Military doctor's Iraq Web diary shut down

[malachi]

If a blog falls in Iraq does it make any noise?

A Bucks County military doctor serving in Iraq says he was forced to shut down his Internet war diary last week after Army officials decided his gripping accounts of frontline medicine constituted a breach of Army regulations.

Maj. Michael Cohen, a doctor with the 67th Combat Support Hospital unit, had chronicled the bloody aftermath of the Dec. 21 mess-hall bombing in Mosul that killed 22. That account and 12 months of other postings on his Web log, www.67cshdocs.com, were replaced with a short notice:

"Levels above me have ordered, yes ORDERED, me to shut down this Web site. They cite that the information contained in these pages violates several Army Regulations," Cohen wrote, adding that he disagreed with the ban

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/10566819.htm

[Jacobin]

1. Gee, I thought they only banned blogs in Iran

Guess Ayatollah Bush is following the same track.

[Just Me]

2. It was interfering with propaganda,...

,...doncha' know, Maj. Michael Cohen. The truth MUST be hidden!!!

[noamnety]

3. It is a violation of the regs

Anyone in the military who publishes information about what the military is doing is required to get it approved prior to publication, normally by the Public Affairs Office as well as the Operations Security Officer (I used to be one of those).

Putting information on a web page counts as publishing.

That goes for papers released at scientific conferences, any information that army program managers put on their web pages, all sorts of information. It's a rule that's been around - and been enforced - for years.

[LynnTheDem]

4. Not quite.

Anyone in the military wanting to publish material that WAS classified or COULD still be classified, or COULD AIDE the enemy etc needs pre-approval.

The military no longer censors our letters, either.

[noamnety]

6. a written letter is not considered "publishing"

You have to get published material approved. Even if it's not classified, even if you can't conceive of a situation where it would help the enemy.

The OPSEC officer checks off that it's not classified, but also that it's not covered under For Official Use Only policies, including Privacy Act information.

There's an obvious conflict of interest if the author had the authority to approve it for public release, and a lot of times I had people who included a sentence or two they wanted to publish that was clearly inappropriate, and they just didn't know. 99% of the time, we would agree to a word change on the spot, and they'd get it approved.

It's a matter of checks and balances. In the case of the doctor, if for example, he were publishing recognizable photos of patients without their consent, the approving officer might require him to go back and get releases from the people in the photos. That's not an unreasonable request.

[LynnTheDem]

8. Maybe different for army?

Coz hubby says that's not strictly true. He's off to the base for the day; I'll ask hom when he's back. :)

[noamnety]

9. Nope, not different for the army

I was the OPSEC Officer for a 5,000 person Army Command for a few years. Those were the rules when I left the command in 2002.

[LynnTheDem]

11. Hubby is still A/D.

I'll ask him for fuller info when he's back. He was in charge of the PR for the NBC units in Iraq, so he had the latest "what you can't say for publishing" list, lol!

[noamnety]

12. PR is a separate approval

One sign off from the OPSEC officer, an additional sign off from Public Affairs. They have separate criteria, but they should both be required to review info prior to release.

[peacetalksforall]

5. If he were not a doctor, they would have probably concocted a

rule that would set him up for discharge.

[jmcgowanjm]

7. Medical personnel-the 1st to be drafted

The Mighty US GI's: Lied To, Used, and Losing.

Their lack of control inside the cities of Iraq is now matched
by their lack of control over the highways between them.
When US military leaders have to decide which deadly option
to choose from, it reflects a tone of despair where the safety
of the troops is no longer an important issue. No one is able
to define the mission of the troops in Iraq, or for how long
this mission will last. No one at all, including George W.
Bush, can explain the US strategy in Iraq. This is because
there is no strategy.

http://uruknet.info/.?p=m8632

Requests have been made for additional staff members
and resources at all levels. As the medical needs facing
the military have increased, however, the supply of
medical personnel has gotten tighter. Many surgeons have
been on a second deployment or an extended deployment,
and even this has not been sufficient. As a result,
military urologists, plastic surgeons, and
cardiothoracic surgeons have been tasked to fill some
general surgeon positions. Planners are having to
contemplate pressing surgeons into yet a third
deployment.

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8262

[NNN0LHI]

10. Remember Saddam's "minders" in Iraq Chimpy used to tell us about?

Well, we have them here now. Let freedom reign!

Don

[Javaman]

13. Just following orders. I hope he made sure to click his heels as well....

Ahhh yes, those are the same types of freedoms we are bringing to Iraq.

Just like the Clash once said, "You have the right to free speach, unless of course you are not actually stupid enough to try it."