more on Air Force Secretary: Test new weapons on U.S. crowds first!

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf () sethf com>
Date: September 13, 2006 8:24:28 PM JST
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: ip () v2 listbox com, lauren () vortex com
Subject: Re: [IP] Air Force Secretary: Test new weapons on U.S.  
crowds first!

[For IP, if worthy]
> Lauren Weinstein
> I had to read this piece:
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html
> a couple of times to make sure that I understood it properly -- I
> kept hoping that I was getting it wrong.

        I hate to sound like a Bush apologist, but fair is fair - it
reads to me like a "GOTCHA!" by the reporter. Key aspects which
should be red flags for some skepticism are that:

a) The most inflammatory aspects are the reporter's paraphrase
b) It's given a sensationalistic headline
c) Context is carefully elided as to what preceded the actual quote

I *conjecture* that what happened was something like the following
(and if a transcript comes out, we'll know, though it'll be too late):

Reporter: Mr Secretary, there's been some work on nonlethal weapons.
Although these aren't considered safe to use yet in the US, would
the Air Force consider using them in Iraq battles?

Secretary: [article quote] "If we're not willing to use it here
against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it
in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with
a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that
was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."

[i.e. paraphrased - No, we should eat our own dog food. And if we use
something in Iraq that we haven't used in the US, we'll get slammed
as doing Dr. Strangelove type experiments on the Iraqis.]

[Reporter: GOTCHA! "Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs"]
[I suspect if the answer had been the opposite, the article would  
have been
"Air Force will use Iraqis as guinea pigs to test science-fiction  
weapons"]

        That answer is a perfectly reasonable, even slightly laudable,
reply in context. Even if it's not exactly nice to talk about PR
negatives from weapons use, so that part was a moral _faux pas_,
pragmatically he did have a point.

        The article's more about pressing people's fear buttons than
anything else.

        By the way, there aren't any truly nonlethal weapons. A little
while ago in Boston, a bystander was killed by a pepper-gun pellet
which went through her eye then into her brain.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/09/21/ 
in_snelgrove_files_officers_recount_night_of_chaos/

--
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/