busted

On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:52:46 -0700, Antoñio
wrote:

Jay Beckman wrote:
"Antoñio" wrote in message
...

Peter Clark wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:30:31 GMT, wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817210/


Anyone care to tell me what exactly this paragraph from the article means?
:

"...The officials explained that, under strict rules of engagement, there
is no situation under which the pilots would be given “authorization” to
shoot down a plane, a scenario that would give pilots some discretion.
According to the officials Air Force pilots in these cases are either
ordered to shoot down the plane or not, and in this case they were not..."

Antonio

Note the comma after the word "plane".

Paraphrasing:
Under strict rules of engagement, there is no situation under which
the pilots would be given authorization to shoot down a plane. That
would be a scenario that would give the pilots some discretion.

Under strict rules of engagement the pilots are not given any
discretion. They *must* receive orders to shoot down the plane before
than may do so. They are not given the option of making that
decision. Authorization means they *may*, or may not at their
discretion.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com