Text 6272, 75 rader
Skriven 2004-12-14 18:25:00 av JOHN MASSEY (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av RICHARD HELM
Ärende: Breaking News!
======================


BF> RH> Don't you see something that just dosn't fit with other facts
BF> RH> you know to be true?  Like "is against US law for soldiers to
BF> RH> even take pic:s in a war" Soldiers have been taking pictures, in
BF> RH> wars, ever since there have been cameras.  Soldiers take
BF> RH> pictures of each other, of where they've been and so on for
BF> RH> ever.  Logic alone should give you a clue that there is
BF> RH> something wrong with your statement above.  Think about it.

BF>I have.
BF>Perhaps no one bothred to deal with it since it was so commom and if
BF>you listen to your comrades, there are those who says I'm right so
BF>obviously there are some truth in it.

BF> RH> Now you have a couple of different issues here.  One is that the
BF> RH> soldier that took the pictures in Gitmo may have been violating
BF> RH> *local* regulations about photographing restricted areas.  Not a
BF> RH> US law.  Gitmo is NOT a war zone.

BF>Not to take pictures applys to anywhere where the military is.

BF> RH> Second, and maybe more important, is that you have taken on the
BF> RH> word of several in this forum that have great amounts of
BF> RH> personal experience with military matters.  Including enforcing
BF> RH> the various rules and regulations that govern the armed forces
BF> RH> of the United States.  You rely on a TV program to give you
BF> RH> information about things that were our jobs.  Our professions.

BF>Do you think that even every policeofficer knows about every law in
BF>the law- book? Was it your job to know every regulation?
BF>Many had cameras and took pictures and many policeofficer do drive
BF>over speed limit so what?

BF> RH> Sean, for instance, says that he worked in the a JAG office.
BF> RH> The JAG is where the legal eagles of the military hang out.  His
BF> RH> job would have included doing the paperwork that delt with such
BF> RH> violations.  Something that he would have been exposed to on a
BF> RH> routine basis and he says isn't true, you refuse to accept
BF> RH> because of a brief comment on a Swedish TV program.

BF>If there wasn't any who reported those who took pictures to JAG, then
BF>naturally he haven't heard of it.

BF> RH> Does it make sense to you to hear someone say "it's against US
BF> RH> law for soldiers to take pictures in war" and then see dozens of
BF> RH> pictures, taken by soldiers, of various landmarks around their
BF> RH> locations?  You should have conflicts within your own thinking
BF> RH> when you hear one thing that you know is happening on a routine
BF> RH> basis.

BF>Why don't you try to find out if it's against the law to take pics.
BF>instead of trying
BF>to fool yourself?

BF> RH> Either you misunderstood what was said on that TV program or you
BF> RH> have allowed your prejudices to over rule logic, or both.

BF>I understood what he said and it was even translated to Swedish.


Sure am glad to see you back. 

You are talking to another one that thinks he knows more that the men 
that have been there, done that.

I find it strange that the Army would provide the film, chemicals, and 
paper for us to use if it was against the law. 
I guess those hundreds of photos I took in country, and the photo hobby 
shop at Na Trang where I, and a about 20 others, developed and printed 
pictures in our free time were all against the Regs.  

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)