don't call them gangsters when they are on our side.
Like we don't call it murder when we kill the other side's people (in what we call war).

Re:Talk about censorship

[TheRaven64]

From a non-US-citizen perspective, the difference between the US Republican and Democrat parties doesn't amount to that much

Wow, this post makes me ashamed to be non-American. Even a superficial look lets you see that the two parties are completely different. One is red and the other one is blue. Not the same at all! They're right at opposite ends of the (visible) spectrum!

Re:Talk about censorship

[rubycodez]

I'm saying our soldiers should be brought home

Our soldiers are not fighting those who attacked america. but rather every disgruntled afghan. disgusted with foreign invaders, who takes up a rifle is being labeled as "Taliban". We create new enemies and kill them along with civilian bystanders and claim it is part of the "war on terror".

Funny your first linked article talks about NATO forces mowing down citizens as part of the death toll. funny like a heart attack. maybe you should have read it before linking.

You also used the phrase "imposing democracy". yes indeed, not by those people's choice but us ramming our murderous justice and way and approved leaders down their throats by use of force and mayhem.

Instead of a known enemy, we are fighting those who did not attack us, and creating new enemies. Our elite line their pockets with wealth and gain power from this fight. That's all this "war" is about.

But enough americans believe the lie, such as you, that this is somehow about bringing democracy, fighting terrorism, ensuring our freedom...blah, blah,blah.

Re:Talk about censorship

[sumdumass]

Actually, we didn't procure information about Iraq and YellowCake. It was given to us by the government of Spain who in turn got it from someone else. That someone else seems to be retired CIA officers attempting to make Bush look bad.

And no, it wouldn't be helpful to know anything about Manuel Noriegas until after he committed a crime. Just like it wouldn't be helpful to know that you are working for some government office unless you commit some crime which makes it news worthy. And even if we did know everything about every one, all it would do is make them a target until such time they did do something wrong. It's not like you can preemptively arrest and convict someone for some future crime. It's not like you can arrest and convict someone to something that happens outside the relationship with the government. What good would it have really done to have known about our connections with Manuel Noriegas before he turned? All that it might have done was got him killed, but that does nothing to suggest the events you complained about wouldn't have happened anyways.

Re:Talk about censorship

[quanticle]

I think you live in a fantasy world of Standin' Up To Da Man, where you release info, even when its hurtful to what your nation's engaged in, on principle.

What if your nation is engaged in an activity that's counterproductive or one that violates human rights? In a situation like that it is the duty of every citizen to petition the government until it changes its ways.

I do not think the publisher is being a good citizen. I think the publisher is reacting to pressure being placed on it by the national security apparatus and is helping the government cover up its incompetence. All this ensures is that the errors and incompetents are allowed more time to fester and compound, hurting our effort in Afghanistan even more.

Re:Talk about censorship

[sumdumass]

I'm saying our soldiers should be brought home

That's entirely different then what you said previously when I replied.

Our soldiers are not fighting those who attacked america. but rather every disgruntled afghan. disgusted with foreign invaders, who takes up a rifle is being labeled as "Taliban". We create new enemies and kill them along with civilian bystanders and claim it is part of the "war on terror".

So we should just leave Afghanistan and allow it to fall back into the hands of the regime that allowed terrorists to set up operations, plan and attack against the US, execute the attack against the US, and then proceed to protect those terrorists? Is that what you want? Or have you just not thought this through yet? Perhaps you are completely confused to why we are in Afghanistan in the first place.

Funny your first linked article talks about NATO forces mowing down citizens as part of the death toll. funny like a heart attack. maybe you should have read it before linking.

Oh, I see know. You have a severe reading comprehension skills problem. The article didn't say shit about NATO forces mowing down citizens, it said there was a violent rally of about 2000 afghans and someone opened fired. It said the NATO forced claimed to have only shot at an insurgent sniper and some guy was claiming his kid got killed. BTW, it didn't list the total death or casualty toll in that incident which I presume was minor compared to the others they did list as a direct result of Taliban targeting civilians.

You also used the phrase "imposing democracy". yes indeed, not by those people's choice but us ramming our murderous justice and way and approved leaders down their throats by use of force and mayhem.

Lol.. Yea, you know nothing don't you. We removed their government, and imposed democracy so the people can choose their new government. What do you want us to do? Impose a dictatorship? This is the only fair way because it allows the people of Afghanistan to choose their own government. Whether it remains a democracy or turns into a dictatorship or anything in between is up to them, we just made sure they had the choice. BTW, allowing the government that gave safe harbor to known terrorist who launched and attack on America and operated freely within the country was not an option. Or do you think it should be?

Instead of a known enemy, we are fighting those who did not attack us, and creating new enemies. Our elite line their pockets with wealth and gain power from this fight. That's all this "war" is about.

And your point is what? When those same people will not allow you to go after your known enemy and gives them safe harbor, it would appear that they choose to align themselves with that known enemy. I'm not sure I can understand what you point is here. Please expand on it a bit.

But enough americans believe the lie, such as you, that this is somehow about bringing democracy, fighting terrorism, ensuring our freedom...blah, blah,blah.

It sounds to me like you don't even have a clue to why we invaded Afghanistan in the first place. I know the cause got lost in all the political one liners in which people through about in attempts to further their own political careers, but could you at least familiarize yourself with the real ones before attempting to comment on them. You will find that it's much deeper then ensuring freedom or simply fighting terrorism when you can't even associate the cause with the fight. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you are not even qualified to say Afghanistan at this point, let alone talk about the war there right now.

Re:Talk about censorship

[justin12345]

No other asshole has said this so I might as well be the one.

You are going to die, your parents are going to die, your friends are going to die, your children are going to die. The troops are going to die.

They will die of cancer, they will die in car accidents, they will die of heart disease, they will die of more exotic ailments. They will die of IUDs or bullets or RPGs. Everyone dies.

The United State of America will eventually die. It's a young and influential country, but it still has a shelf life.

What doesn't necessarily die are principles and ideals. You are right that it is a fantasy, but fantasies of years past become the realities of tomorrows to come. The United States has always been far from perfect. You could even make the case its contributed little to society as a whole. But to the extent that it can hold up those principals and ideals (a free press, not burning books, distribution of fact), is the measure that it will be judged by. Not by our children, or our children's children, but by thousands of generations to come, long after the institution of the United States has morphed into something else.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why he recently got on my "foe" list. C64-love had a long run of insightful and useful posts. But in the last few months, he's turned into a moron. Don't know what the deal is, but I finally realized that his stupid posts were far exceeding his amount of useful posts. It's part of my "make slashdot readable again" campaign. Sadly, given the worse-than-usual editing, I may just give up on the entire site. Blocking Kdwason was a good start, but I'm still not happy.

Re:Talk about censorship

[AK Marc]

If your land is claimed under eminent domain, was your land "bought" or was it confiscated with compensation? A purchase, by the economics definition, requires two willing parties agreeing to the sale. If one party is unwilling, would the term "buy" still be accurate? Personally, "buy" is vernacular enough that I think both points are valid and thus not worth arguing over. But the point is clear. It was not a properly defined purchase, even if the ownership was transferred and compensation was received in return.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Kittenman]

Why exactly is the publisher cooperating? .

Sales. Even if the books get burned, they still go past the checkout. And it's good for publicity.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been going on for a lot longer than the last few months. Sure, he does have some insightful things to say, but he's always mixed it in with utter nonsense.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

The publisher is in a no-lose situation. The first printing sells completely. Woohoo! They get a lot of publicity and have a second printing that will almost certainly sell out completely. Woohoo! There's no downside for the publisher.

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>Keep in mind that commodore64_love would have supported this move 150% had it been done during the Bush years. His mention and capitalization of Current Administration just further proves how much of a partisan ideologue he really is.

What the FUCK?

Where do you get off putting words in my mouth??? You have NO idea where my policies lie, and just because I am anti-Obama does not mean I am pro-bush. Stop thinking two-dimensionally. I never voted for the Tyrant Bush, and in fact have voted Libertarian in every election since 98.

MOD: -1 Random Ass Guessing by AC (who probably has a real account but was too cowardly to use it)

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>but what if the results is *more* death (of both soldiers and innocents) ?

Unlikely. It the American people become incensed at seeing innocent Afghani women/children getting killed, they will turn against the war, and it will end early like Vietnam ended early.

If these facts remain hidden then the war will go on and on and on, and the murder count will go up and up and up. Vietnam would have gone another five years if the military had acted like today's military (banning the release of video).

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>American soldiers are fighting a known enemy who kills more innocent civilians and children then the American soldier even thought to [independent.co.u

(1) None of our business. The US government's job is to police THIS continent, not the Asian continent 10,000 miles outside its jurisdiction. THAT job belongs to the government of Afghnistan and Pakistan, respectively.

(2) Only ~3000 Americans were killed by the "enemy" known as Bin Laden. In contrast the US Terror Soldiers have killed ten times that number, almost all innocent men/women/children, plus 1000 american deaths.

(3)(a) It would have been wiser to not go to war. Then we'd have 3000 dead not ~35,000.

(3)(b) We'd also have 1100 billion more dollars in the US treasury which could be used for, oh I don't, SAVING lives (medicare/schip) rather than ending them.

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>I can't recall a single time where the population at large was involved in determining national security

Probably why we're in the current mess.

If the People knew what their leaders were doing behind closed doors (ACTA anyone?), they would no longer be our leaders.

Re:Talk about censorship

[rubycodez]

"We removed their government, and imposed democracy so the people can choose their new government. "

it would appear too many of the people don't like our choice of government for them.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban that hosted them fled long ago. we are not fighting them with our soldiers. We are fighting insurgents.

Nor are we fighting the Saudi government (friends of the Bush family) who for years contributed money to Al Qaeda.

This war is without purpose, and is only creating new enemies.

Re:Talk about censorship

[rubycodez]

should have pointed out you lost the argument with "imposed democracy".

only a fascist would believe that is possible. forcing a government upon the people which the the people don't want nor trust by threat and use of force is of course not real democracy. it's a sham, a lie.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

It's enough to drive a person insane.

apparently...

Re:Talk about censorship

[plague911]

for fucks sake be informed people...... This whole issue is made up..... The book contained some information which was not meant for public consumption. IE the names of American operatives. The information being removed is not fundamental to the message of the book. Its just extraneous information which would damage national security. This is not censorship.... this is common fucking sense...

Im saying this now... you are being a part of the problem not the solution by talking before you get informed....

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

You prove you're still a moron. While there may be an overlap, most publishers, especially in the US put a profit over artistry. The ones that don't usually manage to publish a half-dozen books at best. If a government agency is saying "redact this part of the book or we're going to charge you with something," you can be damn fucking sure they're going to go "I like not being in jail, so you've got a DEAL!"

Christ, I hope a cop shoots you when you flash your gun in an attempt to intimidate a cashier.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point- they're paying to buy up and destroy something that is already freely available on the internet.

In comparison to Iraq and Afganistan/Pakistan invasions this is a drop in the bucket, but it's indicative of where the Pentagon puts our money. They just throw money at lost causes because no one tells them how stupid they're being.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Antique Geekmeister]

Bush should look bad, and the people who provided the information should be available for _questions_ and so that the information can be tested.

Knowing that Manuel Noriega was CIA funded, and what agreements he had with the US, could have exposed his sources of US funding and support and had Congress cut them off. We've had far too many failures with criminal, even terrorist US "partners".

Re:Talk about censorship

[shutdown -p now]

Did you read that book? Well neither did I. And guess what, sometimes information leaks are real national security issues...

Re:Talk about censorship

[shutdown -p now]

The US government's job is to police THIS continent

Including Canada and Mexico?

Re:Talk about censorship

[shutdown -p now]

Libel laws are censorship, too. It's just that not all censorship is bad.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Idiomatick]

Wiki leaks reported that they have a copy. And they'll prolly be putting up. But I imagine they don't want to piss off the MAFIAA, fucking scary group.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind, this is the same intelligence community that missed the collapse of the Soviet Union, missed the WTC bombing in '93, missed the attacks in Kenya, missed the attacks on the Cole, missed 9/11, missed WMD in Iraq... do I really have to continue?

Uh huh. Go ahead, finish up your list. But for completeness and for not being a myopic troll, can you please continue on by listing all of the things that the intelligence community got right? Hell, anybody with half a brain cell in their head knows that's an impossibility so let's make it even easier -- start with a list of things we know the intelligence community got right. I'll suggest the Cuban Missile Crisis to get your list started.

But that list isn't forthcoming, is it? Because you don't care about anything other than bitching about things you don't like in some vein effort to make a tangentially-at-best related point. Can you explain how this is a bad thing please? I would have preferred they got it right the first time and saved a few dollars of taxpayer money, but meh. Teh gubmint is a pretty big place. There's probably no way for one segment to even know everything that's classified much less catch it with 100% accuracy. I'm certainly not going to get bent out of shape about $246,905 in an attempt at "everybody's happy" in the grand scheme of government or even DoD spending. And that's assuming they paid retail.

You want to bitch about our loss of civil liberties? Go ahead, I'll join you. Want to decry the security theater taking place in our airports? I'm already there. Want to debate the sensibility of what was censored? I'm not sure you have the evidence, but if you do let's go for it. Want to suggest how we can reform the systems by which things can be declared classified? Count me in. But none of that is this.

Classified information should not be released*, and in fact all the parties in this "story" agreed. So much so that the author and the publisher attempted to work within the system--perhaps inadequately, or perhaps the system is inadequate--to ensure that such information was not included. They did a poor job, and they attempted to correct it. That's all this is. Good for them.

* I find there to be almost no exceptions. The only ones I find palatable is something like the helicopter attack video, where the classified nature of the information was clearly to avoid Army and US embarrassment and not to protect any kind of operational secrets.

Re:Talk about censorship

[copponex]

I'll suggest the Cuban Missile Crisis to get your list started.

I'll give you that. The intelligence community can spot Russia moving giant missile deployments 90 miles off of our border in 1961. Forget, conveniently, that the Soviets did so after we placed nuclear missile installations in England, Italy, and Turkey within range of Moscow. How about the intelligence decisions that led to us overthrowing or invading every marxist leaning country from 1950 to 1990? Yeah, Vietnam and Nicaragua still have me quaking in my boots.

We invaded a virtually unarmed Iraq in retribution for 9/11 -- I mean, to remove WMD -- I mean, to remove Saddam Hussein for Freedom and Liberty and end his reign of terror, but the torturing and murdering has already started again in the same prisons. The Shi'ites aren't going to stop killing the Sunnis until sometime in 2050 if they are trying to get even, and not only will we have bank rolled both sides of the atrocity, but we also managed to give Iran - another failed intelligence project - the whole region on a golden platter.

So, yes, American Intelligence is an oxymoron. This whole case is absolute proof of it. There are 100 copies already out there. They are redacting and re-releasing the book, so you can see what they took out, and that'll make it pretty easy to see what they think should be classified, right? In the grand scheme of things, drawing attention to this book is a side show. When you are hard core fucking up every intelligence decision, and a book comes out explaining how bureaucracy and intelligence failures are hurting the war effort, censoring it after approving it is just proving the point.

And the 250,000 is nothing. It's literally one minute of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The real issue is that the whole intelligence enchilada is filled with dogshit and spray painted gold. The point of intelligence used to be gathering information and taking steps to reduce animosity and prevent war, not pretending like you can slap a saddle on a tiger and end up where you'd like. Intelligence has been mutated into Homeland Security, and that's just a blank check to bankrupt our government while they piss on the Constitution and tell us it's raining.

Re:Talk about censorship

[KClaisse]

I think you overestimate the power of each citizen when given this kind of information. The people who can *actually* do something about anything are already getting that kind of information. The only thing that would come from releasing that kind of critically sensitive information to the entire world would be the increasing number of informants killed and loss of extremely important information gathering tools. You must not realize how important it is for a country to effectively and quickly gather intelligence so that it can continue in war and peace without substantial loss of life of its own troops and citizens. Your romantic fantasies of revealing secret government operatives so you can point and yell is absolutely bullshit. You need to realize your place. Realize that there are things over your own head that HAVE to be kept secret to keep your own ass alive. I'm just happy for my own sake, and for the sake of my own friends and family who are currently serving in the military or have in the past, that you are nowhere near any important decision making process in the government. And I hope for the sake of all of our own lives, including yours, that nobody like you has the chance to wreak the havoc you so ignorantly preach. You just don't understand at all. Please just try to understand. The government is made of people who have families, people who are friends of people. Troops all have kids and loved ones. Even secret operatives have a mother. Why would you want to put anyone at risk just so you can get off on it? Why would you want some family to cry over their dead son or daughter wondering why someone would release a document that said they were undercover somewhere? Why would you want important intelligence operatives killed, which could result in bad intel getting to troops on the ground, which could result in a massive loss of life in an operation that was running on bad intel caused by loss of operatives caused by someone thinking like you? This sensitive information isn't just words on a paper, it's representative of lives on the ground. Human beings who are at the mercy of other people's decisions.

Re:Talk about censorship

[adolf]

Or, perhaps:

First, he wrote the book.
Then, things happen.
After that, he's threatened by the Pentagon.
He decides to play along.
Sometime later, he's had more time to think and then decides doesn't like the game he's been forced into.

Presumably, the author is human, and is capable of changing his mind.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

You also used the phrase "imposing democracy". yes indeed, not by those people's choice but us ramming our murderous justice and way and approved leaders down their throats by use of force and mayhem.

So those people made a choice to not have a choice, but we're telling them that they HAVE to have a choice, and they don't get a choice in the matter. ...my head hurts.

Re:Talk about censorship

[vulcan1701]

Bush made the announcement that we would fight the terrorists at a place of our choosing. He chose Afghanistan and Iraq and it seems to have worked. The IEDs and suicide bombers are blowing up their targets in the Middle East and not in the United States. Now it is a matter of getting out of the quagmire with the least amount of egg on our face and the diet of crow at the minimum.

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

Most publishers are "artists" at heart and anti-censorship.

They want to able to print anything they wish. So I suspect the publisher was threatened by the Current Administration to either censor portions of the book, or have their bank accounts frozen. As I said just a suspicion but not unprecedented. Of course such a move violates our 9th and 10th Amendment rights.
--

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>The Pentagon didn't really 'buy' the books. They paid for them. There's a difference.
>>>Some body at the pentagon "Oh, shit, this has classified intel in it. Call up the publisher"

So? This is a difference that matters not. (Like whether I paid the hooker with dollars or euros - the end result is the same.) I can not lay my hand on any part of our Union Constitution that gives the general government power to censor information.

If the Pentagon left classified information slip out (i.e. info that they are holding americans without trial; killing innocent women/children; et cetera), then too bad for them. Let them do a better job. A democratic Republic can not work if the leaders treat the People like Serfs (or children).

The People have a right to know because the people are the source from which all legitimate authority comes from. Just as we discovered the truth behind the Watergate or McCarthy scandals, we need to discover the truth today. Not censor it.

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>protip: ongoing military actions.

Protip: I see it as aggressive murder of innocents (in Afghanistan/Pakistan) by a government waging an unconstitutional, undeclared war (just like Vietnam). Our government is FAR more scary to me than Bin Laden.

Re:Talk about censorship

[commodore64_love]

>>>Mod parent up.

Good grief. I can't believe how readily you (and others) are to watch your right to speak, print whatever you wish, and basically be a Free Individual..... be taken away. The central Union government is demoting you to the level of a Serf and you cheer them on.
.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of a known enemy, we are fighting those who did not attack us, and creating new enemies. Our elite line their pockets with wealth and gain power from this fight. That's all this "war" is about.

But enough americans believe the lie, such as you, that this is somehow about bringing democracy, fighting terrorism, ensuring our freedom...blah, blah,blah.

The larger issue, which many of those - right and left - fail to grasp is that what is happening in Afghanistan and much of central Asia is part of the legacy of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union left large areas - as in nation sized - without effective government. Into that vacuum came terrorist groups.

Those zones must be put back in working order and for the foreseeable future, the application of force to dislodge irresponsible parties who somehow think themselves qualified to run a nation state (and no, the Taliban don't qualify - their past statements and actions disqualify them) is required.

So, no, I don't believe it's about "democracy" or "ensuring our freedom." It is partly about "fighting terrorism," since that was the symptom. But mostly, it's about putting the world back in relative working order. And yes, the Russians or the Chinese will promptly put it back out of order but until they are strong enough to fill the vacuum in central Asia, we're sort of stuck.

Re:Talk about censorship

[xtracto]

Guess who has a copy of the original book?

Hint: it is leaky

Re:Talk about censorship

[ShaunC]

So the government buys the first run of the print so no one is out any money

Except for me, the American taxpayer...

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you for a bag of Fang.

Re:Talk about censorship

[sumdumass]

it would appear too many of the people don't like our choice of government for them.

Then they can democratically change it into anything they want as long as the Taliban of some other terrorist harboring organization doesn't take back over. That is how a democracy works isn't it?

Al Qaeda and the Taliban that hosted them fled long ago. we are not fighting them with our soldiers. We are fighting insurgents.

So just because Al Capone went to prison, we should ignore the same acts by the rest of his organization under a new leadership? I mean seriously, are you saying that because the people in the dictatorship aren't there right now, those fighting to bring them back are just and we are now unjust?

Nor are we fighting the Saudi government (friends of the Bush family) who for years contributed money to Al Qaeda.

And what is your point? They handed over every single terrorist involved in 9/11 that they had control over. Afghanistan didn't. And yes, we gave Afghanistan, thereby the taliban shit loads of money before 9/11 too. What is your point outside of proving to the world that you are willing to focus on the small shit and ignore the big shit?

This war is without purpose, and is only creating new enemies.

If after all that, you cannot find a purpose for this war, then you should probably stay out of talks concerning it. You have showed your complete ignorance multiple times but this really takes the cake.

Re:Talk about censorship

[sumdumass]

You really haven't been paying attention have you? The imposed democracy was only to allow the people of Afghanistan to select and create the government of their choice. Democracy works that way, you know. But you have to impose democracy before the people have a choice of thier own otherwise they wouldn't have a choice. Try looking up democracy and paying attention a bit.

Re:Talk about censorship

[sumdumass]

(1) None of our business. The US government's job is to police THIS continent, not the Asian continent 10,000 miles outside its jurisdiction. THAT job belongs to the government of Afghnistan and Pakistan, respectively.

So you don't think it's a country's business to remove a government of another country that protects and encourages groups of people killing your own citizens? And BTW, the Afghanistan war started because Afghanistan was refusing to police their own country and gave Al Qeada safe harbor from the US who was pursuing them. I suggest you look up the term sovereignty and sovereign rights.

Judging from your ID number, you were probably 10 years old when that happened and more interested in teletubbies then geopolitical politics. Judging from your reply, you still are.

(2) Only ~3000 Americans were killed by the "enemy" known as Bin Laden. In contrast the US Terror Soldiers have killed ten times that number, almost all innocent men/women/children, plus 1000 american deaths.

And your point is what? I mean according to the UN, the taliban and the terrorist supporters of it have killed 2 or 3 times more in attempting top preserve their right to keep, train, and provide safety to terrorists and terrorist organizations. You should look up the term terrorist too and figure out the relationship between terror and terrorist. That way, when you use terms like Terror soldier, you understand that it doesn't have the same meaning as you are pretending it has.

(3)(a) It would have been wiser to not go to war. Then we'd have 3000 dead not ~35,000.

We would also have Al Qeada operating in the open in Afghanistan with the taliban government protecting them from criminal prosecution over anything that stems from either world trade center bombing or any other terrorist act they committed. They would be free to plan and act on any terrorist plot they choose. Do you seriously think that is acceptable? And no, there is no guarentee that we would only have 3000 dead instead of ~35000, you have no idea what their next terrorist plot would be or how many people it would kill.

(3)(b) We'd also have 1100 billion more dollars in the US treasury which could be used for, oh I don't, SAVING lives (medicare/schip) rather than ending them.

Bullshit. First of all, the war/ actually both wars was funded with deficit spending which means it didn't exist in the first place. Second, if the wars didn't happen, the money wouldn't magically appear out of nowhere. Third, if you think the money could be spent better some other way, nothing is stopping it from being spent that way seeing how it would be deficit spending too. Yes, that means they can just as easily spend money we don't have on that as they can on a war. The only difference is that the majority of people support spending it on the war and almost noone supports spending it how you want to. So even if we had the money, chances are, it wouldn't even be spent the way you want so your gripe is a failure before it even starts.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Devout_IPUite]

Noted. I will probably avoid the mistake someday in the future.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Money for Nothin']

And sometimes information leaks are not real national security issues.

And sometimes, human freedom trumps national security. In fact, it very-nearly always should. Unless the book contained precise, actionable instructions on how to take control of a Pentagon-controlled NBC weapon and launch it without anybody else in the military doing something about it, I don't see a reasonable justification for the book's destruction.

For that matter, even if it contained such information, the Pentagon ought not hide behind security-by-obscurity, but plug the goddamned hole cited in the book.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Antique Geekmeister]

You wrote:

>> I think you overestimate the power of each citizen when given this kind of information. The people who can *actually* do something about anything are already getting that kind of information.

Sir, I'll tell you what. Name any two instances of such information, and I will name you matching sets of more dangerous information because it was kept concealed. I want the information revealed because its secrecy has far, far, far too frequently permitted abuse of the information, out of the sight of public, the voters, or those who provided the money and the manpower to commit criminal actions.

If their actions and policies are effective and just, trot them out for us to see them. Not doing so has contributed directly to torture camps in Guantanamo Bay which have not produced a _single case_ for the courts or any evidence of a single life saved, only torture and the death of three prisoners at "Camp No" in Guantanamo Bay.

The "lives on the ground" most at risk from such national security arrangements are not those of the agents: it those of the innocents they can, and in far too many cases have, injured and killed. We're lucky in the US that the separation of powers has helped control these risks, but the idea that the government knows better and should be trusted to handle the important decisions without having to show its data or its personnel who obtained it is straight out of the operating manual of every totalitarian state in history.

Governments, and the people in them, _lie_. The cloak of national security should not be permitted to keep these lies concealed: it's far too easy to say "national security" and hide a crime.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Antique Geekmeister]

And as the demon Crowley said when he sent the EULA's to the demons that draw up agreements about souls.

"LEARN!"

(Submitted with respectful acknowledgment to Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, in their book, "Good Omens".)

Re:Talk about censorship

[Antique Geekmeister]

On what possible basis do you make this claim? We don't know the nature of the material repressed. The fact that the author and publisher received DOD approval for the first printing indicates that they had already successfully avoided sensitive material. Its censorship, and this _was_ censorship, for that printing after previous approval strongly hints that the material was not a security violation, it was _embarassing_ and censored for that reason.

Re:Talk about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Author is Reservist and ran it through the Reserve Command. The Department of Defense didn't like things even though a "lower" command had cleared it. Author did what he was supposed to do but the Army Reserve Command failed to run it further up the chain.

Re:Talk about censorship

[rubycodez]

those elections where districts had 200% to 600% turnout, and those groups that didn't want to participate declared "taliban" and "terrorists"

imposing our idea of democracy with death and force, our founding fathers would be so proud.

Re:Talk about censorship

[sumdumass]

Bullshit. The UN monitored the elections and outside a few small minor things like threats from the Taliban, nothing was wrong with them. And No, one election (there actually has been several but why let the fact get in your way) does not mean others do not follow nor does it mean they can't democratically change the government to any other style at any other point in time. In fact, most dictatorships result from internal workings inside existing democratic governments at some point in time. Look at Germany post WWI and Iraq. Hell, look at Iran even. Give it up, the facts and reality just doesn't agree with you.

Re:Talk about censorship

[adolf]

Thank for (what appear to be) some facts.

I think that they all fit neatly into my "things happen" step, but I'm too tired to rewrite my original post to include them.

Plus, nobody's ever going to read this anyway. And if they do, then they'll be able to figure it out based on context.

Which is good enough for me.

Re:Talk about censorship

[fireylord]

...They will die of IUDs...

One would hope that death of this sort would be very rare, and due to allergic reactions etc.

On a serious note, your viewpoint would carry more weight if, when you resorted to using acronyms to make yourself seem more knowledgeable on the subject, you used the correct spelling of said acronyms.

Re:Talk about censorship

[justin12345]

A little late to the party aren't you.

Ewe no whoms viewpoint's doesn't Carry much wait? Annoying little peons that go around correcting people's spelling or grammatical errors on internet forums.

How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[fictionpuss]

..and the Streisand effect they are now creating ensures that the redacted information is rapidly identified and disseminated?

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[Americano]

Considering the author and the publisher are cooperating, let's guess never?

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[erroneus]

As much as I would like to cry "wasted taxpayer money" or "censorship" I can't see where this is either.

As far as censorship goes, the people wishing to express themselves or to share information are not being violated. On the contrary, they are as interested in limiting the information as is the pentagon.

As far as "wasted tax money" goes? Well, yeah... okay, I will concede that there is an element of waste here, but it is not enough to get angry over. You want to get angry? Ask the government to explain why so much "foreign aid" is being sent to Israel. They are far from helpless and hopeless. They are not starving. They aren't suffering at the hands of an oppressive nation. So why? And how much of our money is going there? You don't want to know. *THAT* is wasted tax money.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[sco08y]

..and the Streisand effect they are now creating ensures that the redacted information is rapidly identified and disseminated?

Got two grand to blow on Ebay?

Really, if the idiots in the Reserve had done their job, this stuff would be just as censored, only without the spectacle of a book burning.

Every government operation with any kind of security has burn bins available precisely for destroying books. There are tremendous amounts of information destroyed every day, and most of it is just classified secret, so it's totally mundane.

The waste is incredible, whether it's civilian or military it doesn't matter.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[nospam007]

What about the layouter, the graphics guy, the printer, the corrector and 20 other people who might have a PDF?

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[drinkypoo]

As much as I would like to cry "wasted taxpayer money" or "censorship" I can't see where this is either.

We can't know without the work in question, which our government has censored so that we can't see it. It's censorship when it's done by the government, for good or ill.

As far as "wasted tax money" goes? Well, yeah... okay, I will concede that there is an element of waste here, but it is not enough to get angry over.

I am angry over every unnecessary expenditure.

You want to get angry? Ask the government to explain why so much "foreign aid" is being sent to Israel. They are far from helpless and hopeless. They are not starving. They aren't suffering at the hands of an oppressive nation. So why?

The UN created the nation of Israel to keep the middle east fighting one another for the foreseeable future, and as the nominal leader of the UN (that is to say, the most puissant nation in the UN Security Council, the only nations who actually have a say in the UN) the USA is funding the status quo. It's not very complicated.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[commodore64_love]

>>>they are as interested in limiting the information as is the pentagon.

I would be too if the Pentagon told me, "Either you censor the second printing, or we'll throw you in jail for violating the Patriot Act." And don't tell me it can't happen. They did the same to Alice Paul and the suffragettes, when the Dept of Defense jailed them for violating the 1910s version of the Patriot Act. (And all they wanted was the right to vote.)

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[boxwood]

Israel provides valuable intel to the US. Intel on extremists in the Middle East.

Also the aid is attached to an agreement that Israel will buy weapons from the US. This means that Israel develops tactics and strategies using the same weapons that US forces use. This information is shared with the US military and results in fewer casualties of American soldiers.

Are you arguing that spending money on information that saves American lives is a waste of money?

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[MoeDumb]

No worries, they're planning to burn Ebay next.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[Americano]

Well, let's guess that those people will probably care about staying out of prison more than they will care about letting the public know about the names of undercover operatives.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[cgenman]

The UN created the nation of Israel to keep the middle east fighting one another for the foreseeable future, and as the nominal leader of the UN (that is to say, the most puissant nation in the UN Security Council, the only nations who actually have a say in the UN) the USA is funding the status quo. It's not very complicated.

The UN created the nation of Israel at the end of World War 2 because it needed a grand anti-axis gesture, and had learned nothing about the dangers of displacing existing people for societal engineering reasons. That it has kept the middle east in turmoil is probably legitimately an accidental side effect, rather than an intentional one.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[LVSlushdat]

What do you want to bet, in the next month or so, Wikileaks gets a copy of *that* 1st edition PDF...

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[cgenman]

Israel provides valuable intel to the US. Intel on extremists in the Middle East.

If any of this was involved in the run-up to Iraq, we can see just how valuable that intel really is.

This information is shared with the US military and results in fewer casualties of American soldiers.

We give over 3 billion dollars a year to Israel. If the goal was developing tactics and strategies for desert forces with US weaponry, I'm sure 3 billion dollars would buy a lot of training time at a facility in the Saudi desert.

Are you arguing that spending money on information that saves American lives is a waste of money?

US support of Israel is frequently cited as the reason why Middle East terrorists keep hitting the US. In very direct ways, if we didn't support Israel, we wouldn't have lost 5,000 people in 9-11. We wouldn't have lost thousands of soldiers in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. More significantly, we wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of young men and women coming back from the front traumatized or permanently injured, requiring help for the rest of their lives. And of course, the trillion and a half dollars we spent on those wars could have gone a long way to saving lives domestically.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[erroneus]

Hahaha. Really? You don't see where the problem in the middle east started? There was no big problem before Israel was created. By supporting Israel, we are creating and maintaining enemies. This is good business if you are in the Military Industrial Complex. It's bad if you are interested in the safety and security of the U.S. nation and its people.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[fractoid]

What about the layouter, the graphics guy, the printer, the corrector and 20 other people who might have a PDF?

I hope one of them uploads it soon, I want to read it now... though I hope they take some care. If it's not too heavy on formatting then just squish it down to plain text and bounce it off a few anonymous servers. If it needs more presentation then I'd recommend printing it out, photocopying it at a public library in a large city, then scanning it back in at another public library and upload the scans from there. Avoid anywhere with too many cameras or that requires you to sign in. Avoid anywhere that you will ever go again. ...have I been insufficiently paranoid anywhere? :)

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[jimicus]

As far as "wasted tax money" goes? Well, yeah... okay, I will concede that there is an element of waste here, but it is not enough to get angry over.

I am angry over every unnecessary expenditure.

Being as the government has already decided it wants the information suppressed, the only question is how would they do it. In some countries, I have no doubt the government would simply order the publisher to hand over the books with no compensation. You'll note that they didn't do that here.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[Anonymous Coward]

>staying out of prison

Classified information doesn't work the way you think it does. The only people who can go to prison for disseminating classified information are those who signed SF312. (Classified Non-disclosure Agreement) People who do not have active clearances under SF312 (or foreign nationals granted access under an appropriate treaty) are protected by the 1st amendment. Other non-discloser agreements among the publishing industry surely exist, but these are civil matters and will not end up with anyone in jail.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[Americano]

There's precedent for going after cases like this under the Espionage Act, which has been ruled to not infringe on free speech.

Charges were dropped against the lobbyists in that case because the judge ruled that the prosecution also had to demonstrate that "US interests were harmed," and not just that the lobbyists "relayed information to a foreign power." Given that disclosing the name of undercover agents in print can be harmful to them, and basically make that agent useless to the intelligence community, I think the hurdle of "demonstrating it harmed US interests" could be cleared.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[Scrameustache]

What about the layouter, the graphics guy, the printer, the corrector and 20 other people who might have a PDF?

A simple process involving massive doses of LSD and repeated electroshocks. They'll be at peace with themselves in no time.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really saying "we must support the troops"... you fucking asshole.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[quanticle]

The information isn't classified. It stopped being classified the moment that first printing was made. See New York Times vs. United States.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[Entropius]

If we weren't strongly taking sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict we'd have fewer people trying to kill Americans on our hands.

If we didn't get into aggressive wars for no reason we'd have fewer casualties, too.

Turns out that not sending your soldiers to war unless absolutely necessary is a good way to make them not die.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[Americano]

The information *is* classified until declassified by the classifying authority. This is why the military issued warnings to service members that they should not be reading the recently-leaked data on Wikileaks, since that would constitute mishandling of classified data. It does not automatically declassify just because it's been published.

The NYT v USA case decided that the Times had the right to publish articles based on the Pentagon papers, and that the Nixon administration did not have a legal basis for issuing a restraining order. The supreme court then ruled that the government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint," and must show that it would cause "grave and irreparable danger" to US interests.

Nowhere did they decide that "classified information is automatically not classified if you publish it," nor did they say that it is unconstitutional for the government to seek a restraining order barring publication of classified information - what they said was that the government must show that the level of damage is "grave and irreparable" to be allowed to prevent publication.

So, the question boils down to whether or not somebody feels that naming intelligence operatives by name in the service of "the people must know," is worth the chance they'll be made into a new test case.

Re: How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[Black Parrot]

The UN created the nation of Israel at the end of World War 2 because it needed a grand anti-axis gesture

The UN created Israel because the proto-Israelis were in rebellion against the British Mandate, and when the British reported that they couldn't maintain the peace the UN came up with a partition plan.

It's surely true that the genocide of WWII caused a great deal of sympathy for the Jews in Palestine, but saying that the UN created Israel as a result is at best misleading.

and had learned nothing about the dangers of displacing existing people for societal engineering reasons.

What's shameful is that the truly massive population displacements in eastern Europe at the end of WWII have been settled for about sixty years, but the relatively minor displacement in Palestine of only a few years later still has people living in refugee camps.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[twidarkling]

What makes you think that any of them give a fuck? They got paid for a job, they did the job, and they've moved on. Any of them leak it, they won't get any jobs in their field, since there's a heavy element of trust in the field. Especially that someone won't do something to hurt sales, and leaking a PDF of the complete book would hurt sales. None of them are going to be "THIS INFORMATION MUST BE FREE! THE INTERNET MUST KNOW!"

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[mysidia]

If none of the non-redacted books were ever accessible to retailers or consumers, then this is not likely.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you honestly trying to equate these two situations? Shut the fuck up and go suck off your life-sized cardboard cut out of Ron Paul.

Re: How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[Guru2Newbie]

The UN created Israel because the proto-Israelis were in rebellion against the British Mandate, and when the British reported that they couldn't maintain the peace, the UN came up with a partition plan.

I always wondered who created Partition Magic.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly not very long at all.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[TapeCutter]

"The UN created the nation of Israel at the end of World War 2"

Not really, the UN/British "Partition Plan for Palestine" never came into force. The Zionist "Jewish agency" proclaimed independence the day before the Britsh mandate expired in 1948, this triggered the arab-isreali war. The UN did not recognise Isreal as a state until after the war was over in 1949.

Re:How long before a digital copy is leaked..

[TapeCutter]

"Also the aid is attached to an agreement that Israel will buy weapons from the US. This means that Israel develops tactics and strategies using the same weapons that US forces use. This information is shared with the US military and results in fewer casualties of American soldiers."

"Allah knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed – when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way, to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women." - OBL.

Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Qur'an burning is back on, then?

Public Money

[Anonymous Coward]

So I can I sue to get my book? After all, I paid for it.

Re:Public Money

[oddaddresstrap]

Sure you can, but how much are you willing to spend to get your part, which is, let's see, 138M tax payers, 10K books, leaves you with 1/13,800th of a book. With any luck, it'll be an entire word.

Re:Public Money

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but I'm pretty sure burning 10,000 copies of a book will contribute to air pollution and run afoul of some environmental regulations. Sue 'em for abusing taxpayer money to damage the ozone layer and global warming.

Re:Public Money

[Myopic]

Stupid. Do you also try to claim one of the bricks in the Hoover Dam? one square inch of the National Mall? two annual trips on Air Force One?

Give me a fucking break. It's hard to believe a human being would actually type that out and post it on the internet. (Actually, I guess that's not hard to believe.)

Re:Public Money

[Anonymous Coward]

5 digit slashdot id, and you still get trolled this easily over a one line post? That's just sad.

Re:Public Money

[KraftDinner]

Sure you can get your book...... in 75 years when the classified information therein becomes declassified.

Re:Public Money

[twidarkling]

"Hurr hurr, I didn't make a stupid comment, I trolls u! I r smrt."

Re:Public Money

[Myopic]

Fair statement.

Missed golden opportunity

[durrr]

The authour should've seen this coming and made the first print run 9,5 million books instead.

Re:Missed golden opportunity

[jimicus]

The publisher decides how many copies the first print run gets, and unless it's a very well known author who's more-or-less guaranteed to get to the top of the bestseller lists immediately after publication (think the Terry Pratchetts of this world), there's no chance they'll order a massive print run.

Re:Missed golden opportunity

[OrigamiMarie]

Except for the part where 9,500,000 copies * $0.00 profit per book is still a grand total of $0.00. The point of the Pentagon cash-out was not to pay the selling price for every book, but instead to make the publisher whole again after flushing a pile of books. If anything, it would have cost them more in all of the little extras; storing, hauling, etc.

Re:Missed golden opportunity

[MiniMike]

He should have sold electronic copies and let the Pentagon keep buying until they "ran out"...

Re:Missed golden opportunity

[ModernGeek]

They wouldn't have had to buy any if that were the case, they would have taken out the offending material, and it would have been the end of it. It isn't like the printed copies where they have to be destroyed to hide the material.

Not making a point...

[Andy Smith]

...because I'm not sure what point to make. Or even if any point needs to be made at all. But I feel compelled to post a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

Come on bittorrent

[mr_bubb]

Bittorrent will have to become the only media that counts anymore. Once upon a time, the NYT and Washington Post would risk everything to publish the Pentagon Papers or the works of WoodStein. Now, in our burgeoning police state, we're reliant on WikiLeaks and bittorrent to speak truth to power. It's heartbreaking.

Re:Come on bittorrent

[kent_eh]

Huh?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Operation+Dark+Heart+torrent

Unredacted version

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll wait for the Official Wikileaks Edition.

Did the author get any from print run?

[AHuxley]

Did the author get any from the first print run?
Usually a set number are put aside for the author during printing.
They are then sent out. The rest of the books are then 'for sale'.
Lets hope someone got copy in the wild and one day we get to compare the 'approved' version to the non redacted edition.

Re:Did the author get any from print run?

[Yvan256]

I got both copies right here. In the original version, Han shot first.

Re:Did the author get any from print run?

[Xtifr]

Did the author get any from the first print run?

The author apparently has no interest whatsoever in getting these secrets out. If he did, he wouldn't need a copy of the book because he's the author! He has (or had) the original manuscripts, and if he really wanted to make sure that these secrets got out, he could have made other arrangements.

Lets hope someone got copy in the wild and one day we get to compare the 'approved' version to the non redacted edition.

Why would we been any more interested in this book than in ones that make it through the military approval process without mistake? The fact that these secrets made it as far as the publisher doesn't suggest to me that they're particularly interesting ones. Just the opposite, in fact.

Reality is stranger than fiction

[h00manist]

So in practice the censorship is going to get more and more intense, although surely in a very covert manner, all the time banging into our heads "You have freedom. There is no censorship and no propaganda. You can trust us, we care for you first."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451 was a nice book-burning-society story.
Well this seems to be a primary target for p2p legitimate uses... Is there no torrent for this?

Re:Reality is stranger than fiction

[boxwood]

is it really censorship if the author agrees to it? Sounds to me its more of a situation where the pentagon phones up the author, let him know that he mentions a person in the book who is still active in the field, and he'll be in danger once the book is published. The author said "oh shit, I didn't realize that, the intention of my book isn't to put someone's life in danger, I'll change it up so that doesn't happen."

Re:Reality is stranger than fiction

[maxwell demon]

is it really censorship if the author agrees to it?

Depends on how the author was convinced to agree.

Agency: "We would like you not to publish this info."
Author: "OK, I'll change it."
-> No censorship.

Agency: "If you publish this, we will put you in jail."
Author: "OK, I'll change it."
-> Censorship.

Re:Reality is stranger than fiction

[HiThere]

Yes. It is censorship if the government decides what can be published. That's the definition. It goes back to Roman law, where they had a government official known as the Censor.

Full text?

[pooh666]

So where is the link to the full text of the original? IS this Slashdot or f'ing CNN?

Re:Full text?

[Anonymous Coward]

So where is the link to the full text of the original? IS this Slashdot or f'ing CNN?

REDACTED!!!

Re:Full text?

[Kristopeit, Michael]

1997 slashdot could have helped you. 2010 slashdot makes CNN seem useful.

Misinformation campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

This action by the pentagon serves to validate the information contained in the book. What if the info is bogus and they want that bogus info to appear valid.
They have to know a digital copied will make it's way into the wild.

Stupid or Evil?

2nd Edition has already been printed

[Allnighte]

From the previous /. story that covered this, in the comments:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1784344&cid=33547938

"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."

So nothing to see here, move along...

Re:2nd Edition has already been printed

[Yvan256]

Maybe they're negotiating to only pay the costs of the publisher, without the profits of the first print run.

Re:2nd Edition has already been printed

[Anonymous Coward]

"The govt gave the OK for the book"
 
  That statement is kind of the problem right there...

Re:2nd Edition has already been printed

[pooh666]

These are not the droids you are looking for.. YES SIR!! btw Sir, who are we calling terrorists today?

Re:2nd Edition has already been printed

[Xtifr]

If you're trying to suggest that the gov't is lying, and these really are important and controversial secrets that will outrage the American public or something, well...I won't deny that there's a very tiny chance you're correct, except--why would those have made it through the first vetting process?

I admit that a good dose of paranoia is a healthy thing in a free (or semi-free) society, but frankly, I'm more interested in the secrets that never got anywhere near a publisher than I am in the ones so minor and/or obscure that they were overlooked till the last second.

Re:2nd Edition has already been printed

[pooh666]

Power leads to abuse and small abuses that aren't challenged, pave the way for larger abuse. In some sense I think it is almost innocent on the part of those with power. But say you have a system or a society that is tolerant of such things, and then a real crazy comes along. It then becomes a platform for him to go way beyond what he could otherwise do, because the infrastructure of control is already in place.. So we are just waiting for the special someone, maybe a good "Christian" to come along..

Damage national security?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

By "damage national security", may I assume they mean "embarrass the government"?

What a great way to start

[Grimbleton]

Banned Books Week http://bannedbooksweek.org/

I don't have a problem with this

[ronmon]

I was in the USAF ~30 years ago working for the USAFSS, later ESC. We were tasked by NSA and in fact my last posting was at Ft. Meade (NSA HQ) after several years in the far east. My TS/SCI clearance gave me access not only to Top Secret information, but the source of that information as well. You don't get drafted into this kind of work. It is something you have to work hard for and vetting for a clearance is extremely rigorous. The agreements that you sign entail many restrictions and if you don't want to be bound by them, don't sign them. If you have some kind of moral or ethical problem with that, stay out of the business. I have no sympathy for anyone who gives away national secrets. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[drinkypoo]

I have no sympathy for anyone who gives away national secrets. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

So just to be clear, if some illegal act done in the name of the people of the USA has been classed as a national secret, then if someone should bring this to light so that we can see what is being done in our name they are a criminal? No, they are a patriot.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Antisyzygy]

The problem is "National Secret" sometimes means "Embarrassing things we don't want the people to know about to give them more reasons to want us out of power." Go read about the AEC and Manhattan Project sponsored plutonium injections, and radioactive iron experiments on pregnant women. Also go see how the military exposed infantry and pilots to radioactive fallout intentionally to see what would happen. The only way to guarantee the government and military not get out of hand is to have some transparency. Im not saying we should send a list of all out sub locations to the Chinese, Im saying it is too easy to classify information that should be known about as early as possible to limit unethical things happening. Or do you think its okay to let soldiers wait in trenches near ground zero of a nuclear explosion and also let pilots fly through the resulting mushroom cloud?

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[YrWrstNtmr]

The only way to guarantee the government and military not get out of hand is to have some transparency.

The problem is 'some transparency' = "We (the Pentagon) get to say what is transparent and what isn't".
Exactly the situation we have now.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Geminii]

I have no sympathy for anyone who gives away national secrets.

Giving away things is just unAmerican. It's the highest bidder or nothing!

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Yvan256]

Explanation for the graphics guys out there: the Pentagon is kinda like the alpha channel.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get drafted into this kind of work. It is something you have to work hard for and vetting for a clearance is extremely rigorous. The agreements that you sign entail many restrictions and if you don't want to be bound by them, don't sign them. If you have some kind of moral or ethical problem with that, stay out of the business.

As somebody else who has a TS/SCI clearance and makes regular trips to Ft. Meade, I have to disagree with you. It's not hard to get a clearance; get a job with a government contractor, get on a project that you need a clearance for, and they'll put in the paperwork. They do a background check (just to ensure there's no obvious reason you'd betray the US), then you have to pass a polygraph test (which is pure snake oil and anybody can do it), and then you have a clearance. The vetting isn't nearly as rigorous as the government wants people to think it is.

To be fair, the vast majority of TS/SCI classified information is only classified so because it has been mentioned in association with something else which is TS/SCI (and that information itself is undoubtedly only classified because it's associated with something else that's classified). There are very few things that actually should be kept secret; most of them are secret only because the government likes keeping secrets.

Don't get me wrong, I don't go around leaking secrets -- but that's only because I value my job, not because I feel like the government deserves to keep them.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

I have some kind of moral or ethical problem with that.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Atriqus]

You heard it here, folks: the military doesn't tolerate ethics. Their protocols override ethics. After all, they're the good guys and what they do is right because they're doing it.

Ughh, as the years go on, I'm more convinced the military isn't responsible enough to have national secrets in the first place.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[cdrguru]

I'm guessing you have no idea why this was done. Military people were exposed to radiation to see the effects even when there was a pretty good idea what the results would be and this seems wrong. The problem is that it was pretty clear in 1950 that the next war was less than 20 years away and would absolutely be fought with nuclear weapons, both tactical and strategic.

What would happen to an army that was getting nuked? Would they run away? Would they fall down puking? There were a lot of highly placed people that didn't have answers and leaders that were demanding answers. Could a mixed conventional/nuclear battlefield exist? Pretty much the answers were that such a mixed battlefield could not exist and any tactical nuclear exchange would lead to strategic exchanges. Plural. While the idea of "nuclear winter" proved to be false, it was pretty scary while it lasted.

We haven't had a major war since WW II when every indication said there would be one by 1970. Why not? Probably because none of the players at the time wanted to rule over a wasteland. Unfortunately, the new players don't seem to have a problem with that and at least some of them view life on Earth as a staging for the real event. So why worry about a wasteland - if it pushes you into paradise sooner then so be it.

Do you really blame the government for not wanting to be the purveyor of really, really bad news?

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Antisyzygy]

I knew why it was done, I just don't agree with the methodology. Even at the time informed consent for human experimentation was a standard set by the AMA and AEC. People simply ignored informed consent and just experimented on people. In the case of the military THEY WERE ORDERED to be human test subjects. There is no informed consent there considering the consequences for going AWOL or disobeying orders.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[M8e]

No, "someone" is a criminal patriot.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost a million people can read super secret documents. Why are they secrets? If you read the Pentagon Papers (not the NY Times edited version), you'll find that "national security" has a 2nd meaning: is to protect big business profits and reputation, and the immoral actions by those in charge, from public exposure. Sure there is some legitimate confidentiality but that is a tiny portion in comparison.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[anarkhos]

If secrets were never revealed, we'd still be in the Vietnam war!

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely agree with this post. People who get so worked up over busting the right of this country to have and maintain national security in truth are outsiders without the slightest grasp of what goes on. Why pick 'the Army kept a secret about exposing soldiers to radiation' as your example? Why not pick 'we should have told the Japanese we were reading their message traffic' as the example and just get the dumb ass out on the table for everyone to see?

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a middle ground. Someone cleared who sees something illegal (and that has been classified illegally to cover it up) has multiple legal options for reporting the coverup (including internal hotlines, the FBI, or the department of justice). One can still be a patriot without immediately running to Wikileaks.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

In general I would agree, and this case is probably legitimate. However in general there is strong evidence of things getting marked top secret just so they will be interesting enough for military people to read, or people claiming national security simply so their gaffaws don't become public. In the United States we have unfortunately seen corruption at all levels, and huge piles of secrets do not increase trust and good will toward those who keep them.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

What's that phrase? Oh yeah, "you don't have anything to worry about if you don't have anything to hide." I love it when things go both ways. Sure there are some things that should be kept secret but a vast majority of the shit our government marks secret should not be and is really only covering up dirt and corruption.

Re:I don't have a problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no sympathy for anyone who gives away national secrets. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

So just to be clear, if some illegal act done in the name of the people of the USA has been classed as a national secret, then if someone should bring this to light so that we can see what is being done in our name they are a criminal? No, they are a patriot.

I hate to tell you this, but your nation was founded via an illegal act. States that don't commit some illegal act at some point don't survive. You might, instead, draw the line at the "excessive" or "unnecessary" use of secrecy. An example of "unnecessary" would be many of shenanigans the Nixon administration pulled. "Excessive" might be how the later Bush administration handled the request to see who came to visit Cheney in the energy policy discussions.

An argument against perpetual war

[DoofusOfDeath]

I think a legitimate tension exists regarding govermental secrecy:

• 
  We citizens don't want our goverments to be secretive, because that can be used to pull a fast one on us and/or to establish autocracy. And it can be used to hide the funneling of money to private interests and friends of those in power, without scrutiny. And besides, if the government's authority flows from us, maybe we just don't feel like letting it be secretive. It's the government's obligation to suck it up and exert no more power over us than we collectively authorize.
• 
  During wartime, and to some extent during peace time, we need to government to keep secret in general, so that our adversaries don't know certain things (force levels, where our nuclear subs are located, etc.)

The problem with perpetual war is that it makes the second point above be more legitimately compelling than during peace time. But that reduces our abilities to keep our government in check, which is always risky for the citizenry.

This is one good reason to not pursue forgeign policies that have us constantly in a state of low-level war around the world. It reduces the legitimate reasons for giving those in power an environment in which they can screw over the rest of us.

Re:An argument against perpetual war

[Darkness404]

We also would save a ton of money in taxes. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that we have military bases in almost every country in the world. Why? It doesn't make us safer if we have a large ground force in stable areas like Germany but it wastes a lot of money.

The problem with our foreign policy is it is based on this mythical idea that somehow we can keep information from everyone all the time. That if we restrict access to -insert "hostile" country here- they will never gain -insert military technology here- and the world will maintain its status quo. Rather than a foreign policy that makes sure that hostile countries aren't hostile to us.

Re:An argument against perpetual war

[DoofusOfDeath]

Rather than a foreign policy that makes sure that hostile countries aren't hostile to us.

I don't think it's entirely possible to head off foreign aggression. If I recall, many of Germany's neighbors discovered that at the beginning of WWII.

But I mostly agree with your point. There's no clear reason why we need to be the enemy of Russia, China, some of South America, and a sizable fraction of the Middle East.

Re:An argument against perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with perpetual war is that it makes the second point above be more legitimately compelling than during peace time.

During perpetual war there is peace time?

Re:An argument against perpetual war

[hsjserver]

I agree and I think you make some good points but I think that if Citizens United taught us anything, it was that there is more than one way to create an autocracy.

Re:An argument against perpetual war

[Darkness404]

But if you look at -why- Germany went to extreme nationalism, you only need to look at what Germany's neighbors did to them via the treaty of Versailles.

Re:An argument against perpetual war

[cdrguru]

There is no such thing as unilateral disarmement, only a choice between fighting back and forfeit. Vietnam was won and the enemy defeated and then the plug was pulled to allow the North to walk in. We forfeited the lives and money that were spent.

We fought back against the Soviets. They declared they would bury the West and instituted actions to see that it would be accomplished eventually. Instead, they collapsed partly under the weight of maintaining a centrally controlled system with no choices for the population.

We have a choice with China - we can accept their goods in whatever form they want to send them to us, or we can fight back economically, politically and in every other way that is needed. So far, we are forfeiting and accepting whatever poison they are sending this week. Really, how many people have to die before we wake up and decide that relying on the Chinese for all manufacturing is a huge risk. And it isn't just manufacturing - the Chinese now control enough debt to be able to effectively dictate policy to the US. Could the US stand up to the Chinese if they decided to take over Taiwan now? Probably not.

We have a similar choice with Iran. They are going to build up until they have an unbeatable advantage in the Middle East. They have committed over and over to wiping out Israel and likely fighting a really nasty war with Saudia Arabia and anyone else not accepting their particular brand of Islam. The US can be Iran's friend and help them with this or we can be their enemy and try to stop them. There is no third alternative here.

In the 1600s it was pretty much impossible to sit on the sidelines in the conflicts between England, Spain and France. They had been fighting for control of the planet (as they saw it) for over 300 years. There wasn't a sideline then and there isn't today. Trying to be isolated and uninvolved is a mistake and it isn't effective.

Re:An argument against perpetual war

[Darkness404]

Um, no.

Vietnam was a mistake to begin with, for one, what stake did the US have in Vietnam? Nothing. Vietnam was a pretty insignificant country, the idea that suddenly everyone would be communist was laughable. Instead, the Vietnamese people got screwed, just look at pictures from the My Lai Massacre (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:My_Lai_massacre.jpg , link is NSFW, no nudity just a lot of dead bodies). Yeah, we might have "won" Vietnam, but Vietnam was a mistake from the beginning, the bombs that killed US servicemen were the same bombs that we dropped on North Vietnamese forces that simply failed to detonate, we escalated the conflict beyond what was needed and we suffered for it. The "worst case scenario" in Vietnam happened, and what was the end result? Atomic war? No, just a few minor problems, nothing worth raping a country for and sending many unwilling young people to their certain deaths.

We didn't "fight back" against the Soviets, we diffused the situation using diplomacy and in the process managed to nearly annihilate life on the earth as we know it. The problem with the USSR was mutual suspicion and a lack of openness, neither the USSR or the US wanted to start a nuclear war, but because they weren't open about it, both sides built up large amounts of nuclear weapons and handled them carelessly endangering the lives of more people.

Had the US and USSR both been open and fully diplomatic about their goals, we wouldn't have had the cold war, and quite honestly the US should have lead the initiative by not keeping a buildup of atomic weapons, thus provoking the USSR into building theirs so we built our own, etc.

The hostilities of the cold war wasn't caused because Russia hated America or vice versa, rather America thought Russia could destroy the US, therefore they built up more weapons, so Russia saw that as threatening so they built up their weapon stockpile too.

We have a choice with China - we can accept their goods in whatever form they want to send them to us, or we can fight back economically, politically and in every other way that is needed. So far, we are forfeiting and accepting whatever poison they are sending this week. Really, how many people have to die before we wake up and decide that relying on the Chinese for all manufacturing is a huge risk. And it isn't just manufacturing - the Chinese now control enough debt to be able to effectively dictate policy to the US. Could the US stand up to the Chinese if they decided to take over Taiwan now? Probably not.

Of course, ever since the 1930s when FDR screwed the US economically and when Nixon cut the last tie to gold, our financial system has been based on nothingness and is unsustainable.

And the thing is, would the Chinese try to take over Taiwan? I doubt it. The thing is, the Taiwanese people wouldn't accept government from the Chinese. A capture of Taiwan would be a propaganda victory for China, but it would be a net loss in their diplomatic relations for an island with nothing really important and a hostile population. If you look at recent takeovers that haven't happened because of "the west" (such as the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan) they all were looked down upon in international circles and shunned so they had little reputation to lose. On the other hand, China has a lot to lose if they were to invade Taiwan and very little to gain.

We have a similar choice with Iran. They are going to build up until they have an unbeatable advantage in the Middle East. They have committed over and over to wiping out Israel and likely fighting a really nasty war with Saudia Arabia and anyone else not accepting their particular brand of Islam. The US can be Iran's friend and help them with this or we can be their enemy and try to stop them. There is no third alternative here.

Last time I checked, the US wasn't in the middle east and there was

Re: An argument against perpetual war

[Black Parrot]

But if you look at -why- Germany went to extreme nationalism, you only need to look at what Germany's neighbors did to them via the treaty of Versailles.

One allied general who saw the terms of treaty exclaimed very prophetically along the lines that "That's not a treaty; that's a recipe for a 20-year ceasefire".

Re:An argument against perpetual war

[VShael]

"we have military bases in almost every country in the world. Why?"

For the same reason the British Empire did, at its height. They represent the US ability to enforce its policies locally, should the need ever arise.

For all its vaunted love of capitalism and the free market, the US frequently relies on market protectionism abroad. (e.g. African farmers can't sell produce to their own people, because it's cheaper to ship subsidised product from Alabama)

Should any countries which have a US base on its soil try to do something radical, like close their markets to subsidised foreign produce, local US forces can make sure that doesn't happen.

WHOA, Hold On There, Tex...

[IonOtter]

They Department of Defense has not yet paid for the burned books, but says they are 'in the process.'

"In the process"???

Uh-huh. I'm from New York, and until the money is handed over and IN THE BANK, then handing over the merchandise will likewise, be "in the process". Heck, that's pretty much a standard across the entire planet.

As Watto would say: What, you think you're some kind of Jedi, waving your hand around like that? I'm a Toydarian. Mind tricks donnat work on me. Only money. No money, no parts, no deal.

Re:WHOA, Hold On There, Tex...

[petermgreen]

Uh-huh. I'm from New York, and until the money is handed over and IN THE BANK, then handing over the merchandise will likewise, be "in the process". Heck, that's pretty much a standard across the entire planet.
It's certainly not the standard here in the UK and I don't think it is in the US either. Typical terms afaict are payment a maximum of 30 days after delivery (reffered to as "net 30") though agreements will vary depending on which side has more bargining power.

What about the other 500?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the earlier /. post, there were going to be 10,000 copies in the first run.

10,000 - 9,500 = 500 copies at large, any one of which can (and will) be made public.

What freedom of speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess freedom of speech only works when you're bashing Islam or anything that doesn't fit the narrow (ultra-conservative) view. I thought the US was becoming more communist under the Bush administration (spying on its own people, carting people people off for torturing, removing any media that doesn't spread the propaganda, etc.) but it looks like there's no end in sight there.

Woodward and Bernstein should get to kick someone in the nuts for this.

Re:What freedom of speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are seriously going to sit there and make such an ultra-fucking-retarded comment like that? There is nothing about the current U.S. Government that is anything approaching conservative, much the less ULTRA-conservative. Also, it has become far more difficult to bash, or even talk about that retarded, false religion that is called islam.

Fuck, you could burn a million Christians and/or Jews before you could think about burning a Qur'an. Too many people, today, are all too willing to pussyfoot around crazy muslims, but I say fuck those camel-jock motherfuckers.

I am going to burn a Qur'an for every one of these books that were destroyed. Fuck that moon god cocksucker and fuck all muslisms. You are all a bunch of child-molesting, murderous, inbreed, faggots.

Did the print run numbers change?

[damn_registrars]

I previously heard the first run would have 10,000 copies printed; now we are hearing 9,500.

But...

[Peet42]

...did they buy up all the Kindle copies too?

almost there,

[Anonymous Coward]

... except for the one copy that got away, got scanned and hit you on thepiratebay or wikileaks :-)

Rapidshare? Torrent?

[stevegee58]

Come on, folks. Surely someone has a copy of the original printing to scan.

Kindles, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if they release it online?

Re:Kindles, anyone?

[maxwell demon]

Then they can even revoke already sold books.

Cooperating?

[nurb432]

Sounds like they just got a gig to sell a bunch of books that they printed. That is their job.

A Different Angle

[kd5zex]

I smell a PSYOP, please follow along.

1. DOD needs to move the public opinion.
2. DOD tasks "former" Army officer with penning a book as Americans don't respond well to leafleting.
3. DOD realizes that no one will want to read said book.
4. DOD says "Frack! We screwed up! There is sensitive info in there, buy the first printing a destroy all of them."
5. Instant book sales and publicity (AKA: Propaganda).

If the author was really trying to get the info out he would have self published it in PDF and released it on the internets.

And the classified information is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

they spent x gazillion dollars on triple ply toilet paper. Now Al Goldstein knows the Pentagon is weak and WE ALL GONNA DIE!

America, Land of the "Free"...

[Gordonjcp]

... where you can say what you like, if you get permission first.

Seriously, guys, look at how we do it in the rest of the world. Learn from the experience of others. When Britain let America run its own affairs, it was a bit like leaving a house full of teenagers alone for a weekend with the keys to the gun cabinet and wine cellar.

Re:America, Land of the "Free"...

[Xtifr]

... where you can say what you like, if you get permission first.

That's true anywhere where non-disclosure agreements are legally binding. If I wrote a book, and realized that I'd inadvertently revealed some secrets of a company that I'd worked for, I'd probably be overjoyed if the company agreed to buy and dispose of the first print run, rather than suing me to force me to buy and destroy the first print run.

Seriously, guys, look at how we do it in the rest of the world.

You mean like in places like the UK, where truth isn't a defense against slander or libel, making it even more likely that an author would wish his book hadn't gotten published in its current form (as is the case here)? Thanks, but no thanks! :p ;)

There's a lot I don't like about US law, but that's true of every nation I've investigated, and at least in the US, I don't have a 50/50 chance of being photographed by the government if I stick my nose outside my front door! :)

Re:America, Land of the "Free"...

[MakinBacon]

... where you can say what you like, if you get permission first.

Seriously, guys, look at how we do it in the rest of the world. Learn from the experience of others. When Britain let America run its own affairs, it was a bit like leaving a house full of teenagers alone for a weekend with the keys to the gun cabinet and wine cellar.

...because they had the right to freedom of speech under King George III?

Re:America, Land of the "Free"...

[shutdown -p now]

... where you can say what you like, if you get permission first.

When you write about security-sensitive things (such as recent combat operations in a war that's still going on), then, yeah, you'll need to get permission first.

Meanwhile, at WikiLeaks...

[DrYak]

Some body at the pentagon "Oh, shit, this has classified intel in it. Call up the publisher"
Some body at the publisher "We'd love to help protect national security, but we don't want to take a multi thousand dollar hit to costs"
Some body at the pentagon "Yes, we can compensate American citizens for damages incurred by helping us protect national security"
Some body in the press "OMG THE PENTAGON IS BURNING BOOKS!"
Captain Picard *headpalm*

Julian Assange : "Yay ! More stuff to upload onto WikiLeaks !"

Sweden : "...hum, our server start to get a little bit full...."

Some body at the pentagon : "Look ! This time we have definite and conclusive proof that Julian Assange is an evil pedo-terrorist ! And it's complete coincidence that we have found it just right now"

Swedish Judge : "Nah, sorry. Still looks photoshoped. The light isn't quite right"

So this is how democracy dies ...

[Anonymous Coward]

to no applause, and a whimpering protest.

Well, depends on Julian Assange

[DrYak]

...and on how long it takes him to prove that the latest definite and conclusive proof that he is an Evil Pedo-Terrorist (that just happens by random chance to have been discovered just right now, exactly during the book censoring scandal - what a coincidence) is, in fact, badly photoshopped.

Really, Slashdot crowd?

[Scarred Intellect]

I can't believe you guys, can you honestly forget about this article, that was handily posted two weeks ago: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/09/11/1944227/Pentagon-Aims-To-Buy-Up-Book"

This was pointed out then that it was just more of a misunderstanding than anything else, so why is everyone reacting to it like it's a brand new issue?

..usually it takes just a few comments down to find one that refers back to a previously posted article here on Slashdot, either the same article (more and more common, lately) or one from the recent past.

Re:Really, Slashdot crowd?

[HiThere]

Maybe we don't like it when we hear about it? What does whether it's new or not have to do with *THAT*?

And if you didn't see the post far above that referred back to the prior article, you weren't reading very carefully. (I had to read that to figure out what the book was about.)

Welcome to the 21st century

[DrYak]

Welcome to the wonders of the information age !

Were, to properly censor and/or restrict access to some critical (or DRM-protected) piece of information, you have to be sure to control every single copy of it, flawlessly, forever.

And all it takes is one single copy falling in the wrong hands for the magic of costless digital duplication to work and the whole internet being inundated with copies.

Baddly photoshopped proof...

[DrYak]

in the next month or so

Which, by some incredible random chance, happens to also be the day when the Swedish justice system receives an anonymous envelope containing (badly photoshopped) proof that Julian Assange is, in fact, an Evil Pedo-Terrorist ! What a coincidence !

In the land of the free ....

[unity100]

i guess noone is selling that bullshit slogan anymore ?

My response: REDACTED and disgusted.

[VanessaE]

I sent the following email to Macmillan, parent company of St. Martin's Press. I didn't hear about the book until it was too late; needless to say, I'm PISSED:

----------

Please forward this to St. Martin's Press, this is meant specifically for them, though it also pertains to Macmillan as well.
===

As a natural born American citizen and someone who cares deeply about her civil rights, I am writing to tell you how utterly disgusted and angry I am at your company for censoring a publication at the Department of Defense's request. I refer to Operation Dark Heart, detailing Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer's time fighting in Afghanistan.

To make matters even worse, I am especially angry at your company for ALLOWING THE ENTIRE FIRST RUN OF BOOKS TO BE DESTROYED BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!!

Remember Germany during World War II? The Nazi Party? This was the very tactic that government used to control the spread of information - gather up every book, scroll, and other publication they could find that covered the subject they wanted to suppress, by any means necessary (usually by direct theft), and burn them, often quite publicly in huge middle-of-the-street piles.

This is not Nazi Germany, this is America. This is NOT supposed to happen here!

What happened to the concept of Freedom of the Press? Freedom of Speech? Does the First Amendment mean nothing anymore? You are a book publisher. Therefore, you are a member of the Press, as the word was defined when our Constitution was first put into practice. That definition has not been changed in our Constitution, therefore, the First Amendment would have protected your right to continue to publish the information in that book - that was part of its original purpose.

Don't tell me you couldn't have known - the warnings were in the news on September 10th. Don't tell me you needed the money - the destroyed content is worth less than $260,000 retail, compared to over $1 Billion in total sales in the past year. You had the right and the absolute DUTY to refuse sale of those books, knowing full well they were to be destroyed, and you have the right and the DUTY to argue against the government where censorship of any work is concerned, especially since this government has played the "national security" card WAY too many times. I am so utterly angry with your company and everyone therein who had anything whatsoever to do with allowing this to happen, that I will NEVER AGAIN buy anything from ANY company under your purview.

You have lost all credibility in the eyes of whatever Americans still exist who believe in the protection of their rights.

9500 books. DESTROYED. Shame on you. Shame on all of the people who continue to work for you from this point forward.

I understand there were 10,000 copies made in the first run, meaning that nearly 500 of them made it into private hands (or eventually will). With any luck, at least one will get scanned and put online in text form, uncensored, unrestricted, and freely available (and it won't be my doing, so call off your lawyers). If you don't understand why I say this, look up the "Streisand Effect" sometime.

I'm excited!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when can we expect an online copy? :-)

St. Martin's Press

[theGhostPony]

St. Martin's Press has done this sort of thing before, recalling 70,000 copies of the Bush book Fortunate Son after the author's credibility was questioned. This was after the book had reached the NY Times bestseller list and even though the validity of the book's contents were never challenged, legally or otherwise.

Government's secret, not yours

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't know the secret, then it isn't your secret, is it? The secret belongs to the elite at the top of the pyramid who control the business of government.

You don't actually believe they put your interests before their own, do you? We're talking about the most powerful, most expensive government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries around the world) in history. What are the odds of them keeping secrets from you and me to protect a trillion-dollar cash flow, versus them keeping secrets from you and me to protect you and me? I think you understand where I'm going with this.

Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should send the unauthorized copy to Wikileaks.

Consistency

[afabbro]

If this was 2004, the article headline would be "Bush Administration Makes Good On Plan To Destroy Critical Book". In 2010, of course, we can't blame Obama for these things.

Re:Consistency

[Antisyzygy]

This should be modded troll. The Pentagon != Obama. If Obama tried to do anything about this the political fallout from those in power at the pentagon would be enormous for him. Its two sides of the same coin with our current political party system. Bush, Obama, both of them are shitty presidents.

Re:Consistency

[HiThere]

It is correct to blame Obama because he is the commander in chief. For such an office to refrain from taking action is to approve the action that was taken. If he chose, he could act to remove the bar to reprinting the original edition. He hasn't. Until he does, he is tacitly approving the action. (If he waits until after the second edition is printed to take action, he will continue to justly deserve to be blamed for the action, as it's unlikely that the publisher would re-instate the original edition at that point.)

Re: Consistency

[Black Parrot]

If this was 2004, the article headline would be "Bush Administration Makes Good On Plan To Destroy Critical Book". In 2010, of course, we can't blame Obama for these things.

In 2004, the slightest criticism of the Bush Administration's policy got you jumped on as a traitor by the flag-pin wearing crowd.

Re: Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember that happening ever on Slashdot. Citation please?

Re:Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does some fucktard always want to throw a snide comment about Obama in every topic on this site? WHAT THE FUCK does he have to do with this article?!

Fucking tool.

Ray Bradbury said it best

[Digana]

It was a pleasure to burn...

It's a cover up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our military is full of low-grade scum. They keep dropping the standards to get bodies for these optional "wars" and what is the result? Scumbag rapists, murderers, mutilators, child molesters and torturers in our military.

Gov't has to cover this up. They know that a ton of the bottom-rungers in our society have stars in their eyes over the military and that it can do no wrong. This fact is often used for political gain. Can't have people doubting the quality of our soldiers, can we?

Of course, it's also possible that some really evil shit done by the last admin will surface and the people will go crazy...

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying your fair share of taxes while our nation is engaged in two wars which supposedly are an existential threat to our way of life... well, that's fucking communism.

That's not communism. Communism is a stateless, egalitarian society, which generally lacks the notion of private property and resources such as the workplace and associated are shared (e.g. communal) throughout the community to enforce this sort of egalitarianism. The only way this comes even remotely close to communism is that the government is (arguably) forcibly taking control of private property, but given that they are doing so with compensation to the publishers, that doesn't really fit. What you've got here is closer to fascism (merged effort/cooperation between the state and private sector), authoritarianism (state which is absolutely intolerant of any opposition), and possibly a little bit of martial law as a cover-up for corruption, incompetence, and generally bad decisions being made behind closed doors because to keep those mistakes behind closed doors, all because of a representative "democracy" gone bad.

Please do not misuse labels like that. Using communism in this context not only makes communism look worse than it actually is, but makes our government look better than it is. I can understand that in America very few people have any clue what various political ideologies consist of, due in part to privately-owned media spewing nothing but commercial (advertisements) and political (news/commentary) propaganda, but this is Slashdot, and a certain degree of accuracy is expected of you. Posted anonymously so people don't suddenly start calling me "commie" or whatever because I'm not blindly misapplying labels and shooting down anything given such labels.

Re:Wrong

[HiThere]

While your definitions are pretty much spot-on, your expectations of Slashdot commentary are ludicrous.

Old news

[sjdude]

This story is old fucking news. Things must be pretty slow at Slashdot to stoop to posting this story again...

Maybe...

[BrokenHalo]

Maybe it's time for a revival of Samizdat. Of course, we no longer need to use pen and paper for this, but there's not much the Pentagon could do about a torrent seeded in China.

Re:Maybe...

[darkpixel2k]

there's not much the Pentagon could do about a torrent seeded in China.

Dust off and nuke the seed from orbit?

Re:Maybe...

[ultranova]

Of course, we no longer need to use pen and paper for this, but there's not much the Pentagon could do about a torrent seeded in China.

But the Chinese might, just as long as Pentagon is willing to do them a similar favour in return...

"Come to the Dark Side, Uncle Sam. It is your destiny."

Re:Maybe...

[jgagnon]

It's the only way to be sure...

Heinrich Hein

[Anonymous Coward]

“Them That Begin By Burning Books, End By Burning Men.”

Re:Heinrich Hein

[klashn]

"Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings."

Woooosh!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Irony and sarcasm, recognize them much?

Linky?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Anyone got a linky to the non-redacted (would that be merely dacted?) book?

Double Woooosh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading comprehension and insight, too much to ask of readers on Slashdot, huh?

Re:My response: REDACTED and disgusted.

[HiThere]

It is disgusting.

OTOH, you might want to notice what happened to the works of Wilhelm Reich and his teachings. I suspect that they were snake-oil, but the government destroyed the evidence. And, last I checked, they still suppress it. That's over 60 years of suppression of an idea (that's probably quackery). You can't plausibly even claim national security.

So don't think that this is proof that our government is more corrupt that it's been for quite awhile. (I believe it is, but this isn't proof, only more evidence.)

Wikileaks tweets on those "Nazi punks"

[HongPong]

Posted earlier http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/25607235096 "Burn all the books you want, Nazi punks. We already have a copy. | CNN http://bit.ly/acJnX9 "
Oh you lolsome cypherpunks :P

Hazing?

[ElusiveJoe]

So, from your post, you have sacrificed a lot to earn this clearance, and now you're angry at anyone who gets away with it, right?

Stop putting blame on nebulous entities.

[poity]

"The Pentagon" is doing all these nefarious things? Don't kid yourself.
You want to criticize then blame Jack Stultz, head of the Army Reserve; blame Robert Gates, head of the DoD; blame Bush who appointed Gates; and blame Obama doubly for keeping Gates and now doing nothing as the ostensible Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Scare to name names because the blame can be traced to the President you voted for?
Cowardice. Abject cowardice.

Still stupid

[einhverfr]

I thought the printing run was 10000 copies.

9500 copies means 500 copies survive somewhere. Now anyone who really cares will seek out one of those 500 copies and compare it to the second printing to see what was redacted.

Re:Still stupid

[twidarkling]

Those 500 copies will be in the hands of the Author, any editors, some publishing staff, and anyone else who helped get the book to print. Getting a copy will basically be a matter of paying an absolutely stupid amount of cash to one of those people.

Re:Still stupid

[TaoPhoenix]

Wizards of the Coast called. They want to help institute Type 2 for publishing.

Re:M8e

[M8e]

"Where they burn books, they also burn other garbage"

Canceling moderation

[hansamurai]

Moderated wrong post.

wikileaks to the rescue!

[Anonymous Coward]

good thing wikileaks has a completely unedited version of the book right?

Just say NO to intelligent comments!

[sgt_doom]

Hey, what's with these intelligent and thoughtful comments of yours? /. is all about free bankster advertising, or haven't you noticed?

[thank goodness I'm with the green party]

The land of freedom?

[slartsa]

As a Finn I would say this kind of action is simply mocking freedom of speech and this wouldn't be possible in Finland. Our media has targeted all kinds of authority in one front and if anything even remotely related to oppressing any group of people is appeared, people will read it from the news paper and cause a huge barricade until this anomaly is removed. Yes we are far too easily influenced by our media but at least we have our say in things.

Book burning as told by history...

[RHaddon]

A quote I will long remember... Heinrich Heine: “Where books are burned in the end people will burn.” This quote is on a plaque at the memorial to the Nazi book burning in Berlin, Germany.

Cost!

[hesaigo999ca]

I guess if the book contained info that could cost more in damages then it would cost to buy the first generation
of this book (as second gen has omitted this info), it would be wise for tax payers to just know this, and realise what
ever leak was there was just bypassed by scooping up every first gen books, and burning them, as long as there was no digital version of the book, which could have also been leaked then propagated endlessly on a torrent, then this would be pretty useless.

I guess you have to do ,what you have to do even if it seems a little absurd.

Re:Talk about birth control!

[Anonymous Coward]

They will die of IUDs

Intra-Uterine Devices still kill people? I Thought they fixed that in the '50s.