Itâs not much harsher than the treatment anyone else (including civilian Federal government employees) get when they visit. No mobile devices, no media (i.e. USB drives, even floppy discs back in the day). You usually have to register laptops and insure that they have various features disabled (but best to leave them behind). Most Federal buildings visitors (again, even other agency civilians) need to go through metal detectors/wanded, etc.
Paranoia at The Fort has spread to most other Federal agencies (those that do a lot of classified stuff anyway). The reporters arenât being singled out, this is considered normal.
Well, whatâs notable here is that these journalists have been on the base for months; some of them daily for 18 months. The new thing is that the security is way the hell ramped up today for the first time at this level, and creating an environment that feels to press like clear hostility.
Kangaroo court. They are going through the motions so they can later claim that due process was served. What asshats.
You have made 2 posts and both are as a government apologist. Let me guess, you are a federal employee who was directed to astroturf websites.
Quick searchâŚtic, toc, tic, tocâŚ
Yep, confirmed by your PJ media account that you are a federal IT employee. What a surprise.
Got it wrong. Iâm not apologizing. Iâm saying itâs been going on for a looong time, but since it was only happening to other Feds. No one gave a crap. Now itâs happening to anyone else: welcome to the party.
Want to change it? Covering the trial is part of that, but Iâm just saying this is considered normal in that world, not singling out anyone special. Thatâs actually part of the problem. Taking the Manning trial out of the equation - this is how some agencies treat everyone who visits them for any reason. Transparency will be a one way street until more people realize what has been going on for the last decade.
Are you saying that the agencies monitor reporters in every courthouse to ensure they arenât using Twitter and use armed soldiers to do that? If not, then you missed the point. It isnât that visitors have to go through airport style screening. It is everything else. This is an attack on the press. The US military does not like the coverage they are getting so they are trying to scare off reporters.
Yep, confirmed by your PJ media account that you are a federal IT employee. What a surprise.
I think many people underestimate just how much astroturfing goes on. Itâs nice to catch them when they slip up like this, though.
The military-industrial complex keep repeating half-truths and lies offline and online so itâll sink into the general American zeitgeist. Itâs our jobs as American citizens to root these charlatans out wherever we find them.
Thank you for your service, @bzishi
So much for freedom of the press. Government shouldnât be allowed to keep any secrets from the public, nor should it be able to intimidate journalists who are the only ones who can hold government accountable to the public.
This is an attack on the press. The US military does not like the coverage they are getting so they are trying to scare off reporters.
Thank you for that. Itâs obvious that @syberpunk was hoping his deflection from the point would work. It didnât.
Government shouldnât be allowed to keep any secrets from the public
I donât think many people would agree with that, but there does need to be far more transparency than there is today.
Secret courts needs to go. National Security Letters need to go. Warrantless wiretapping, etc., etc⌠â Authoritarian attacks on whistleblowers, the press, etcâŚ
What we need to remove is the apparatus thatâs set up to protect corrupt profit taking in the name of âsecurityâ. Itâs absolutely out of control.
The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.
Iâm realy not sure how comparable the treatment of civilian employees and civilian press are. Nor the point of the comparison.
Yes, people who have to work for the military can expect a fair degree of military style. Civilian journalists arenât those same people.
I think it is offensive to accuse someone of astroturfing or being âan apologistâ simply based on being employed by a certain employer and expressing certain views. Even if oneâs opinions generally support oneâs employer â which I expect would often be the case in the socioeconomic class where people are able to choose their professions â that doesnât mean they post deceptively or for hire.
In any case, Xeniâs point is key: that todayâs security is different. That is written several times in the linked article but I admit I missed that detail too.
If there is a conflict of interest, it is your responsibility to clear that up. This is one of the reasons I never post on the various topics here that relate to my past employers or nuclear power. And if I do so, I clearly state my associations.
For example, if I were to post on a topic saying âOh, your claims about the safety of nuclear power are overblownâ without explaining that Iâve worked in nuclear plants before and evaluated safety, Iâd be dishonest. So I donât. Additionally, if I signed up to a forum and my only posts were on the safety of nuclear power without disclosing my previous affiliations, Iâd be dishonest. As such, my criticism stands.
The judge, using as a reason, being angry at unwritten letters of the unspoken laâŚshhhhh being contravened, to tighten security seems kinda weird. (shuuut uuup, its a sentence :p)
What review committee in what hidden smoky room drummed up a beat of tension on the Judgeâs brow hmm? Filling her mind with the arcane techno-babble of twitter and open âwindowsâ.
Anyone might peer through those windows! [ahem]
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
