http://www.tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/35079430.shtml
So…don’t speak to the press unless we approve what you say. The first amendmentment does’t apply to federal workers?
Of course it does. Except to the Bushistas.
Agree?
Well, I suppose it’s been, what, a day?
Anyway, on to the OP. Pretty idiotic. Do you not think the head of an organization has the right to regulate the conduct of its employees, as it pertains to that organization? I don’t see how this is a First Amendment violation. What is the penalty? Unless the penalty is outside the bounds of the employer-employee relationship (i.e. anything harsher than firing), sure that would be a First Amendment violation, but the article doesn’t say that CPA employees will be thrown into jail for talking to the media about CPA policies.
No.
Information control is practiced by every gov’t agency, at every level of gov’t. When it isn’t practiced, the result is a confusing, often contradictory, message. Every FBI agent doesn’t comment on ongoing cases, only chosen representives to the press do so. The armed forces have an entire ‘job description’ to deal with the release of information. Etc. This is just an attempt by the CPA to practice a little information control of their own.
The writer got a little asstastic with this bit:
Good Lord, not another one. We already have reams of laws governing the simple act of what you can and cannot say or print. Acting like this is some sort of terrible restriction on a persons liberty is stupid.
And Reeder, I gotta say, I am impressed. You put forth an (abbreviated) argument. You linked to your source, provided a relevant quote, and other than the retarded little ‘Bushista’ quip, had a fairly decent OP. (When compared to your previous sad attempts.)
So when a reporter walks up to a dog tired soildier…tired of the war…tired of rotation being put off again…tired of the heat…and asks “How are you?”
He has to get Bremers permission to answer? How does that control anything except for the image the Bush admin wants to put out?
Actually, there is a precident for this. The Department of Defense has, for decades now, has made it clear that any ‘unauthorized’ communications between servicemen and the media are punishable under the UCMJ. But, as Fang pointed out, for the CPA to do its worst, they could only fire a person, whereas the DoD can, in times of war, actually execute an individual for talking too much (mind you, this is only under extreme circumstances).
Think about it, do you really want ANY of your people talking to any media outlet in what is still a war zone? If you were Paul Bremer’s secretary, answered a call from the Basera Free Press about Mr. Bremer’s ‘upcomming visit to the town,’ thus releasing information that may not have been released by the CPA’s PAO, and Mr. Bremer ends up dead…well…you get the picture.
We aren’t talking releasing secrets here…but any conversation is forbidden.
They want to control everything. Only let the world see what they want the world to see.
Reeder:
How do you want the directive to be phrased: “You can only talk to reporters as long as don’t reveal secrets”? That would work real well…
Mr Reporter: So, sergeant Anonymous, how do you feel?
Sgt Anonymous: I’m pretty tired. We’ve had a rough one out there today. Saw some action, but did our jobs and now I’m going to hit the chow hall. (Vague, non-descript answers which give no details as to what happened, where, when, how, etc)
Reporter: Well, Seargent, you seem to have been here for a while. How do you feel about how the administration has been handeling this?
Sgt A: Well, I’m not at liberty to discuss this. If you’d like, I can get you the Public Affairs office number.
Reporter: But certanly sergeant, you have to have an opinion!
Sgt A: I do, but I am not at liberty to discuss it. If you’d like, I can get you the Public Affairs office number.
Reporter: Fine. (Calls PAO)Hello, this is So-And-So with the Such-And-Such Times Tribune. We’ve been trying to find out as much as possible about what our hometown soldiers have been doing over here in Iraq. Can you make a statement.
Public Affairs Officer: No Comment.
I fear for my country when people decide that security is more important than freedom.
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security”
B. Franklin
Um, no. 1) Most of the forces in Iraq are not members of the CPA. 2) The order only seems to cover “planned” media contacts.
This is common, not just in the military or even in the federal government, but thoughout the corporate world (I have to get my guys’ permission to speak to the media about my job – don’t you?). And the idea is exactly as stated in the memo – to make sure the organization is speaking with a unified voice. This is particularly important when doing something as difficult and delicate as they’re doing over there. Having contradictory “policy” statements from the CPA could get people killed.
But you knew that, just like you knew that internet polls are (even) less scientific than telephone polls. You’ll do just about anything to try to discredit Bush, won’t you?
Well Reeder, it’s all well and good to use a pithy quote (which, incidentally, you misquoted, both in context and actual text) in response to several people’s substantive arguments, but it doesn’t really prove anything now, does it? But I suppose when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. You know, so long as we’re relying on being pithy.
But to take one case of the principle you’re suggesting, that some liberty can’t even be given away by a government employee as a condition of that employment, is it wrong for the government to expect its employees to meet professional standards of dress? Sure, you have the right to wear a ripped t-shirt and sweatpants, but I don’t think you actually believe the Department of Education (for instance) couldn’t reprimand an employee for doing that?
I don’y have to discredit Geduhbya Manny. He’s doing a fine job of it all by himself.
Anyone remember the quote…
“The buck stops here”?
With Geduhbya it’s…
“George did it!”
Fang…Please sir or madam…Show me in the constitution where it says I can wear any clothes anywhere I want.
I can show show you where my speech on public matters in a public place can’t be abridged.
Reeder, a personal question. Have you ever been overseas in the armed forces, or into a war zone, or a zone where there is a threat of hostilities (such as our ally and friend, the Republic of Korea)? I’m not meaning to insult or belittle you in any way. Its just a way of thinking that has to be ingrained in servicemen and government employees. Those of us in government service don’t give up our free speech. We are simply placed under orders not to speak to the media unless it has been approved through the PAO. Ever heard the cliche, “Loose Lips Sink Ships?” Well, that’s what happens and entire operations can be compromised if a little ‘insignifigant’ piece of information gets out. Hell, why do you think that you’re only allowed to give ‘name, rank, service number, and date of birth’ when captured? Anything else unauthorized can be used against you.
I remember one friend of mine, SrA. Janet Reed. While we were stationed at Lackland AFB, (Wilford Hall Medical Center, to be exact) she was interviewed outside the Burger King on base and was asked ‘what is your opinion on our sending troops to Afghanistan?’ She was all for it, and said so. It was aired on the 6pm news, and she was hit with an Article 15 (military equivalent of a misdemeanor(SIC)) lost a weeks pay and was straddled with 20 hours extra duty that week. Anything more would have taken a court martial, which could have (for the same thing) put her in Ft. Levanworth for up to 1 year, a perminant rank reduction to Airman Basic, stripping of all privaledges of service, and a dishonerable discharge. And the USAF would have been well within its rights to do so.
You see, for us out there, we have to make sacrifices when on deployment, or in uniform, because what we say and what we do does affect our fellow servicemen and their ability to perform mission critical jobs. I hope you don’t want us to die, and I hope you understand why we (the government employees in action) do keep our mouths shut.
(*Just a note, I left active duty service 29 Sept 00, and so NO 
I don’t have to ask a PAO anymore.)
213th ASH, 11th Avn Battalion, 1st Avn Brigade
Phu Loi RVN…1971-1972
Reeder, I really have doubts as to you having been in Vietnam. If you had served in a war zone, especially Vietnam, you wouldn’t be asking this question. That is, unless you’re a faker. Quite possible, no? You see, throwing out a unit number doesn’t mean shit. It took me 20 seconds to find http://www.1stavn.com/12th_11thbn.html, which has just about as much info as your post does. So, as part of the 213th company, what EXACTLY did you do? Better yet, to aleviate your fears, how about putting your name, rank, last command, and dates of service so we can confirm this through FOIA? I wouldn’t ask for your service number, well, you know why.
Hey dude…I don’t have to prove myself for anyone.
Pass though this way and I’ll show you my DD214.
Show you a DD214, ooh, wow. How about your info, that way ANY of us can see through FOIA exactly what you did. Or, instead, how about the special order number for your Vietnam campaign ribbon? Or ANY general order number from ANY of your other decorations. You see, this is a matter of credibility here. You ask a question that anyone in the service (whether that be to the DoD, State, Justice, whatever) would laugh at you over, and especially if you were in the armed forces. If you were a civilian, and never in the employ of the Federal government, then it’d have been ok to ask…but no, you throw out the 213th Assault Support Helocopter Company, 11Bn, 1stAVBgd. These two points of fact don’t jive here. Sooo… care to provide SOME proof of your second claim?
Or are you just trying to steal the valor of real Americans who did their best in a time of war?
Stemba, Reeder didn’t claim anything about service until you brought it up.
If Reeder wants to keep his private details, well, private, that’s entirely up to him.
Stemba: While I tend to agree with your arguments, I think the call on Reeder’s service record is out of line. Maybe you should bring it up in this thread if you really have an issue.