.The ‘art’ of writing letters to Stars and Stripes
Newspapers exist to push out news to the public, but it’s not a one-way affair. They also provide a platform for comments from the readers. Any hindrance to that flow is cause for concern. That concern is felt keenly by Stars and Stripes, which offers servicemembers a unique outlet for their opinions and grievances.
The paper got what it considered bad news recently when it emerged that a soldier in Iraq was faced with stiff punishment from his chain of command because he had written a letter to Stars and Stripes. In his letter (published April 11 in some editions, April 15 in others), Staff Sgt. Jeremiah Minor argued that he should be allowed to wear his 173rd Airborne Combat Team patch, rather than the 1st Infantry Division patch that his superiors wanted everybody in the unit to wear.
Minor was slapped with a counseling form that charged he had "failed to use his Chain of Command or NCO Support Channel prior to writing an article to the editor of the Stars and Stripes." It said repeated offenses could lead to an Article 15 or a court-martial and even to being drummed out of the Army. That warning read like boilerplate language for such notices, but it was troubling nonetheless. There are some peripheral issues involved in this case: Staff Sgt. Minor claims he did appeal to superiors before writing the letter; the commander says he issued a new order letting soldiers wear their own patches; Minor says few people saw it, and so on. But for purposes of this discussion, a servicemember’s right to have a letter published in a newspaper, without scrutiny by and punishment from superiors, is front and center.
Don’t get me wrong, Stripes receives hundreds of letters a year from servicemembers commenting on everything from the evolution-versus-creationism debate, to overweight troops, to the conduct of the war, to the quality of MWR entertainment. There generally is no evidence of attempts at squelching the letter-writing. But just one attempt at punishing a soldier for the very act of writing a letter is worrisome, and underscores a debate about servicemembers’ free speech that has been brewing for the past year.
In April 2007, the Army issued an update to AR 530-1 that many took to be an effort to control soldiers’ letters, articles and, especially, blogs. It said soldiers had to "consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum. … This includes, but is not limited to, letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (E-mail), Web site postings, Web logs (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or other forms of dissemination or documentation."
After an uproar in the blogosphere, the Army issued a clarification, saying "no way" would officers inspect every communication from a soldier. The troops were told to just submit to an OPSEC learning session and advise their superiors when they started a blog. But the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink language of the provision of what required clearance remained unchanged and, to many, menacing.
To several people in the Army chain, I asked a simple question: If a soldier wants to write a letter to the editor that clearly has nothing to do with "critical information" and OPSEC — taking the "combat patch" letter as an example — does he or she have to submit it to superiors for clearance?
The answers I got were nuanced. Lt. Col. Anne Edgecombe, an Army spokeswoman, said it would be a "common courtesy" for a soldier to talk to the commanders before writing a letter, "but they don’t have a right to edit it. … We do have the option to work within the chain of command, but we can still write a letter to the editor. We have that right."
Maj. John L. Kiel Jr., an Army legal adviser who just got a degree from the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, suggested a soldier show a letter first and if it is rejected for anything but an OPSEC issue, he or she could complain to the unit’s legal assistance person, the PAO, or the inspector general. Surely not an easy road to maneuver.
Angela Sykes, principal OPSEC analyst at the Pentagon, agreed that in the example I gave, the letter writer would not need any kind of approval. Here’s what she said in an e-mail:
"The only caveat I can add to that would be that commanders are given liberty to augment the guidance set forth in AR 530-1 in order to protect the mission. However, in accordance with AR 530-1, (and our office is the proponent for OPSEC) a letter to the editor may be written without having to go through an OPSEC review by his/her supervisor."
And then, another caveat: "However, keep in mind that if the soldier doesn’t request a review by the supervisor and the published information is on the commander’s list of information requiring protection, that soldier is subject to UCMJ action in accordance with the regulation." Of course that puts an onus on the commanders to make sure everyone knows what is on the "list of information requiring protection."
Something Lt. Col. Edgecombe said stuck with me: "This is not an exact science, it’s an art." Prospective letter writers should know that no less an authority than the Congress of the United States has spoken out in favor of their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The message seems clear: Take care with the security of your fellow soldiers, but if you’re feeling "artistic," write away.
Stars & Stripes
The paper got what it considered bad news recently when it emerged that a soldier in Iraq was faced with stiff punishment from his chain of command because he had written a letter to Stars and Stripes. In his letter (published April 11 in some editions, April 15 in others), Staff Sgt. Jeremiah Minor argued that he should be allowed to wear his 173rd Airborne Combat Team patch, rather than the 1st Infantry Division patch that his superiors wanted everybody in the unit to wear.
Minor was slapped with a counseling form that charged he had "failed to use his Chain of Command or NCO Support Channel prior to writing an article to the editor of the Stars and Stripes." It said repeated offenses could lead to an Article 15 or a court-martial and even to being drummed out of the Army. That warning read like boilerplate language for such notices, but it was troubling nonetheless. There are some peripheral issues involved in this case: Staff Sgt. Minor claims he did appeal to superiors before writing the letter; the commander says he issued a new order letting soldiers wear their own patches; Minor says few people saw it, and so on. But for purposes of this discussion, a servicemember’s right to have a letter published in a newspaper, without scrutiny by and punishment from superiors, is front and center.
Don’t get me wrong, Stripes receives hundreds of letters a year from servicemembers commenting on everything from the evolution-versus-creationism debate, to overweight troops, to the conduct of the war, to the quality of MWR entertainment. There generally is no evidence of attempts at squelching the letter-writing. But just one attempt at punishing a soldier for the very act of writing a letter is worrisome, and underscores a debate about servicemembers’ free speech that has been brewing for the past year.
In April 2007, the Army issued an update to AR 530-1 that many took to be an effort to control soldiers’ letters, articles and, especially, blogs. It said soldiers had to "consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum. … This includes, but is not limited to, letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (E-mail), Web site postings, Web logs (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or other forms of dissemination or documentation."
After an uproar in the blogosphere, the Army issued a clarification, saying "no way" would officers inspect every communication from a soldier. The troops were told to just submit to an OPSEC learning session and advise their superiors when they started a blog. But the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink language of the provision of what required clearance remained unchanged and, to many, menacing.
To several people in the Army chain, I asked a simple question: If a soldier wants to write a letter to the editor that clearly has nothing to do with "critical information" and OPSEC — taking the "combat patch" letter as an example — does he or she have to submit it to superiors for clearance?
The answers I got were nuanced. Lt. Col. Anne Edgecombe, an Army spokeswoman, said it would be a "common courtesy" for a soldier to talk to the commanders before writing a letter, "but they don’t have a right to edit it. … We do have the option to work within the chain of command, but we can still write a letter to the editor. We have that right."
Maj. John L. Kiel Jr., an Army legal adviser who just got a degree from the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, suggested a soldier show a letter first and if it is rejected for anything but an OPSEC issue, he or she could complain to the unit’s legal assistance person, the PAO, or the inspector general. Surely not an easy road to maneuver.
Angela Sykes, principal OPSEC analyst at the Pentagon, agreed that in the example I gave, the letter writer would not need any kind of approval. Here’s what she said in an e-mail:
"The only caveat I can add to that would be that commanders are given liberty to augment the guidance set forth in AR 530-1 in order to protect the mission. However, in accordance with AR 530-1, (and our office is the proponent for OPSEC) a letter to the editor may be written without having to go through an OPSEC review by his/her supervisor."
And then, another caveat: "However, keep in mind that if the soldier doesn’t request a review by the supervisor and the published information is on the commander’s list of information requiring protection, that soldier is subject to UCMJ action in accordance with the regulation." Of course that puts an onus on the commanders to make sure everyone knows what is on the "list of information requiring protection."
Something Lt. Col. Edgecombe said stuck with me: "This is not an exact science, it’s an art." Prospective letter writers should know that no less an authority than the Congress of the United States has spoken out in favor of their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The message seems clear: Take care with the security of your fellow soldiers, but if you’re feeling "artistic," write away.
Stars & Stripes
posted by madtom at 10:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home