"Commanders may authorize incidental use which:...serves a legitimate Air Force interest"
Have to include the context.
On Jan 3, 2008 5:21 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/3/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It seems that in all that the key statement is "COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE INCIDENTAL USE." How can anyone say that he knows about an offence if he is not on the same base, and knows nothing about the orders by the commander of the putative offender's base?
Good point. Furthermore, is there a specific obligation to go out of ones way to "fish" for compromising information on a wikipedia user, I.E. Isn't there anything like our AGF in the best practises of the armed servises?
Even if there were an affirmative obligation to pass on any information that would lead to the apprehension of somebody misusing resources, wouldn't such an affirmative obligation only apply to positive knowledge. That is, how should anyone be affirmatively obliged to inform upon a *possible* infraction?
If that were the case, wouldn't that mean that those folk should be running around frenetically informing their higher-ups about every suscpicion they might have about their brothers in arms... ?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l