US Army Censors The Guardian

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
It looks like The Guardian has also become an enemy of the state.

Restricted web access to The Guardian is Armywide, officials say


The Army admitted Thursday to not only restricting access to The Guardian news website at the Presidio of Monterey, as reported in Thursday's Herald, but Armywide.

Presidio employees said the site had been blocked since The Guardian broke several stories on data collection by the National Security Agency.

Gordon Van Vleet, an Arizona-based spokesman for the Army Network Enterprise Technology Command, or NETCOM, said in an email the Army is filtering "some access to press coverage and online content about the NSA leaks."

He wrote it is routine for the Department of Defense to take preventative "network hygiene" measures to mitigate unauthorized disclosures of classified information.


I wonder why the Washington Post wasn't also included. It must really make them feel like the runner up.

Poor Army guys, kept in the dark and fed sh*t.
edit on 27-6-2013 by Archie because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Let it Be..now every one Opening Their eyes And Mind!!



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Archie
 


Poor Army guys, kept in the dark and fed sh*t.

Well, from the moment you join you are kind of fed lies...

On censorship from "Good Morning Vietnam"... (skip to about 2:35)


edit on 27-6-2013 by intrptr because: YouTube
edit on 27-6-2013 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Gee military censorship who ever heard of such a thing oh wait:


Postal censorship is the inspection or examination of mail, most often by governments. It can include opening, reading and total or selective obliteration of letters and their contents, as well as covers, postcards, parcels and other postal packets. Postal censorship takes place primarily but not exclusively during wartime (even though the nation concerned may not be at war, e.g. Ireland during 1939-1945) and periods of unrest, and occasionally at other times, such as periods of civil disorder or of a state of emergency. Both covert and overt postal censorship have occurred.



Historically, postal censorship is an ancient practice; it is usually linked to espionage and intelligence gathering. Both civilian mail and military mail may be subject to censorship, and often different organisations perform censorship of these types of mail. In 20th century wars the objectives of postal censorship encompassed economic warfare, security and intelligence. The study of postal censorship is a philatelic topic of postal history.


en.wikipedia.org...

memory.loc.gov...

Yeah someone is getting 'fed' something here alright guess who?



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
The right to information protects democracy so this makes sense coming from our government. It's becoming less and less like the US I grew up in by the day it seems. Guess since they can do whatever they want they chose to attack the pocket book of this paper. I guess I better buy a subscription to support their continued truth telling.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Jesus CHrist, neo, i wasn't saying it never happened, just saying it IS happening. Would you relax? You're hysteria is gumming up the thread.

G'morning Vietnam - loved that film. Thanks for the link.

I guess they don't want another Bradley Manning (or ex-Army guy Edward J. Snowden) on their hands.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Archie
 


That is exactly why it is happening because of the Manning's think there wouldn't be any repercussions?

And they are paying for the access after all they can do whatever they want for it.

A people that doesn't trust it's government

A government that doesn't trust it's military

A military that doesn't trust their servicemen

The world is just so wonderful now isn't it all because someone couldn't keep their damn mouth shut,.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Must protect from psy-war. The Guardian is critical of USA war initiatives. I'm not sorry for them; all the public newspapers are junk compared to the up to the minute stuff they get in their Army jobs. Wouldn't want their minds syncing up with the other country.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   
In the military you voluntarily give up some rights.

You are there to serve your country, not to be confused about your orders.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Heck I wonder if this means ATS is going to ban links to the Guardian as it has done with WIkileaks. For publishing information published illegally..



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
In the military you voluntarily give up some rights.

You are there to serve your country, not to be confused about your orders.


Shouldn't you know who is giving the orders you'll eventually follow and whose pocket they are in, before you go committing your life to serving anyone or thing?



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
The world is just so wonderful now isn't it all because someone couldn't keep their damn mouth shut,.


You know, your ignorance is infuriating.

You're attacking the people breaking this story, while forgetting or choosing to overlook the abuses by your own government. There would be no need to leak these stories if your government hadn't committed war crimes, and hadn't been spying on millions of innocent people.

How about blaming those who COMMITTED THE CRIMES!?


What you are doing right now is like attacking a witness for reporting a murder, and ignoring the crime and the criminal.

As for the OP, I kind of suspected that this would be the case, and to see it actually happening is pretty interesting. It's also pretty good, because this will encourage members of the armed forces to look for what they are being refused access to. This will only force more people to distrust their government.

If it makes those serving really start to consider whose side their government is on, and the motivations of those they're risking their lives for, then that can only be a good thing.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
In the military you voluntarily give up some rights.

You are there to serve your country, not to be confused about your orders.


Ah, you see this is where you're wrong.
Those serving in the military are not supposed to be serving their country, they're supposed to be serving their fellow citizens. The two are no longer the same thing because you have no democratic system to rely on.

Unrestrained nationalism is a dangerous thing. People should not be thinking about serving their "country" at all, because there are vested interests controlling the nation. You should only ever be serving in defense of your fellow countrymen and women.

Serving your fellow citizens should be a noble and right thing, and the fact that these people are being prevented from freely accessing information is a sign that their leadership doesn't have faith in their own motivations. This is a sign of weakness, showing that the leadership is scared of their slaves finding out the truth.

In a real democracy and with a military working for right and just goals, this kind of censorship would not be needed.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Archie
It looks like The Guardian has also become an enemy of the state.

Restricted web access to The Guardian is Armywide, officials say


The Army admitted Thursday to not only restricting access to The Guardian news website at the Presidio of Monterey, as reported in Thursday's Herald, but Armywide.

Presidio employees said the site had been blocked since The Guardian broke several stories on data collection by the National Security Agency.

Gordon Van Vleet, an Arizona-based spokesman for the Army Network Enterprise Technology Command, or NETCOM, said in an email the Army is filtering "some access to press coverage and online content about the NSA leaks."

He wrote it is routine for the Department of Defense to take preventative "network hygiene" measures to mitigate unauthorized disclosures of classified information.


I wonder why the Washington Post wasn't also included. It must really make them feel like the runner up.

Poor Army guys, kept in the dark and fed sh*t.
edit on 27-6-2013 by Archie because: (no reason given)


It is a DOD unclassified network and they can run it how they wish.

The DOD doesn't like classified material ending up on their unclassified network. Then the machine has to be taken offline and purged/cleaned just like with a virus.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
One of the reasons given for worrying about 'terrorists' is that they might use a nuclear weapon against an American city.

But who proliferated the damn things in the first place? The US government made 10s of thousands of them, ditto the Russians, and god knows who else. Now that any second year physics major could build one given access to the prime ingredient (available on the black market), we've all got to live in constant fear of not only what the 'terrists' are going to do, but how our own government is 'protecting' us from them.

I'd rather take my chances with a big boom than with thousands of cuts to my freedom.

And sometimes I think there can't possibly be that much of a threat out there, since Washington is still standing. If the Celts had had nuclear weapons, would Rome had lasted as long as it did?




top topics
 
8

log in

join