"History's verdict is all we have left.  And when tomorrow calls today into account, some of us want to say we stood up.  We called out.  We were not silent."
--Leonard Pitts, Jr., "Gestures of Conscience Bring Solace," Baltimore Sun, March 19, 2006

SOMETIMES EVEN THE ARMY GOES TOO FAR--AND BACKTRACKS!

Print the article

This entry was posted on 5/4/2007 11:11 AM and is filed under uncategorized.

UPDATE:

It seems that one of the Army Majors who worked on the restrictive new regulations on blogging and Internet use has begun to back off a bit from their earlier, all-or-nothing stance.

In an interview he gave the AP, "Soldiers Face Punishment Over Blogs," (if my link doesn't go through, you can find it at Truthout.org), Army Major Ray M. Ceralde, said that, well, the soldiers wouldn't have to clear EVERY posting with their commanders.

"Not only is it impractical, but we are trusting the soldiers to protect critical information," he said.

He also said there would be "no effort" to block soldiers from setting up or commenting on blogs, and that e-mail would be excluded because:

"Soldiers have a right to private communications with their families."

Indeed.

Otherwise, they're leaving it up to individual commanders to be more restrictive of combat blogging, as they see fit.

Here's why I find this interesting.

In one of the postings I was reading on this subject, and I can't remember which one now so can't supply a link, I remember reading that the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, had started a policy of inviting combat bloggers to participate in conference calls with Pentagon high-ranking officers involved in war-planning.

Hmmm.

Seems like the new guy ain't Rummy, and he kinda liked those guys telling the truth.

So somebody, somewhere, but the kabosh on the Nazi-style effort to control information on the Internet.

I'd kinda like to think it's the guy who handed my son his degree from Texas A&M.

It would be a sort of poetic justice, don't you think?

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

    • 5/4/2007 1:39 PM Sharon A wrote:
      Until I see evidence otherwise, I'm going to park disclaimers in the "window dressing" folder.

      When someone shoves a bullet into the chamber and points it my way, I'm going to take the threat dead serious.

      There was no need to add another tool to the military legal kit. So the question remains in my mind as to why this was done and how are these ghouls planning to use this shiny new legal stick.

      Deflecting public opinion with disclaimers is putting lipstick on the proverbial pig.

      Long after the public has developed amnesia on the topic, these bastards will be using this stick against our soldiers/veterans. Maybe they'll use it to deny benefits later. I do not know.

      But I know they don't make rules they do not intend to use.
      Reply to this
      1. 5/5/2007 10:36 AM Deanie Mills wrote:
        Sorry, I'm not quite that paranoid.  They have an out, actually.  The rules do state that it is left up to the discretion of the commanding officer.  So it seems to me THEY can be blamed, and so on up the chain until no one is responsible.

        We'll see how it goes.  I think, like Morgan pointed out on TPM Cafe, that we are seeing a power struggle between Cheney's shadowy power-mongers--whose pull is weakening--and Gates's more open approach to being SECDEF.
        Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Name (required)

     Email (will not be published) (required)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.