![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
richardf8The article I referenced here has turned out to be a hoax.
But sometimes a hoax can be prescient, as this WIRED Article suggests.
Here is the notable bit:
While Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld may not have signed a ban on new consumer digital-imaging technologies, he did express clear concern about the unforeseen impact of such technologies during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on May 7.
"People are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon," Rumsfeld said.
According to [Lt Col. Ken] McClellan, some Defense Department lawyers may be reviewing how the spread of consumer digital-imaging technology among military contractors and enlisted personnel affects the military's obligation to abide by a Geneva Convention article against holding prisoners up to public ridicule. "Lawyers may have looked at that and said, 'It's probably a good idea to get these things out of the prisons.' There's no Pentagon-induced rule in the theater at this time ... but there may or may not be some discussion taking place as to how the directive might be supplemented in Iraq to prevent things we saw at Abu Ghraib."
Now to apply my standard-issue librul-whacko paranoia filter to the whole shebang:
Rumsfeld can now ban cameras in the prisons, and upon doing so can either say that his just doing so to conform with the Geneva Convention, or refer to the prior hoax as "proof" that it is a false rumour.
But sometimes a hoax can be prescient, as this WIRED Article suggests.
Here is the notable bit:
While Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld may not have signed a ban on new consumer digital-imaging technologies, he did express clear concern about the unforeseen impact of such technologies during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on May 7.
"People are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon," Rumsfeld said.
According to [Lt Col. Ken] McClellan, some Defense Department lawyers may be reviewing how the spread of consumer digital-imaging technology among military contractors and enlisted personnel affects the military's obligation to abide by a Geneva Convention article against holding prisoners up to public ridicule. "Lawyers may have looked at that and said, 'It's probably a good idea to get these things out of the prisons.' There's no Pentagon-induced rule in the theater at this time ... but there may or may not be some discussion taking place as to how the directive might be supplemented in Iraq to prevent things we saw at Abu Ghraib."
Now to apply my standard-issue librul-whacko paranoia filter to the whole shebang:
Rumsfeld can now ban cameras in the prisons, and upon doing so can either say that his just doing so to conform with the Geneva Convention, or refer to the prior hoax as "proof" that it is a false rumour.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 07:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-28 10:14 pm (UTC)clinton never supported bargaining for the best price for medicare either.. maybe theres a good reason for it that we dont no about. -MANFRA!
no subject
Date: 2004-05-28 10:27 pm (UTC)As for your point -- well Clinton pretty much FOUNDED the Republican wing of the Democratic party, so I'm not real surprised. I expect a Kerry presidency to be like a Clinton presidency, which is, to my mind, suboptimal, but an improvement over the status quo.