This is a story that hasn't been covered yet, as far as we know: Alan Grayson is fighting for the right of US troops in the Middle East to read any online news outlet they want - including the one that keeps breaking new stories about the NSA.
They’re fighting for freedom, but they can’t read the story that has captivated the world. At least, America’s troops in the Middle East can’t read about the NSA scandal on the British newspaper which broke the story, together with the Washington Post. The Obama Defense Department blocked troops’ access to the Guardian website on July 1.
Just in time for Independence Day.
At first the military claimed that they were only blocking portions of the Guardian site, and that they were only doing it to preserve ‘network hygiene.’ If that isn’t a chilling phrase, what is? That initial story from Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts included statement from the DoD claiming that they were blocking all reports about Edward Snowden and the NSA revelations as a matter of ‘hygiene.’
And yet the Washington Post carried most of the same information about the NSA story. In fact, it broke the story in coordination with the Guardian. Details were quickly picked up by most other news outlets. Neither the Post nor any other newspaper has seen its site blocked by the military.
What’s more, it was quickly discovered that the censorship wasn’t restricted to NSA-related items. The entire Guardian website has been blocked from troops’ eyes. Why? Is it theGuardian’s tone? Its editorial thrust? Aren't our troops allowed to read what they like and form their own opinions?
What, precisely, is “unhygienic” about the Guardian?