Slashdot Mirror
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."
What makes you think a book publisher cares about getting information out?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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?"
...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
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.
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.
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"
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.
Writers != Publishers
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.
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?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
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.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.