6 ms·

US Military newspaper editor voices censorship fears after being fired

81 points by tartoran 2mo ago

mcswell 2mo ago
Minitrue is here, and it works for Hegseth over at Minipax.
awinter-py 2mo ago
I mean he voiced them before being fired too, it's the reason they fired him right?
- JohnTHaller 2mo ago
  He was fired because he wouldn't change facts for the current administration. Same thing that happened at 60 Minutes.
alfiedotwtf 2mo ago
This is how you create a subservient military… well, I mean even more so
- stinkbeetle 2mo ago
  The military is supposed to be subservient to the civilian government in liberal democracies.
  - jackb4040 2mo ago
    IDK what is covered by "liberal democracies", but in the specific military at hand every individual member takes an oath to uphold the Constitution regardless of contradictory orders from the government.
    - voidfunc 2mo ago
      An oath isn't a binding legal requirement. The military reports to the government.
      - hackyhacky 2mo ago
        Obeying the law is a legal requirement. Following illegal orders is not (usually) a defense.
        stinkbeetle 2mo ago
        This is extremely complicated though, and generally misunderstood by internet experts. There might be some trivial situational examples where a soldier can plainly see an order would be a crime. Executing a prisoner for example. Orders like that are not going to come from the top. Should the soldier who carried out the extrajudicial execution of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki on President Obama's orders have refused? The action met all elements of civil criminal murder statutes and the Foreign murder of United States nationals statute. However at the time Presidential Immunity doctrine was widely accepted by mainstream legal and bipartisan political thinking, and outside fringe groups there were no serious calls to prosecute the president for this. The supreme court case that went on to confirm the immunity doctrine went exactly as everybody expected and confirmed this was the case. A soldier pressing a button is not equipped to understand the issues let alone decide against his chain of command in a situation like this. He was told there is a terrorist to eliminate and that's what he does. The soldiers bombing Iran or invading Iraq or carrying out clandestine operations in Syria, they can't refuse those things. The system is set up so situational crimes, crimes in the heat of battle or ones carried out by psychologically damaged men at low levels can be punished so the televisions and the politicians can tell people how moral and just and wonderful they are, while not really giving any room for a solder to be the hero who saves the world from fascism or whatever fantasy it is that the internet experts seem to think will happen.
      - cperciva 2mo ago
        The oath isn't legally binding, but the law is. Committing war crimes is illegal even if the civilian government orders it.
    - stinkbeetle 2mo ago
      > IDK what is covered by "liberal democracies", You could always look it up if you're curious. > but in the specific military at hand every individual member takes an oath to uphold the Constitution regardless of contradictory orders from the government.
    - pseudohadamard 2mo ago
      I wonder how long it'll take before it gets updated to "I swear by God this holy oath, that I will render to Donald Trump, President of the USA, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, unconditional obedience, and that I am ready, as a brave soldier, to risk my life at any time for this oath"?
- derektank 2mo ago
  This is obviously a terrible decision, but let’s be real. The overwhelming majority of US servicemembers aren’t getting their news from Stars and Stripes; they get their news from the same place everyone 18-30 gets their news, social media.
  - bad_haircut72 2mo ago
    Its an avenue for people inside the organization to spread messages to other people inside the organization.
    - derektank 2mo ago
      Sure, it’s one avenue that exists along private military and national defense outlets and blogs such as War on the Rocks, Task and Purpose, Breaking Defense, Foreign Policy, etc. I am more concerned that this change means the troubles our servicemembers are having with base HVA/C or water supplies may go unreported, than the risk of some kind of cultural conformity.
      - jackb4040 2mo ago
        Did Stars and Stripes cover any of those stories anyways? I feel like what I've seen has come through Snapchat or individual sources straight to liberal MSM outlets. Forgive me for saying so, but it's basically state media. It's purpose more or less is to facilitate coverups and limited hangouts. This story is notable for the same reasons Colbert being cancelled was notable, it's a dispute within the mainstream / elite media.
        derektank 2mo ago
        It’s no more state media than the BBC is. Journalists at the Stars and Stripes have historically been given substantial independence to report on the news as they see fit. They covered the spread of Covid on the USS Theodore Roosevelt and Adm Brett Crozier’s resignation. They have reported on wrongful death lawsuits, murder cases, changes to veterans benefits. All of these stories are generally operational or focused on the quality of life of servicemembers, it is not an outlet for political or strategic criticism of US foreign policy and never has been. Incidentally, that is why they are being targeted now, because of their reporting on the living conditions aboard US aircraft carriers during the Iran war.
like_any_other 2mo ago
[flagged]
- applfanboysbgon 2mo ago
  Could you tell me what Cambridge has to do with US government censorship? I'm afraid I don't quite see the connection.
  - like_any_other 2mo ago
    There's no direct connection, only noting the spread of censorship. The more places that censor, the worse it is, since there are fewer refuges for free speech.
Fnoord 2mo ago
Flagged. Press 'flag' if you don't want to know your country is becoming fascist. It isn't happening when you don't read about it. Right? Right?? The alleged reason for being fired, FTA: > Slavin says he believes he was fired for having stated in an interview that "in a hypothetical situation, censorship would be a red line". A perfectly OK comment, which could be made by anyone in any reasonable Western organization, government, for-profit, or non-profit. Except the West is no more. Or, apparently, without the USA. Possibly, just for now. Who knows?

81 points by tartoran 2mo ago

mcswell 2mo ago

Minitrue is here, and it works for Hegseth over at Minipax.

awinter-py 2mo ago

I mean he voiced them before being fired too, it's the reason they fired him right?

JohnTHaller 2mo ago
He was fired because he wouldn't change facts for the current administration. Same thing that happened at 60 Minutes.

alfiedotwtf 2mo ago

This is how you create a subservient military… well, I mean even more so

stinkbeetle 2mo ago
The military is supposed to be subservient to the civilian government in liberal democracies.
- jackb4040 2mo ago
  IDK what is covered by "liberal democracies", but in the specific military at hand every individual member takes an oath to uphold the Constitution regardless of contradictory orders from the government.
  - voidfunc 2mo ago
    An oath isn't a binding legal requirement. The military reports to the government.
    - hackyhacky 2mo ago
      Obeying the law is a legal requirement. Following illegal orders is not (usually) a defense.
      - stinkbeetle 2mo ago
        This is extremely complicated though, and generally misunderstood by internet experts. There might be some trivial situational examples where a soldier can plainly see an order would be a crime. Executing a prisoner for example. Orders like that are not going to come from the top. Should the soldier who carried out the extrajudicial execution of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki on President Obama's orders have refused? The action met all elements of civil criminal murder statutes and the Foreign murder of United States nationals statute. However at the time Presidential Immunity doctrine was widely accepted by mainstream legal and bipartisan political thinking, and outside fringe groups there were no serious calls to prosecute the president for this. The supreme court case that went on to confirm the immunity doctrine went exactly as everybody expected and confirmed this was the case. A soldier pressing a button is not equipped to understand the issues let alone decide against his chain of command in a situation like this. He was told there is a terrorist to eliminate and that's what he does. The soldiers bombing Iran or invading Iraq or carrying out clandestine operations in Syria, they can't refuse those things. The system is set up so situational crimes, crimes in the heat of battle or ones carried out by psychologically damaged men at low levels can be punished so the televisions and the politicians can tell people how moral and just and wonderful they are, while not really giving any room for a solder to be the hero who saves the world from fascism or whatever fantasy it is that the internet experts seem to think will happen.
    - cperciva 2mo ago
      The oath isn't legally binding, but the law is. Committing war crimes is illegal even if the civilian government orders it.
  - stinkbeetle 2mo ago
    > IDK what is covered by "liberal democracies", You could always look it up if you're curious. > but in the specific military at hand every individual member takes an oath to uphold the Constitution regardless of contradictory orders from the government.
  - pseudohadamard 2mo ago
    I wonder how long it'll take before it gets updated to "I swear by God this holy oath, that I will render to Donald Trump, President of the USA, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, unconditional obedience, and that I am ready, as a brave soldier, to risk my life at any time for this oath"?
derektank 2mo ago
This is obviously a terrible decision, but let’s be real. The overwhelming majority of US servicemembers aren’t getting their news from Stars and Stripes; they get their news from the same place everyone 18-30 gets their news, social media.
- bad_haircut72 2mo ago
  Its an avenue for people inside the organization to spread messages to other people inside the organization.
  - derektank 2mo ago
    Sure, it’s one avenue that exists along private military and national defense outlets and blogs such as War on the Rocks, Task and Purpose, Breaking Defense, Foreign Policy, etc. I am more concerned that this change means the troubles our servicemembers are having with base HVA/C or water supplies may go unreported, than the risk of some kind of cultural conformity.
    - jackb4040 2mo ago
      Did Stars and Stripes cover any of those stories anyways? I feel like what I've seen has come through Snapchat or individual sources straight to liberal MSM outlets. Forgive me for saying so, but it's basically state media. It's purpose more or less is to facilitate coverups and limited hangouts. This story is notable for the same reasons Colbert being cancelled was notable, it's a dispute within the mainstream / elite media.
      - derektank 2mo ago
        It’s no more state media than the BBC is. Journalists at the Stars and Stripes have historically been given substantial independence to report on the news as they see fit. They covered the spread of Covid on the USS Theodore Roosevelt and Adm Brett Crozier’s resignation. They have reported on wrongful death lawsuits, murder cases, changes to veterans benefits. All of these stories are generally operational or focused on the quality of life of servicemembers, it is not an outlet for political or strategic criticism of US foreign policy and never has been. Incidentally, that is why they are being targeted now, because of their reporting on the living conditions aboard US aircraft carriers during the Iran war.

like_any_other 2mo ago

[flagged]

applfanboysbgon 2mo ago
Could you tell me what Cambridge has to do with US government censorship? I'm afraid I don't quite see the connection.
- like_any_other 2mo ago
  There's no direct connection, only noting the spread of censorship. The more places that censor, the worse it is, since there are fewer refuges for free speech.

Fnoord 2mo ago

Flagged. Press 'flag' if you don't want to know your country is becoming fascist. It isn't happening when you don't read about it. Right? Right?? The alleged reason for being fired, FTA: > Slavin says he believes he was fired for having stated in an interview that "in a hypothetical situation, censorship would be a red line". A perfectly OK comment, which could be made by anyone in any reasonable Western organization, government, for-profit, or non-profit. Except the West is no more. Or, apparently, without the USA. Possibly, just for now. Who knows?