From: Damien R. Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 20:00:35 MDT
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 12:38:16PM -0700, James Rogers wrote:
> The military itself, discounting the point where it interfaces with
> bureaucrats and political appointees, is a more trustworthy organization
> than the press by far. I think a lot of the lies of the military you are
> Therefore, knowing nothing else, if I had to choose between trusting a
> representative of the press and a US military officer on a given matter,
> I would be far more inclined to accept the word of the military officer.
Most of us don't hear things straight from a military officer, in
private or in the chain of command. We see high level officers in press
conferences. I don't think you can avoid bureaucrats at political
appointees at that level.
And... I'm not sure that I see that officers aren't bureaucrats. They
have a more tight bonding to results than your average middle manager,
what with the guns and life and death and all that. But immunity from
CYA, and trying to keep knowledge of mistakes from leaking out, not to
mention sheer ability to screw up by accident? I don't see it.
Anyway, we weren't talking about the US military. We were talking about
the Israeli military in occupation of people whom it's not clear they
always see as people. Not a situation I want to see restricted press
in.
Atrocities happen in the dark. Ask the Jews. Oh, wait...
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:24 MST