I know, you've heard from me before...
May. 11th, 2007 11:06 amThis article somehow makes me depressed, but it is not surprising.
Blarhg on the Army.
This is pretty much their tactics on everything. Let the media spread the fake message and the real people and soldiers behind it are commanded to keep their true feelings to themselves. Cause if they don't, they'll get court martial'ed.
I understand need for disgression... but this is just annoying to me.
Read here:
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/army_bloggers
-Angela
Blarhg on the Army.
This is pretty much their tactics on everything. Let the media spread the fake message and the real people and soldiers behind it are commanded to keep their true feelings to themselves. Cause if they don't, they'll get court martial'ed.
I understand need for disgression... but this is just annoying to me.
Read here:
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/army_bloggers
-Angela
no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 07:12 pm (UTC)While I will agree that the army has the right to terminate the employment or contracts with civilian employees and vendors for behavior they deem inappropriate, what gives them the right to govern the private or public communication of soldier's family members? They are not subject to the UCMJ--they didn't enlist!
My thoughts
Date: 2007-05-11 07:33 pm (UTC)Soldiers resign their rights.
Their families???
No...?
No.
-Angela
Re: My thoughts
Date: 2007-05-11 09:16 pm (UTC)What "gives them the right" is probably where the "sensitive" information they're trying to block came from. While the eventual poster/publisher was not subject to the UCMJ, the person who provided it would have been.
Re: My thoughts
Date: 2007-05-11 09:24 pm (UTC)Just a random thought I had.
-Angela
Re: My thoughts
Date: 2007-05-11 09:51 pm (UTC)Here's the NPR version, by the way. I was just adding to the idea of NON-military personnel being affected by the rules... that they didn't have access to until they were "leaked". Ironic.