I thoroughly enjoy how we can take as many pictures of blown up or dead Iraqis as we want, but any sort of US casualties etc. is a no no. I understand the reasoning behind it but some freedom of the press.
Only serves to make people think the Army has something to hide.ATG wrote:
And other forum members posting here who belong to the military; check your six.
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerig … y_bloggers
This seems a little ridiculous.
It is self evident that it does not apply to soldiers, if it did the military would not function in times of war. I was in the military, it is no secret that you only get the rights allowed to you by the military, civilian rights no longer apply to you, but you are accountable to both military law and civilian law.san4 wrote:
That's close, but not entirely correct. When a member of the Air Force sued to be allowed to wear his yarmulke while on duty, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment applies to members of the military forces. However, the Court also said it gives great deference to military decisions that infringe on First Amendment rights. So the First Amendment does apply, but its protections are weaker than outside the military.Major_Spittle wrote:
the bill of rights never has applied to a soldier.That's a great quote: "The essence of military service is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service."Justice Rehnquist wrote:
Our review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society. The military need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment; to accomplish its mission the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps. See, e. g., Chappell v. Wallace, supra, at 300; Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 843-844 (1976) (POWELL, J., concurring); Parker v. Levy, supra, at 744. The essence of military service "is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service." Orloff v. Willoughby, supra, at 92.
These aspects of military life do not, of course, render entirely nugatory in the military context the guarantees of the First Amendment. See, e. g., Chappell v. Wallace, supra, at 304. But "within the military community there is simply not the same [individual] autonomy as there is in the larger civilian community." Parker v. Levy, supra, at 751. In the context of the present case, when evaluating whether military needs justify a particular restriction on religiously motivated conduct, courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest. See Chappell v. Wallace, supra, at 305; Orloff v. Willoughby, supra, 93-94. Not only are courts "`ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have,'" Chappell v. Wallace.
GOLDMAN v. WEINBERGER, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
and this is one that ive seen all over the place in many company commanders offices and training rooms
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-05-02 18:40:48)
Did you get permission to post that?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h299/ … _lips2.jpg
http://www.mikeditkastreetcrew.com/imag … ps%202.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/B50DBF51B29E940/orig.jpg
http://www.missoulian.com/specials/salu … kShips.gif
and this is one that ive seen all over the place in many company commanders offices and training rooms
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/doe … primer.jpg
I logged his IP and personally delivered it to Centcom (just down the road) .ATG wrote:
Did you get permission to post that?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h299/ … _lips2.jpg
http://www.mikeditkastreetcrew.com/imag … ps%202.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/B50DBF51B29E940/orig.jpg
http://www.missoulian.com/specials/salu … kShips.gif
and this is one that ive seen all over the place in many company commanders offices and training rooms
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/doe … primer.jpg
Xbone Stormsurgezz
This is of course mainly to protect the soldiers themself, blogging everything they do while on foreign duty is as easily picked up and read by their enemy giving them locations, rutines, strength and other vital information they can use while planning to kill the very same troops that blogged it !
One always have restrictions in the army and generally it`s for the army`s own safety !
One always have restrictions in the army and generally it`s for the army`s own safety !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
oh please. Don't you think the insurgents, al'Quaeda, or whoever is causing shit in Iraq has much better ways to get hold of that information than by scanning US blogs ? After all, we know that the internet ain't always a good place to find credible information, don't we ?
If an insurgent based any of his operations on information he dug up in some blog, he'd be outright stupid.
I can understand that the military has some rightful interest in keeping the lid on some of the information that is out there ( or could get out there ), but I doubt that such information would be spread in blogs anyway.
If an insurgent based any of his operations on information he dug up in some blog, he'd be outright stupid.
I can understand that the military has some rightful interest in keeping the lid on some of the information that is out there ( or could get out there ), but I doubt that such information would be spread in blogs anyway.
Don`t underestimate the fact that this happends on a much bigger scale than you could possibly comprehend, the intelligence of the middle eastern countries is the fastest growing intelligence community and they are far better at sharing that information effectively than their western counterparts !B.Schuss wrote:
oh please. Don't you think the insurgents, al'Quaeda, or whoever is causing shit in Iraq has much better ways to get hold of that information than by scanning US blogs ? After all, we know that the internet ain't always a good place to find credible information, don't we ?
If an insurgent based any of his operations on information he dug up in some blog, he'd be outright stupid.
I can understand that the military has some rightful interest in keeping the lid on some of the information that is out there ( or could get out there ), but I doubt that such information would be spread in blogs anyway.
I attended several classes in both psy ops and net based intelligence gathering while in service and know what kind of information they can strip from such info - they are not just cave trolls with no other agenda than just running around with a bomb strapped on them looking for random targets !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Word.usmarine2005 wrote:
I am out...can't touch me.
usmarine2005 wrote:
What a bunch of fucktards. You can build a bomb off Internet instructions, order videos of kids naked classified as art, but watch out for US troops on forums.
Since the Patriot Act they actually canusmarine2005 wrote:
I am out...can't touch me.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
One blog may not be enough to base an attack on but when you put the information gleaned from there against other titbits from other sources, it may turn out to be true. So you watch that blog for further indiscretions. Or you use it to validate information gained from elsewhere.B.Schuss wrote:
oh please. Don't you think the insurgents, al'Quaeda, or whoever is causing shit in Iraq has much better ways to get hold of that information than by scanning US blogs ? After all, we know that the internet ain't always a good place to find credible information, don't we ?
If an insurgent based any of his operations on information he dug up in some blog, he'd be outright stupid.
I can understand that the military has some rightful interest in keeping the lid on some of the information that is out there ( or could get out there ), but I doubt that such information would be spread in blogs anyway.
When it becomes a trusted source, then you can consider taking action based on it alone.
You never ever take action based on just one source alone, never !aardfrith wrote:
One blog may not be enough to base an attack on but when you put the information gleaned from there against other titbits from other sources, it may turn out to be true. So you watch that blog for further indiscretions. Or you use it to validate information gained from elsewhere.B.Schuss wrote:
oh please. Don't you think the insurgents, al'Quaeda, or whoever is causing shit in Iraq has much better ways to get hold of that information than by scanning US blogs ? After all, we know that the internet ain't always a good place to find credible information, don't we ?
If an insurgent based any of his operations on information he dug up in some blog, he'd be outright stupid.
I can understand that the military has some rightful interest in keeping the lid on some of the information that is out there ( or could get out there ), but I doubt that such information would be spread in blogs anyway.
When it becomes a trusted source, then you can consider taking action based on it alone.
And why is because when a source is compromised what happends ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Its all bullshit, the army has a Youtube account, and a live link account.
I have some personal experiance with a blogger (CBFTW Colby Buzzle, Fuck the World)
Colby Buzzle was in my company last deployment. Good man, great writer. Do a search for CBFTW, or My War: Killing Time in Iraq. See all the shit he went through just to be able to post on his blog.
I have some personal experiance with a blogger (CBFTW Colby Buzzle, Fuck the World)
Colby Buzzle was in my company last deployment. Good man, great writer. Do a search for CBFTW, or My War: Killing Time in Iraq. See all the shit he went through just to be able to post on his blog.
Tough Luck. Over here, you can do no actual combat or do anything but you can still sell your "war stories" for a six figure sum.
Yes, i'm talking about those "heroes" that got kidnapped by the Iranians.
Yes, i'm talking about those "heroes" that got kidnapped by the Iranians.
lowing is in the army?
No, I believe he is affiliated with some sort of PMC.JimmyBotswana wrote:
lowing is in the army?
My friend's wife busted Al'Quaeda and a US Soldier by using the internet:B.Schuss wrote:
oh please. Don't you think the insurgents, al'Quaeda, or whoever is causing shit in Iraq has much better ways to get hold of that information than by scanning US blogs ? After all, we know that the internet ain't always a good place to find credible information, don't we ?
If an insurgent based any of his operations on information he dug up in some blog, he'd be outright stupid.
I can understand that the military has some rightful interest in keeping the lid on some of the information that is out there ( or could get out there ), but I doubt that such information would be spread in blogs anyway.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00530.html
I am very proud of her. She still does this and is very good at it. She has taken down more people and events than people will ever be aware of, her only reward is protecting us.
gg to her.Major_Spittle wrote:
My friend's wife busted Al'Quaeda and a US Soldier by using the internet:B.Schuss wrote:
oh please. Don't you think the insurgents, al'Quaeda, or whoever is causing shit in Iraq has much better ways to get hold of that information than by scanning US blogs ? After all, we know that the internet ain't always a good place to find credible information, don't we ?
If an insurgent based any of his operations on information he dug up in some blog, he'd be outright stupid.
I can understand that the military has some rightful interest in keeping the lid on some of the information that is out there ( or could get out there ), but I doubt that such information would be spread in blogs anyway.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00530.html
I am very proud of her. She still does this and is very good at it. She has taken down more people and events than people will ever be aware of, her only reward is protecting us.
Still has little relevance in regards to insurgents actually using information gleaned from the Internet to plan/carry out attacks. That article just states what the intelligence community knew before 9/11, which is that these terrorists/wannabes use Internet forums to communicate.Major_Spittle wrote:
My friend's wife busted Al'Quaeda and a US Soldier by using the internet:B.Schuss wrote:
oh please. Don't you think the insurgents, al'Quaeda, or whoever is causing shit in Iraq has much better ways to get hold of that information than by scanning US blogs ? After all, we know that the internet ain't always a good place to find credible information, don't we ?
If an insurgent based any of his operations on information he dug up in some blog, he'd be outright stupid.
I can understand that the military has some rightful interest in keeping the lid on some of the information that is out there ( or could get out there ), but I doubt that such information would be spread in blogs anyway.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00530.html
I am very proud of her. She still does this and is very good at it. She has taken down more people and events than people will ever be aware of, her only reward is protecting us.
On another note, I find it interesting that a civilian in Montana can have such incredible results in tracking down would be operatives. Maybe our intelligence community could learn a few things from her.
Also, an interesting quote from the vigilante herself:
Rossmiller's online experience, though, has soured her on many of the methods of the Bush administration's fight against terrorism. She said that the invasion of Iraq and the use of harsh interrogation techniques has increased the number of people in the Arab world who hate the United States