Is it ethically correct to block soldiers on active duty from blogging or emailing home? Why?

Question

Is there any truth to the recent rumours that a surge in soldiers' protests on their conditions and the Iraq war in general have led the Pentagon to recently ban blogs and censor private emails?

I do find significant concern over the significance of such gestures as well as the possible ramifications of such potentially abusive actions from up-high but would like to hear your take on it.

Answer 1

should americans who started the whole mess start talking of ethics....................... i think not

Answer 2

Here's the scoop!!!



When you are in the military - and especially in a war zone - you do exactly as you are told when you are told to do it. Ethics doesn't enter into the equation. It is not college where you can protest.



My understanding is that they have put a stop to cell phone photos too.



They stopped the blogs and emails because soldiers may inadvertently write information concerning troop location, weaponry, tactical plans that could make it's way into enemy hands. Before computers, the military censored incoming and outgoing mail in a war situation.



The commanders are not being abusive or mean, they are protecting all of the soldiers and sailors and others in the field.

Answer 3

There is no truth to these rumors you stated. I should know because I'm typing this while sitting in Iraq as a deployed Soldier.



And yes, it is ethically correct to censor emails and blogs as you put it. It is called Operational Security (OPSEC). Any information the enemy could use against Coalition Forces needs to be censored. Your "right" to email friends back home does not include the "right" to disclose information that could get someone killed. I will gladly go the entire 15 month tour here without writing one scrap back home if I know that I could save a life by doing so. My personnel well being is second to that of the welfare of my fellow Soldiers, Marines, Airman, and Sailors serving over here with me.



We in the military willingly embrace the idea of selfless sacrifice. This idea, unfortunately, is not something many civilians can understand.

Answer 4

Soldiers present an interesting case where constitutional rights are concerned. While most people enjoy certain rights and protections simply for being citizens, soldiers often have their rights limited or outright suspended due to the nature of their job. The irony is that their job is often to defend these very same rights for other citizens. You can see obvious cases where a soldiers rights must take a backseat to operational realities. If a soldier has a blog for instance and details the patrol patterns of their unit then this blog must be censored because these patrols could be ambushed or avoided by the enemy. If a soldier wants to exercise free speech about their superiors then what they say can effect moral and discipline. Since the pentagon already has the authority and need to curtail a soldiers rights of free speech its difficult to say at what point they are being abusive with that authority. Sometimes it is more practical, simple and fair to simply say that soldiers can't have blogs or send emails in certain situations then to deal with each blog or e-mail case by case.

The job of soldiers is to defend the lives of citizens and to further our interest abroad. To do this job they cannot possibly enjoy all the same rights they are defending. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not necessarily rights for soldiers. A soldiers law is the U.C.M.J. and the orders of their superiors.

Answer 5

Huh? Yes it's ethically correct, the military has censored every form of communication to home since the time of Washington. It's standard procedure so to keep military secrets, well secret. But secrets arent the only thing the military censors for, it censors for moral as well. If say an outpost hasnt had the greatest month and they arent monitored they could bring down an entire districts moral and have a trickle up effect lowering the moral over all and therefore hurting the military's ability to function at it's best.

Answer 6

These Blogs are security liabilities. For information assurance purposes they are blocked. If there is a death or casualty here, the news should not be spread over the net through blogs by someone who doesn't actually know the true about the tragedy. Instead the proper steps are taken to notify to correct officials and family members of the incident before the stories get warped.

Answer 7

Well first off no one has banned or blocked my blog but let me explain the ethics.



It is most definitely ethical to ban the Soldiers, and ill tell you why. When a person in uniform says something it is immediately associated with the office in which the person is service so if you see a Soldier who says the Chow were he lives sucks most assume Army Chow sucks. When Soldiers make statements it is often misleading but considered almost official statements from the general public. This is not Vietnam (on the home front) the American people have not abandoned us i have always felt respect from the citizens and because of that abusing that authority to serve a personal agenda is ethically wrong. Doing so is just as wrong as a Senator pushing a state contract for a kick back its abuse of authority. Secondly often times when these bogs are blocked it is because they were releasing sensitive information and when you do that in the Military people get killed...our mistakes fit into black vinyl body bags don’t forget that.

Answer 8

You're beating a dead horse. The ban is on the use of Military computers to access sites like myspace, facebook, youtube, etc etc. This ban is nothing new. All military internet systems and computers are under control of the military. They are for official use only, not personal blogs and emails. The military provides computers via MWR that can be used to send and recieve personal email, as well as use chat programs such as skype, yahoomessenger, aol messenger. If you're so concerned abou it, there is a program to send troops laptops, donate and send a laptop to a soldier. Also try donating to one of the other programs out there that support our troops.

Answer 9

During WWII, personal letters mailed back home to families and friends were censored, where actually large blocks of information was blacked out, usually tidbits that could have given enemy agents war planning info if letters were lost or fell into enemy hands. The same goes today with emails. It's easy to have computer systems tapped into. War info could easily fall into wrong hands. It is ethically correct to censor mail if the overall operations are at stake, which also would possibly cost the lives of men and women.

Answer 10

Absolutely no truth to the rumor. Ethically correct, yes.



Two main reasons for the 'ban', first is operational security (opsec) and second is bandwidth.



There has been increasing incidences of opsec violations, not good.

There is limited bandwidth available in theater that must be dedicated to operational needs.

If it is that important, write a letter.

It is a little bit sad that some think that it is 'vital' to have 'connectivity' back home.

It is a convenience and an 'extra'.

Answer 11

They should be blocked. Keep a journal post it later like after the connflict. It is bad enough that the media puts out information/details that the insurgents can use to kill soldiers/marines/saliors/airmen. It only hurts the safety of our military.

Answer 12

I have'nt heard these rumors, as of late but I would definately understand if there were true. Some troops are seeing and doing things that don't need to be leaked to the press, or the enemy, for that matter. There are ways to track someone's emails and retrieve info or intel from them. Also, their families don't need to know about a lot of the harshness of their deployment. If my spouse had to shoot a young kid because he was a suicide bomber, I wouldn't want to read about that in an email! If he saw someone die in front of him, I wouldn't want to read that either. The families left behind are also going through their own hell and those things would only add to that!

Answer 13

Of course--some people just don't know how to keep their mouths shut, and they know other people who can't shut up either. So when some dingdong posts on the internet locations, times, people----that puts others in danger! It's a no-brainer, really.



I get onto my wives all the time about OPSEC and PERSEC---the reason is to keep everyone safe!!

Answer 14

I would agree with the government blocking them because with every post comes the danger of leaking possible sensitive information. So it's either block it or maybe have some sort of censor to read and make sure what is being submitted is safe for public eyes.

Answer 15

yeap. PERSEC, OPSEC and National Security. There is also the little matter of the UCMJ..which prohibits personnel in uniform to take a political stand one way or the other regarding Government officials and leaders.



One bad egg ruins it for everyone.

Answer 16

No.

Just for their own safety while out there.

Be wise not to play computer games while out there.

Try writing letters and licking stamps.

Will find how you really miss your loved ones.

Like the good old days.

Answer 17

I am also unsure about the truth of the matter but I would like to share my take on the matter if it is true. That is simply that the blocking of communication is one of the primary stages of a corrupt government and it also suggests that the government has something they want to hide (which was obvious from the start anyway)

Answer 18

No. How would you like it if you couldn't tell your family the reality of the situation wherever you are? I agree the location should be kept private for naitonal security reasons but preventing the soldier from communicating with his family would lessen his morale and he'd lose the will to fight because his family desperately wants to hear from him but he can't do it or he'd break a stupid rule. Our military is already strung out too far and preventing them from communicating with family while overseas would weaken it even more

Answer 19

NO ITS FOR SECURITY REASONS A COMPLAINING SOLDIER IS BAD FOR MILITARY MORALE AND LOW MORALE CAN BE A THREAT TO SECURITY THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A WAR WERE TROOPS DID NOT COMPLAIN OR DESERT BECAUSE OF "BAD CONDITIONS" CAN THER BE" GOOD CONDITIONS"? IN WAR

IF YOU JOIN THE MILITARY DON'T BE SURPRISED IF YOU HAVE TO FIGHT OR FACE STRESSFUL SITUATIONS

THAT'S WHY WE ARE CALLED SOLDIERS NOT CIVILIANS