A highly reckless, flawed Oval Office and Commander in Chief means flawed DoD policies during wartime against civilian bloggers. King George learned the hard way: Attacking the messenger does not change the message, only the resolve to oppose that reckless Executive.

DoD and this recklessly tyrant in the Oval Office has been the blogosphere's greatest catalyst. The Constitution shall prevail over DoD and its reckless policies to attack American civilians discussing public issues.

Flawed DoD Policy Against Americans Civilians

The NSA illegal activity shows us what the US government will do when it abuses power: Use technology against its own people, violate the law, or ignore norms of civilized society. FISA was designed to ensure intelligence tools were not abused against civilians. DoD is sending a clear signal it requires a specialized court that would monitor DoD's use of information warfare against American citizens. That court is called the blogosphere.

DoD hasn't made their case for use of DoD-sponsored blogs to attack American civilians with different views. The public needs to discuss these planned abuses against American civilians engaging in free exchange of controversial ideas. Free people are strengthened when they can, without fear, anonymously and lawfully share anonymous ideas. The Framers when arguing for and against the Constitution, benefited from anonymous debate.

Benefits of Free Exchange of Ideas

In the financial markets, the free flow of capital, under reasonable regulations, is designed to align funds with the most efficient uses of that capital. Some suggest that information is the lifeblood of American capitalism. The markets are one way to quickly transmit information about efficient and inefficient uses of capital. One of the reasons for having a patent office is to share novel technical solutions. This is a power linked with the Constitution: To ensure we are encouraged to share ideas, provide for ourselves, and improve our livelihoods.

The framers well outlined this idea of common benefit:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The framers also included in the Bill of Rights, reluctantly, clauses which protected the right to free speech. Putting aside whether this has been watered down or corrupted by the US government, the intent of the Constitution and Framers was to protect the very rights which they viewed as inalienable. DoD-backed bloggers cannot intimidate you to give up your rights: They cannot be taken away, regardless the abuse DoD-backed bloggers throw your way.

Peaceful Clash of Factions: Stronger, Lawful Policies

Legislative debates, when they are free of corruption and tarnished ideas, are intended to force factions to clash. A strong argument can have flawed ideas, but that argument can well mobilize others to articulate more compelling arguments, solutions, and plans. In the adversarial system of justice, competing sides clash. The intent is to ensure the court hears all lines of evidence, arguments, and ideas. Then the court makes the decision.

One theme of American media and education has, in part, been to improve society, encourage people to learn, and apply their thinking to solve problems.

Reckless DoD Policy Against American Civilians

It comes as a surprise to learn the Department of Defense wants to hire bloggers to attack American civilians. Rather than manipulate civilians to serve the government, better approach would be to train military personnel to professionally present their views. DoD's plan may be appropriate overseas, but like the FISA abuses, DoD's plan needs Congressional oversight. Now.

The error is for DoD to appear to secretly craft and spread messages without sufficient attribution to DoD; or to openly attack those with different views. The lesson of the Iraq WMD issues was that absent these open debates, the national debate is corrupted. DoD would ask that we ignore this abuse of power, at the hart of the Framers' concerns, and cast caution to the wind. Fortunately, we still have civilian oversight of the military.

UCMJ: Conduct Unbecoming

Verbal attacks again civilians shall be construed to be unprofessional. This evidence can be used by local officials to make informed decisions about whether to host or not host various military functions including public demonstrations of air power, military parades, and the timing and support local officials give to non-official military functions. When DoD supports a policy of open attacks against civilians, it diminishes the public's support for officials who might cooperate with DoD on non-official functions. DoD's problem has been with maintaining morale. Civil-military relations are hardly improved when DoD uses its power to harass those who provide local services, support, and assistance.

War Crimes Implications For Harassment of Civilians

If DoD would like to engage in military action against civilians, you subject yourself to reviews by The Hague for alleged breaches of Geneva; and unlawful targeting of civilians for purposes of harassment. These plans of DoD should be immediately demanded by Members of Congress, and we need to hear the specific contracting actions used to target American civilians.

The public needs to be aware of DoD plans, efforts, and other things which appear in contravention to the US Constitution.

Flawed Vision and Desperate DoD Policies

Asking DoD personnel and contractors to "co-opt" civilian blogs is reckless. Civilians, if they were to attempt to do the same -- "co-opt" the military -- could be subjected to espionage claims, or accused of attempting to affect military morale. DoD isn't concerned about civilian morale, unless the public opinion runs counter to the alleged war crimes policies DoD and the President have implemented. Civilians are not obliged to assent to this abuse of power; nor shall any civilian be lawfully attacked for daring to disagree with illegal activity.

Civilian Loss of Geneva Protections

Part of DoD's frustration with bloggers is that they are not under the chain of command. By design. They are civilians. Some bloggers are in the military, and they are subject to DoD regulations, standards of conduct, and the UCMJ. That was their choice. It is reckless for DoD to expect civilians to comply with DoD policies. At worst, civilians who do embrace illegal DoD policies could be deprived of Geneva protections during wartime. War crimes tribunals could adjudicate that civilians, as DoD bloggers, have given up their civilian protections. Whether this results in civilians being tried as enemy combatant, unlawful warfare in support of illegal US government activity is a legal issue to be adjudicated.

DoD is looking at the wrong symptom. Rather than attack civilian bloggers, DoD should use its blogging power to outline the specific abuses of this President, and formally present this evidence to war crimes prosecutors and Congress for impeachment investigation and prosecution. DoD refuses to do this and appears complicit with the alleged war crimes.

DoD Failed To Confront Reckless Commander in Chief

Iraq is a mess because DoD officials did not oppose the reckless arguments for war, and continued to engage in illegal combat despite no imminent threat. However, regardless how we got into Iraq, the Conventions require DoD and the President and Congress to ensure they provide the necessary means for the Iraqis to establish civil society. Five years after the iraq invasion, DoD has substantially failed to meet its Geneva obligations. It is reckless for DoD to contemplate, as a solution to their reckless assent to war crimes, a plan to target civilian bloggers. DoD needs to first clean up its mess within the Pentagon and telecom community, confront the Commander in Chief with the evidence, and cooperate with a war crimes tribunal.

When DoD fully cooperates with that war crimes investigation, they may be in a position -- within DoD -- to provide their views on what tribunal. Until then, civilian bloggers shall remain civilian, and not put at risk of having their Geneva protections stripped in any way. The wrong answer is to pretend that civilian bloggers have an obligation to DoD; or that civilian bloggers can be corrupted, in secret, to bend to the mighty swords of the American military. They are civilians, they are not warriors, nor are they required to bend. The Constitution is their shield, especially against reckless DoD plans to manipulate a civilian population with organized campaigns to intimidate and silence those with controversial, but lawful views.

Impermissible Deception

It should be the national policy of a free, independent, and non-militized citizenry to freely exchange ideas and publicly report on efforts of the government to induce them to spread government ideology. Rather, the US government, with its vast resources, should independently on its own websites organize, maintain, and establish its own blogs.

British Red Coats Harass American Patriots

Putting that aside, it is reckless for DoD to discuss, much less seriously consider, possible harassment against civilians. This smacks of organized military raids against civilians on the battlefield, only hiding it behind words. DoD cannot claim that the attacks on civilians in the blogosohere are "just words," in that "just words" are the very things DoD fears.

DoD problem is that it fails to show the world that it is willing to embrace independent, objective, controversial views which may contradict the reckless conduct and legal opinions of White House counsel. When DoD legal counsel can demonstrate they put their oath to the Constitution before the President or party, maybe DoD might be led by competent legal counsel or have some input into how non-military personnel should or should not be corrupted. Until then, any organized military effort to harass civilian bloggers shall be called what it is: An illegal effort to intimidate a civilian population, or domestic terrorism. Any lawful effort or option to oppose this alleged reckless planning by DoD should be openly discussed within the House and Senate Judiciary and Armed Services Committee.

Congressional Alarm In Wake of US Government FISA Abuses

Members of Congress should be appalled that their constituents, non-military personnel, are the subjects of ongoing plans by DoD to harass, target, identify, annoy, and intimidate. These were the very abuses which the Framers fought against in 1776. The idea of the Constitution is to bring us together, share ideas, and provide for the common defense. If DoD's plan is to harass civilians and dissuade them form sharing controversial views, DoD can hardly be called part of the stabilizing forces. DoD's job is to stay out of the debates, and assent to the voters. The moment DoD begins discussion the possible benefits of corrupting civilian bloggers for official objectives, is the moment the Members of Congress should take to the House and Senate floors and demand the President be impeached. This President is out of control. It's reckless for him to permit, during wartime, DoD to discuss efforts to illegally abuse, intimidate, or harass civilians.

Congress should not have to plead, argue, or ask the President to cooperate. The issue is whether the Secretary of Defense Gates will or will not remember his university lessons, and reconsider the plans of DoD to corrupt the American civilian debate. DoD is inappropriately acting when it discusses hiring private contractors to target civilians in the blogoshere. Civilians have enough trouble getting their browsers to work, much less formulate a coherent national policy to defend the Constitution against reckless DoD personnel.

DoD Has No Credibility To Regulate Debate

Blogs are only valuable if free people, regardless their views, are able to freely share lawful communications. It is not for DoD to decide what should or should not be attacked, discredited, or smeared. This may be something that DoD does against a foreign enemy, abroad, and under wartime. But it is reckless for DoD to view blogs -- as a newspaper -- as a threat. They're just words.

DoD's response is implicitly admitting it has no moral foundation to argue. DoD's position is that it can only mobilize by abusing and manipulation. That may work in combat, but civilians are not subject to DoD or the UCMJ. They shall never be subjected to any conditions which remotely permits, sanctions, or supports the targeting of civilians because of their views, comments, beliefs, or public thoughts.

DoD Support For Controversial Views

It is cause for alarm when anyone targeted by others for attack, especially when those attacks defy reason. Those who are subjected to this abusive DoD-inspired conduct will be able to wear with distinction the accolades of the blogosphere: A single word was able to mobilize within DoD sufficient angst that the DoD leadership felt the need to target a single speaker. Thank you for the publicity.

Undermining Waning Civilian Support

It's more than credibility or trust that DoD risks losing. DoD risks losing it's independence, and ability to, when a real problem arises, to quickly mobilize. Attacks on civilians reduce the incentive of civilians to mobilize for war. If DoD would like to "make" its own bloggers and blogs, go for it: But you remain subject to public discussion. Fair public comments about flawed DoD comments on these blogs cannot be the basis for DoD to target civilians with audits, or mobilize law enforcement to subject those civilians to NSA surveillance, or IRS audits. Congress needs to review whether there is any ongoing program to target bloggers, or use the blogosphere to target people who have evidence of war crimes, POW abuse, rendition, or other evidence contrary to DoD's legal obligations under Geneva conventions.

Illegally Targeting Discussion of DoD Misconduct

DoD needs to be careful when it starts targeting blogs. Not all discussions of official information rely on "only" classified information. DoD can't control the information once its disclosed. The right method is to ensure that evidence of illegal activity, not lawfully classified, is used to prosecute. DoD's problem has been cooperating with the President's illegal NSA surveillance. If the US government attempts to adjust data to dissuade others from associating with, listening to, or engaging with that person in friendly debate, DoD subjects itself to be sued for defamation claims.

Flawed DoD Policies Prevail Through Abusive Enforcement or Military Force

DoD efforts to 'boost a blog' will not survive. Eventually, the best ideas will prevail. Ideas, unrelated to facts and devoid of credible arguments, will hopefully diminish, but they will not perish. DoD assent to illegal warfare and reckless Iraqi reconstruction is evidence that flawed ideas can take root within DoD and the Oval Office. DoD cannot be trusted to decide who does or doesn't have 'flawed' ideas. That is a voting decision. DoD is subject to the voters' rebuke.

DoD is free to attempt to use blogs overseas. The problem is when DoD attempts to domestically use blogs to affect American civilian debate, discourse, and oversight of DoD.

Lawful Civilian Retribution Against DoD

There can be a policy, in lawful retaliation for this DoD-sanctioned abuse, for local government officials to deny funding for less than mission-critical DoD programs. Contractors can be encouraged to refrain from bidding on contracts when DoD officials have been abusing civilians. The public is not obliged to ensure that DoD benefits from ideas, support, assistance, or respect.

It is reckless for special forces units -- a group designed to be used in combat -- to worry itself with the comments of civilians in the blogosphere. You stay in your lane in the jungles and special operations; and the bloggers will conduct civilian oversight of that government activity. You are not permitted to enter out lane. Ever. If you intrude, we can organize efforts to have increased oversight, more intrusive audits, and higher burdens to justify funding for new programs for special programs.

If you engage in clandestine use of blogs against a civilian population, you run the risk under Geneva of being charged with war crimes, or violating the Smith Act against domestic propaganda.

42 USC 1983, Defamation: Civil Liability Against DoD Officials

It's also possible that a blog, linked with the US government will be contrary to the US Constitution, and actively supports illegal warfare. If you want to affect a bloggers' blog, you're talking about deliberate efforts to affect US citizens' reputations. This is fine overseas, but you subject yourself to civil claims if DoD selectively rewords phrases on a blog to undermine that bloggers' reputation.

Posse Comitatus

DoD is not granted any power to use combat-related information warfare strategies against American civilians. DoD should be required to get warrants to affect blogs; and be subject to some oversight when DoD attempts to argue that someone is engaging in espionage or improper use of a blog. The problem is when DoD attempts to use "combat related practices" against American civilians. DoD hasn't been given enough oversight on the NSA abuses. Before DoD gets a green light to target blogs, Congress and the public needs to target this President's illegal activity, conduct investigations, and ensure this abuse of power ends. If DoD would like to blog about their defenses at a war crimes tribunal, maybe the public might consider that.

Monitoring DoD Abuse of American Civilians

DoD's proposed plans should serve notice to bloggers: You may be contacted, threatened, and induced to do or not do something. These threats need to be forwarded immediately to US government officials, local officials, and law enforcement. The Federal Acquisition Regulations do not permit the use of official resources to intimidate a civilian population, harass them, or abuse them. How this DoD activity is used overseas is a separate issue, subject to Geneva enforcement.

Bloggers have options. They are not required to remain silent about the abuse of DoD power. Civilians are permitted to enter DoD, lawfully communicate with Members of Congress, and share with the Inspector Generals and Congress plans of DoD to harass civilians.

Freeing Ideas Within DoD

It's flawed for DoD to require others to bend to DoD. DoD should show by example, with words and actions, that it should be trusted. DoD's problem, despite funds spend on educating military personnel, is that its on the wrong side of the argument. If DoD stood up to the President on Iraq, bloggers would not be attacking illegal DoD positions on war crimes, pirsoner abuse, and other illegal warfare. If DoD would like to fund scholarships for academics to engage in domestic propaganda, that's one thing. It's reckless for DoD to discuss "problems" with the blogosphere in terms of national security.

DoD should get on the right side of the argument: Use blogs to understand what is lawful, supportable going forward. Iraq is a lost cause. DoD failed to stand up to the President. You have this mess. You clean it up. When DoD uses blogs to clean up the mess in Iraq, perhaps the world might taker seriously DoD efforts to regulate bloggers or target them with harassment.