To: An.American.Expatriate
I believe the applicable provision may be the prohibition of using POW's for propaganda purposes. This would fold in the advance in broadcast technology, don't you think?
1,222 posted on
03/27/2003 5:35:42 AM PST by
Timeout
(...an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm--GWB inaugural address)
To: All
On the webcam, you can now see the smoke coming straight up. I assume that means no wind.
1,226 posted on
03/27/2003 5:36:59 AM PST by
AppyPappy
(Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.)
To: All
I've about had it with these CENTCOM briefings. Today's Q from NY reporter was idiotic. He thinks he's just getting rehashed Pentagon briefings? I ask him, is the Pentagon showing RERUNS of CENTCOM footage, or the other way around? Perhaps that reporter should go to Pentagon briefing and ask the same question. If he disses both briefings, then maybe he'll diss battlefield reports from embedded reporters. Pretty soon his magazine can just go home and not report on anything because they think it's all worthless. Or perhaps he'd like to explain to his audience why they feel the need to pick and choose which parts of the total picture they will report on and which they won't.
Gad, I hate the mainstream media.
To: Timeout
I would agree, but I am not an expert on the GC. I know there is a prohibition somewhere about "public humiliation" or similar . . .
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson