On Mar 25, 10:57 am, Jan  wrote:

>It's two questions, really.  What did [Lochley] know
>from direct evidence that she could count on and
>was that knowledge enough to justify risking not
>just her life and career but those of all of the men
>and women serving under her?

Well, Sheridan himself didn't take military action until he saw the
footage of an Earthforce destroyer opening fire on civilian transports
at the Proxima 3 jump gate. I could possibly excuse Lochley continuing
to follow routine Earthforce orders such as patrolling or defending an
area in a different place to where Sheridan's forces were fighting
with Clark's, as long as no illegal orders or human rights violations
etc. were involved. Many Earthforce officers seemed to actually
believe some of Clark's propaganda, like that the crews of those who
joined Sheridan's side were killed and replaced with Minbari. So, I
can accept that there may have been less than complete evidence
available to Lochley to justify taking arms against Clark.

However, there's still the fact that the argument that Lochley gave to
Garibaldi in defence of her choices isn't a good one. To say that she
only understands duty, loyalty and following orders, and doesn't
understand the ethical structure of the universe beyond those things,
is not much of an argument. It's a similar kind of reasoning that the
interrogator used with Sheridan, in fact. Then again, as a Captain she
probably wouldn't normally be expected to be making decisions on a
larger scale than would be covered by her usual policy of solving one
problem at a time.

Overall, I don't think her approach was terrible, but it wasn't
ideal.

Matthew
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32