SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (119928)11/30/2000 5:25:33 PM
From: WTSherman  Respond to of 186894
 
<I'll be honest, I don't know enough to argue against you, but I still get the feeling that your argument flies in the face of the oath that every member of the military makes.<

Tench, I was making two different points. First, is that members of the military are obligated to adhere to military regs. These regs prohibit public criticism of civilian leaders. If these regs were not in place an general's were to go on TV and blast the whomever the prez or leaders of congress were it would lead to a situation where each administration would try to figure out which generals felt which way about their administration and weed them out. As long as civilian leaders don't have to worry about that then they will(hopefully) put the most qualified people in the positions they deserve.



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (119928)11/30/2000 7:41:39 PM
From: f.simons  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
And he's currently an officer, a 1st Lieutenant. What
would constitute forbidden criticism in his case?


Ten-

Your friend is probably in luck. The entire military establishment hates Clinton so much, that it is unlikely anyone will be called on the carpet for criticizing him.

Just curious, is his criticism public or done in relative private circumstances?

Frank