Pajamas Media

41 Comments

1. Jeremy:

If we can’t trust individual military members to safeguard sensitive information (or represent themselves and the military service well) on social media sites, how can we trust them to do the same when off-duty in public? The idea of banning the increasingly pervasive social media sites is becoming increasing like banning internet use in general: sites like Google, AOL, and Hotmail all have a growing social media element to them. Such a general ban on social media is an uphill battle and one that is, I believe, unrealistic and a move in the wrong direction. For better or worse, the free-flow of information in society is increasing. The PR and recruiting benefit to the military of embracing social media is just one aspect of the cost-benefit analysis that might alone outweigh the potential security risks. And those security risk can be and are mitigated by improved operations security education programs and compartmentalization of more highly sensitive information.

Aug 8, 2009 - 1:58 am 2. goomaza:

Why not just ban them from using a computer all together for their entire lives.

You are an idiot

Aug 8, 2009 - 2:24 am 3. Anonymous:

Nothing good happens after midnight or on the Internet.

Aug 8, 2009 - 4:22 am 4. Insecurity:

Why would our enemies worry about a few soldiers loss of twittering when 24/7/365 they can get everything they want from the New York Times; courtesy of the CIA, State and Congress?

The social ban and similar recommended by this article is about insecure top management controlling the people underneath them; not the information they’re trusted with.

Think Obamacare.

Aug 8, 2009 - 4:25 am 5. Papa Swamp:

Though I agree a ban on social websites should be in place for Military system computers, doing so for personal computers used by service people is going too far. Certainly, OPSEC must be used in any correspondence, but we must allow our warriors an outlet for both corresponding with loved ones as well as the general public. Our service people must have a voice and be able to know they are being heard and not having their voice and life events filtered through some REMF.

Certainly risks remain, but life comes with risk….so does freedom. Trading security for freedom is exactly what our forefathers warned against. Ben Franklin said simply, “People willing to trade freedom for a little security deserve neither and will lose both”.

As to risk of homicde…please. One has a higher percentage chance of being struck by lightning (1/500,000) than being murdered do to a social website posting (1/ 2 million).

Freedom and life are chaotic and come with risk. The new mentality that we must be protected from everything is eroding away our freedom to live.

Aug 8, 2009 - 6:32 am 6. RKV:

Right, cut off soldiers, sailors and marines from the friends and family at home while they are deployed long term in a hostile environment. That will surely help morale. Not. Teach the principles of OPSEC and enforce those, and whatever data mining is applied won’t matter much. Maybe during combat operations, but you don’t have access to your personal computer when you’re in your tank maneuvering do you?

Aug 8, 2009 - 6:38 am 7. retrophoebia:

Why not extend the ban to personal computers as well?

1. Enforcement. How are you going to enforce a ban on off-duty, private use of facebook and any similar site that pop up? Are we going to be giving article 15s to our commanding officers as well as joe snuffie? Are we going to form a cyber-MP unit that trolls the internet for army members to punish them?
2. mission creep– email then becomes off limits because it contains information that passes over potentially compromised servers. No end to where that goes. Heck, since computers can be remote-controlled, let’s just ban internet usage as well.
3. disempowerment of leaders. Another way to tackle the issue is to make low-level leaders aware of the issue and able to get their soldiers on the right track. It’s already being done, but a wider spotlight on the problem could help focus attention on it. Few soldiers want to give up information to the enemy, but many aren’t aware of how it happens. There’s already an extensive OPSEC effort in the military, but often it gets lost between higher and lower echelons.
4. Not really related, but this is what happens when someone gets a bright idea and wants to enforce it from the top down. There’s no end in sight. The marine corps policy makes sense because it is on government computers and networks. No one I’ve met seriously bitches about that, but if you take away soldiers’ means of communicating with their families, then you’re playing with fire. Watch the effects on retention. May as well institute a draft.

Aug 8, 2009 - 7:14 am 8. Don51:

Well, heck, the Army and Marine Corps collect ‘lessons learned’ which identify shortcomings and deficiencies in doctrine, training, and execution. They then disseminate that information to the general troop population. The same argument has been made that the very nature of that process can result in the enemy identifying and exploiting the information. So, let’s not collect that information on the ‘fear’ that the enemy will act on it or hold it so close that it can not be effectively employed in making real changes.

The one thing that can be counted upon is the never ending desire to ‘control’. Unfortunately, as found at the NTC in the 80s and early 90s, a commander who micro-manages his unit usually failed because it destroyed initiative and communication. Or in the GO conference at Fort Leavenworth after the first Gulf War when the commanders tore a new one in MI because they withheld information from them in the field because they ‘feared’ it would be compromised.

Aug 8, 2009 - 7:15 am 9. Meryl:

Goodness.

I guess their snail mail needs to be stopped as well.

What about all those telephone calls that they’ve been making (and that people have been gifting calling cards for)? Guess they better go.

In fact, we probably need to just do like the Russian army does: conscription at age 18, kid is taken away by 3-4 guys responsible for that, maybe he shows up back at home in 2-3 years, maybe he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, the parents can start trying to find out what happened to him.

One of the things that has always distinguished us among the nations is the value we place on life and on the individual’s life. But I suppose the way obama’s thugs are beginning to run things, it won’t only be Grandpa’s life that is forfeit soon.

Of course, if the ROE weren’t so stupid and destructive to our own forces, even if some news did leak out about locations and operations, they COULD just KILL THE ENEMY when they show up.

Oh, that’s right. Congressmen will hold hearings attacking individual military personnel if they find out they’ve killed anyone on the battlefield.

I wonder if the desk jockeys who are all worried about this have the same level of concern about the MAJOR security vulnerabilities that the current Madministration is creating? How much you want to bet this arose out of a single egregious stupid moment on the part of one private or corporal?

Oh, well. America sure was a great idea, wasn’t it?

Aug 8, 2009 - 7:16 am 10. John:

The problem I have is: How will we get real information about whats actually happening (Not talking about real time, sensitive, etc.), just the general information? The people against us are conducting a media campaign for hearts and minds of the american people, who will provide the info to combat the distortions and outright lies being told? The New York Times? Washington Post? CNN? I understand the security issue, but Americans back home need to have a real picture of whats going on over there, and the media is not going to provide it.

Aug 8, 2009 - 7:17 am 11. rkb:

The appropriate policy extension is to ban discussion of unit, deployments, and other operational details. This is already in place for some military agencies, including the one I work for, and I support it. As a result my social website page does not list my agency affiliation or job titles and does not discuss work matters.

And yes, there have been OPSEC breaches that have endangered troops in combat theaters.

Re: tank maneuvering, there are a lot of uniformed deployed in e.g. forward operating bases who sit at terminals and can easily (and have) exposed patrols to enemy fire due to lax practices.

Aug 8, 2009 - 7:17 am 12. Donald:

Yeah, when you start taking my private rights, that’s the day I retire from the Corps. FYI, we haven’t been able to use social networking sites, to also include things like gmail chat, on Military networks in years. I don’t know why it is even an issue because it is nothing new to anyone in the Marine Corps.

Aug 8, 2009 - 7:24 am 13. ErikZ:

That kind of information security was crucial back in WWII when it took forever to get anything done.

When you can take over a country in 2 weeks, it becomes far less important.

Having Marines on Facebook and using Twitter makes them human. It shows the US populace what they’re doing and that they’re among us.

I think US society is insulated from almost all matters military, and that information bans like this only separates them even more.

Aug 8, 2009 - 7:36 am 14. RC:

What most people don’t seem to grasp is that the threat from social networking sites is many orders of magnitude higher than just a simple accidental comment about troop movements in a mall food court. I’ve been saying for a long time now that these people that are spewing their personal information all over the internet, especially in social networking sites that concentrate this information in a handful of places is a huge personal security threat.

Say you have a teenager that just put a killer stereo in his car. Posts about it on Myspace with pictures and all. Say this is a savvy teen and he blocks out his license plate number. So what, the make, model, year, color, bumperstickers, etc will be plenty of information, especially when coupled with all the other personal information the kid has been posting for the last several months/years and has become a semipermanent record to the world. If you know the general location of where the car will be then it’s a target. Did the kid mention his school? A mall he frequents? A party he’s going to? All of these things can be compiled to create a lovely target.

Or how about the young lady excited about going to Hawaii on vacation with her family. Oh, she’ll be away the next two weeks. She’d never put that on her answering machine but she’d sure as heck put it on her Facebook page.

Now imagine this with a battalion of young Marines. None of them spill anything of significance, but many of them spill one little hint, add them all up and very damaging information can be placed in the hands of adversaries. If you don’t believe this is true you have very little grasp of intelligence gathering techniques.

Social networking is a great tool for those who would use the information gathered to hurt individuals and organizations. The problem is that people seem to drop almost all of their defenses when posting to these sites and don’t seem to understand that the information they spew would be great for someone casing their house, their vehicle or just personally stalking them. How much worse would it be for organizations with a bunch of members spewing hints to the world, pretty much all of which can be gathered from the comfort of an armchair. Talk about making intelligence gathering easy, who needs field agents any more, just log into Facebook and Myspace.

Aug 8, 2009 - 7:38 am 15. BC:

Actually this is just one of Bush’s less obvious legacies: during his term, US cyber efforts in security and especially R&D became badly fragmented among all the US agencies and departments, and billions were wasted on bogus PPP’s (public-private partnerships) that failed to produce any viable or even useful products. The net result was the increased use of commercial products and services that have no business whatsoever having any connection at all to people in sensitive environments. *All* Web 2.0 systems are inherently insecure and way, WAY too exploitable, and that includes the major social networking sites. Nobody wants to cut off military people from friends and family back home, but there is unfortunately no acceptable government substitute at the moment, and cleaning up the US government’s cyber mess is going to take a while. There are programmers probably capable of quickly fixing up something that would work for the interim, but all the ones I know of are foreign, and hence would not clearable for a project like this.

Aug 8, 2009 - 7:39 am 16. Fred Beloit:

Can we say over the top? This matter does deserve serious attention, no question. However, I would like to make two points.
One, the personal letters of all service personnel were opened and censored in WWII. This may have denied the enemy (yes, may have) some intelligence that would have caused more Allied deaths and injuries.
Two, is a question. Has our ability to listen in on enemy cell phones and read enemy emails helped in our war against the terrorists? If so, wouldn’t the reverse apply?

Aug 8, 2009 - 7:48 am 17. Delia:

Better cut off sex too because ‘pillow talk’ can be a security risk. ;p

Aug 8, 2009 - 8:12 am 18. RM3 Frsiker FTN:

TITLE: How to track down, terrorize & kill those left at home when a unit deploys

SUBTITLE: Cause chaos and confusion on the home front, Cause chaos and confusion on the front lines

(1) MINE DATA – from Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc to construct a social web
(2) IDENTIFY INFLUENCERS – who in that web still at home has the most contact with others (e.g. deployed service member wife)? most influence on the others due to the radiating spokes?
(3) PHYSICALLY LOCATE INFLUENCERS – where do they live? what habits do they have? dogs? alarm system? regular travel route? lonely walk route? children who walk to school?
(4) KIDNAP INFLUENCER
(5) TORTURE INFLUENCER – take torture photos, obtain passwords, cellphone, ATM PIN code, credit cards, trash their home, burn it down
(6) KILL INFLUENCER – take photos, US Mail severed head to deployed Service Member as a “care package” (e.g. deployed service member receives head of his daughter)
(7) SOW CHAOS – post torture or death photos on influencer’s Facebook/MySpace, post list of demands (Private Smith must fly home now), email photos to influencers contacts, use influencer’s credit cards & cellphones with wild abandon

(8) WASH RINSE REPEAT

SEA-STORY: Years ago, ship COs had detailed biographies posted on ship websites. From the bio, lefty creeps would guess where the CO’s family lived. Lefty Creeps would then harass the CO’s family. We are now at war. Will the Lefty creeps kill? Ship CO’s no longer have detailed bios online. COMMON SENSE sometimes exists (not often) in the Navy.

Aug 8, 2009 - 8:18 am 19. RM3 Frisker FTN:

Many readers are stuck in the 1980’s web-mindset.

THINK – Do those same readers really want a marine to inadvertently publicize via Facebook which elementary school has the most deployed fathers & mothers?

An elementary school is a soft juicy target staffed with probably unarmed teachers. Knowing the deployed service member has a daughter (cute picture) attending an elementary school (thanks for the photo with school name showing) assists homefront terrorist with target selection.

Instead of Pittsburgh’s LA Fitness shooting, we’ll be talking about a San Diego elementary school shooting. Thanks Facebook. Thanks deployed service member for posting the photos.

Wow!!! The Marines are thinking beyond Web 2.0 and are trying to protect both the frontlines and rear areas. Wish the Post Office was as effective.

Inside Joke – Eat the apple but not the Corps

Aug 8, 2009 - 8:34 am 20. Ecosium:

To the the secret squirrels out there: You are thinking too small. There are things bigger than operational security- like the large scale relationship between the military and the civilian population. Fostering a positive relationship is of HISTORIC importance, not merely strategic or operational. We are of the people and that strength is what makes us win. Compromise that and the other, less important stuff just doesn’t matter. In short, the positive effects of keeping our troops engaged with the source of their power (the will of the American public) dwarfs the benefits of increased OPSEC.

Aug 8, 2009 - 9:08 am 21. Bill Quick:

As usual, the classic conservative response to an issue of security is More Controls! More Regulations! More Bans! Less Liberty!

If you’re worried about ravening terrorists assaulting elementary schools using info picked up on Facebook, the answer isn’t to ban Facebook, it is to make it hard or nearly impossible for ravening terrorists to assault elementary schools.

Real world example: Ravening terrorists hijack planes, attack buildings, kill thousands.

Best answer: Harden cockpits, arm pilots, and probably permit CCW holders to carry on planes. Conservative supported government response? Ban “weapons” on planes, disarm passengers, strip search grannies at airports. Results? Government tests show that more than half of all attempts to smuggle guns, bombs, and other contraband aboard airliners succeed.

The answer to those who would assault liberty is more liberty, not less.

Aug 8, 2009 - 9:31 am 22. Jeremy:

Here’s an article from the telegraph.co.uk today on the British military’s handling of social media sites for military personnel, for comparison. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/5989342/British-troops-encouraged-to-use-Twitter.html

Aug 8, 2009 - 9:32 am 23. Duane Phinney:

Do I have this right? We are worried about marines with loose lips but, we have Democrat members of the house intelligence committee hard wired to the New York Times. I don’t get it…

Aug 8, 2009 - 10:14 am 24. Nick:

As a Communications Officer in the Marine Corps, I can tell you the cyber threat is very real, Facebook and MySpace notwithstanding. I agree with the decision to ban these sites on government computers (they were already banned anyway, the new Order just made it more formal). The Marine Corps also bans Gmail, Yahoo, etc.

However, going the extra length to ban personal use in the privacy of your own home may go too far. I have seen Marines put too much information on their Facebook pages, but nothing egregious enough to jeopardize national security.

Aug 8, 2009 - 11:14 am 25. Big Country:

Bob:
I see where you are with this, but it start to come into a question of First Amendment rights versus the Uniform Code of Military Justice and safety.. add to it the potpurii (sp) of new tech out there, and it gets sticky… I can understand (from a first person Been There Done That Had the Search) that the MEFs have been doing… the Corp. has been slowly expanding it’s ‘lockdown’ of both the troops and even us scumbag contractors… (email me if you want intel on this)

I fully understand your position of “All or None” if I read your article correctly, but unfortunately, the situation on the ground, in light of recent tech advances, well, this eliminates the “PTB” to stop desemination of critical info, for good, or bad.

Specifically the ability of us and the troops to get a ‘unlocked’ quad band GSM Blackberry, and thereby circumvent any and all means of blocks allows you to access the web from any Iraqna, Zain IQ MCT or even AsiaCell network. Considering that the AAFES (Army / Airforce Forcible Extortion Service… my name for them) sells these phones, chips and others right on every major FOB and base, with no questons asked, as well as setting up available airtime for anyone who wants it, it renders the point of your article almost moot. It’s just too damned easy.

Add in the “Jackal” and “Magic Island” wireless services provided to the troops IN THEIR ROOMS on major FOBs for a small fee, and it’s a mindblower that you think they can stop it. Both Jackal and M.I. are in the ‘profit margin’ of AAFES and this will prevent any significant censure.

It makes good sense to keep it off of NIPR… do you know how much time I waste on that daily anyways? I can only imagine how a 22 year old troop might be tempted to burn the 12 hour day on it if immeadiately available…

Best Regards
Big Country @ Baghdadland

Aug 8, 2009 - 11:54 am 26. inspectorudy:

Where the hell were you people during WWII and Viet Nam? ALL outgoing mail was censord by the military for obvious reasons. Some disgruntled or an innocent GI/marine could divulge info that could be critical to his units safety. I can’t believe the militery lets soldiers use laptops and cell phones while in combat! There is a limit on personal freedom in the military for a very important reason. When I was in VN we were offered a one day a week time to call home and even then the calls were monitored. I did not feel abused.

Aug 8, 2009 - 12:47 pm 27. Rich Rostrom:

Delia: In the summer of 1942, British forces in Egypt planned a set of simultaneous commando raids on Axis rear areas in Libya. Nearly all the raids failed disastrously, with 90% casualties. Major Vladimir Peniakoff (the famous “Popski”) noted that most of officers concerned had Egyptian girlfriends, and let slip details about their operations. The girls gossiped with each other, and Axis agents in Egypt picked up the gossip. A year later, Popski met an Italian intelligence offer who repeated from memory the order of battle for all the raiding groups, which he’d worked out a week before the raids.

Bob: There are lots of dangers in this area. For instance, what about impostors? What about false-flagged content? If I was a jihadi, I’d pose as a soldier, and post content to U.S. military chat rooms about how much I hate Moslems, how much fun it is to kill them, bogus “anecdotes” about killings, torture, and rapes, etc. Then copy this content off to Islamic and other web sites for propaganda use.

There’s also bound to be a lot of venting by U.S. personnel, which could be easily cherrypicked to “prove” that U.S. soldiers are filled with genocidal hatred.

Other problems could include inciting bad discipline and discontent: claims that defective equipment is being issued, that various officers are corrupt or incompetent or racist, “war profiteers”, and of course “The Jews”.

Or false “intelligence”: say, that jihadis are using some behavior as cover for ambushes – the object being to bait some naive soldiers into thinking they are being attacked and shoot without actual provocation.

Aug 8, 2009 - 1:59 pm 28. John.L:

As a former military vet I’d say that the best that can be done as to the private use by soldiers of social media of various kinds on their own PCs etc. would be to impose strict limits on the amounts or range of hours in which they can be used while a unit is in a combat zone (say only between 8pm to 10pm). That way whoever is trying to use such messages for collecting up to date data on troop movements etc. will recieve it with a significant lag that will limit its usefullness for it. From my experience when such limits were imposed in my unit as to cell phone usage in the late 90s such limits are enforceable and soldiers will usually obey them. Likewise part of the basic training (and the regular refresher classes usually done for soldiers on various subjects from time to time) must include some classes describing much more clearly what should and shouldn’t be posted on such sites/media to prevent misunderstandings. Beyond that I don’t think more can be done without infringing the soldiers basic constitutional rights/ leading to a mass exodus of people from the military -the military will have to accept some ‘leakage’ of data of potential usefulness to the enemy as inevitable and adopt accordingly.

Aug 8, 2009 - 2:24 pm 29. Billy Oblivion:

When one joins the military one agrees to a certain degree of restriction of ones rights for the term of enlistment.

But not all of it.

In my opinion you will NEVER successfully enforce a ban on social media sites.

China and Iran couldn’t completely do it, and they OWN THE WIRES. If you don’t own the wires you cannot enforce it either procedurally or technologically.

The best way to do this is to:

1) Educate the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen AND CONTRACTORS. Currently we/they get Opsec training, but like most non-job-related military training it is stale, boring and pushed through as quickly as possible. There are ways to fix this. Do it.

2) Require that military personel and contractors register blogs and social media handles/usernames/logins. Then spot check. Use the results of these checks to feed back into #1.

If you can’t stop it, you NEED to control it.

If you completely ban it, then the effected individuals will NOT come forward with problems that crop up, and with questions. If punishment is involved they will try to hide their actions and make things worse.

If they have clear guidelines from their command then they can still keep in touch with those at home.

The other thing the Army needs to get is just how important IM/Chat is to soldiers these days. It’s a MUCH lower bandwidth method of communication than VOIP/Traditional Phones. Instead of a draconian block (which there are ways around), they should “embrace the dark side”, and provide an appropriate filtering proxy. I would have gone NUTS over there if I hadn’t been able to reach back to my family and friends through IM.

(The ban on IM is somewhat understandable, but seriously, there is nothing you can do through IM that you can’t do through email && || web access)

Aug 8, 2009 - 4:02 pm 30. Marc Malone:

I, personally, do not see the value of these sites, but then, I am not terribly sociable. I do understand, however, that the current generation just “cannot live without it”. It’s so bad that they are texting and driving, now… and wrecking the vehicles and killing others. What kind of idiot texts and drives? Um, all of them? Priorities are all screwed up.

Guess we need a lot of censors. When you find loose lips, educate the owners… preferably by flogging the stupidity out of them.

Aug 9, 2009 - 12:32 am 31. jaed:

You can have the American people getting their impressions about the military, the general conduct of war, and the character of military personnel directly from the writings of those personnel.

Or, if you prefer, you can have them get this information from the mainstream media exclusively. With no ability to check media outlets for accuracy against the primary sources.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Aug 9, 2009 - 1:34 am 32. Tom Perkins:

“Social relationships established on Craigslist and MySpace have led to homicides, and a relationship status change on Facebook led to murder.”

Well obviously we have make it contrary to good unit order to have social relationships…

#3 of the posting guidelines prohibits me from treating your ludicrous post as it fully deserves, Mr Owen.

When genuine failures of OPSEC can be demonstrated, educate or punish the offenders as appropriate. The most that can be done which is reasonable is the most you should do.

@ 19. RM3 Frisker FTN

If the jihadis decided to attack essentially any elementary school near a big base they’d accomplish much the same thing. I suppose you and Owen now feel the need to take the fatuous step of prohibiting service personnel from having kids?

@ 20. Ecosium:

You are correct in theory, I admit I don’t think the sort of alienation of the military from general society that leads to increased tyranny will be a result of this even in the long run.

@ 21. Bill Quick:
“As usual, the classic conservative response to an issue of security is More Controls! More Regulations! More Bans! Less Liberty!”

There is nothing conservative about being stupid. Stupidity is the liberals province. What is conservative in this country is the Revolutionary Spirit of 1776.

You are correct Elementary schools should be harder targets.

The bottom line is, that in spite of the chin high sewage spewed by the MSM instead of either raw facts or reasoned analysis, the war effort in Iraq and at least up until now in Afghanistan enjoyed good recruitment and re-up rates. Treating the troops like utter morons and abject mushrooms will change that in a hurry.

Mr. Owens’ suggestion is a profoundly poor one.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Aug 9, 2009 - 4:08 am 33. Walt:

Inspector Rudy – 12:47

I don’t know what Viet Nam conflict you were in, but the one where I served ‘67-’68 had no mail censorship whatsoever!

Aug 9, 2009 - 4:43 am 34. Bill Carson:

Jeremy: “If we can’t trust individual military members to safeguard sensitive information (or represent themselves and the military service well) on social media sites, how can we trust them to do the same when off-duty in public?”

1) Banning soldiers from being in public is unrealistic.
2) Spying through facebook is easy. You or I could probably become “friends” with 10,000 Marines by posing as old school mates, hot girls, setting up sporting groups, maintaining weapons pages etc.. I joined a Signals Intelligence group on Facebook last month looking for old friends. I was asked a few questions by the moderator, but it was nothing formal and nothing that couldn’t be faked.
3) Information on facebook can be aggregated to predict or better understand operations.
4) Even the New York Times can spy through facebook.

Aug 9, 2009 - 6:19 am 35. Tom Perkins:

I’ve placed my comment on Mr. Owens idea at the blog reachable at by clicking my name above this comment.

Which comment does not remotely violate any of the posting guidelines.

Aug 9, 2009 - 7:02 am 36. john k:

Someone needed a filler piece for the homepage huh?

Aug 9, 2009 - 10:21 am 37. M. Simon:

It appears that the military is becoming socially aware of current events:

Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

Aug 9, 2009 - 3:54 pm 38. Now and Then:

That Marine logo looks an awful lot like the Nazi logo that our dear leader El Rushbo was referring to. Are the Marines secret Nazis? A few good fascists?

Aug 10, 2009 - 6:58 am 39. now and Then:

Hold on, I just realized that the Marine logo isn’t the Nazi logo at all, it’s the logo for Obama’s new evil death panel. So, you don’t have to think about Rush. Think about Sarah. Further instructions forthcoming. Carry on.

Aug 10, 2009 - 7:02 am 40. MarkD:

Why stop with the Marines? Let’s just ban all discussion of anything related to the military by anyone, including the press and the Congress. It would be more secure.

Does it not occur to the author that many/most Marines are married these days, and the military can’t exactly court martial spouses? Instructing servicemembers on the risks of abusing social networking is probably a better idea. I could never see any upside in treating a man you ask to risk his life for this country like a child.

Aug 10, 2009 - 11:14 am 41. Susan Katz Keating:

Commentary notwithstanding (and there’s been some GREAT zingers here!), we live in a brave new world of open info, and it’s rightfully given a lot of folks the heebie jeebies. The sensible approach is to carry on with the ban on using mil-networks to access SN sites, but to maintain hands-off on the personal computers. There will ALWAYS be some bozo who doesn’t quite get OpSec; but you can bet he/she will only do it once.

Aug 10, 2009 - 12:41 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: