Full article here: Army Regulation 530--1: Operations Security (OPSEC) (.pdf) restricts more than just blogs, however. Previous editions of the rules asked Army personnel to "consult with their immediate supervisor" before posting a document "that might contain sensitive and/or critical information in a public forum." The new version, in contrast, requires "an OPSEC review prior to publishing" anything -- from "web log (blog) postings" to comments on internet message boards, from resumes to letters home.

This is an interesting issue. It is common practice that what an employee does using its employers resources belongs to the employer. In other words, emails written while you're at work, logged into your company's computer, in your company's internet access, etc. belong to the company. Most places make you sign a consent form agreeing to this, but people understand that, generally, it's not enforced (unless there's need to enforce it). But I don't know if ppl in the military have to sign such consent forms or receive such notifications.

However, reviewing personal post letters? Is this going too far? Let's say the letter is written on paper the soldier bought, written with a pen they bought, and postage paid by them. Does the military have a right to intercept and read the letter? Does the concern that a soldier might inadvertently leak some information about where they are or what they're doing supersede the soldier's privacy with his own belongings? Is this rule of intellectual property?

Does the concern that a soldier might inadvertently leak some information about where they are or what they're doing supersede the soldier's privacy with his own belongings? Is this rule of intellectual property?

I don't think it's an issue of national concern at all. I think it is an attempt by the Executive office to censor information from the "grunts" to the public, lest we learn that not all servicemen/women are delighted to be engaged in an unwinnable war.

I think this falls into the same category as the prohibition that said journalists could not take photos of flag-draped coffins coming back from Iraq. It's bad PR for Bush.

I'll jump in on this one.

My future son-in-law is a lifer soldier in the Army. As we plan the wedding, we also are becoming acclimated to his JOB I find myself wanting to begin gushing about what a wonderful boy he is and how thrilled I am he will be my son in law because he is so honorable and loyal and serious both personally and professionally. He is very cautious to talk about what he does for the Army. When he and my daughter realized they were serious and marriage was the direction they were going in, WE as a family were told by him that some of the things he does is confidential what he called classified. The best way I can describe what I do professionally is to paralell it to counseling. What you share in the clinic does not leave the office unless it is with like professionals for the purpose of professional concern. So when he started talking about confidential, I got that. In a medical setting you can understand why things are confidential. People have a right to privacy. Now change the right to privacy to protection.

Their job is to protect our country. It is natural to want to talk about what you or rant or Blog your day but if your job is security, how secure do you keep things when you blog about it in an open forum like the web? Anyone can read this. Remember the old saying "Loose lips sink ships" back in the WWII era. It still applies.

Wheetsin you made a good point about work and our computers and how they are used. They are the company's. What is on them is the company's.

My take on this can be narrowed down to the fact that at the source is your job, your job is to remain tightlipped about what you do, where you are with no specifics. Does that change when you leave work? No. The ethic is still there. Is it still breaking the law if you run a stop sign in the middle of no where with no oncoming traffic and no one sees you do it? Yes. The law is still in place.

Lap Dancer...

I totally understand about sensitive material that is "classified". My son works for Haliburton and has (twice) worked with the military in Iraq, with a "top security" clearance. When he was sent from one base to another, he could tell me he was going and approximately for how long, but not where, etc. I appreciated his discretion more than the military did because I didn't want the helicopter he was riding in to be shot down! He could e mail me and phone me, but IMs were stopped about half-way thru his first deployment. I'm going to ask him if the new rules apply to civilians on base, as well.

But the new rules go far beyond that. A soldier can no longer e mail his mom without getting the message approved first. He cannot participate in online forums.

Here are the official rules...

g. Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum.

(1) This includes, but is not limited to letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (e-mail), Web site

postings, web log (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or other forms of dissemination or documentation.

This will make it almost impossible for soldiers to communicate electronically with their loved ones back home, and will drastically slow down their snail mail, packages, etc. Far better, I think, to stress to them that chit chat is fine but logistics of the war are not. Most of them already know that, but a refresher course never hurts, I guess.

What sort of law keeps the People from knowing what's going on/ We're paying for this little adventure. I feel that the stockholders ought to know the truth. I appreciate the guys on You Tube who are explaining how my dollars are being misused. Frankly, I can't afford it.

Does the concern that a soldier might inadvertently leak some information about where they are or what they're doing supersede the soldier's privacy with his own belongings? Is this rule of intellectual property?

Not when the intellectual is the governments property, .

Ooh, anyone see "Embedded" on NetFlix. Tim Robbins on the embedded reporters, good stuff. Carlene reminded me.

A poll published in the paper this AM says that less than 50% (soldiers and Marines) would report comrades for killing or injuring an innocent non-combatant, stealing from them, torturing them, etc.

That's pretty sad, IMO. I understand combat stress and all that stuff, but we are talking civilians here....perhaps women and children. This kind of thinking makes us no better than Al Queda.

That would be the code of silence. It happens. It doesn't make it right but it happens.

Brenda that movie sounds like a good one. I just finished reading Lee and Bob Woodruff's book "In An Instant". Fairly good read.

I believe the reason for security would be advantage. You wouldn't call your hand out in a card game.