Soldiers' blogs being looked at now.

[arlania]

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerig ... y_bloggers



I cant understand why they would be concerned in terms of giving away positions and such but...a blog? I mean if your trying to sabotage a unit I think you can figure out a safer way to not get caught.

[Xiona]

they just dont want the truth being published, and when troops are stuck in a pointless war their opinions arent favoring the war.

[BRP]

they just dont want the truth being published, and when troops are stuck in a pointless war theyre opinions arent favoring the war.

DIE AMERIKKKA

DIE AMERIKKA!

DIE!

[Misterjingles]

Soldiers apparently don't get the same rights as the people of the country they're defending as.

[Xiona]

Soldiers apparently don't get the same rights as the people of the country they're defending as.

technically they dont, once they sign the dotted line they belong to the government. they follow differenct rules, laws, and definatelty have different rights.

[Priran]

ITT people who've never held a job where you were told not to share "company secrets", or have never heard of a NDA.

[pohibaba]

Soldiers apparently don't get the same rights as the people of the country they're defending as.

Exactly, they don't. There's nothing wrong with this, as the security of our country and our troops are more important than troops' liberties. They understood this (or should have) when they signed up to be in the millitary.

[Raineer]

Soldiers apparently don't get the same rights as the people of the country they're defending as.

Exactly, they don't. There's nothing wrong with this, as the security of our country and our troops are more important than troops' liberties. They understood this (or should have) when they signed up to be in the millitary.

Seriously. It's really no different than anywhere else (like NDA's, mentioned above), and how do you police exactly what they are letting out and possibly how it could be tracked and interpreted by the enemy?

I'm sure US intelligence would love to have a handful of blogs from Al-Qaeda members, and the reason why should be obvious.

[Septimus]

Soldiers apparently don't get the same rights as the people of the country they're defending as.

Exactly, they don't. There's nothing wrong with this, as the security of our country and our troops are more important than troops' liberties. They understood this (or should have) when they signed up to be in the millitary.

But the question remains, is the government policing the blogs to prevent national security from being compromised, or because it will be a PR nightmare if the American people find out that troop morale isn't as high as the spin machine says it is?

Guess which one my cynicism is pointing towards.

[Raineer]

Soldiers apparently don't get the same rights as the people of the country they're defending as.

Exactly, they don't. There's nothing wrong with this, as the security of our country and our troops are more important than troops' liberties. They understood this (or should have) when they signed up to be in the millitary.

But the question remains, is the government policing the blogs to prevent national security from being compromised, or because it will be a PR nightmare if the American people find out that troop morale isn't as high as the spin machine says it is?

Guess which one my cynicism is pointing towards.

No one cares, even if the second result is a "side-benefit" to the current administration. You can't have un-monitored solider postings being published on the interwebs.

[SephYuyX]

Yeah, I really dont see the bad point of this, they would probably be better off if they didnt have any outside communication at all.

My dad was telling me about an incident the other day, when we were talking about my friend going back to Iraq, that he knew a guy from his HS that was a submariner, and when their boat was going ashore they were bombed. They later found out that a female officer called someone and told them that they would be landing at 'place' at 'time' and the opposing forces intercepted the message and attacked the ship killing a lot of people. Not sure if anyone remembers this story..

But yeah, hence the phrase 'Loose lips sink ships'.

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah, I really dont see the bad point of this, they would probably be better off if they didnt have any outside communication at all.

Yeah, you're totally right. My sister would've been much better off in Iraq for a year if she couldn't send emails and make phone calls back and forth to her family. It would've improved her morale, made her less likely to go stir-crazy, and helped her deal with the death of friends and the trauma of having soldiers die under her care.

Erm, or the exact opposite.

Oh, also the comparisons to NDAs are fun for two reasons - one is that NDAs don't allow your company to monitor all your communications "just in case", and two is that if they want to change your NDA mid-job, you can, you know, leave if you don't like it.

[Priran]

Oh, also the comparisons to NDAs are fun for two reasons - one is that NDAs don't allow your company to monitor all your communications "just in case", and two is that if they want to change your NDA mid-job, you can, you know, leave if you don't like it.

Also, people don't die when you violate your NDA.

[Alleya]

The regulations in the article make some semblence of sense. I don't see what could be bad about having a superior double-check your writings for anything that might compromise your unit or others. Of course, when the inevitable scandal emerges when we find out that these changes were used by the pentagon/state dept/etc to silence troop opposition to the war/used as twisted evidence in a court martial, then we can have a new discussion about it.

The assertions that soldiers should not be allowed to contact the outside world are apallingly fascist. Catch-allism is the first step towards the death of liberty. Soldier or no, they are still human. Soldiers have enough to deal with with PTSD, brain injuries, and handicaps that they will never recieve adequate care for under the failed veteran healthcare system, we don't need to add short term suffering to the list and exacerbate their utter psychological destruction. If the military can't trust its own soldiers to exercise restraint in their communications, it's a slippery slope to automatonism. If we ask these people to defend America with their lives, then they should be as Americans.

[Raineer]

one is that NDAs don't allow your company to monitor all your communications "just in case"

Means exactly that here, and I don't even work for the government.

[Khamsin]

Finding blogs on the internet is hardly monitoring communications.

I guess a lot of people monitor RKenshin's communications, too. We're violating his rights!

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

they just dont want the truth being published, and when troops are stuck in a pointless war their opinions arent favoring the war.

If I'm not mistaken most of the soldiers blogs said positive things about the war.

[MF Perm]

The regulations in the article make some semblence of sense. I don't see what could be bad about having a superior double-check your writings for anything that might compromise your unit or others. Of course, when the inevitable scandal emerges when we find out that these changes were used by the pentagon/state dept/etc to silence troop opposition to the war/used as twisted evidence in a court martial, then we can have a new discussion about it.

The assertions that soldiers should not be allowed to contact the outside world are apallingly fascist. Catch-allism is the first step towards the death of liberty. Soldier or no, they are still human. Soldiers have enough to deal with with PTSD, brain injuries, and handicaps that they will never recieve adequate care for under the failed veteran healthcare system, we don't need to add short term suffering to the list and exacerbate their utter psychological destruction. If the military can't trust its own soldiers to exercise restraint in their communications, it's a slippery slope to automatonism. If we ask these people to defend America with their lives, then they should be as Americans.

As much as I agree with you, unfortunately once you join the Armed Forces you become subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and civilian law does not apply. When you are sworn in you agree to this, among the shit ton of paperwork they have you sign.

Civil liberty is essentially out the window when you decide to serve the US, and it becomes a privilege, not a right.

[MF Perm]

Just to clarify, having been in the Navy - I am glad that the law of the land is the UCMJ and not civilian law. The military would be chaos if that were not the case.

And in the military it is better to be an autonomous unit than to be an individual. Individuals get people killed.

A simple blog excerpt by several soldiers saying something along the lines of "today we left such-and-such town" or something so small like that can be mapped out by counter-intel and put lives at risk.

I wish I could say I seriously doubt it's another Bush agenda to prevent bad publicity, but I really can't rule that out either.

But either way the good outweighs the bad in this scenario.

I do feel for the soldiers that may use blogs to deal but, hopefully punishment won't be too harsh if someone slips up - but lives may be at risk. At least they're not banning them from blogging, that would be disastrous.

[Septimus]

If the military can't trust its own soldiers to exercise restraint in their communications, it's a slippery slope to automatonism.

Silly Alleya. The Patriot Act put us on a sled zooming down that hill already.