
The Pentagon has ordered Stars and Stripes to shut down - donohoe
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/09/04/trump-and-stars-and-stripes-attacking-american-icon-column/5706859002/
======
js2
From a bipartisan group of Senators:

> We understand that DoD plans to cease publication of Stars and Stripes on
> September 30, 2020 and completely dissolve the organization by January 31,
> 2021 as a result of the proposed termination of funding in the fiscal year
> 2021 President’s budget. We urge you to take steps to preserve the funding
> prerogatives of Congress before allowing any such disruption to take place,
> for the following reasons.

> First, the House-passed version of the Department of Defense Appropriations
> Act, 2021, contains additional funding not requested by the Administration
> to continue operating Stars and Stripes. Second, the Senate has not yet
> released a defense appropriations bill, nor had an opportunity to conference
> with the House position, leaving it as a real possibility that Congress may
> not agree with the proposal to eliminate this funding. Third, the standard
> text of a continuing resolution – that funds are provided “at a rate of
> operations… for continuing projects and activities” as provided for in the
> previous year’s Department of Defense Appropriations Act – places a legal
> obligation on the Department to not act on a termination of a program until
> a full-year appropriations bill is enacted. We seek your written assurance
> that the Department will comply with this obligation and avoid steps that
> would preempt the funding prerogatives of Congress.

[https://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/9/boozm...](https://www.boozman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/9/boozman-
colleagues-urge-dod-to-reinstate-stars-and-stripes-funding)

Additional coverage:

[https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/09/02/senators-
espe...](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/09/02/senators-esper-
reverse-your-decision-kill-stars-and-stripes.html)

[https://www.stripes.com/news/us/bipartisan-group-of-
senators...](https://www.stripes.com/news/us/bipartisan-group-of-senators-
urges-esper-to-keep-funding-stars-and-stripes-1.643650)

------
glitcher
One thing I've always wondered about when it comes to the temporary nature of
US presidential terms and their respective administrations - why does it seem
like it's so much easier to dismantle things than to create them in the first
place?

Especially for things that took a substantial amount of time and effort to
build, shouldn't we require much more scrutiny before considering an action
that effectively dismantles/dissovles/destroys them? Instead it feels more
like we are at the mercy of the whims of whoever is the current temp-employee-
in-chief.

~~~
paulmd
> why does it seem like it's so much easier to dismantle things than to create
> them in the first place?

it's because it's incredibly difficult to get anything passed, the US
legislative system has too many checks and balances. Every "check and balance"
is another group that has to reach consensus for a proposed action and another
point for an adversarial opponent to grind everything to a halt.

I contend that it is better to have a government that can reach consensus
easily and act, and that is easy to change if they no longer reflect public
consensus, than to have "checks and balances" where absolutely 100% of the
government needs to be in consensus to do anything. Gridlock should not be a
design feature of a government but that's how the system was engineered
(deliberately - it dates from a time when states didn't view themselves as
federal subjects but independent states, and this was supposed to help get
everyone on board that "no, really, we're just going to do the things that
absolutely everyone agrees on", there were many groups who were afraid of
being steamrollered without their own special little body and checks on other
authorities).

Unicameral parliamentary systems are better - one house to pass legislation,
one PM who is a member of the majority in parliament, so everyone is on the
same page. Snap elections if they do something that nobody likes, if they
don't want to listen to the public then the queen can dissolve parliament and
call for new elections.

(the queen actually is a very interesting role in the UK, she is kind of an
"oracle" that decides deadlocks between the public and the parliament. When
the two are in disagreement about whether to call elections she can resolve
the stalemate. She really doesn't do much normally but in times of
constitutional crisis can serve as a trusted independent authority - a very
interesting safety mechanism that evolved almost by accident.)

~~~
ntsplnkv2
I disagree and view this more as recency bias.

It is better to have scrutiny in government - even if it isn't quite as agile.

~~~
paulmd
the faster rate of technology change makes agility in government more
important. Sure, it's recency bias, but under exponential growth most history
is "recent".

You can still have scrutiny with agility. That is in fact what I am
suggesting.

------
liability
Hard to mourn the demise of a propaganda publication, no matter how old it is.
I know they supposedly have editorial independence, but that's hard to take
seriously.

------
krick
The link is the usual... stuff, so it's obvious why I cannot treat seriously
any words of this "opinion contributor". So I don't have anything better than
to ask HN: for those unaware of the situation, what can be considered the
_real_ reason to shut down this newspaper?

It seems like unusual thing to do, and considering the circumstances will
surely cause some discontent (and, what's more importantly, if I'm not
mistaken: discontent of some subset of Trump's supporters), so there _must_ be
some important reason to issue such an order. So what is it?

~~~
Balgair
It seems to be related to a recent poll of US troops on their preferred
presidential candidate.

[https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-
congress/2020/08...](https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-
congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-
more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/)

It seems Donny is trying to take out his frustration with lackluster polling
on _Star and Stripes_ , despite that not having been the publication that
conducted the poll. It is a more widely read US armed forces publication,
though.

To note on the poll, officers would rather have another Commander in Chief by
about a 3-2 margin.

~~~
Gibbon1
The Republicans and the Administration are pissed because they ordered the
military to break the black lives matters protests and the army told them to
get stuffed. So they are throwing a tantrum because they always assumed they'd
have the army to back them up and it turns out they don't.

~~~
liability
Unless you've got a source for that, I think you're mistaken. The Army
wouldn't operate on US soil, that sort of thing would be the job of the
National Guard. The Posse Comitatus Act specifically forbids the US Army from
doing that sort of thing. If you told me Trump is upset at the National Guard
for this reason, I'd believe that. I think I recall reading headlines to that
effect.

~~~
Gibbon1
One half of what you're demanding

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-
protes...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-
military.html)

After that was published editor of The New York Times' editorial page James
Bennet was forced out.

[https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/07/media/james-bennet-new-
york-t...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/07/media/james-bennet-new-york-times-
resigns/index.html)

~~~
liability
That article does not seem to contain the claim that Trump asked the Army to
break up protests, and it's not clear which 'half' you're refering to. As far
as I can tell, the claim is simply false.

~~~
nl
These are Trump's words:

 _I am mobilizing all available federal resources, civilian and military, to
stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson and to protect
the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights_

The piece continues:

"He said he was already dispatching "thousands and thousands of heavily armed
soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers" to Washington to
stop the violence that has been a feature of the protests here."

[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-
consideri...](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-considering-
move-invoke-insurrection-act-n1221326)

Later the Army realized he couldn't do that:

 _Hundreds of combat soldiers with the 82nd Airborne were ordered to leave
Washington, D.C, Thursday after retired generals and the nation 's top officer
rebuked Donald Trump over his use of the military.

Members of the elite unit had been deployed to the nation's capital to back up
National Guard soldiers ordered onto the streets by Attorney General Bill Barr
in a show of force._ ... _While the capital is under federal control, the
removal of hundreds of combat troops was a highly-visible sign that Trump had
been forced into retreat on his threat to deploy soldiers under his control in
protest-hit cities._

[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8389743/Generals-
WI...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8389743/Generals-WIN-battle-
Donald-Trump-82nd-Airborne-soldiers-REMOVED-D-C.html)

I chose the Daily Mail reporting because no one could accuse it of being a
left wing mouthpiece. There are plenty of other sources if you google

If you prefer, you could take Trump's former Defense Secretary James Mattis'
comments on the use of troops in Washington DC:

 _Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a
conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes
the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform
and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a
part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who
best understand their communities and are answerable to them._

[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-m...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-
mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/)

I'd further note that Trump has recently been talking publicaly about using
the Insurrection Act to enable him to call out troops, again.

------
iron0013
The actual title of this article is “The Pentagon has ordered Stars and
Stripes to shut down for no good reason“. The second half of that title, which
you removed, is the entire point of the article. Altering that title does not
make it more objective, it fundamentally obscures the entire point of the
article. Moderators, please stop editorializing via manipulation of post
titles. You are not making them “less inflammatory”, you are inserting your
own perspective and misleading HN readers into thinking the article is about
something that it’s not.

------
natcombs
"No good reason" is subjective. Was there any reason given?

Looked at the article, but didn't see any. Perhaps it was cost? Does the
Pentagon budget break out the cost of Stars & Stripes?

~~~
Lev1a
> Looked at the article, but didn't see any. Perhaps it was cost? Does the
> Pentagon budget break out the cost of Stars & Stripes?

From the article:

> The eagerness to kill Stars and Stripes is hard to fathom. As the senators
> note in their letter to Esper, the $15.5 million saved by eliminating the
> newspaper’s subsidy would have a “negligible impact” on the Pentagon’s $700
> billion budget.

That's 0.0022% of the Pentagons budget, i.e. essentially _nothing_.

~~~
ahelwer
The average American pays about $10k in federal income taxes each year.
Assuming they do this for fifty years, this means the average American might
pay $500k in federal income taxes over their lifetime. So this propaganda rag
consumed the lifelong social contributions of 31 people, every year. It isn't
nothing.

~~~
valuearb
The “average” American doesn’t pay federal income taxes. Only 47% do.

~~~
Bud
I'm not sure you are parsing what "average" means.

~~~
srtjstjsj
"average" usually means "mode" or "median" when used as "average person". The
meaning can be inferred from context or clarified.

"Mean" is almost never correct for distributions that aren't near uniform, and
never correct for distributions that aren't even near normal and not near
symmetric.

------
czzr
Completely off topic but - the US today “EU experience” is amazing. Just a
simple clean page you can read.

------
briefcomment
Trump just tweeted that he won't let this happen.

[https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13019688734875648...](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1301968873487564802)

~~~
aaron695
This should be top by now.

And how did this article get out he was cutting it?

His base is in part military and family's it's not something he would
logically do 3 months before an election.

~~~
shadowgovt
Neither is calling Vietnam vets "suckers," but here we are.

Perhaps he's not a good strategist. Evidence seems to suggest.

~~~
aaron695
Yes, also fake news it seems. So outlandish, but the suckers just believe it.
I don't think the media even has a source willing to say they directly heard
it but they are still running it.

So it seems the media is attacking him on the military front.

~~~
shadowgovt
I think it's understandable why sources would want to remain anonymous when
criticizing this President.

The key question is: will he sue for libel or defamation? I expect he won't,
and I expect he won't because truth is always an affirmative defense against
those accusations in US law.

------
t0mmyb0y
So sad. S&S is one of the best ways to turn locals.

------
Finnucane
"Stars and Stripes embodies that most American of values: the right to speak
truth to power."

Which is the last the thing current administration wants anyone to be able to
do.

~~~
Shivetya
Show me one in the last generation or two that did?

Who harassed more journalist and whistle blowers during their time in office,
Trump or Obama. Neither was great but the prior administration set new
standards for threatening those who would make government justify its actions.
The difference is one was a media darling and the other is a media flashpoint

~~~
nicwolff
No contest: Trump harasses journalists at every rally – by now, hundreds or
thousands of them. And whistle blowers? He fired Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman
_and his brother_ after Vindman testified. His lackeys in the House exposed
the IRS whistleblower by name.

~~~
ch4s3
I don't really have a stake here, and voted for Obama but he and his justice
department prosecuted a record number of journalists. To quote the Washington
Post "Of the 13 people who have" (ever) "been prosecuted under the Espionage
Act for leaking secrets, eight were arrested under Obama's administration"

~~~
slg
Anyone have a full list of who they are counting as either the 8 or 13 in that
quote? According to Wikipedia, the number of people who have been charged
under the espionage act is much higher than 13. For example, there are 52
pages of people convicted under the act.[1] I guess it depends on your
definition of "leaking". The relevant dictionary definition of leak is "to
give out (information) surreptitiously".[2] Giving information to a foreign
government should seemingly be classified as leaking so I'm not sure we should
necessarily link it to either journalistic endeavors or whistleblowing.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Persons_convicted_und...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Persons_convicted_under_the_Espionage_Act_of_1917)

[2] - [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leak](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/leak)

~~~
ch4s3
*For leaking secrets to journalists

~~~
slg
Ok, don't you think that is a pretty big qualifier to leave out? It also leads
us to a question of what is a journalist? Reasonable people can look at
Assange and see him as either a journalist or an agent of a foreign
government.

~~~
ch4s3
It’s in the quote, except for “to journalists” which is in the article I
pulled the quote from. I suppose I could have included the next two sentences.

------
martythemaniak
It seems there's a very simple reason.

[https://www.stripes.com/news/us/trump-denies-reports-that-
he...](https://www.stripes.com/news/us/trump-denies-reports-that-he-
disparaged-us-war-dead-as-losers-suckers-1.643839)

A few days ago they also ran a story about a poll showing Trump lagging Biden
among the military.

~~~
vandyswa
Ah, thank you. I was pretty sure it would be something like this, but couldn't
find details anywhere else.

~~~
liability
Check the dates involved, this explanation doesn't hold water. However there
may be another story from months ago that prompted this.

------
apricot
I'd be willing to bet that it's because they printed something that criticized
Trump, and it was mentioned on a TV program Trump watches.

------
TheGrim-888
Whatever the actual situation is, and whether it's good or bad, this is the
absolute worst form of journalism. It just screams bias; the author injects
their own political opinions, they tell the reader what to feel and believe,
they twist words and exaggerate in order to sell their political message, it
pulls the usual tricks around trying to imply that Trump was directly
responsible, and that you should hate Trump like the writer does - this is the
complete opposite of any sort of respectable impartial journalism, it's a
blatant political hit piece.

In my mind this type of journalism, this article itself, is one of the biggest
threads to our country, it's so ironic. Note that I'm not saying we shouldn't
have freedom of speech, or that they shouldn't be able to write what they
want. I'm just saying it's possible to write horrible, damaging, biased,
political hit pieces, and that is what this is.

------
Dirlewanger
I wonder if this qualifies as violating the 1st Amendment, since it's
basically the government shutting down another voice in the government.

------
tomohawk
Never heard of "firemen first"?

That's what this sounds like.

Whenever there's a budget fight, there's brinkmanship, and this is a common
tactic. Government, industry - it doesn't matter. Respond to cuts or proposed
cuts by putting something on the cut pile that is unacceptable.

~~~
throwaway5752
It's not. This administration has increased the defense budget by $200
billion, cumulatively.

~~~
sokoloff
Yet if you wanted to increase it by $300B, you could still throw something
unacceptable on the cut list as pressure to raise the budget further.

This is a second-derivative tactic; it can be employed even if the first-
derivative is positive.

------
ghufran_syed
For those who are against this move, in general are you _in favor_ of
government journalism in general? Do you think the US would be better with
_more_ government journalism? Should there be a a US postal service newspaper,
a bureau of land management newspaper, possibly a US Customs and immigration
service newspaper? If not, what's so special about having a government-run
military newspaper that you think it should exist, but not the others?

~~~
liability
PBS and NPR are generally okayish, they certainly look good when compared to
their commercial equivalents anyway... though that might be damning with faint
praise. I'm not sure of these are valid comparisons to Stars and Stripes
though.

~~~
nateberkopec
NPR and PBS both receive the majority of their funding from private sources,
so I don't think its a valid comparison.

