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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Entropius]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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'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

[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

[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

[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]

>>>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

[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.

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..

[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..

[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..

[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..

[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.

Public Money

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.)

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

[MiniMike]

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

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.

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

[pooh666]

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

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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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

[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.)

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.

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.

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.