[linskyjack]

I found this fascinating. The Army, has new directives vis a vis GI blogs---They worry about vets and actives revealing information that might aid and abet the enemy. Knowing the Army real well, I suspect that this is just a smoke screen to censor the writings (many of them negative) of our brave men in arms. It is ironical that the guys who put themselves in the line of fire for Iraqi freedom, don't even have the freedom of self-expression that every American treasures.

Army clamping down on soldiers' blogs

Wed May 2, 1:47 PM ET

The U.S. Army is tightening restrictions on soldiers' blogs and other Web site postings to ensure sensitive information about military operations does not make it onto public forums.

Soldiers in war zones are already subject to restrictions on blogging and public posts. But the Army's new regulation could affect service members who have returned from war zones and started blogs about their combat experiences.

Under a new directive issued in April, soldiers must consult with their immediate supervisor and an officer responsible for what's known within the military as operational security, or OPSEC, for a review of planned publications.

Reviews will be needed for Web site postings, blog postings, discussions on Internet information forums and discussions on Internet message boards, according to the Army directive.

E-mail that will be published in a public forum is also subject to review under the regulation. But Army officers said personal e-mails will not be reviewed, calling that impractical.

"We're not asking that people not blog but that people be cognizant of OPSEC," said Army spokesman Paul Boyce.

Blogs, short for Web logs, are journal-style Web sites where people publish their diaries or thoughts, talk about current events or link to other stories or pictures.

Their popularity has grown in recent years, including among service members and their families who often use blogs to post pictures from the war zone and link to stories about Iraq.

Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken

[ekim68]

I saw this today. Looks like a police state within the military...

[poochee]

Also, DOD hasn't released any injury figures for over a month. Why so secretive?

[ekim68]

You know why poochee. This is the most secretive administration in my life and memory.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by ekim68

You know why poochee. This is the most secretive administration in my life and memory.

I agree!

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

I found this fascinating. The Army, has new directives vis a vis GI blogs---They worry about vets and actives revealing information that might aid and abet the enemy. Knowing the Army real well, I suspect that this is just a smoke screen to censor the writings (many of them negative) of our brave men in arms. It is ironical that the guys who put themselves in the line of fire for Iraqi freedom, don't even have the freedom of self-expression that every American treasures.

Army clamping down on soldiers' blogs

Wed May 2, 1:47 PM ET

The U.S. Army is tightening restrictions on soldiers' blogs and other Web site postings to ensure sensitive information about military operations does not make it onto public forums.

Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken

Originally Posted by TechGuy

Please remember that it is illegal to post copyrighted articles in their entirety. You may post links to articles, quote small sections as part of your post, etc... but you cannot copy and paste the entire article. If you see anyone who has done so, please Report it so that it can be removed. Thanks!

Originally Posted by TechGuy

Even if you include the copyright notice, it's no good -- you're still violating the very notice you're posting! Please LINK to the articles and quote only a paragraph if it directly highlights your position -- not an entire article. Thanks!

I think you maybe reading way too much into this... It looks like their concern is OPSEC. Which is understandable, as I am sure there are people like you that would IMO have no problem posting ANYTHING about the military or specific operations past, present or future... That is just my opinion ...

[Stoner]

That's a first for TSG............c/p ing the copyright warning along with the main article

[linskyjack]

My error---should have just put the link in.

[Wiskycoo]

Censoring what soldiers say has always been the norm, I thought? As a protection of no one leaking information that could be used by the enemy. I see nothing wrong with it. I would however see something wrong with it, if they were censoring out how soldiers feel, as no ones feelings should be controlled.

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by Wiskycoo

Censoring what soldiers say has always been the norm, I thought? As a protection of no one leaking information that could be used by the enemy. I see nothing wrong with it. I would however see something wrong with it, if they were censoring out how soldiers feel, as no ones feelings should be controlled.

Nicely said...

[Wiskycoo]

Thank you.

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by Wiskycoo

Censoring what soldiers say has always been the norm, I thought? As a protection of no one leaking information that could be used by the enemy. I see nothing wrong with it. I would however see something wrong with it, if they were censoring out how soldiers feel, as no ones feelings should be controlled.

Absolutely, when you join the military, you sign away most of your rights under the Bill of Rights to become a proper soldier. Perhaps Linsky didn't remember that from his Nam days.

[Littlefield]

There is nothing wrong with it they do not want soliders being like Geraldo Rivera , remember him playing in the sand.

[Chicon]

Censorship in combat missions is not unusual. I've learned it in the military.
As Internet is an area open to the whole world, I'm sure there are people who spend their time to gather the more informations they can while browsing the military blogs. The same people may even exploit the feelings of the brave men in arms in order to demoralize them more.

Here's a small design :

Brave man in arm's message ----> intercepted by some guy -----> transmitted to Al Jeezerah ----> interpreted and relayed to Reuters ----> reinterpreted and broadcast by BBC, NY Times, and other Vermine News !

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by ekim68

I saw this today. Looks like a police state within the military...

How would that be different/unexpected/etc?

I thought the military was all about following orders?

Originally Posted by TooBad

Absolutely, when you join the military, you sign away most of your rights under the Bill of Rights to become a proper soldier. Perhaps Linsky didn't remember that from his Nam days.

G.I. = Government Issue =~ Uncle Sam owns you. You are now the property of the US Government. Remember that lesson from a Korea vet when I was younger.

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Knowing the Army real well, I suspect that this is just a smoke screen to censor the writings (many of them negative) of our brave men in arms.

This part(the above), I'd like to hear more about.

Originally Posted by linskyjack

It is ironical that the guys who put themselves in the line of fire for Iraqi freedom, don't even have the freedom of self-expression that every American treasures.

Did they ever?

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Reviews will be needed for Web site postings, blog postings, discussions on Internet information forums and discussions on Internet message boards, according to the Army directive.

It'll be interesting to see how much of Sarge's stuff gets through. Maybe he'll offer some clarifications when on home turf?