U.S. Military Tries to Intimidate Soldiers Into Not Reading Wikileaks

[RLENT]

"U.S. soldiers in Iraq who try to read about the Wikileaks disclosures—or read coverage of them in mainstream news sites—on unclassified networks get a page warning them that they're about to break the law.

The federal government seems to have lost its mind in a manic game of internet whack-a-mole aimed at getting the Wikileaks State Department cables thrown down the memory hole: First, Sen. Joe Lieberman successfully nudged Amazon into kicking the site off its servers. Then the Library of Congress blocked the site for all employees and users of its computer terminals. Now we learn that the State Department is warning prospective hires that if they write about Wikileaks on Twitter or Facebook, they might not get that job. And now Gawker has learned that military installations in Iraq are trying to keep soldiers from reading about Wikileaks.

A tipster wrote to tell us that "the Army's unclassified, NIPRNET network in Iraq has blocked every major news website because of the Wikileaks issue," going on to say that Foxnews.com, CNN.com, MSNBC.com, the Huffington Post, and a variety of other sites are blocked on the Army's unclassified network. A spokesperson for U.S. forces in Iraq disputed that claim, saying that the web sites aren't actually blocked—it's just that attempts to access them on the unclassified network brings up a warning page saying that you're about to break the law ......

The feds have clearly lost it. Many of those soldiers receiving the warnings have security clearances that would have granted them access to the State Department cables before they were leaked. It's not the first time the military has threatened servicemembers with sanctions if the view Wikileaks documents—back in August, the Department of the Navy issued guidance warning sailors and marines against looking at the Afghanistan documents leaked by the site—but it seems to be the first time it's tried to prevent them from reading news stories about leaked documents.

Not even Social Security Administration employees are safe from the intimidation: The Administration has reportedly sent an alert to all its employees claiming that the Wikileaks documents "remain classified and SSA employees should not access, download, or transmit them. Individuals may be subject to applicable federal criminal statutes for unlawful access to or transmission of classified information."

And the State Department has—informally, it seems—been putting out word that people who write about the Wikileaks cables on Twitter or Facebook shouldn't bother applying for State Department jobs in the future. According to the Arabist, a blog on Arab culture and politics, Columbia University's career services department sent an alert to students relating a call the office got from a Columbia alumnus and State Department employee:

The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.

To repeat: Do NOT make comments about Wikileaks on Twitter or mention them at all or you will be considered a security risk and never be good enough to work at the state department ....."

Hmmm .. don't read the news .... and don't talk .... am I really the only one who sees where this is going ?

Full article:

U.S. Military in Iraq Tries to Intimidate Soldiers Into Not Reading Wikileaks

...... far out there, on the horizon .... methinks I do see the blowback that surely cometh .....

 

[greg334]

So, what's the point?

 

[cheri1122]

That the Thought Police are alive, well, and watching. And taking notes.

 

[RLENT]

That the Thought Police are alive, well, and watching. And taking notes.

A very astute observation ..... I was certain that you would get it

 

[Turtle]

"He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information,..."

That's true. Even though, at this point it's utterly retarded that those documents are still officially classified, and as such they cannot be accessed on an unsecure network or by an unsecure computer, nor can they be talked about, until they are declassified. But they're classified just the same, and those in the military know it, and they know how classified documents are supposed to be accessed and talked about. This isn't a case of shut-up and massive censorship, it's SOP for classified material. Whether the material is in the wild or not, it's still classified.

 

[greg334]

The thought police?

Oh come on Cheri, you do understand that military members are to follow orders? If this was a case that the feds said to me or you Don't look, it would be a different case but the soldier in the US military has little choice but to follow orders.

 

[RLENT]

A very astute observation ..... I was certain that you would get it

.... and some people don't .....

 

[AMonger]

The thought police?

Oh come on Cheri, you do understand that military members are to follow orders? If this was a case that the feds said to me or you Don't look, it would be a different case but the soldier in the US military has little choice but to follow orders.

That's not absolutely true. They have to follow lawful orders. There are many, many orders a military member wouldn't have to follow, and many, many orders that to follow would constitute a criminal act on their part.

One night, one guy had real bad gas. He was farting all night and the airmen around him were not happy about it. Finally, the captain called the Lt. Col on duty and asked him if it would be lawful for him to order the airman to defecate. I never heard the answer.

While in basic training, there was a lecture given on how we didn't sacrifice our freedom when we joined, how we still had freedom of speech, etc. Now, their reasoning was kind of tortured, being that you could still be penalized for exercising freedom of speech yet they still said you have that right, so they were trying to have it both ways, yet...

In some instances, officers have fewer rights than enlisted men. An enlisted man has far greater latitude to criticize those above him, even the president, than an officer. Two men both say the president is an idiot. One is enlisted, the other an officer. That officer is going down for that, while the enlisted man might get nothing more than a dirty look or an admonishment to be careful. Unless it was said to the president's face, of course, in which case they'd both be punished. So, this could be one of those things that could be considered verboten for an officer and not for an enlisted man.

Hey, what a coincidence...I used the word verboten. And here we are discussing something that sounds like it happened in the late 30s and 40s in a place in which they used the word verboten! Let's see, don't we have a word for a government that suppresses free speech like this? And this isn't an isolated incident. Many news sites are/were blocked, and long before wikileaks. You can't pull up lewrockwell.com on military computers, even in their internet cafes overseas. Hmmm...odd...the spellchecker on this site doesn't recognize the words internet, cafes, or spellchecker.

One more thing: even someone with a fairly high clearance doesn't have automatic access to everything of his clearance level or lower. There's still the issue of need-to-know.

 

[greg334]

Being forbidden to read a website is not a crime, nor is being told that it is forbidden.

If it is a case where the solider was told to kill prisoners or civilians openly, then that is a crime.

Soldiers have a duty to obey orders, they can question some of them but not all of them. If it is not their duty, then there is a breakdown within the structure of the military itself and puts us in danger.

This is a growing problem with the military as a whole, there is too much insubordination in the military because people think it is their right to do what they want to do. This same issue has been going on for almost ten years, the number of boots going through special training because they refuse to do what is expected of them, like where a uniform or hat, police areas and do other menial tasks.

 

[AMonger]

Being forbidden to read a website is not a crime, nor is being told that it is forbidden.

There are circumstances in which soldiers can be told not to read something, but it's not a blanket authority. The military tells recruits they didn't surrender their civil rights when they joined. This is a case of the government clamping down on lawful dissent, plain and simple.

In fact, sometimes there are lawsuits by military members against the government for that sort of thing. When I was in leadership school, one of the instructors was telling us of a lawsuit he filed against the government for some violation of civil rights. I don't recall the details.

Soldiers have a duty to obey orders, they can question some of them but not all of them. If it is not their duty, then there is a breakdown within the structure of the military itself and puts us in danger. This is a growing problem with the military as a whole, there is too much insubordination in the military because people think it is their right to do what they want to do.

Again, they have a duty to obey lawful orders. And I'd say there's not enough insubordination. Hey, weren't you the guy who wasn't aware of the right to remain silent, the one who stated we have a duty to answer questions put to us by the police? Well, if you are, at least you're being consistent. A consistent statist, but consistent.

 

[greg334]

I think first that they should not be suing, if they don't want to follow the rules set forth by the congress, then they can leave.

BUT this is an issue that is important for another reason, they are in uniform or on government property and have unfetter access to classified information without proper clearance. THIS is an issue what negates any rights, which means there is no right to access classified information without proper authorization or a need to know for their jobs. If the military gives a blanket order not to access this information, then it is a justified and legal order.

 

[AMonger]

I think first that they should not be suing, if they don't want to follow the rules set forth by the congress, then they can leave.

Actually, it was the government that wasn't following the rules, rules that he had to appeal to a court to force the government to follow, rules that WE laid down for THEM when our ancestors, through the states, formed the federal government.

 

[greg334]

Well if there was a reason for a real lawsuit, then I would understand it, but overall there should be a limit to this and I stand by my position - if you don't like it, leave.

The problem is that you are missing the point.

A lawful order, not to seek out and read classified information, is not what I would construe as something the limits the "rights" of any military personal by any stretch of the imagination. If there is a reason for someone in the military to know what a memo or an operation report has in it, then they need to go through proper channels to gain access to this information.

One reason I can see that this may cause a problem is the insubordination that is borne out of second guessing missions, strategies or a war itself. It already is an issue with AWOL and deserters, both of these have been given passes on their behavior but in the case of the latter, should face harsh penalties regardless.

It is not the job of any solider to second guess why we are in Afghanistan or Iraq, that decision was made by the congress and the WH but more importantly the people of the country. If there is a need to send troops into an operation and those troops refuse to follow orders, then it is a breakdown of the command structure and a distrust by the country of those leaders who are in charge of those troops. Once we allow a soldier to second guess missions, operations and even wars, then we will be unable to defend ourselves.

 

[milpig]

You guys are arguing this far too deeply.

It is not a gag order on military or any government employee. It is a federal law that is not new.

It is against the law to knowingly or intentionally view documents that are classified / compartmentalized beyond what you are autherized.

Do you really believe that everyone with a TS Clarence has a master key to whatever they want to read?

Being leaked or made public does not change the status of a document or file.

 

[RLENT]

It is not a gag order on military or any government employee. It is a federal law that is not new.

Not true - folks have been told to not read news coverage - and have been told not to discuss it - over even mention Wikileaks ....

The above is precisely why the US Government's action will create significant blowback within the population ...

People look at that and go:

"Hey ... wait a minute .... they're telling me to not watch the news ... read the paper .... listen to the radio ...."

And it becomes all the more worse for the gov when people do look/watch/listen .... because then, after seeing or hearing, they go:

"What the **** ....... this ain't that big of a deal .... it ain't gonna put lives at risk .... the only thing it's doing is covering up government misconduct and malfeasance ... and as a citizen I ought to know about that ...."

Being leaked or made public does not change the status of a document or file.

Which if you think about it, is more than just slightly insane:

It's flown the coop ... cat is out of the bag .... the train has left the station, the item is out and has become broad public knowledge ..... reported on the 'net or in whatever form of media (electronic, print, audio/visual) ....

But you still aren't allowed to look/watch/listen ....

That's about as retarded as it gets:

"An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will" - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Turtle]

Not true - folks have been told to not read news coverage - and have been told not to discuss it - over even mention Wikileaks ....

Not true.

As usual, most of this has been, and is being, blown way out of proportion. Despite the Gawker article and what a "tipster" told them, no one has been told they cannot read the news, mention WikiLeaks, or discuss it, nor have all of the major news sites been blocked from the NIPRNet. No sites have been blocked, actually. But the NIPRNet is an unsecured network for soldiers' personal use, and as such they are not to view or transmit classified documents on that network. When they log on to the network they are presented with a warning about viewing such documents, that if they view them on that computer network they may be breaking the law. But they are then able to go to any Web site they wish, including WikiLeaks (when it's up) and all the major news sites.

The NIPRNet is the Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network, and is for sensitive but non-classified information. It's akin to the Intranet of some corporations where internally stuff can be moved around with ease, and also provides a gateway to the public Internet. The NIPRNet replaces the old MILNET. When you log onto NIPRNet you can do your deal as normal, but when you enter the public Internet gateway, you are presented with the warning. But after you read the warning you are not prevented or blocked in any way from doing what you could normally do on the network.

Odd that the following salient little snippet from the Gawker article fell out, or got lost, or somehow escaped from the quoted Gawker article in the original post of this thread (but then again, salient little snippets have a way of doing that):

[U.S. forces in Iraq have] not blocked any news websites from being read. Because of the Wikileaks release of secret documents and their easy availability on the web, USF-I has posted a warning page NIPRNet computers go to first. This page simply warns the user that the website they are about to view may contain classified documents and that such documents should not be viewed, downloaded, or distributed on NIPR computers. There is a button at the bottom of this warning page that then allows the user to go to the website.

Maybe it's coincidence, but it's odd that the quote here doesn't exactly jibe with the whole "thought police" extravaganza where you aren't allowed to look, watch or listen.

Here is the actual warning:

IAW (In accordance with) with DOD (Department of Defence) guidance and USF-I OPSEC (United States Forces-Iraq Operational Security) Hash 10-2, all personnel are to refrain from viewing any of the articles pertaining to WikiLeaks releases on their DOD NIPR system.

But Staff Sergeant Kelli Lane said the military was not blocking the Internet.

"USF-I has not blocked any news websites from being read," the US army press officer said in an e-mail to AFP.

"Because of the WikiLeaks release of secret documents and their easy availability on the web, USF-I has posted a warning page [that] NIPRNet computers go to first."

Lane said that the advisory only serves as a warning and does not prohibit armed forces personnel from viewing the news websites.


I'm sensing a conspiracy. It's just that I'm not sure on which side of the issue the conspiracy lies.

 

[RLENT]

Not true.

Well, yeah .... actually it is ....

BTW, nice effort on creating a strawman argument .... you assume that in my statement that I was referring only to the military .... and you address only that in your reply.

no one has been told they cannot read the news, mention WikiLeaks, or discuss it, nor have all of the major news sites

What part of the following do you fail to comprehend:

"back in August, the Department of the Navy issued guidance warning sailors and marines against looking at the Afghanistan documents leaked by the site—but it seems to be the first time it's tried to prevent them from reading news stories about leaked documents."

and the following, which while it was not specifically directed at current government employees (only potential ones), is actually far, far worse, because it directed at (currently) private US citizens:

"The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.

To repeat: Do NOT make comments about Wikileaks on Twitter or mention them at all or you will be considered a security risk and never be good enough to work at the state department ....."

The implicit message of the above is: if you are informed citizen, if you speak and make comments, (even if you haven't actually read a single classified doc) then you are not qualified to work for the State Department .....

Which possibly may explain how we got to where we are now ...

Apparently you feel as those any of the above is not a matter for concern, and is really just no big deal .... I choose to differ ....

Odd that the following salient little snippet from the Gawker article fell out, or got lost, or somehow escaped from the quoted Gawker article in the original post of this thread (but then again, salient little snippets have a way of doing that)

I made an editorial choice in terms of what I quoted - and I did provide a link to the entire article, so that folks could read it.

Additionally, I quoted the article, where it said:

"A spokesperson for U.S. forces in Iraq disputed that claim, saying that the web sites aren't actually blocked—it's just that attempts to access them on the unclassified network brings up a warning page saying that you're about to break the law ......"

So if you're trying to imply that I'm selectively withholding in order to create a false view of the matter, then it should be fairly clear to anyone: that dog don't hunt ....

It's just that I'm not sure on which side of the issue the conspiracy lies.

Of that, I am certain.

 

[greg334]

The above is precisely why the US Government's action will create significant blowback within the population ...

Actually I think it is the opposite. They do not give a crap and those who keep screaming how great this is are the same ones who tell the population how stupid they are.

That's about as retarded as it gets:

"An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will" - Thomas Jefferson

Well retarded by the fact that it isn't as important as many make it out as but the Jefferson quote ... not really.

We are better informed than we have been and continue to be AND this can work against those who are celebrating it. But I really have a gut feeling that the information that was stolen and released isn't what the average person in our society wants or needs or even cares about.

I think they are a lot smarter than what credit most in the press and other places gives them and are not looking for who is at fault with our 'crimes' but rather if there is going to be relief from this horrible economy.

I also think if this was really important, then we would have a serious outcry at every level of the media and the public the size of 9/11 and won't get the "this is what you need to think like" type commentary from the talking heads.

 

[Turtle]

Sorry, no strawman argument created here.

The part that I fail to comprehend is where it says "...it seems to be the first time it's tried to prevent them from reading news stories about leaked documents."

For one, "it seems" is an opinion, not a fact, stated someone who began the paragraph with "The feds have clearly lost it," which isn't exactly top-notch journalism. Granted, Gawker will never be confused with the NY Times.

Two, the part where it says "it's tried to prevent them from reading news stories about leaked documents," because that's simply not true. With the previously released documents, same as now, the rumor that the gubmint tried to prevent people from reading news stories about the leaks is incorrect.

The implicit message of the above is: if you are informed citizen, if you speak and make comments, (even if you haven't actually read a single classified doc) then you are not qualified to work for the State Department .....

The problem is, the implicit message came from a quote from a Blogger on the Arabist who said he got it from the Columbia Career Services Department, who apparently got it via a phone call from an unnamed Columbia alumnus who is allegedly a State Department employee. So it's not exactly official, despite the fact that it's probably good advice, same as the advice that says you shouldn't have more than one credit card if you want to work at the State Department.

I made an editorial choice in terms of what I quoted - and I did provide a link to the entire article, so that folks could read it.

Yes, and knowing that when someone posts what appears to be the entire article, and then include a link to the source, that most people don't click the link.

So if you're trying to imply that I'm selectively withholding in order to create a false view of the matter, then it should be fairly clear to anyone: that dog don't hunt ....

False view? I wouldn't go that far. It does appear that you are playing up the parts of this story that make Wikileaks out to be the good guy, and the parts that make the government out to be pure evil, every one of them (Hugo Llorens being the lone exception, since you agree with his assessments and therefore he's telling the truth), and are downplaying or even ignoring the parts that fail to make the grade. But that's normal, to lean towards things that support a belief, and shy away from things that don't. So creating a false view? Maybe not, but it appears that you're a little frothy around the edges. Just look at all the Wikileaks-related posts we've seen in recent days, and note who started most of them. I'm just sayin'. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, as it's an interesting story and worthy of everyone's attention.

 

[milpig]

RLENT,

You seem to think I was trying to argue one way or the other. I am not. I won't argue politics here, just try to provide facts on occasion. Politics are better discussed face to face.

I understand that the law I pointed out seems strange in this situation, all laws can be at times. This does not change that PVT. Snuff can offered a court Marshall for viewing those documents on a government computer. The government was nice enough to inform him of this so he does not destroy his career.