A Kansas City Star editorial opposes the U.S. Army’s efforts to restrict online blogs by soldiers, calling it a "misguided move" that will have the effect of shutting down blogs.
As the Star argues, "military blogs provide the public with valuable accounts of the firsthand experiences of our troops. These stories can do much to build support and respect for our armed forces."
What do you think? Did the Army overreact? There’s an obvious need for security guidelines. But I’m not aware of any cases of Army bloggers posting information that compromised operations or endangered troops.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
42 Comments
Myspace and Youtube are just FULL of secret military plans being leaked. It’s because of Youtube that the initial invasion of Iraq failed, and is why the Third Army is now pinned down just north of Riyadh. It’s because of Myspace leaks that Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran have formed a new Islamic Axis, and are now threatening New Delhi with nuclear attacks.
Oh wait, none of that ever happened.
Nevermind.
Funny stuff, Tom.
I wondered why we weren’t hearing from Andrew anymore.
Yeah, this figures. Totally in keeping with the Bush government that values control over freedom.
Yeah Capn,
because you have lost so many Freedoms.
what Gulag are you being held at this Week??
BG, try sticking to the subject.
Effin’ 28%’ers can’t have a conversation about the failures of the Bush Administration. Instead, it’s attack the political opposition, twist the fact, change the subject, and sometimes just lie.
::eyeroll::
TOM???what Bush Failure, the thread doesn’t say anything about Bush..looks like you are changing the subject as well
This is a Military Decision not a Bush decision…—–
BG,
Bush is the Commander in Chief. If gets the power and the glory, he gets the responsibility, and the blame.
Why is this so hard for the 28%’ers to understand?
28%ers. Yup it was the 28%ers that got the sites banned. Whoops, no it was BUSH!!! Whoops, no it wasn’t.
You guys get a grip!!!! Bush does NOT have his finger on every damn thing that happens in this country. The banning came from the MILITARY COMMANDERS.
Some of the younger troops don’t have a full understanding of OPSEC. You think dead head bloggers like us are the only ones reading online????? Think maybe some bad guys might have clued in? And if PFC Somebody unwittingly posts where he is or what he’s doing, do you think that information might be useful?
You guys need to get a grip.
And as for the 28%er remarks. I can fully accept there have been many MANY snafu’s with the Bush administration. I am also adult enough to realize the Bush didn’t play a role in EVERYTHING THAT GOES WRONG IN THIS COUNTRY. Wish y’all could grow up a bit though.
This was a dumb idea, no matter who came up with it, or approved it. If any classified informaiton was leaked, punish the leaker. Leave everyone else alone.
Sol,
Please paste in where I said the 28%’ers banned Youtube and Myspace.
Of course Bush doesn’t play a role in everything that goes wrong in this country. But again, he’s Commander in Chief. Not only is he CiC, but he won’t allow *any* criticism of how he’s handling the war to sway him from the path he’s chosen.
My favorite line from Disney’s “Alladin:”
PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER! itty bitty living space.
Just like Bush gets the power and glory of being CiC, when the war goes bad, he gets the blame.
That’s just the way it works.
“But I’m not aware of any cases of Army bloggers posting information that compromised operations or endangered troops.”
Oh HELL NO! It takes bush himself to do THAT!
Isnt he the one who stood in front of MAPS on television that included information not intended for the public. Much less our enemies?
Oh yeah, but it’s the grunts on the blogs that are causing us to fail. I smell a new meme, a variation of stabbed in the back.
The bloggers did it. Heheheheh!
I know it’s asking a lot, but can we all just cut the crap? This was a stupid decision, but one that is based on hundreds of years of behavior. The military has ALWAYS wanted to keep every little iota of what was going on private. That is nothing new. It’s not new to Bush, wasn’t new to Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, etc. It;s just the military way. Let’s not blowit into more than it is. Oh I forgot, this is a blog:)
Tom,I don’t think you read the first line I wrote…
“28%ers. Yup it was the 28%ers that got the sites banned. Whoops, no it was BUSH!!! Whoops, no it wasn’t.”
OK, so Bush has to decide, ramp up deploy, and support each squad – if you want micro-management, then here you go. Or should we break it down into buddy teams? OK buddy teams. Should Bush give them their packing list? Should he hold their hand through out processing? Should he make sure each of their powers of attorney are punctuated correctly?
Isn’t it called delegation of authority? Shouldn’t those chosen for their knowledge and skills be left to make the decisions of the stations appointed to them? No? What I hear from you is that Bush should hold the hand of every soldier during every second of every day. THEN he will be doing his job.
Lets not forget about the police here too. Or the nurses and aids at the hospitals. Bush needs to hold everyones hands because they are not held responsible for ANYTHING they do.
Give the white house a call Tom, why don’t you be the first in line to have your hand held.
Within any organization, the person at the top does not make all the decisions. However, they have responsibility for everything in their organization that they know about or reasonably should have known about.
The President is Commander in Chief, the top of the military organization. Of course he does not make all the decisions in the Military, but he does have ultimate responsibility for all of those that he knows about or reasonably knows about. Given Bush’s penchant for controlling information, it is safe to assume that no major decisions in the Military are made public without him knowing about them. If some decision was made within the Military that the CiC did not know about, they certainly would be able to override it.
Therefore, the President is the one to whom complaints and concerns about the Military and military practices should be addressed. Furthermore, he should be held accountable for the actions of the Military during his command, both right and wrong.
Solly dude, are you just off your meds today?
“Isn’t it called delegation of authority?”
Yes. And any “CEO” preznit should know that the one who delegates is ALWAYS held accountable for the decisions and actions of the person to whom they “delegated”.
Accountability. What a concept.
I think AG AG needs to remember that lesson too. If you delegate, you are responsible.
Did these republic skool of business just leave that course on delegation off the course list?
High Five Brian!
Good to see you again!
It is my understanding that the military has, for at least a few months if not longer, required the troops blogging to have their posts reviewed to ensure OPSEC is not compromised.
Y’all kill me. OK, so the decision to ban sites (by the military) was approved by Bush. If that is y’all’s stance, then this isn’t even worth discussing.
Yes. And any “CEO” preznit should know that the one who delegates is ALWAYS held accountable for the decisions and actions of the person to whom they “delegated”.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | May 16, 2007 at 01:09 PM
Hell, I wish I could find a company that works like that. he bastards at the top always get off or immediately get hired to run anothe company into the ground.
Actually, I do believe in that premise, just never seems to work out that way. And yeah, President Bush needs to take responsibility, he is the CIC. Perhaps he thinks it is a great idea. I think it is stupid
Got to go earn some cheddar. Y’all be good.
Thanks ksfarmgrrl! It’s good to be seen
One can sure tell by reading this thread who has and who hasn’t served in the military.
There is a good reason when captured that you give up minimal information, such as name and rank. Even in the days of techno-theft, giving out your SSAN is dangerous.
For one, Military Blogs often give out locations the members are stationed. There is a direct violation of COMSEC (Communication Security) which prohibits the location of combat units.
The Military Blogs also discuss how they approach an attack, what weapons they used, what support vehicles were used, how many casualties and generally operational details. This is a violation of OPSEC(Operational Security.)
If the Army didn’t do anything about the Military Blogs, then the leadership (Generals/Colonels) could be potentially court martialed for being complicit and by doing nothing to stop this leak of information.
When I was in, there were some locations we couldn’t even mention by name or what was around the area.
There is no way to “talk around” military communications and not compromise something that an enemy will take an advantage. This tight-lip policy has been long recognized and enforced by the military and why there are rules for OPSEC and COMSEC.
For people with highly sensitive security clearances, they are not allowed to travel into certain areas unless given specific permission. These high clearances also require the service member to make report of contact and the distribution of any information they might think may compromise the mission.
There is no freedom of expression in the military unless the military allows it. When you enter the military, you become theirs and subject to the very stringent UCMJ punishments and administrative handcuffs.
To the clueless, once you put on the uniform or in the service of the non-uniformed Civil Service support functions, you keep your traps shut.
Too bad that doesnt apply to retired or disabled military…
Hehehe, particularly if those “traps to be kept shut” oppose the President’s Awesome Military Adventure.
Repub didn’t have any problem with Nathan giving us the gung-ho pep talks from Fallujah, but every time Andrew discussed the idiocy of the war, Repub was all over him with talk about his CO and military regs and “action unbecoming” etc. etc.
Save it, Repub. We’ve on to your little act.
I’m having to wonder now, given all the other crap you’ve said that doesn’t add up, whether you were even in the military.
Thanks Republican,
Good response..
What branch of the military were YOU in, BG?
I’m Not and never have been..
So What Capn got something to say..
the man had a good post straight to the point and had good arguements..
do you disagree, then post them..
“Too bad that doesnt apply to retired or disabled military…”Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | May 16, 2007 at 01:52 PM
Depends on what you did in the military ksfoamgull. I still cannot talk about equipment or missions that I went on because of Non-Disclosure security briefs I had to sign. This is a common event and followed action of every military person, retired, inactive or not, to never discuss certain things that occurred or locations.
I never noticed Nathan giving information on his time in Iraq, must have been on the other blog huh Capn?
If he did, I’m sure his retired Master Chief Petty Officer father, Hank, would have said something to him.
By the way, you should ask Hank about how tight the OPSEC and COMSEC is around the discussion of submarines and where they port and go. Some of that stuff he will never be able to discuss.
BG asks earlier what freedoms have I personally lost?
I lost the freedom to find out what soldiers who are actually doing the fighting and the dying over there think about Georgie’s Awesome Military Adventure.
That’s one freedom I lost.
I think Republican was right on the money. For the safety of the Military channels of communication should be limited to prevent disclosure of mission sensitive information.
However, I believe the public has a right to know all sides of what is going on in a war zone. That is where freedom of the press comes in. Both the good and bad should be reported so a public debate can occur over the merits of our actions as a Nation.
you never had that freedom.. It has never existed.. read the threads above..
can’t lose something you never had..
I think that the reasoning to restrict online blogs would have to be applied to emails and phone calls too.
It is just as easy to spread information through email and phone as on a blog.
One of the differences I do see is that anyone could see the blog vs having to somehow get ahold of the email or phone call information.
Either way, I think I would have been really upset without having access to a blog.
Myspace was only restricted during working hours so that it was not sucking up all the bandwidth as with almost anything not work related.
Awww, the Computer search-master can find out that JM called WSClark “Heebie” and says authoritatively that “MILFY” was used by only ONE right-wing post-er but has no recollection of Nathan posting from Iraq.
That’s so cute.
The military is not a democracy. There is no freedom of speech. Why even take the risk of the wrong information getting out?You people do want us to win, don’t you? Hello? Don’t you?[cue the crickets]
Watching Youtube videos is going to cost us Iraq?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHsnortHAHAHAHAHAHA
I would feel a lot better about “military secrets” if they hadn’t been used far more frequently to cover brass ass from the people back home than to protect vital information from the enemy.
Brian, information to the public is readily available to the Public. On TV, there is the Pentagon Channel which often goes into great detail of what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places in the military.
You can go the many of the Military Installations Websites and get general information about the Units assigned and what their mission is.
There has always been a delay factor on the release of Military operations to the public. This will probably never change.
If you have ever watched some of the televised secret missions during the first gulf war, they have been released and now are in TV documentary form. However, that has been almost fifteen years ago.
Trust me, there are some things about missions that anyone outside of the view of the Public that will never be known by anyone other than those in that chain of command conducting the operation.
I think the press should be able to report whatever information they can get. That would be a ‘free’ press.
Conversely, the Military should keep anything mission sensitive secret, and as I stated in my post, troop communication channels should be limited.
“Sir, according to you report the United States has spend over 100 billion dollars and over four years in a war that has made the U.S. the most hated country in the world. WHAT have you got to show from all this?”.“Senator we have these really nifty souvenir base ball for when the Congressman and Senator come to visit!”.*************
“Myspace was only restricted during working hours so that it was not sucking up all the bandwidth as with almost anything not work related”
Thank you Nathan, I do think that much more is being made of this then is there.And yours is the most provable reason, there is always the possibility of a security slip up.But more it is the bandwidth usage that is a concern, as to a great conspiracy to keep the American people in the dark. This would actually be the least of sources and to be honest Every soldier in ever war complains! My dad told me about them doing it in Korea and something about being shot at just makes people grumpy. By and large every one I have met that has served even in Iraq. Have said that personally they believe we are doing good by being there. They may not agree that it was a right thing to do in principal, but like several I have met that served in Vietnam. They have stories of seeing why it was right to be there. Individual accounts of wrongs that needed to be righted. Anyway, this falls into the category of sometimes a banana is nothing more then a banana.
Looks like another 28% solution!
The troops are only good for props to GW Bush and the Evil Cabal also known as the Republican Party. You know that they don’t dare allow the soldiers to have any voice except for those few chosen to be on TV with prescreened answers.
This has NOTHING, ZERO absolutely NO CONNECTION to military security or operations. It has everything to do with Bush and Cheney trying to prevent soldiers from expressing things like “why are all these fuggin contractors coming over and making $120,000 tax free in a year and going home while I am on my 3rd tour here?” That is what Bush and Cheney don’t want you and me to see.
Kev,
Do you have a shred of evidence to prove what you claim?
I am going to go with, no.
When our Navy daughter was overseas a few years ago, we were GLAD she was allowed to use the ship’s computer to send simple email. Before the computer age, we only had snail mail.I don’t think anybody has a “right” to use their employer’s computer for personal business, and when they are allowed to, they should be appreciative.I think it would be nice if military were allowed to “view but not upload” Youtube, so they could see movies sent from home. I don’t think they need to send videos, because of security, bandwith, and storage issues.