Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Politics News

Guantanamo Officers Caught Modifying Wikipedia 598

Posted by kdawson
from the heavy-hands-in-the-cookie-jar dept.
James Hardine writes "Wikileaks reports that US armed forces personnel at Guantanamo have conducted propaganda attacks over the Internet. (The story has been picked up by the NYTimes, The Inquirer, the New York Daily News, and the AP.) The activities documented by Wikileaks include deleting Guantanamo detainees' ID numbers from Wikipedia, posting of self-praising comments on news websites in response to negative articles, promoting pro-Guantanamo stories on the Internet news focus website Digg, and even altering Wikipedia's entry on Cuban President Fidel Castro to describe him as 'an admitted transsexual' (misspelling the word 'transsexual'). Guantanamo spokesman Lt. Col. Bush blasted Wikileaks for identifying one 'mass communications officer' by name, who has since received death threats for 'simply doing his job — posting positive comments on the Internet about Gitmo.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Guantanamo Officers Caught Modifying Wikipedia

Comments Filter:
  • Minor gripe (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shanoyu (975) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @02:47PM (#21718478)
    I would be hard pressed to call editing wikipedia articles to favor oneself "conducting a propaganda campaign", much in the same way that I would feel awkward referring to updating my blog as a press release.
    • Re:Minor gripe (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @02:51PM (#21718500)

      I would be hard pressed to call editing wikipedia articles to favor oneself "conducting a propaganda campaign", much in the same way that I would feel awkward referring to updating my blog as a press release.

      When it is a government employee doing this, on the clock, paid for by tax dollars, as part of their official duties... well that is what propaganda is. Why the hell are we paying for "mass communications officers" in the first place? Does anyone support their tax dollars going to pay for someone to go post positive comments on Digg about government programs? Say, are you by any chance a "mass communications officer?"

      • by Original Replica (908688) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:08PM (#21718696) Journal
        Why the hell are we paying for "mass communications officers" in the first place?

        Because they are a part of the modern military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations [wikipedia.org] (read it quick before it get's edited)

        Now you might think that it would be wrong for the US Government to use a part of the military against US citizens, but then you would be supporting the terrorists. Here's why: The Terrorists can read the internet. It's OK to trample on you if it is in the name of Stopping The Terrorists. Any red blooded American should be proud to read purposefully distorted information, because they know that it is the only way to Stop The Terrorists and protect Freedom. America, fuck yeah.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by value_added (719364)
        Why the hell are we paying for "mass communications officers" in the first place?

        Public relations? Winning of hearts and minds? Press liaison?

        All are fairly legit functions of any administration, as is outright propaganda. You don't think Congress funds Voice of America because they listen to it on their car radios on the way to work in the morning?

        With respect to the hearts and minds angle, there was a big push on this during the time of the Iraq invasion. The cynical interpretation was that the effort
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Public relations? Winning of hearts and minds? Press liaison? All are fairly legit functions of any administration, as is outright propaganda.

          Bullshit. Even the former director of the CIA disagrees with you, as he stated that some of the misinformation campaigns we've run in the middle east have made their way into US news, which is counter to the interests of the US populace and unconstitutional. The army/executive branch may have a legal mandate to plant misinformation overseas, but as soon as it is meant for the US population, they've overstepped their authority. The people should rightly be outraged by this and should require such programs

          • Re:Minor gripe (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Original Replica (908688) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @06:03PM (#21720218) Journal
            In the realm of "counter to the interests of the US populace and unconstitutional" there is so much more important stuff than this. This is just an aftershock of the much bigger "counter to the interests of the US populace and unconstitutional" practices going on like Gitmo itself, not the Wikipedia entry.
            • Re:Minor gripe (Score:5, Insightful)

              by amRadioHed (463061) on Monday December 17, 2007 @01:56AM (#21722922)
              I think planting information to try to mislead the US populace is actually right up there among the most serious misdeeds the administration can do. Our entire democratic system relies on well informed people being able to vote for who best represents them. Any misinformation campaign run by the government can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to make the voters vote against their best interests. That's a pretty serious charge in my book.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Shanoyu (975)
        Ok, so he managed to make dicking around on the internet fit into his job description, and there happens to be someone working in government who has nothing better to do with their time than troll the internet. Not that there isn't someone like that in more or less every office on earth with an internet link. How scandalous.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Hal_Porter (817932)
        How would you feel if he'd posted negative information about a government program? Seems like if you want people to be free to act as whistle blowers, you have to allow them to be free to act to correct misinformation too. Or anything they see as misinformation for that matter.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by FredThompson (183335)
        How did this get to be rated 5, insightful? The post is entirely void of comprehension.

        The prohibition is against military personnel in uniform attending political events or active duty personnel using their rank and position in an effort to endorse a political cause.

        The U.S. military has Public Affairs Officers who are spokesmen, just like any other large organization. They deliver news to the public. Wikipedia, most certainly, is a modern form of media. US military PA people access it just the same as peo
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mccoma (64578)
        Why the hell are we paying for "mass communications officers" in the first place?

        Because the modern military realizes it is not enough to win battles. You must also convince the homefront you are winning battles. Perception is reality and the loudest voice defines the truth.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Fred_A (10934)

        Why the hell are we paying for "mass communications officers" in the first place?
        It's either that or a "Mace communications officer". Take your pick.

    • Re:Minor gripe (Score:5, Informative)

      by Wordplay (54438) <geo@snarksoft.com> on Sunday December 16, 2007 @02:53PM (#21718526)
      I wouldn't. Propaganda just means tilting public opinion towards positive through use of the media and other mass communications, with an implication (but not requirement) that it's less than honest. That could be adding positive info, that could be deleting negative info, given access. Wiki is unusual in that it would actually let you do the latter, oversight considerations aside.

      Enough people don't understand that Wiki's only -really- valid as a collection of other cites and take it at face value that this sort of thing could be very effective if it's not outed.
    • by LingNoi (1066278)
      So you're saying that...

      promoting pro-Guantanamo stories on the Internet news focus website Digg, and even altering Wikipedia's entry on Cuban President Fidel Castro to describe him as 'an admitted transsexual' (misspelling the word 'transsexual').
      ... is not propaganda? It's not like they were editing Wikipedia entries on baking cakes here, the intention is obvious.

      Wait, maybe you're one of them!
    • Mod parent up. Giving carte blanche to edit materials that reflects one's self or self interests will lead to entries like this. Anonymity (or pseudo-anonymity) permits people to do naughty, self-promoting things. People aren't going to be unbiased about themselves, or their perceived missions in life. Such is the need for referential integrity.

      The parent message points out, and correctly, that wikipedia and other self-edit mechanisms are going to be rife for objective reporting in sheep's clothing. If you
  • Tag suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 16, 2007 @02:50PM (#21718496)
    This lowly anon humbly suggests tagging the story "ministryoftruth".

    Seems rather appropriate.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 16, 2007 @02:53PM (#21718528)
    The mass communications officer is expected to make a full recovery as a Slashdot editor and meta-moderator.
  • by rwyoder (759998) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @02:54PM (#21718542)

    Guantanamo spokesman Lt. Col. Bush blasted Wikileaks for identifying one 'mass communications officer' by name, who has since received death threats for 'simply doing his job -- posting positive comments on the Internet about Gitmo.'
    Lemme guess: The officers name is Winston Smith, and he is assigned to the Ministry of Truth?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by snarkh (118018)

      No, the guy is working for the Ministry of Love over there. That's why the outrage.
      • by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:22PM (#21718830) Journal
        According to the article:

        Wolff, Richard M. MC1, USN, Mass Communication Specialist/Webmaster
        Joint Task Force Guantanamo APO AE 09360 Cuba
        Phone: 011-5399-8135
        Ph DSN: 660-8135
        Email: richard.m.wolff@jtfgtmo.southcom.mil
        Alt Email: usnavymc1@yahoo.com


        Wouldn't want that to get misplaced.
    • by reporter (666905) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:29PM (#21718896) Homepage
      There is an eerie similarity between (1) this incident involving military officers employed by Washington and (2) several incidents involving bloggers employed by the Kremlin. The American military officers modified information on a website by removing negative statements about the American government and by adding favorable statements. The officers also added negative statements about "enemies" of the USA.

      As for the pro-Kremlin bloggers, A recent report [rferl.org] by Radio Free Europe states, "A new generation of pro-Kremlin bloggers, for example, is being cultivated to spread Putin's word online -- and to rapidly disrupt the activities of Russia's opponents, both real and imagined.

      When Kasparov's Other Russia held a rally in Moscow on April 14, for example, a group of pro-Kremlin bloggers from the Young Guard youth movement flooded the Internet with reports of a smaller pro-regime demonstration on the same day. In doing so, they crowded out postings about the opposition march on Russia's top web portals -- creating a virtual news blackout in one of the last refuges of free media in the county. Pavel Danilin, the pro-Putin blogger who spearheaded the effort bragged to 'The Washington Post' that his team 'played it beautifully.'"

      Is Russia becoming more like the USA, or is the USA becoming more like Russia?

      • by Shihar (153932) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @05:40PM (#21720020)
        There are few things more annoying than when people ignore scale. What Moscow does and what Washington does in terms of media manipulation is night and day. Washington does merrily try and get its perspective thrown into a favorable light... like all the other governments in the world. It might even use shitty tactics some times. The difference is the scale. Washington performs card tricks while Moscow makes 747's disappear. Last time I checked, no one is dying to find a loop hole to keep Bush in office and his approval rating is hovering somewhere around a truly impressive 30%. If anything, all of Bush successors are trying desperately to avoid using his name as anything other than a curse word. The opposition party in the US (Democrats) are in the processes of trashing the shit out of ex-ruling party (Republicans). Moscow doesn't have any opposition parties beyond a small powerless communist party. Moscow doesn't even bother having elections for regional governors and just appoints them.

        So, does Washington run propaganda campaigns? Sure. They should be. It isn't like the various groups opposed to the US are not running their own. They should be ethical in how they run their campaigns, but it absolutely is their duty to run them. If there is a breach of ethics, it should be investigated and dealt with. That said, I have to roll my eyes and yawn at the editing Wikipedia articles. If they hacked into Wikipedia and deleted change logs, I would be on the OMGWTF bandwagon. If some ass hole in a government office who was tasked with fighting a propaganda campaign was an absolute dumb shit and interpreted those orders as "go edit Wikipedia and leave behind my IP and change logs", than my out rage is reserved to the fact that we would hire such a dumb ass in the first place, not the fact that it was done. I am far more pissed off that my money was wasted on paying some dumbass who thinks that making a few edits to wikipedia, a website specifically design to be resistant against such bone headed attacks, counts as scoring a victory in a propaganda effort against Islamic extremist.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MosesJones (55544)
          Scale?

          Now I'm not defending the Russian Government, but the extraordinary rendition policy of the US, the detention of people in violation of the Geneva convention and the invasion of a country on a false premise and without a UN mandate sounds exactly the same sort of scale as what Russia gets up to.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by prof alan (1166873)
        Q. Is Russia becoming more like the USA, or is the USA becoming more like Russia?

        A. Yes (to both.)

        As a Briton, caught between the two I am becoming seriously worried, both by Putin's increasingly strident attacks on anyone who opposes him and the USA's seeming inability to elect anyone other than a clown as president.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Pecisk (688001)
        Man, Russia now has hole army of Wikipedia editors to edit USSR, Russia, USSR bloody history articles. It was common sense in ninetees that USSR was bad. Utterly, ugly bad. Guess what. It is not anymore, according to articles. Of course, if you will read "Talk" pages, you will discover, that there are special army of nuts who works like advocates of some serial killer - deny everything, spin facts, NEVER back down to opponent.
  • by Rayonic (462789) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @02:55PM (#21718554) Homepage Journal
    Certain people shouldn't be allowed to post comments or edit Wikipedia. We gotta lock the Internet down; it's the only way to preserve freedom of expression.
    • Yea, i mean, WE started the internet. The military and government funding had nothing to do with it. ARPAnet is just a fairytale. The military should know that we own this place, not them!
  • by rgoldste (213339) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:00PM (#21718598)
    I'm shocked that the military would try to edit Gitmo facts out of Wikipedia. Don't they know that pages' history is saved, so that improper deletions can be easily restored? Don't they know that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of editors paranoid enough about the Bush administration and war on terror to monitor the Gitmo page? Couldn't the military be doing something, um, useful to prosecute the war on terror? Didn't the military realize that these efforts would come back to bite them in the ass (thanks Wikileaks!) and further hamper their efforts?

    And regarding Lt. Col. Bush's "He was just doing his job" defense, I'd like to note that that defense hasn't been recognized in law since at least Nuremburg.

    We apparently can't get ethical intelligence officers, but can we at least get intelligent intelligence officers?
    • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:07PM (#21718678)
      a military prison has a spin-meister.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zeinfeld (263942)
      I'm shocked that the military would try to edit Gitmo facts out of Wikipedia. Don't they know that pages' history is saved, so that improper deletions can be easily restored? Don't they know that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of editors paranoid enough about the Bush administration and war on terror to monitor the Gitmo page?

      There are plenty of POV pushers who get away with it. During Huricane Katrina there was a team of GOP staffers diligently removing any material that mentioned the fact that the

  • by zullnero (833754) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:02PM (#21718632) Homepage
    Is the officer defending his guy for "just doing his job" to abuse privately owned and operated websites and spread misinformation. His job? I'm sorry, but spreading (mis)information is what the whole .gov domain was created for. There's no need to deface private websites and spam comments pages...and be paid to do it with our tax dollars. You do that, you deserve what's coming to you and it should be the military's duty to make sure they aren't assigning soldiers to such incredibly wasteful activities.

  • by budword (680846) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @03:04PM (#21718654)
    The incompetence of government is our only real chance at safely. These people are the reason I don't believe the government has covered up UFO's or a massive 9/11 conspiracy. They aren't competent. They can't find their own ass using both hands, much less scratch it without getting caught. The fixed ratio of stupidity to malice being constant means the damage these people can do will be sort term. (Short term being years though.) Much the same way the malice/stupidity ratio lead to the Nazi's being responsible for the very mistakes that lead to their defeat.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by malsdavis (542216)
      It's not just government which are incompetent. Most the big corporations excel at incompetence even more. That's whats good about small businesses, having the MD in the office - who's house and life savings are on the line if the business fails - is a great way to encourage competence.

      As soon as you get national/multinational organizations, be they governmental or corporate, incompetence inevitable creeps in.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wikinerd (809585)

      The incompetence of government

      Interestingly there is some research indicating that people acting as individuals can be intelligent, but when placed within a bureaucracy then everyone acts as if they were completely stupid. I think that's a good reason to avoid creating massive bureaucracies. But I cannot understand why people in general continue building bureaucracies over and over again... new departments, bigger governments, massive multinationals, franchises... Everything is overbureaucratised even though everyone with an open m

  • fighting for "the free world"... America has lost all of its moral credibility in the world. I'm still looking up to the fathers of your constitution. That's some of the best lines of code ever written. Very, very wise men... Look what you made out of this today, look at who got 50% of your votes at the last election. That's so sad.
  • Maybe they're trying to correct falsehoods like the US not allowing some Muslim prisoners to pray and not given a copy of the Koran. However, this would be odd when it's widely known Gitmo Muslims are allowed to pray, given a copy of the Koran, and even have an arrow painted on the floor of their cell pointing towards Mecca.

    • by rpp3po (641313)

      ...and even have an arrow painted on the floor of their cell pointing towards Mecca.
      Well that may be part of the torture. ;) They change it one degree a day while you sleep, but will tell you they did not. Over time you think you are turning mad (as they even relocate the little pencil marks that you apply to monitor any changes).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by timeOday (582209)
      Calling Castro "an admitted transsexual" and deleting the identities of prisoners is not correcting falsehoods.

      That said, there's a difference between a propaganda campaign orchestrated at high levels, vs. some bored private being a dork. Then again, powerful people tend to do their dirty work through disposable minions, so it's not always easy to tell.

  • So the edit [wikipedia.org], changed the title of link to the article "War in Afghanistan (2001-present)" to say 'War in Afghanistan' instead of 'Invasion of Afghanistan' and I'm supposed to get worked up over it?

    Just may be me, but calling it Invasion of Afghanistan is just a clever way of trying to spin it the other direction.
  • by m2943 (1140797) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @04:36PM (#21719496)
    What is that supposed to mean? Fidel Castro is trying to pass as the bearded lady?
  • That's a job? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Angst Badger (8636) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @05:03PM (#21719738)
    Whoa, whoa, whoa! Wait a minute here! It's an actual job -- meaning something you can be paid for -- to sit around all day anonymously accusing Fidel Castro of being a transsexual on the Internet?

    Wow, I suddenly feel like a sucker for writing software when I could get the Army to pay me for cutting and pasting between bash.org and Wikipedia.
  • by TopSpin (753) * on Sunday December 16, 2007 @05:36PM (#21719998) Journal
    That's the slogan which appears on the Main_Page [wikipedia.org] of Wikipedia. The provided link leads to Wikipedia:Introduction [wikipedia.org] which states:

    anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold
    I presume the "almost any page" refers to that tiny subset of pages that are locked at any one moment. No criterion for who is and is not permitted to edit Wikipedia are provided.

    Now, Wikipedia does maintain a NPOV policy [wikipedia.org] that one might consider relevant to the case at hand. However, NPOV applies to the nature of contributed content, not the nature of the contributor. When he's not ordering political opponents assassinated, Putin is free to work to his own page, as long as the contributed content maintains a NPOV.

    The Wikileaks page linked from our /. story lists the 60 edits [wikipedia.org] in question. If you actually examine these edits you'll find they appear to have no general focus. Edits include grammar and spelling corrections, elaborations on pop culture topics and other matters. Since the vast majority of these edits lack any obvious political agenda, Wikileaks helpfully "highlights" the 5 controversial edits, otherwise you might miss them:
    1. Remove one sentence containing a gitmo detainee ID number. Remainder of topic unmodified
    2. Remove one sentence containing a gitmo detainee ID number. Remainder of topic unmodified
    3. Remove one sentence containing a gitmo detainee ID number. Remainder of topic unmodified
    4. Alter one word to characterize the current Afghanistan conflict as a "war" instead of an "invasion".
    5. Add the sentence "Fidel Castro is an admitted transexual."

    Having read all of the same edits myself I can confirm that these 5 edits constitute the complete propaganda attack. I can only speculate why someone from Gitmo might feel the need to remove detainee ID numbers; perhaps the practice is obsolete. Who knows? The detainee topics themselves weren't harmed in any substantive way by the lack of ID numbers. The petty "war" verses "invasion" thing; they're both wrong. The only NPOV word that comes to mind for me is "conflict". As for the transsexual bit; puerile crap like this appears at a frequency of several Hz on Wikipedia, and is removed almost as quickly by various bots and many diligent editors. Ascribing this to some propaganda machine when it could just as easily have been some twit among the 3000+ active duty troops in Gitmo is a real stretch.

    There you have it; 3 unexplained detainee ID removals which failed to significantly propagandize anything, a single word edit war in which both sides are guilty of violating NPOV and some vandalism.

    Wow.

    • And your number 5 was not actually edited by anyone in Guantanamo, but is vandalism by someone with a Romanian IP. The fact that it is included in the article in an attempt to smear the Guantanamo poster is propaganda of another sort.
  • by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @08:09PM (#21721056) Homepage
    Anybody working at the Guantanamo prison deserves death threats.

    Fuck 'em.

    They deserve to be arrested, charged with war crimes, and sentenced to significant time in a military prison.

    The US is torturing prisoners who have not been formally and legally charged with any crime. That is a war crime. The responsibility goes right up to the Commander in Chief George W. Bush and he needs to be arrested and sent to The Hague for trial as a war criminal along with the complete chain of command down to the prison guards executing the orders.
  • by geoswan (316494) on Sunday December 16, 2007 @08:46PM (#21721260) Journal
    I fixed a couple of the JTF-GTMO edits. There is nothing really to see here. Wikileaks found that something like 60 edits were made from an IP address traceable to the JTF-GTMO's Public Affair Office.

    You can read here [southcom.mil], on page 3 of this pdf, about the most recent rotation of public affairs GIs. They are just kids. Most of what they do are puff pieces -- interviews for the "Chaplain's Corner". Sixty wikipedia edits, of this sort, could have been done by a couple of bored privates, over their lunch hour, the day the Sergeant was out of the office.

    More notable is the goodbye essay of Colonel Lora L. Tucker, a retiring PCH officer, on page 2. The way I see it her retiring essay provides a big part of the answer to the question how could American soldiers be involved in abusing captives?

    Guarding men, held without charge, for an indefinite term, would be bad for the morale of young American GIs. What I think happened is that officers like Geoffrey Miller, Harry Harris, made the conscious decision to demonize the Guantanamo captives, keeping up the GI's morale by vastly overstating the importance of the captives, the danger they represented, and the confidence responsible officers could have about their role in terrorist attacks.

    Colonel Tucker seems to have accepted the unsubstantiated claims of spin doctors at face value.

    Back in 2005 there was a brief period when camp authorities allowed the press to interview some of the ordinary troops who served as the camp's guards. I remember a brief clip the BBC broadcast about his frustrations about serving as a camp guard. He made two points:

    Guards weren't given enough scope to retaliate against captives who spit on them, or threw urine on them.

    (paraphrasing) "Half of these guys killed a US soldier." Well, I checked. At the time the guard made this comment 192 American GIs had died in Afghanistan -- including those like Pat Tillman who were victims of "friendly fire". At that point about 500 captives remained in Guantanamo. So even if every American death could be attributed to a Guantanamo captive, that still wouldn't have been "half".

    When examined in detail the allegations faced by only a few dozen captives could be honestly reported to have been "captured on the battlefield" -- for any reasonable definition of battlefield. The allegations against most of the captives don't support the claim that they were "combatants". Under the Geneva Conventions a demobilized soldier is considered a civilian. According to the Geneva Conventions only soldier who are currently part of an army, or militia -- or civilians who choose to engage in hostilities against their countries invaders, are combatants. A veteran might be highly decorated, or admired -- according to the Geneva Convention, if that demobilized veteran stayed home, didn't try to re-enlist, and left his rifle hanging over his mantle, he remained a civilian.

    The Guantanamo captives included a couple of dozen grandfathers, who were considered combatants because they fought against Afghanistan's Soviet invaders during the 1980s. One grandfather's military service dated back to 1960s, when he served in the Afghanistan Army when Afghanistan was still a monarchy.

    And yet the guards believed, "over half these guys killed a US soldier". The authorities demonized them. And this set the stage for the abuse.

  • Just an idea... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Stormwatch (703920) <rodrigogirao@hLIONotmail.com minus cat> on Sunday December 16, 2007 @10:00PM (#21721696) Homepage
    I just had the craziest idea! How about trying an open, honest approach to it? Rather than mess with the articles, they should write in their "discussion" area. Say, something like this:

    Hello, I am [NAME], [MILITARY RANK AND CURRENT POSITION], and I believe this article is [BIASED / FACTUALLY INCORRECT / WHATEVER OTHER PROBLEM]; I would like to clarify that [STATE YOUR CASE, LIST YOUR ARGUMENTS, PRESENT EVIDENCE IF AVAILABLE]. If any further information is necessary, please feel free to contact the Army's Public Affairs division at [E-MAIL & SNAIL-MAIL ADDRESSES].
    Seriously! Wouldn't that get a lot more goodwill than those recurring fuck-ups?

Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich, German theologian and historian

Working...