From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:25:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

Timothy Shimeall writes:
>>>You seem to be forgetting: the resources provided to the military
>>>are a) finite (VERY tightly controlled by Congress) and b) dedicated
>>>to a purpose (the mission statement described above).  Collecting
>>>information for civilian personnel was not funded by Congress nor 
>>>provided for in the mission statement under which the President and
>>>Congress sent the troops to the Gulf.  Literally, any military person
>>>that spent effort collecting non-operational information (information
>>>not needed to deter Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia or to remove Iraqi
>>>control over Kuwait) would be breaking the law.  Furthermore, the
>>>sensors used for BDA are still highly classified.  Revealing the
>>>characteristics of those sensors (such as how many bodies they can
>>>detect) without need-to-know and appropriate clearance is chargable
>>>as treason.  

Uh huh.  And need-to-know is determined by who?  The people who want their
butts covered?

I wrote earlier:
>>Why, then, were there resources enough to provide CNN and other television
>>services with videotape of "smart" bombs going down chimneys into targeted 
>>buildings, videotape of a bridge precisely hit and destroyed, etc.  These
>>images conveyed a carefully chosen image of bombing accuracy, and a sense
>>that the resulting explosions harmed no actual people.

Chip Switzer writes:
>
>For any who may actually be unaware of the Air Force's methods of
>obtaining videos of this sort, here it is.  They are a direct descendant
>of the gun camera used in WWII fighters.  They were used to confirm
>an enemy AC destruction.  The *only* reason we have video tapes of
>smart bombs and the like is for intelligence use.  They were not added
>to the AC weight and cost merely to provide us with neat evening news
>footage.  
>
While intelligence use may be the primary purpose of such videotapes, they
clearly have another purpose to which the Air Force applied them as well.  You
only needed to watch an hour of CNN to see this.

My point is that the Air Force (which had surely collected *lots* of videotape)
then selected and released to the media only that videotape which cast them in
an (unrealistically) flattering light.  This decision had nothing to do with
the intelligence value of the tapes.  It was a PR decision, let's be honest!

I'm sure every government agency would like to release only positive infor-
mation about its doings, but is not extended that privelege.  I would like to
know why people like yourself feel that military operations should be above
criticism and/or investigation by media, citizens, or elected representatives.
You may say that the citizens do oversee the military through elections, but
what good is that if citizens are denied the information that allow them to
make an informed decision?

David Christensen
chrisda@atlantis.cs.orst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.war