Are Marines Censoring Web Access for Troops in Iraq? 925
Gavin86 and others have submitted links to This Wonkette article (profanity warning) about the Marines Corps blocking access to some Web sites for their people in Iraq. This article was a follow-up to an earlier Wonkette post. Before I posted these links, I looked for verification of this problem but found nothing but links to Wonkette, so I cannot say for sure whether this is true. Hopefully, alert Slashdot readers (like you) will post confirmations if, indeed, there are any to be found. Meanwhile, if this is true, it's eerily reminiscent of an experience I had when I visited Saudi Arabia in January, 2004.
The Wonkette post contains this list of sites blocked and not blocked, allegedly sent by a Marine serving in Iraq:
- Wonkette - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.wonkette.com/) is categorized as: Forum/Bulletin Boards, Politics/Opinion."
- Bill O'Reilly (www.billoreilly.com) - OK
- Air America (www.airamericaradio.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion."
- Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com) - OK
- ABC News "The Note" - OK
- Website of the Al Franken Show (www.alfrankenshow.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion."
- G. Gordon Liddy Show (www.liddyshow.us) - OK
- Don & Mike Show (www.donandmikewebsite.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.donandmikewebsite.com/) is categorized as: Profanity, Entertainment/Recreation/Hobbies."
I spent several hours in my Riyadh hotel room one evening checking sites suggested to me by Slashdot coworker Jamie McCarthy via IRC (which was not blocked by the Saudi filters). Among them were sites decrying Holocaust denial, which were blocked, although many sites espousing the old Protocols of the Elders of Zion antisemitic lies were not.
A number of sites that talked about human rights -- especially women's rights -- were also blocked. Sites that glorified Islam were, of course, fine. Interestingly, Jamie and I found that some (but not all) sites that were blocked when the 2002 Harvard Law School article, Documentation of Internet Filtering in Saudi Arabia, was released had been unblocked by the time of my visit.
And when I met with Eyas S. Al-Hejery, the man in charge of Saudi Arabia's Internet Serice Unit and told him about some of the blocked sites Jamie and I had found, including several innocuous Israeli government ones, he agreeably unblocked them.
I have no way of knowing whether Eyas reblocked those sites as soon as I left his country, but he told me more than once that he did not, himself, decide which sites should be blocked but only reacted to complaints from Saudi Arabia's infamous religious police and submissions from concerned citizens, which he said numbered up to 200 per day, total, while he only received a "trickle" of requests to unblock sites.
Now comes a big question: If the charges of Marine Internet blockage are true, will the Marines unblock incorrectly-blocked Web sites as quickly as Eyas did in Saudi Arabia?
But first, another big questions must be answered: Is the Wonkette story true? It's been up and spreading around the Internet since March 1st, and no official Marine spokesperson has bothered to either debunk it or admit that yes, the Marine Corps is blocking Web sites for political reasons.
It's going to be interesting to see if, here in a country where we supposedly hold freedom of speech dear, we expect our overseas troops to submit to the same sort of censorship that is an everyday thing in Saudi Arabia, a famous breeding ground for the Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism our Marines are supposed to be fighting against.
Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a also a sysadmin in the Guard and we do filter content, just like any other company would. That network is there for working not for casual browsing. It just takes one guy to pull up porn and offend a female before he loses a stipe and net access is taken away.
If the troops/Marines want internet access for personal reasons they can go to MWR and get it, not durring working hours.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Insightful)
Left wing radio shows and sites are banned.
I dont buy your argument and its pure illegal censorship by the government in order to brainwash our soldiers. If Clinton did this with right wing sites the republicans would be screaming a riot and demanding hearings immediately. If a republican does this then its not the job of the military to use the net for civilian purposes.
I find this very hypocritical
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Insightful)
The allegation that only certain sites, all of which seem to lean a certain way politically, are blocked is what raises eyebrows.
And why would it be OK ... (Score:3)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Interesting)
The http://www.disa.mil/main/prodsol/data.html [disa.mil] NIPRnet is being filtered. The Soldiers and Marines can go walk over to a government funded non-censored 'Internet Cafe' durring of hours and browse the net without restriction. Most Marines/Soldiers have limited access to the NIPRNet anyway, the cafes are put in place for email and browsing purposes.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Insightful)
I just visited those sites . . . and I call bullshit.
I've never just outright called someone a liar on Slashdot before - please explain yourself so I don't have to start now.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:4, Informative)
The network we are talking about is the NIPRNET http://www.disa.mil/main/prodsol/data.html [disa.mil] and any bandwidth intensive site will be blocked.
No one has mentioned citizens giving up their rights, only deployed Marines/Soldiers.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:4, Interesting)
When did that change, then? When I was in the USAF I could go wherever I wanted, provided I was at my job the next day. Not much unlike my present civilian job. That's freedom.
There wasn't any internet, but no newspapers, TV or radio stations were forbidden to me.
Democracy? I voted. That IS what a democratic republic is about, isn't it?
Indeed, I wrote a not very kind letter to then President Nixon, and was rewarded for my efforts by a pleasant note from a General thanking me for my participation in our government. That sure felt like freedom to me.
Guess what? The bill of rights applied to us, too, even in Thailand, which was technically a war zone (200 miles from Viet Nam).
In short - I felt like I had more rights as an enlisted Airman in the USAF under Nixon than I do as a Civilian under Bush.
Boiled frog, anyone?
-mcgrew (sm62704)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, so it was the Bush Administration that ordered the NYC police to arrest her for trespassing when she and her fellow protesters locked their legs together and blocked the door to the US Mission of the UN???
And this is "not far off" from arresting a drunk for sedition after he bad-mouths FDR?
"Hello in there, Cliff. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?"
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Informative)
Shameless Plagirism from another slashdotter sig: "We want peace for all and prosperity for mankind. We are United States Government; we don't do that sort of thing."
That's actually a quote from the end of the movie Sneakers. James Earl Jones (playing an NSA chief or something like that) says the "We're the United States Government! We don't deal with that sort of thing." part. See IMDB [imdb.com].
~~
Thank you for your time, and now back to our regularly scheduled Slashdot programming...
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's rich.
Take it from a white trash redneck who joined the Army during daddy's war; where I came from there were not "plenty of other jobs". There was competition for Circle K cashiers. It was rural America where the opportunities are limited. It isn't a choice between the Army and college - if you want to go to college, you join the army. Look who the majority of the enlisted are - in any branch; minorities and rednecks. For many people, the military is the ONLY option besides spending your life in a trailer house or the projects. The Army has provided many opportunities for me that I would have never had otherwise - some of us don't get to choose our parents.
It is nice to speculate about the options of others when YOU have options, but some of us don't/didn't have many. That is why I, and many of my fellow enlisted joined in the first place. Yes, we were patriotic, yes, we were ready to die for our country without hesitation - but many would have chosen a different route given the opportunity.
Ask yourself: what would you do if there was no college money, no moving money, no money for transportation to work(if you had a job), no job experience, no real future but the one you make?
You sound like a republican blaming the poor in New Orleans because they just didn't leave when the hurricane was coming. Nice to have options, but don't assume everyone else does.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you kidding me? Seriously?
Ok, I asked myself, and the answer was. . . I was there. I grew up in that situation. My Dad was a Military man, still is actually, 28yrs later. And I grew up on a farm in the middle of nowhere, with nothing to speak of. where meals many a times consisted of potatoes we grew in the garden, and only those potatoes at times. I grew up as "red neck" as it comes. Gravel road that in the winter took 3-4 days to get plowed out after a storm. Where it was nothing to walk the 5 miles to school, cause I had football practice. Where our only family vehicle was a Ford Festiva, and I had 3 brothers, all of us in highschool at the time, and we found a way to get us 4 in the back seat so we could drive the 40 min. to church on Sunday. Where our idea of a good time was swinging on a rope in the water hole out in the east field down by the railroad tracks in our underwear, because we didn't know they actually had clothes you was supposed to wear when swimin' cause 90% of the clothes we did wear was made by Mom for the first boy and handed down to the fourth, and patched along the way.
And guess what? I didn't join the military like my Daddy and my Brothers did. No, I saved up 150 bucks from corn detasseling the summer of my senior year, and bought a car. Well if you could call it that. And left town for the City. (Minneapolis) and I signed up for college at. . . . A PRIVATE ART COLLEGE, MCAD.
And how did I do that? with no money and all I owned in the back seat of my crappy Rustbucket of a Ford Tempo? It's called motivation. It's not. . .
It's called making my own opportunity, and busting my balls. It's called finding a job at the local Happy Chef working as many shifts as I can, and selling Blood Plasma 2 times a week for the entire time I was in college, and student loans to boot. Then graduating with a 4 year BFA Degree in Multimedia/3D Computer Animation.So don't spout that crap about opportunities to me. Make your own!
I hate these pour me I can't choose my parents, it's not my fault, I didn't have a choice people. You do have a choice, you just choose to not make it.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, it is very true that in some places, one of the only jobs available is to join the military. It is also very true that in some places, it only -seems- like one of the only jobs available is to join the military.
The military offers you, in my opinion, an "easy out." Not that it's easy, but it can give you a quick way out of your current situation. Hell, who wouldn't
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people have incredible self-discipline, a solid work ethic, and the ability to delay gratification. Your story would indicate that you do, because you succeeded where most of your peers probably failed. But it's an insult to your peers, an insult to reason, and an insult to everyone who works to bring fairness into the world, to claim that anyone else could have done the exact same thing in your situation.
Okay, that last bit was a bit much with the histrionics. But the basic premise that you're supporting (whether by accident or design) is that it doesn't matter how unfair the world is, so long as the occasional superstar has the wherewithal to claw his way from poor bastard to rich bastard. For my part, if people don't have the discipline to make the best choices for themselves, I still want to see them lead happy and fulfilled lives. Moreover, I'm happy to put my taxes where my mouth is, and fund the social programs that might help them.
Hell, they've done studies correlating a three-year-old's ability to put off eating a marshmallow with his or her future success in life. That seems like a strong indication that there is something inborn being measured, and that we shouldn't be willing to condemn all who fail to live up to our expectations.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a republican by any means, but I do think that at least a portion of the responsibility for those that died during Katrina... lies with those that died in Katrina. People in the city knew that the levees were unlikely to hold against a big storm, the news had covered the issue many times, including a discussion of how bad the flooding would be. Yet, these people failed to accept the most basic act of self-preservation. How many of those that stayed and died had bothered to develop a plan? How many had stocked up on even the basics like water? People standing in line at the Dome were holding bags of clothes and televisions... why weren't they holding milk jugs of water and bags of food?
The federal, state and local authorities failed to support thei constituants and they should be held responsible for their failures... but, when it comes to life and death, the ultimate responsibility must lie with the individual. At any time, you may find yourself in a life-threatening situation. When that happens, there might be some local cops to help, or there might be national guard to help, or there might be FEMA... however, the only person that WILL be there, for sure... is you. If you can't rely on you, then how can you expect to rely on some government group? I mean, the government are the people that run the BMV, do you really want to stake your life on that level of incompetence.
As an aside, I think it also speaks to our failure as a civilization. Survival, for most species on this planet is instinctive. Survival for Americans, is a responsibility of the government. If some terrible disaster struck, how many Americans could survive without a grocery store? How many would starve? We live on a Continent that provides basic sustance throught the entire year. There is nowhere in North America where there isn't at least some type of food (with the exception of some small patches of desert). Yet, how many people would survive?
How many people live in areas where tornados, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes etc are all possible? How many of them actually spend even a few hours putting together a contingency plan? How many bother to store up even a gallon of water?
Personal responsibility, seems to me, the most important thing that we as a nation have lost. Our society loves to find someone or something to take the blame (I was poor so I had to join the millitary. I was poor so I couldn't save my own ass.)
I was poor, my Grandma still uses an outhouse and I have a great Aunt that still sleeps on cornshuks and has a dirt floor. I have a job that makes money and I have learned how the hell to save my own ass. And still have time for 420
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Often stated and often ignored in the posts above is the fact that you have to knowingly commit yourself into service in the united states military. When you do so, you are made to understand that your life no longer belongs to you at that point. Your raison d'etre at that point is to support and defend the constitution and obey the orders of the officers appointed over you, in that order. Beyond that, you are told that you serve at the discretion of the branch of service you are a part of, and that's it.
You are given a chance during basic and advanced training to quit. Just pack it up and go home. No harm, no foul. If you decide to stay past that point, then the military will do it's best to get a return on the investment of time and money they put into trainng you. It'd be stupid for them not to.
As for the websites, it's not a matter of political bias, it's a matter of morale and welfare management that causes the apparent political slant to which sites get blocked. Rush is an idiot, but he's an idiot that isn't constantly saying "Pull the troops out now, they're fighting an illegal war, etc, etc". If he began to do so, you can be sure he'd be blocked as well. It's easier to maintain a fighting force's morale by limiting their exposure to that kind of speech, and it's within the rights of the military to do so.
Soldiers don't have the same rights that ordinary citizens do, and they have very little control over anything that they have not been placed in charge of. Yes, some want to leave. Yes, the military wants them to stay...it's easier to put effort into getting people to stay than to train new recruits well enough to replace them.
It's all to easy to say "that's wrong! Do it this way instead!". If you think about it for a split second before saying that, though, you'll probably realize that a lot of other people within the military have been working for a century or two at addressing precisely those issues, including addressing those issues in cases where the servicemen involved were conscripted and not volunteers.
Calm down and think about the whole situation for a minute, then ask yourself what it would take, in terms of intelligence and ability, to mobilize and deploy that many people and whether a group with that much planning and thinking ability would be likely to not have considered the option you're proposing.
Except that they vote... (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, but don't forget that these military folks are also voters. It seems to very, very convenient for one side or the other to define a common political view as "bad for morale". Then they can block their opponents outright. If political speech is so dangerous to morale, the filtering is at least as dangerous to our democracy, since it allows one side or the other to sculpt the political opinions of a large portion of the voting population.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Informative)
Does the u.s. constitution apply to military personnel?
Sort of, but not exactly the way it does in civilian life. While military personnel are not excluded from the rights set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
As a practical matter, most civilian Constitutional rights are afforded to military personnel - although with some differences to fit the military situation. In some areas, such as right to counsel and rights (Miranda) warnings, military personnel have broader protections than those contained in the Constitution. In other areas such as search and seizure, they have reduced expectations of privacy and fewer protections.
Military appellate courts tend to interpret military law as being consistent with Constitutional protections so far as is possible.
I know that's not the answer you wanted, but the military is not civilian life, and the rules are very different.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is a good thing. You should never have blind trust in authority, nothing leads more quickly to tyranny. In any democracy, those that trust the government are shirking their responsibility to act as a check on government power.
Love your country, but never EVER trust its government.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:4, Insightful)
What is attempted in the military is that you have mostly order followers (enlisted), and a few order questioners (officers) to try to keep everyone honest. Most of the failures modes of this are bad, but less bad than what the enemy would do to you.
In normal society, most of the people are order questioners, and almost noone is an order follower. That means that nothing gets done (unless everyone can be made to agree quickly), but the failure modes mostly involved lack of information - and are not usually that critical (under the assumption that the more critical something is, the closer it is watched).
Both these systems seem to work pretty well - in normal society the government should probably not do anything unless a lot of people agree, and in the military it probably is best (for our side) to err on the side of following orders.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Interesting)
> > We're fighting for freedom and democracy. You'll notice that you have none of those things in the military.
> Actually, I guess any military has neither of those.
Historical trivia: the New Model Army during the British "War of the Three Kingdoms" (the English Civil War and the related conflicts in Ireland and Scotland for those of us educated before or during the 1980s...) consisted of volunteer soldiers and elected "agitators" (officers) ... at least until the Commonwealth-under-Parliament became a Dictatorship-under-Cromwell.
Republican military units in Spain during the Civil War also were frequently democratic, at least until the anarchist and socialist militias were assimilated by the pro-Moscow faction.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's true that most armies don't embrace the concept of democracy or freedom (and there is no doubt that this wouldn't work in the long run). But there's a diference in having obeying troops and people who depend on their government to make a living. If you haven't guessed already, I'm criticising "professional armies" like the one the US currently maintains. Compared to a "draft" the majority of such armies usually consists of people of lower income. People who see some kind of perspective in joining the army. Furthermore it's a sad truth that such people usually haven't enjoyed a high level of education in gerneral, which makes it more likely that they won't question immoral orders. I'm not saying that poor people are dumb, but I think it's more likely that an army consisting of people who rely on the army for carreer plans are more likely to follow illogical orders or make up their own (Lynndie England anyone?).
Afterall there's a reason why the US did get rid of a general draft after 73 and there's also a reason why they try not to expose coffins to the media today. In respect to other decisions the ultimate goal is to keep the general public out of warfare, because that's what made the Vietnam war fail in the end. Since the cold war is over for quite some time I believe that it might be time for compulsory military service again, because it's just ugly to seperate remote wars and general society that much with an added flavor of patriotism. Disclaimer: Before anyone thinks I'm criticising any particular war - I just believe that there's a lack of balance in the US governments decisions to go to war in the last 2 decades.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Funny)
You see, what you fail to understand is that some sacrifices must be made in defense of our freedom. Sacrifices of our freedom. So, for freedom to endure, you must give it up to the only entity that can protect it: your friendly neighborhood federal government. That way, freedom will still exist... in the hands of George Bush and his Cabinet.
Well, now that you're enlightened, I'll be on my way. God Bless King Georg- ...err, I mean, America!
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Exactly why the market-socialist UK is supporting this I'm not sure).
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's because your theory about the "real" motivations for the war are not quite as on-target as you think. Just a thought.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Bush administration has been criticized in the US, not unfairly, for also stressing the WMD concerns above the other reasons for going to war.
I personally don't feel the US Republicans nor the UK Labor leadership "lied" about WMDs. Worst-case, they were wrong, because they trusted the wrong intel and chose to err on the side of keeping WMD capacity out of Saddam's hands.
The recently uncovered Saddam tapes (while far from a smoking gun), do lend support to the idea that a crapload of weapons and related tech were squirreled away to Syria and/or buried in the desert during the ramp-up to the war. It would not at all surprise me if even harder evidence were to come to light in the near future. It certainly seems consistant with what we know about the previous Iraqi government to suspect that they had these weapons, but did a very good job of hiding them.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me guess, these will be as accurate as Colin powells presentation of satellite photos at the UN and all the other fake evidence that was used to support the attack on iraq.
They did such a good job of hiding these non-existant WMDs that they got totally trounced and saddam hid in a hole rather than actually use them to fight back. Now that is world class hiding!
You have to wonder, since these WMDs (that can be spotted by satellite if you
oh yah? (Score:4, Informative)
The United States has actively been deploying new satellites above the Middle East since the Fall of 1996. In January 2003 the USA replaced a 10-year-old GPS satellite station above Iraq, which was no longer working, and thus wasn't able to take photographs. Images sent from the live satellite would be in color, not black and white, as Powell shows. It is therefore unknown when the pictures Powell shows us were taken. The Poker bluff. The USA couldn't let the world know they were madly deploying new satellites above Iraq, therefore discrediting their claims Iraq held weapons.
Furthermore, the USA does monitor live images. Why didn't Powell show this? If you recall, the Bush administration claims against Iraq predates these images by one year. Powell and the Bush administration claim they had proof of Iraq weapons in January 2002, but via satellite, they fail to marry images with claims.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:5, Informative)
Not Ironic at all (Score:3, Insightful)
The military has NEVER been 'open' during action for this reason, so why should it start now just because its 'the Internet'?
Get real.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Informative)
I actually met Al Franken once. Any guesses where it was? It was at the Abu Gh
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, we are. I can speak as someone who's been there on a tour. And despite your fondest wishes, I didn't murder any babies, rape any women, or generally terrorize the countryside in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan. Neither did any of my brother or sister Marines. If there's one constant thread you can get from just about any soldier, sailor, or Marine who's served in the current conflict, it's that the news we're getting over here in the States is unbelievably slanted.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yup (Score:3, Funny)
Right when the war started we were joking that we could recycle all the 'don't attack iraq' posters by crossing out the Q and writing an N.
Surprised it took them that long actually..
Re:Yup (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. It sure is a good thing that nations like Islamic Republic of Pakistan [fas.org] don't have nuclear weapons. That would mean the end of the world.
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
FTA: The political bias is obvious. Yes, and so's yours, Mr. Roblimo. Next time, could you please try to make a news article more like an article and less like a political rant by cutting straight to the point (ie asking people if they can confirm or deny this), instead of ranting endlessly about the situation in Saudi Arabia?
Re:Wouldn't that be ironic. (Score:3, Informative)
I found it quite humorous while living in the sandpit that was operation Desert Shield that although we were in a country where we couldn't get even a slice of bacon, four of our twelve MRE menus were pork-centric. Worse still was that we were supplying the saudi army from our MRE stocks, but they could only eat the 8 non-pork menus, whic
Army didn't (Score:5, Informative)
More... (Score:3, Informative)
See Daily Kos [dailykos.com] discussion about this topic here [dailykos.com].
Re:Army didn't (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Army didn't (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But that was Kuwait (Score:5, Insightful)
If the military wants to block political-opinion websites, that's fine, but block ALL political opinion websites. The category and reason for blocking is "Politics/Opinion" , not "Liberal Politics/Opinion" or "Politics/Opinion that the Bush administration doesn't like".
Doh! Military have always censored (Score:3, Insightful)
Military commanders are worried about troop morale, and will intervene to keep whatever they consider disruptive away. They can and will punish spreading of dissent or other insubordination. Sometimes very severely.
The military also censors what it's members can say. This is necessary to avoid inadvertantly informing an enemy, but like everything else, it can be abused. Also part of service life. It ain't pretty.
Re:Doh! Military have always censored (Score:5, Insightful)
While I can agree that members of the military give up some rights because of their job, they still should enjoy the basic constitutional rights that all Americans have. For example, Troops in the Army who live on base are not allowed to have any political posters of any kind. There are no signs of "I support X for congress". Military troops also have less rights in criminal cases. They don't always get a jury, sometimes it is a tribunal. There have been cases when their contract for service has expired but they are forced to continue service.
On the other hand, when we enter another nation, we must respect their laws. There is no freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia. If they want to censor the internet, it is their right. The USA can not dictate to Saudi Arabia how to live, what values to have. Muslim nations have a right to form religious states where their doctrine determines laws. Just like the USA can form a state based on our values.
Re:Doh! Military have always censored (Score:3, Insightful)
It's for their own good (Score:3, Interesting)
That is so naive I hardly know where to start.
If the Marine Corps determines that a particular site will lower troop morale, then I would hope that they'd block it. Failing that, they should cut off web access, cable news, or whatever it takes to keep the blinders on. A Marine who doubts is one who dies.
And I want the ones on the other side to die.
Someone in the military, especially in time of war, lives a different life, un
Re:Doh! Military have always censored (Score:3, Insightful)
You lost me by #3. If a soldier owns a house next to base, the government cannot order the soldier to house other soldiers without the owner's consent.
The barracks is government property.
More... (Score:4, Informative)
Vileness (Score:3, Funny)
Of course... (Score:3, Funny)
What's more American than peanut butter and jelly?
Sgt. Irony, reporting for duty, sir! (Score:4, Funny)
Is it just me, or is a profanity warning kinda redundant when we're talking about Marines?
Obligatory Marine joke:
News reporter: "Now that you're back from Iraq, what's the first thing you're going to do?"
Marine: "Fuck my wife!"
News reporter: "Well, we can't go to air with that. How 'bout the second thing you're going to do?" Marine: "Then I'm gonna take off these fucking combat boots!"
Re:Sgt. Irony, reporting for duty, sir! (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, the Marines have special combat boots just for that?! Wow, the Marines really are prepared for everything!
not censored (Score:5, Informative)
Curious if www.pattillmanfoundation.org is blocked.
The article, nor the page referenced are blocked. This article is bullshit.
strike
Re:not censored (Score:3)
Re:not censored (Score:4, Informative)
strike
Re:not censored (Score:5, Informative)
For the most part, we use a standard commercial filtering package on a proxy server. This can vary by command.
In this case, I could easily see why air america was filtered. To conserve bandwidth, especially in the environment of limited bandwidth that is the AOR, streaming media sites are blocked. This explains the Air America blockings. Internet Radio/TV is the blocked category, not Politics/Opinion. The Forbidden page lists all categories the site belongs to.
Commonly blocked categories are forums/bulletin boards, porn, illegal activities, profanity, extreme, criminal skills, drugs, trading (like stocks and/or EBay). Web-ads by some of the smarter bases.
The forum/bulletin board filter tends to be very hit or miss.
Any sites blocked specifically by the administers of the site would present a webpage that says 'forbidden by local policy'.
Sites that would be in here are generally those that target military members for scams or other illegal activities that aren't otherwise caught by the filters.
Though there was those hours that I was told to block the major news sites as they had classified up there... Then the senior leadership realized that yes, the cat is out of the bag.
As for unblocking sites, that's generally difficult for official networks because the submitter has to show official need(not misc. browsing).
Re:not censored (Score:4, Interesting)
Being at work, air america's site is indeed, blocked. On the other hand, Al's site [al-franken.com] isn't blocked.
Can somebody with access to air america's site verify whether or not it has streaming media availabe from the same url?
Re:Network Admin for whom? (Score:5, Informative)
(I can post no more replies.
strike
Re:Network Admin for whom? (Score:3, Informative)
About a year ago I was stationed about 10 miles outside of Baghdad and will confirm that our "buisness" connection went through Baghdad. We did, howeve
Ah, that might explain it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting. I have no idea if her claim is true or not, but it is at least consistent with another oddity that I noticed a few weeks ago, when the poll results showed that a majority (IIRC) of the US service personnel over there thought that we were in Iraq "because of what they did to us on 9/11," despite the fact that pretty much everyone over here (apart from a few trolls) now knows there was no connection at all between Iraq and 9/11.
When I heard that my first thought was: how could they not know this?!?
But perhaps there is a simple explanation after all.
--MarkusQ
Re:Ah, that might explain it. (Score:4, Informative)
This would be the poll in question [zogby.com], conducted by Zogby. Here's the critical paragraph, emphasis mine:
Gimme a break! (Score:5, Insightful)
Before people start all the suppressing soldiers rights chatter... this is nothing new and I'm sure its being done to all the forces, not just the Marines. The military has always kept a tight grip on incoming and outgoing information. In WWI and WWII, mail was looked at for sensitive information and photographers had their pictures looked at. The was especially true in Vietnam. I'm not justifying it, but I don't think most people are in a position to judge if you yourself haven't led troops in combat or fought in a war yourself. Having served in the Marines myself, I can say that good morale is vital to a mission's success. It's so important that it may even be worth losing some freedoms to maintain it. Anyone who has served in the armed forces will tell you that you give up your rights when you enlist. The military is a serious game and normal rules don't apply often. May seem strange to many, but its reality.
gasmonsoDoes your company block websites? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think if I were a Marine/Soldier/Sailor/Airman in the zone, I'd rather be limited in what websites I can surf from the combat zone in exchange for having the available bandwidth that lets an alert message come in about an impending attack.
Re:Does your company block websites? (Score:3, Interesting)
You guys keep lots of vital operational information on the O'Reilly Factor website, do you?
Bluecoat filtering proxy in use (Score:5, Informative)
The best part is that one of those proxy machines is on slashdot's banned list, so I have to try and find one of the others to read/post from time to time.
While I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, I'm sure the Marines are just trying to keep crap out of their boxen.
No Conspiricy (Score:5, Interesting)
It just so happens the Air America lets you listen online for free (becuase they are not trying to turn a profit), and Rush Limbaugh does not. I'm not so certain theres any bias going on here.
At the worst, it seems like a case of stupid network rules, which happen to be the same as at my company. (No streaming media, no forums).
Re:No Conspiricy (Score:4, Interesting)
An interesting note is that this is bringing up alot of questions about campaign spending... I.E. Should we allow large Democratic organizations to fund Air America and not count that as campaign spending, since they are paying to have it on the air, just like a commercial.
Dare to criticize the Great Leader? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of my closest childhood friends commented to me in 1999 that on a carrier (the ship, not the service provider) their web access was censored.
Furthermore, they were forbidden by their CO from watching any news other than Fox News in the mess. Apparently, due to personal preference of the CO, not because of military policy... but after checking with and other parts of his ship, they all had the same mess/recreation policy.
See, dissenting points of view could harm troop morale, and diminish their effectiveness. The military is allowed to get away with a lot of things in the name of protecting morale. You wouldn't want any doubters to risk the lives of brother soldiers/shipmen/airmen because of their conscience, would you?
The armed forces, including all the men and women in them, are responsible for the execution of war -- not the morality of war. The Congress is responsible for those decisions, so the armed forces have no reason to hear dissenting points of view. Right?
Since the Revolutionary War in the US, that has been how it has worked. Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, and all that. As long as Congress is respnsible for the ethical decisions of war, then censoring information accessible to the troops is fine. Oh wait...
Apologies in advance for the tongue-in-cheekiness.
Re:Dare to criticize the Great Leader? (Score:4, Insightful)
I realize that you were being somewhat facetious, but it bears explicitly pointing out that this is dead wrong. Every man is born with a conscience and it is his responsibility to use it. If you choose to participate in an unjust war, you are a murderer plain and simple and not any different than any other armed thug.
Re:Dare to criticize the Great Leader? (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. Since joining the military requires abandoning ones conscience, no person can morally join the military.
Blocked for me as well! (Score:5, Informative)
They are blocked by the Air Force with the same reasons listed. I just tested them all.
It's not just the fact that some two star wants/doesn't want his/her troops going to political sites that are against his/her party, it's the simple fact that the sites that ARE allowed simply haven't been blocked because people haven't been swarming to those sites.
From what I have noticed, being a Work Group Manager (PC Admin for the AF), the more a site get's visited, the higher it stands a chance to be blocked, unless the site is required in order to complete the mission.
In other words. The sites that are blocked are so because the higher ups don't want people chatting up forums when they should be supporting the mission. (hmm, speaking of chatting, I think I hear the blocking police calling me!)
Remember, not everything has a political agenda. On the other hand, not everything isn't. But we tend to fall towards blaming politics. And as much as I hate politics, it's not always to blame.
L8r
Me thinks it's a load of shit... (Score:5, Informative)
Hate to tell all you guys this, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
All you "everyone has a right to do whatever the hell they want" people need to get your collective head out of your collective rears so you can see what actually happens in the world.
The military did not block or filter anything (Score:5, Informative)
Internet access was always a little iffy, since it's expensive and the troops have a very high demand for it. There were several ways to get internet access while I was there, some of which are still around and some of which are not.
#1: US Government provided independent internet cafes.
Status: Removed.
Reason: Not cost effective. They decided to go with a consolidated large provider instead.
I ran one of these while I was deployed. The closest I got to 'filtering' was running a caching ad-blocking squid proxy. I did this for speed reasons, because *I* wanted to provide my Soldiers with fast internet access. (PS: f*ck doubleclick.net)
#2: US Government provided Internet Cafes.
Status: Still around.
This is one of the biggest and most commonly accessable internet accesses in Iraq. The US Government contracted for some massive amount of bandwidth through some satellite provider. You can't bring in your own laptop, you have to use their locked-down desktops. But I didn't see any politically motivated filtering going on, and I checked.
#3: Privately funded Internet Access.
Status: Still around, but usually kept on the quiet.
Unit commanders occasionally try to stop them out of generalized fear, but I never saw one go away. It's not against any regulations. It's just expensive. ($1400/month for 128u/512d)
#4: Contractor run public Internet Cafes.
Status: Still around.
If you can make money at it, someone will try to do it. Zaid (http://www.russianwolf.com/ [russianwolf.com]) was one that I dealt with on a regular basis. He not only provided the hardware for our cafe, but he ran several others on a for-pay basis. ($20 would let you browse for an hour) Filtering was not in place in any of his cafes. Not cost effective. Consider this my plug for him. He's a good guy.
#5: US Government 'NIPR-net' (Non-Secure Internet Protocol Router Network) access.
Status: Still around.
This is what people use for official communications and internet access. This is for non-secret data only. The closest they got to filtering was publishing what unit and individual computer was browsing the internet more than anybody else on a weekly basis. This network was VERY overloaded and SLOW SLOW SLOW. But it was filtered for sexual content I think, not that I ever tried. But it was not filtered for political content.
In summary, the common methods that people use to access the internet in Iraq are not filtered for content of a political nature. What the Marines may be doing is not something I know, but I saw plenty of Marines using these other access methods that I know were not filtered. Any filtering is either a new thing or isolated to a small unit. It was not the policy of the Department of Defense to filter internet access for political content as of Feb2005 (when I was there last)
What else they're doing from Iraq (Score:5, Interesting)
So anyhow, I do a dig/nslookup on the IP and discover it is "n-mnstci-142.mnstci.iraq.centcom.mil" - the edit is coming from United States Central Command's Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq. Thus, my tax dollars are going to some guy so he can rewrite history that I had written. And I had been so excited about Wikipedia because I thought, here is finally a medium of information that is not controlled by multi-national corporations, like say the channels on my television. Instead I have to contend with some modern-day version of a bureaucrat in the bowels of some Orwellian Ministry of Truth.
The answer is so painfully obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, perhaps there's a chance that the federal government will come back with some kind of excuse like "releasing the block list gives aid and comfort to the enemy" but that alone would be a story worth the price of admission. Wonkette is an idiot, so of course this simple idea wouldn't occur to her or her readership. I'm I hope that a real investigative journalist picks up the story so he or she can actually do some investigating and find out the truth. I think that it would be hilarious to compare the Chinese block list with the American block list. Wouldn't it be a hoot to find out that the Americans are blocking more?
-JoeShmoe
.
Re:The answer is so painfully obvious (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that you're not a journalist is probably why you jump to FOIA first.
FOIA is SLOW, SLOW, SLOW. Agencies use every excuse to delay your requests, force you to file lawsuits, etc. etc. Just now the AP got a list of Gitmo detainees released. They started that process 4 years ago! FOUR YEARS. In short: FOIA costs time and money, both of which Wonkette does not have.
Second, there isn't some universal 'block list' for military internet. There are a variety of access methods, networks, branches, etc., all of which could have different access lists. Just by reading the posts on this thread it's shown that this blocking is not uniform. It's not like Rummy is sitting there reading the Internet saying 'block, keep.. keep, keep, block' and tabulating them in a nice little list.
This is the whole reason the FOIA process exists: to give transparency to the operation of the federal government.
That's why FOIA existed under Clinton, maybe (and I mean maybe. It's not like Clinton was a saint). Under Bush, FOIA has become a joke. Transparency? HA! Cheney energy meetings ring a bell? White House Iraq Group mean anything? The only thing that's been transparent was Alito's letter to James Dobson. [pfaw.org]
The Gist of It (Score:3, Insightful)
Most are missing the point. Why are they only censoring sites that tend to be anti-war or liberal in nature? I can accept arguments for general Internet censorship while in the armed forces, but I've yet to see a good argument for why only sites that espouse a particular viewpoint should be censored while others should not.
Too bad .... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are a few who have responded with constructive comments to this:
- High Bandwith sites (Radio) are blocked.
- Porn is blocked
- This is how Internet access exists: YXZ
Too bad that many of the people here are knee jerking their wan(ers and saying *Conspiracy* or *Conspiracy of the Left-Wing Unpatriotic Types*
The fact is: If the personell there have time to check the Internet (aka: Down Time), they should not have biased access: The (unverified) story is that they do. Hopefully someone can actually provide a meaningful list of what's blocked - or not. And Hopefully, the list will not be biased by politics.
$.02 - now pay up
Sorry about the AC. (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry about the AC: this is all straight from my brother, serving in Fallujah. It seems that we went in with a fundamental misunderstanding of regional politics, and are now paying the price.
~AC
US Army filters (in america) (Score:3, Informative)
Not unusual, nor should it be a surprise (Score:5, Informative)
The networks that the Marine Corps is running in Iraq have a primary focus: The Mission. That is supporting the forces there, allowing information to organized and passed quickly between those who need to coordinate their work. Marines are permitted to use the network for personal reasons when it does not affect the mission in any way and that use is subject to a number of restrictions. No viewing, transmitting, or storing obscene material, hate speech, chain letters, etc. The normal list of rules for the network is about two pages, courier new type, 10 pitch - including spaces for the user to fill in their name, rank, billet, sign (etc.) and for the approving officer to validate that the Marine needs a network account.
There can also be several layers of filtering for access. There could easily be several firewalls between a user and the Internet. We had one at our division level, then another at MEF. There is usually a something of a standard list of which sites are blocked, but each little network could be unique. We had a problem with idiots downloading large files from one or two Internet sites. It was affecting the performance of the whole network. Not only did I go find those users (and their Staff Noncommissioned Officers), but we cut access to the problem sites.
Oh, and when the unit suffers casualties, the Data Chief cuts access to email and the Internet for everyone except a list of critical users. That stays on until the families are notified by the Marines (in the US) who perform the casualty call. The last thing a parent, wife, or fiancee needs to get is an email with a subject line of "John is dead." That would also leave open the door for cruel hoaxes.
The point is that the Marine Corps allows Marines to use the network, in a limited fashion, for reading their personal email and accessing websites because it is good for morale and we usually have the bandwidth to support it. However, it is a military asset, just like a 7-ton truck. If the truck is being used by someone to clean out their garage, when it is needed to move supplies, there is obviously a problem.
From a Marine Corps IT Admin (Score:4, Informative)
Website of the Al Franken Show (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thought the Military Claimed to be A-Political? (Score:5, Funny)
All Recipies
Epicurious.com
FoodTV.com
Top Secret Recipies
Of course, I started that rumor, just this minute, but from the reaction of the parent, that shouldn't matter. Now go you slashdot minions! Jump to conspiratorial conclusions on the word of a single, unverified source!
Re:Thought the Military Claimed to be A-Political? (Score:3, Funny)
"You know, it might have been Fark."
"Beautiful, we have confirmation."
Re:Wonkette? who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Consertives are going nuts pusing their agenda and the liberals are going nuts pushing their agenda. The moderates are accused of being too Liberal and Consertive. The Media has both are both Consertive and Liberal controlled. The Consertives give tax breaks to the that only help the Rich. The liberals make government services that only the rich (Who are normally higher educated) can figure out and go threw the burocracy and get access too. Globalization is
Activism (Score:4, Interesting)
Howard Dean is another good example of this. He was labeled an angry radical lefty. But if you look at this positions on the issues, he was really a moderate. Hell most of the truly radical left was a bit nervous about Dean because he wasn't all that liberal. What got him labeled though was that he did things differently in how he organized.
Today if you look at where the energy is in the Democratic party, the biggest movement is the "fighting dems". These are Iraq and Afghan war vets who are now running for congress. If you look at these people, by and large, they aren't that left leaning, yet the community of blogs, etc are hugely supportive of them. You find those "radical left" sites backing Paul Hackett, over Sherrod Brown even though Hackett is clearly the more conservative candidate.
Re:E-mail Too (Score:3, Informative)