The end of military blogs?
“The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops’ online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Surveillance
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Cease and desist
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:33 amFrom now on, no more wanking in the office…
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 amYEAH F*CK THE 1st AMENDMENT ESPECIALLY WHEN ITS YOUR JOB TO DIE FOR IT!
aint hypocracy grand?
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 amIt’s because this administration has lost the support of the military…and because they can’t keep saying “Things are peachy over there” with evidence to the contrary.
Republicans don’t support the troops!
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 amsecrecy is the beginning of tyranny
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:40 amActually, I’m surprised it took them this long to figure out they should silence the troops.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:43 amHow are our troops supposed to get the good news out that the MSM ignores?
/sarc
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:43 amIt’s looking more and more like communist Russia in this country every day.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:45 amThe British found how hard it was to take away freedoms from people. The military will be more successful at first but this will only create diaries and logs that will be more damning than the blog itself.
#4. I believe you are right. The personnel in the military give up certain freedoms so others may keep theirs but if the leaders have lost the respect of their subordinates, they have lost effective control.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:45 amcalling all military bloggers. put the following on your next post: “as soon as the US Army can tell me why the foxtrot i am fighting in the WRONG GODDAMM COUNTRY i will gladly quit telling the truth about what is going on here”
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:46 amEither Bush doesn’t want the soldiers being influenced by the growing discontent from all Americans over the war, or more interesting, perhaps he is trying to cut off any sign of growing discontent in soldiers serving in Iraq. Perhaps the only way he can control things is to cut off all communications..
I can’t imagine how the soldiers keep up their morale realizing how hopeless this situation is, that there is no military solution yetting they are continually put out there anyway. They see their fellow soldiers blown up or shot and live with an extremely heightened stress level day after day after day. The only support they get from this president is to extend their tours of duty and causing even greater hardship on their families and increasing the risk to the soldiers. I can see where there just might start being a heightened sense of discontent beginning to take root.
Brother.. The president extends their tours yet again AND cuts off communications with families and their country back home.. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I think Bush has lost support of the American people on this horrible war. Once he loses support from the miliary and the soldiers, then I think this war will finally be over.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 amIs this what you mean by a positive sign the surge is working, George?
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 amWatch how fast the e-mail order is rescinded
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:50 amwith no way to express oneself, even greater frustration will take its place, and I wonder what form it will take?
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:51 amThis is a desperate attempt to control information but the loss of total control is permanent.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:53 amWhy would they need to do something like this? Aren’t we showing signs of progress?
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:53 amWhere are the trolls? I want someone to explain to me the spin of why we need to silence our troops. If progress is being made, wouldn’t the military on the ground be the first to know? What are they afraid the troops will say? Are they going to start restricting the mail too?
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 amLet’s just blame Bush. That’s all we do anyway!
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:56 amCould this be the reason?
Since the “Surge” began:
Only One In Ten US Dead In Iraq Are Reported
Baghdad–”Six days ago, I was in an armed convoy driving through the McCain-safe streets of Baghdad when a non-existent rocket, made right here and not in Tehran, blasted into a truck carrying fifteen GIs. We had to stop, could not turn around because there were vehicles behind us, frantically trying to flee in all directions, and so I saw what were the shredded remains of all fifteen soldiers littering the street and smoldering. Not the sort of thing to look at, or smell, after breakfast or before lunch.
There was not a word of this in our media at home and the official casualty lists, posted on the net didn’t mention any of them. There are fifteen that never got reported. Fellow in the next building from me does the casualty reports for transmitting back to the States and he says they publish the names of one in ten. This has been a very bad month with over 300 known dead!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070430&articleId=5532
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:57 amThe IAVA will have something to say about this.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:58 amFunny how this decision just happened to come after the Armed Forces Journal posted a stunning critique of leadership in the Iraq War from Lt. Col. Paul Yingling the other day.
The Bushies must be terrified that the troops are actually speaking out now about their blunders. How can Georgie the AWOLer use the troops as props in his photo-ops when they are expressing themselves freely about the war?
Bush is telling them to shut up and smile for the next photo. Don’t talk about the strains they’re under on their 3rd and 4th tours. Don’t talk about VA health care. Just shut up and die for Haliburton.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:58 amAs if the current administration and military leadership (loosely applied) weren’t doing enough to make the lives of our troops miserable?
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:59 amLet’s have some discipline in the ranks.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:00 amAnd some floggings ought to work well for those who dare to exercise their first Amendment rights.
there is a logical reason for not allowing military blogs - the possibility of revealing sensitive information… however, if like the federal attorney hirings this is politically motivated, the military should be ashamed of itself… as has been said before, it’s ironic that our troops are fighting for rights they themselves are not being allowed to exercise…
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:01 amNice, personal email too. So the troops will have their emails to the families screened and approved. And I’m sure it’s being looked at both ways.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:02 amdang-it chrisL you called the lying scum out. now we’re going to get a bargeload bs about national security, opsec and keeping troops safe.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 amYou can go and die for OIL but you cannot send your wife, husband, son, daughter, lover etc an e-mail?
This has crossed the line.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 amThis will be very detrimental to troop morale. Many times, these blogs and e-mails are the only way troops have of expressing sorrow, remorse, and handling stress in an environment that most Americans cannot comprehend. There will be blowback from this decision, and it will come in the form of court martials, suicides, and stressed-out leaders making bad tactical decisions.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 amSo, who’s freedoms are we fighting for?
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 amThey can’t post because Al-Qaeda in Iraq is kicking asss!
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 amGo Al-Qaeda!
A little 1984 served with a steaming hot bowl of repukian talking points anyone?
Must not say what’s on your mind, the government owns your mind.
Desent is treason, war is peace, ignorance is security, outsourcing is good, Fox is news, Bush is intelligent ( well, no one will believe that one).
Hating the Repukian Mafia daily
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 am#17: What? Letters back home were routinely censored during previous military conflicts. Why should we let soldiers post on the net?
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 amIn a era of imbedded reporters and gags on flag draped caskets, this is an obvious attempt to keep any truths from leaking out to the american people. How much farther will they go? Are they going to outlaw letters home? I wonder now if those are being censored. If we are right in what we’re doing over there why all this?
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:07 am….sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer….
So if one of our military guys in Iraq wants to send his wife a little cyber-sex, he’s got to run it by the boss?
F*ck that shit.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:07 amCould this be the reason?
Since the “Surge†began:
Only One In Ten US Dead In Iraq Are Reported
OH NO! Not this shite again!
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:07 amWhere’s hacker_bob? If he’s here he’s certainly not speaking up on this. He’s been on the immigration thread already this morning. Does that mean immigration is more important to him than soldiers I wonder?
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 am#
Nice, personal email too. So the troops will have their emails to the families screened and approved. And I’m sure it’s being looked at both ways.
Comment by BuckarooBanzai — May 2, 2007 @ 11:02 am
#
Sorry about that. Besides, if it were about opsec, they would be more concerned about the constant phone calls home from phone shacks that are run by the locals in Baghdad. When I left in May of ‘04, they were allowing video conferencing with families at home as well. I wonder if that will be put to rest now as well?
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 am#
#17: What? Letters back home were routinely censored during previous military conflicts. Why should we let soldiers post on the net?
Comment by GOPcurious — May 2, 2007 @ 11:06 am
#
Why should we prevent them from posting on the net? Also, my letters home from Baghdad were not censored. Neither were my phone calls.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 amBushCo. wouldn’t lie to save face Klyde #35. They’ve been so honest otherwise. BWAaaaahahahahahahhhaaa
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 amSo let me get this straight. Wife write to husband in Iraq,”Mechanic says transmission will cost $500.00. Is that a fair price? Should I do it?” Husband can’t respond without approval of commanding officer?How about, “Doctor advises I should get my tubes tied to deal with the problem. What should I do?” Commanding officer gets to see that answer , too?
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 amSo if one of our military guys in Iraq wants to send his wife a little cyber-sex, he’s got to run it by the boss?
F*ck that shit.
Comment by Zooey — May 2, 2007 @ 11:07 am
#
Uh…yeah… Cyber-sex is already forbidden, Zooey. I had a friend of mine get a filed grade Article 15 for that. They took six-months pay, and dropped him two ranks.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 amThe real target may be blogging.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 amIn the inevitable uproar, the brass will say:
“OK, OK, we’ll be nice, you can send your personal e-mail, but no more blogging…deal?”
Will the military overseers now be reading handwritten letters too? Doe anyone but me see the attack on free speech here? Too bad, the U.S. troops signed up under a democratic form of government but did not get a vote when fascism took over.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 amSo much for free speech.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:18 am#
So let me get this straight. Wife write to husband in Iraq,â€Mechanic says transmission will cost $500.00. Is that a fair price? Should I do it?†Husband can’t respond without approval of commanding officer?How about, “Doctor advises I should get my tubes tied to deal with the problem. What should I do?†Commanding officer gets to see that answer , too?
Comment by dorothy — May 2, 2007 @ 11:15 am
#
What about when wife writes, “So, is your commander still being a jacka$$?”, or “Is your squad leader still putting you on all of the $hit details?”
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 amChrisL That’s why I’m skeptical about the story. Between, Iraqna phones, MWR phones and e-mail, AT&T rooms and private internet networks, yea we had private internet when I left Abu-G, an order like this makes no sense.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 amActually, I’m surprised the military had such lax Information security to begin with.
I’m for the 1st amendment, but “Loose Lips sink ships”. To me, the real question is, Is this done for Information security or just Propaganda control?
I’m betting the Later.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 amThey can always resort to what prisoners with websites or blogs do - send the information home in the form of a letter, and have someone else post it for them.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:21 amre # 30
go away troll plant. you come here and say stupid things posing as a liberal and then your wingnut friends use that as evidence that we are traitors.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:21 am….and how about a victim of sexual harrassment who has no other way to cry for help?
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:22 amUh…yeah… Cyber-sex is already forbidden, Zooey. I had a friend of mine get a filed grade Article 15 for that. They took six-months pay, and dropped him two ranks.
Comment by chris L
Youre shitting me! Not fair.
Ok, what about a hot and heavy love letter — no imaginary sex? Oh hell, I don’t care if it’s just a discussion about getting the dog fixed, it’s PRIVATE!
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:22 amSo if one of our military guys in Iraq wants to send his wife a little cyber-sex, he’s got to run it by the boss?
F*ck that shit.
Comment by Zooey — May 2, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Zooey, it is obvious your life is way more exciting than mine.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:22 amno name this same bullshit was circulating at the beginning of the war. I said then and I’ll say now the junta has enough to account for we don’t have to make up shit about them. It just makes us look foolish.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 amFellow in the next building from me does the casualty reports for transmitting back to the States and he says they publish the names of one in ten. This has been a very bad month with over 300 known dead!
Comment by . — May 2, 2007 @ 10:57 am
I’m sorry but I can’t stop laughing at you for seriously believing this.
Here is a site I visit quite frequently. http://www.cnn.com/ SPECIALS/ 2003/ iraq/ forces/ casualties/
I find it hard to believe that 90% of the people that lost a child/spouse/lover in this war have never found that site and noticed their loved one not on it. Also that those hundreds of thousands of soldiers that returned and got out haven’t looked up their friends they lost at sites like that.
Wacko theories like that do not help the anti-war movement at all and make it look like a group of nut jobs.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:25 amWhat about when wife writes, “So, is your commander still being a jacka$$?â€, or “Is your squad leader still putting you on all of the $hit details?â€
Comment by chris L — May 2, 2007 @ 11:19 am
Or when the soldier says 15 were blown up yesterday but the wife tells him that the news reported only 3 dead soldiers. Don’t want anybody asking questions in the military.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 amYou know, Bush just needs to create an army of Clones, or Orks, or robots, or something that won’t have any independent thoughts, no physical or emotional needs, and numbers that can be easily replenished.. They wouldn’t need sleep or sustenance, or bathroom breaks. That will follow whatever orders he gives without question.. They can go and go and go.. just like the Energizer bunny. You know, super low maintenance. Easy on the record keeping as well.. Yeah.. maybe I’m on to something here.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:28 am#
ChrisL That’s why I’m skeptical about the story. Between, Iraqna phones, MWR phones and e-mail, AT&T rooms and private internet networks, yea we had private internet when I left Abu-G, an order like this makes no sense.
Comment by klyde — May 2, 2007 @ 11:20 am
#
When were you at Abu? I lived about 300 meters from there on Engineer Row! Sweet. Yeah, this does warrant some skepticism. I personally think this is not about opsec. This is more about the immediate dissemination of information to a large group of people. If they were worried about Opsec, the At&t shacks would have been the first thing shut down.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 amSince the surge began Tundra, since the Surge began. I have to laugh at the fact that you don’t read carefully.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:30 amUh…yeah… Cyber-sex is already forbidden, Zooey. I had a friend of mine get a filed grade Article 15 for that. They took six-months pay, and dropped him two ranks.
Comment by chris L — May 2, 2007 @ 11:15 am
I am going to call BS or gullibility on your part on this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonjudicial_punishment
Maximum punishment for a Field Grade Article 15.
Forfeiture of pay: not more than ½ of one month’s pay per month for two months.
There are plenty of more official sources but I trust you could find them.
Plus to get 2 ranks gone it would have required it to go pretty high up the chain. Guess the Battalion Commander had to be brought in on those charges.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 amtundra @ 54 that 90% were all orphaned loners.
/snark off
You said it much better then I did.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 amZooey, it is obvious your life is way more exciting than mine.
Comment by Shane
Heh. Not saying a word. :-)
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 amAs I recall, Bush just bragged a week or two ago about how it was easier for our soldiers to be overseas today thanks to the modern world of email.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:44 amWeren’t the troops recently told to hold their tongues when speaking to Congressional committees? I seem to recall hearings hit a road block when officers in the field were ordered not to answer questions put to them on the Hill.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:48 amPlus to get 2 ranks gone it would have required it to go pretty high up the chain. Guess the Battalion Commander had to be brought in on those charges.
Comment by Tundra — May 2, 2007 @ 11:32 am
The Lt. Col was the one that preferred the charges. My friend was a SSG working in the S-3. At the time, there were two other, non-related, court martials (one of which I testified in) that involved soldiers trying to send weapons home. The commander was pissed already, and this just sent him over the edge. If you want to call bull$hit, fine, but I was there. BTW, I turned in my own squad leader for trying to send weapons home, and AFTER I testified against him in the court-martial, he was still allowed to write my NCOER.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:52 amComment by Shane — May 2, 2007 @ 11:10 am
I’ll say this:
It is a damn good thing that I am not in the Army:-).
There are often limitations put on military personel in regards to their First Amendment rights. I personally think it is bulls*it of the highest order.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:05 pmThe process for a nonjudicial punishment is governed by Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial and by each service branch’s regulations. (Which a Field Grade Article 15 is)
A Lt Col has zero authority to take 6 months pay from anyone without a court martial.
To have reduction in pay for 6 months you have to be convicted in a court martial.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 pm“Where are the trolls? I want someone to explain to me the spin of why we need to silence our troops. ”
They are probably enlisting to serve as political officers for the United Republican States of America. Their job will be to make sure our soldiers are not contaminated with the truth. The soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution…not to enjoy the benefits derived from that document.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 pmTo have reduction in pay for 6 months you have to be convicted in a court martial.
Comment by Tundra — May 2, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Look, I don’t want to derail the thread arguing this with you. We seem to agree on everything else. Our court-martials were being run by a Major from JAG who was doing precisely what our Bn Cdr was telling him to do. This was a National Guard Unit (1457th Eng Combat Bn) and we were at the end of our tour, and looking forward to going home. The Bn Commander could do whatever he wanted at the time. We all knew we would be home and be civilians soon anyway. By the time anyone tried to appeal his decision, it wouldn’t matter anyway. If you want to discuss it further, my personal e-mail is at gnurulz @ gmail.com. Also, if you are near SLC, Utah, I am often at the VA.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 pmThere are often limitations put on military personel in regards to their First Amendment rights. I personally think it is bulls*it of the highest order.
Comment by hacker bob — May 2, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
I can see it now.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 pmSquad Leader “OK we are going to secure that bridge, Snuffy and Rat go left, Jones and Smitty lay down cover fire. Johnson and myself will go up the center.
Smitty “I want to go up the center”
Johnson” How come I can’t lay down cover fire?”
Snuffy “I think I need a break for a few, I’m feeling stressed”
Smitty “I read a book once where they had to secure a bridge and they didn’t do it like that”
Rat “Whooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Smitty “You know I think I should really be running things here”
Squad Leader “We have to move now or the whole unit is going to get wiped out”
Smitty “I’m telling you to do it this way”
Snuffy “Can I get a union rep here because I’m not moving till I do, we are working too hard”
Squad Leader “Shut up and move”
Smitty “Trying to silence me is only hurting my first amendment rights, and getting you no where”
Snuffy “Oh I really need one now”
Jones “Hey don’t talk to him like that”
Johnson “Shut up is not a nice thing to say to people, you should be nicer if you expect results”
After all, do we really need to hear directly from the troops? If good, God-fearing, law-abiding Americans want to know the truth about the War on Terror, they just have to tune into Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or Fox News. The Good Lord and the GOP knows the average soldier isn’t smart enough to explain the complexities of Iraq to the rest of us.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:17 pmAlso, if you are near SLC, Utah, I am often at the VA.
Comment by chris L — May 2, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
We shall have to go out and get a few drinks then.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pmI knew about all this garbage last Saturday…Spent a lot of time talking to 4 sailors that came to my resort to fish….Much is told off the record in private conversation’s that would never be stated by mail, phone or email…2 of the men had planned to be career officers, not now…They are leaving the service…The other 2 are just finishing up their short term after 2 stunt
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:33 pms in Iraq…..Every single service person I have talked to has said the same thing..This is madness and they can’t stand the killing of innocent men, women and children….Last Saturday one of the bunch said what many here have already said with a question…”How can it be we are fighting in a civil war for another country and not allowed our own freedom of speech”….Indeed, bull shit bush, how can it be….Blessings
Don’t Ask: Don’t Tell: Don’t Blog.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:42 pmDoes anyone recall the scandal in the first year of the war when officers ordered soldiers to sign letters to their hometown newspapers that said How great things were going and how the US had been greeted as liberators?
If you can’t find Good News, make it up. If there’s too much Bad News, shut it up.
DA;DT;DB.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:45 pm#
Let’s just blame Bush. That’s all we do anyway!
Comment by Mark — May 2, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Well, the buck does stop with the CinC, doesn’t it?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 pmExcuse me for noticing, but aren’t these the same conditions we place on criminal convicts serving time in prison?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:22 pmWhat part of “support the troops” is this, exactly? There are military blogs from soldiers that both support and don’t support the occupation/war. What’s the problem here? Is there a grand leak of top secret information and/or maneuvers (a la Geraldo) or is the growing dessent from soldiers about the war getting too loud to ignore?
Inquiring minds want to know…
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:19 pmMilitary Families Speak Out -MFSO - had to shut their yahoo.com blog down years ago. This is another cruel screw job by Bush and company. Will this be the final screw that leads to a military resistance? Isn’t this, communication via email, all the troops really have????? Is Bush really that afraid the REAL TRUTH is going to get out there, now in volumns????
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 pmHow many here actually bothered to READ AR 530–1?
It clearly applies to information that is For Official Use Only.(paragraph 2-2g)
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:40 pmIt kind of reminds me of when I was in the military during Vietnam. Command could not tolerate dissent, even when off duty and out of uniform. GI coffee houses located in towns near bases were declared off limits to military personnel. Now, with nowhere else to blow off steam, watch the fraggings increase soon.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:07 pmTroops aren’t dumb, they’ll find a way.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:28 pmWhen you cannot exercise the rights that you swore an oath to protect, then you have the makings of a dictatorship.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 pmThis is the most outrageous thing I’ve heard yet, Bush has taken all our rights away and now he is going to take away the rights of the very men and women who are fighting for him. Now I know without a shadow of a doubt the man is certifiably crazy! He’s a lunatic! I hope and pray the soldiers don’t take this one lying down.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pm