Stripes letter: Too much info on the web (GlobalSecurity.org)

[lebkuchen]

Too much info on Web

I understand that every soldier should limit what he or she posts on the Web (“Officials: Watch what you post on the Web,” Stars and Stripes, Oct. 1). Could we please answer the question as to why soldiers are being censored and a civilian corporation can post anything it wants on its Web site?

I was very disturbed while surfing the Web to see how much info you could find on the military’s presence in Iraq. GlobalSecurity.org is a civilian-run company. Why is it that a soldier can’t speak vaguely about a mission he went on in his Web log, but GlobalSecurity.org can post maps of Iraq with dining facilities and headquarters buildings pinpointed? GlobalSecurity.org also gives detailed descriptions of the forward operating bases, all the way down to how high the berm is around the perimeter.

It is my understanding that our “higher ups” know about this Web site and still don’t do anything about it. I don’t see why Web logging is such a big deal if GlobalSecurity.org can post where we are located all the way down to which DFACS command groups eat in. Is a soldier’s story about being part of the rebuilding of a country really that big of a security violation when we can’t even trust our own to censor what civilians put on the Web about us? No wonder we lose so many, all the insurgents have to do is get on the Web and we will let them know where we are.

If OPSEC is such a big deal, why are companies like GlobalSecurity.org not being questioned and censored? For my safety, and the safety of my fellow soldiers, I hope this issue is addressed.

Spc. Brandi Allen
Camp Liberty, Iraq

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=32174

[keopeli]

1. BAMM!! Soldier's are often right on the mark in their criticisms

Perhaps it is because the can see the belly of the beast.

The jewel in this letter can only be pieced together.

Soldiers have been told that the reason they can not post details on their blogs is because it threatens their security. Well, if it is a threat to their security, why are others allowed to proceed?

This bumbs directly into the 1st Ammendment.

Do you wonder why this particular issue, the freedom of speech, is the first?

War powers are a serious thing. The patriot act still exists. The difference in this case is enforcement. The government can easily enforce a code in the military. Enforcing censorship otherwise is very difficult.

If I was a soldier, I would probably have some pretty important stories to tell...stories that might make me want to be a civilian again.

Lastly, let me interject that my strongest reaction to this letter is that our government had better start protecting our soldiers for REAL!

[lebkuchen]

2. This topic is related to a Stripes article on muzzling troop bloggers

Oct. 1, 2005

Military issues content warning to combat-zone bloggers

WASHINGTON — Army officials this week issued new warnings to soldiers about posting personal stories from combat zones on the Internet and taking photos at overseas bases, saying those actions could jeopardize troops’ security.

The list of prohibited activities includes taking photos of Defense Department facilities, posting any official Defense Department information and releasing information detailing job responsibilities.

“Whether it is a family Web page or a personal blog, safety and security measures must be strictly observed,” the message said. “Sensitive DOD information must not be divulged to the public at large for national security reasons.”

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=31111&archive=true

[keopeli]

7. Spc. Brandi Allen sent a letter to the editor - that is the topic at hand

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by your post.

My post was hailing the letter by Spc. Brandi Allen who is currently stationed at Camp Liberty, Iraq. She was criticising the government for preventing soldiers posting through military orders while civilians continue to do the exact same thing. This is case of a breech in the 1st Amendment caused by war powers that exert unusual restrictions on freedoms. In this case, the silencing of the soldiers is equivical to the silencing of independent journalists when it comes to dispensing information. The actionable item is the internet, over which our government has little power to exert athority.

Hence, the soldier wonders how posting on the internet can be a threat to their security if all the same information is still posted by another non-military party? And, if this is true, then what is the real reason for limiting soldier's speech?

I hope I was able to explain how the discussion is relevant.

[lebkuchen]

8. The Oct. 1 Stripes article on muzzling soldiers is what Allen indirectly

refers to.

In fact, another soldier wrote a letter to Stripes, also published on Oct. 1, 2005, the soldier seeming to be one of the military bloggers the DoD is hoping to silence.

Cheering for Sheehan

Constantly there are many soldiers who write in praising this insane occupation, even after our own countrymen are presently suffering more than they should from Hurricane Katrina. The excuse that it was the fault of the elderly, the infirmed, the children and the poor because they couldn’t get out of the storm’s fury is sickening because it was not these Americans’ fault.

I just wanted Stripes readers to know that even though you have pro-right-wing free-speech haters of Cindy Sheehan writing in, there also are soldiers like me who don’t go along with their Orwellian agenda. Her son came from her womb, and how dare they say she is dishonoring him. He is a fellow soldier who gave his life defending his countrymen.

Many soldiers don’t agree with what I’m saying, but there are many who do, but know that if they bare their true feelings they will somehow face retribution from the right-wingers in the military who hate them — i.e. disciplinary action, lack of promotion, etc.

If you want to do me harm, go ahead, but remember one little thing: I go out of the wire every day and have been hit multiple times by improvised explosive devices, mortars, etc. I have terrorists trying to kill me every day. Don’t tell me I don’t have the right to speak, because it will be over my dead body if you try to take that right away from me or my countrymen! Right on, Cindy!

Pfc. Leonard Clark
Camp Liberty, Iraq

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=31914

and then this:

http://www.militaryproject.org/article.asp?id=612


Think it's the same soldier? Allen is drawing further attention to an on-going argument by pointing out the hypocrisy of DoD's plan to silence military bloggers.

[expatriot]

3. globalsecurity.org's intel was very accurate as to the position of

Iraq divisions before the invasion and during the first week of the invasion. once their divisions began evaporating their intel became less clear.

[lebkuchen]

4. What do you know

about Globalsecurity.org?

I'm looking it over right now. Is this another mercenary outfit?

[expatriot]

5. it's not a merc site... actually, it is very benign or at least is on the

surface... it is just a content site for concerned citizens, researchers, journalists.... I don't know how they can get the funding to provide such an indepth resource but they do and therein could lie a conspiracy but the seem to be on the good side of the "freedom of information" thing

[lebkuchen]

6. Thanks. Couldn't find the "who we are" hyperlink

but rather a lot of job openings.

[leveymg]

9. It's a global clearinghouse for information - all things military and

related.

They have extremely useful, in-depth research papers. Nothing that would provide tactical intelligence for attacking US bases in Iraq that I've seen. But, I don't really look for such things.

This is really a case of the lowest common denominator trying to pull the whole world down to it's own level. I feel bad for the guys in uniform have been fed the old "security" rationale to justify keeping them out of touch.