| Posted by: Art on July 18, 19103 at 15:43:08
In Reply to: Member of Occupying Force will ask for Honorable Secy'c Resignation ! posted by Salil V Gangal on July 16, 19103 at 19:01:05 |
Two points:
1. "And looks like finally there is an admission that the intelligence about the Nuclear Material import that was mentioned in the State of the Union was not credible!"
Not true. President Bush said that the British had an intelligence report that said Sadaam was trying to acquire nuclear material from Africa. Tony Blair said that their intelligence had 6 data points (none of which was the fake Niger report) that confirmed his intelligence estimate. George Tenet never said he disagreed with the estimate but couldn't independently confirm the British finding because the British could not reveal their sources. Therefore, it should not have been approved for the Presidential speech. No one said the report was not credible.
2."I sure feel quite bad for this person who is a member of the Occupying Force."
You should, the BBC probably ended the soldier's career and made him subject to courts marshall under UCMJ. Article 88 of the UCMJ makes it a court marshall offense for officer to speak poorly of anyone in the chain of command or political officials. Officers are given training on UCMJ so they all know about article 88. Because enlisted soldiers (privates, etc.) don't receive the same training in basic, the service gives them a bit more leeway but the same prohibition is covered in a DOD directive. It is up to the command to determine if the punishment should be non-judicial (article 15) or judicial (courts marshall). Out of 4000 troops in the unit the BBC managed to get 3-4 privates to speak out. Sure, they want to go home, who wouldn't. Yet, by quoting these low ranking privates and sergents who know nothing, they made them subject to courts marshall. It's one thing to say something political in a pizza parlor back home. It's another thing to say something agaist the Secretary of Defence or anyone in the chain of command on the battlefield. Of course, the BBC journalist know this which is why they picked on the young enlisted soldiers counting on the fact that they could find a few not familiar with UCMJ. What the BBC did by printing their remarks is ensure that the career of these soldiers is over. Worst case, if they had UCMJ training or were briefed, they could be spending years in military jail for making such remarks to reporters. You feel bad for them? So do I. They probably didn't even know what they were doing when the BBC set them up for a career change and jail. That's just one of the reasons the BBC has been throughly discredited "in England".
Cheers
Art
| FVDB Counter: 4480264 (since 09/16/98) | Monday - 12/23/24 - 05:35:58 |