Slashdot Mirror

It would be a First Amendment violation or a government to get involved in policing Facebook as Zuckerberg wants to. Zuck exerts fine-grained control over the politics allowed on his platform with such actions as banning white separatist posting while allowing black separatist posts. Governments would Constitutionally be limited to policing the small number of specific First Amendment exceptions that have been judicially established over the years:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/9...

Fun fact: you know who wrote the infamous false flag WMD memo that was used as justification to start the Iraq War? Robert S. Mueller III. Yup, the same one. The smoking gun right here.

The Bush administration's central justification for the Iraq war was the belief that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and could transfer them to militants. No such weapons were found after the invasion.

Here's video evidence of Mueller lying to Congress. He gave the impression that the FBI, the trusted organization that would never lie, approved of the invasion as absolutely necessary. Because Iraq was going to give WMD to Al-Qaeda, despite Saddam utterly hating Islamists and Al-Qaeda utterly hating nationalists like Saddam.

- defeat ISIS

You are a complete fucking idiot. Really, there's little else to say about you. Because Trump says so doesn't mean shit, except to you guys on your knees sucking him off daily.

https://www.dni.gov/files/docu...

"ISIS and al-Qa‘ida and their respective networks will be persistent threats, as will groups not subordinate to them, such as the Haqqani Taliban Network."

"ISIS core has started and probably will maintain a robust insurgency in Iraq and Syria as part of a long term strategy to ultimately enable the reemergence of its so called caliphate. This activity will challenge local CT efforts against the group and threaten US interests in the region."

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

"The Islamic State may still have in excess of 30,000 fighters in Syria and Iraq and appears to have rebounded from some of its worst setbacks, according to two new reports that call into question whether the militants are as close to defeat as the U.S. military has suggested."
“The collective discipline of ISIL is intact,” the report said. “The general security and finance bureaus of ISIL are intact. The group’s immigration and logistics coordination office is also intact, although it is having difficulty communicating and its chief has been killed.”

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideas...

"While U.S. and allied forces in 2017 and 2018 successfully liberated most of the territory formerly held by the group in Syria and Iraq, IS leadership remains at large and IS fighters appear to be evolving into an insurgent force. The group’s international affiliates continue to operate, and individuals inspired by the group continue to attempt attacks in Europe and elsewhere. The stabilization of areas recovered from the group in Iraq and Syria remains an ongoing challenge, and a U.S. military spokesperson for the counter IS campaign warned in August 2018 that, “We cannot emphasize enough that the threat of losing the gains we have made is real, especially if we are not able to give the people a viable alternative to the ISIS problem.”

No? Huh? It was experts who told us that Iraq had WMD and those presented a clear and present danger to us. They also said that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were going to team up against us. Because Iraq was going to give WMD to Al-Qaeda, despite Saddam utterly hating Islamists and Al-Qaeda utterly hating nationalists like Saddam. Fun fact: you know who wrote the infamous false flag WMD memo that was used as justification to start the Iraq War? Robert S. Mueller III. Yup, the same one. Read the smoking gun memo here.

Experts aren't the solution, they're the problem. Until they can prove they can be trusted, it's better to put ourselves in positions of power. We'll make suboptimal decisions to be sure, but our decisions will be better than their decisions which have been repeatedly shown to be disastrous.

I read half the first senctence,

Judging from the emotional reactions you've provided, you read the entire thing over and over and it took you a few days to calm down, so it's clear they have an element of truth and you feel like a hypocrite for supporting this war.

Why read more? If you start with that, why would you think your words have value?

Because they already *have* had value, it's just not one you can recognize. However I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because I think you have been deceived by your media.

I'm not going to hand-feed you supporting materials.

Calm down, there is no need to have a temper tantrum, its an adolescent technique of someone who cannot support their argument. I'd be able to argue your side of the argument better with a few nights of study anyway so that is what I decided to do.

If you don't know how to look things up using resources you trust, take a fucking class in study skills at the community college. Don't ask me to do it for you.

If you're feeling emotional about this then it's probably a sign that you are being manipulated by the media and thinking is hard for you because of mental atrophy. It's pretty common so don't take it personally, I'll help you with a mental workout instead.

My preference is for referring to acts of law to determine the behaviour of government, not the press or other sources as I find they are swayed to much by emotion and inaccuracies. So I looked up the legal agreements dictating the US presence in Iraq, the Status of Forces Agreement. A pretty interesting read so thanks for the opportunity to evolve my argument. I also looked up the US Inventory of Bi-Lateral Treaties and the Declaration of Principles where the US spells out it terms for the occupation, invasion, police action, "call it anything but a war" "Long term relationship" with Iraq. Very interesting indeed, a great opportunity for evolving my arguments even further.

Do you think the US Government website and the White House are sources I can trust? It saves me time not having to sift through the inconsequential media mindgames you've sourced this claim that Iraq needs the US. I can see the rhetoric designed into the legal documents are breathtakingly presumptuous and nothing in those documents suggest a legal premise for Iraq requesting any assistance. The US assuming legal control of parts of the country, exonerating yourselves from local laws, spreading DU all over the country with no clear legal military premise. Iraq offered the US everything not to have the shit kicked out of them, again, by the US. They're not even muslim, they're christians so how do they make islamic terrorists?

Since you bought up whataboutism", I'm not a soviet, I'm one of your allies so I'm perfectly entitled to call you out on it since my government is telling me that we are obliged to stay there with you under the premise of military agreements we have with you. I'm embarrassed that my country is still there side by side as a friend and ally to the U.S in Iraq. So why are you continuing to oblige US for our help with this? It's was wrong 17 or whatever years ago and it is wrong now. This is really bad stuff, and I don't understand why America and Americans need to shame themselves like this.

If you're so credulous of whatever pap people feed you that you'd want me to "support" your thinking in that way, that already tells me you can't comprehend the ideas that I expressed.

I think credulity is the issue here because the idea that you actually are being manipulated by your media is a terrifying idea, your emotional reactions to this discussion and inability to respond rationally to a typed arg

Uh do you realize the stats of how illegals come here?
30-40% come over the Mexican border.
40-50% come here legally on visas and then just stay.
10-30% come over the rest of the borders.

If you stop the Mexican border, they will simply jump in boats and come around on many many more miles of coast line. Heck, we have Mexicans that are being dumped off in ALASKA, and they cut through Canada to get here. Do you intend to guard 100% of our border?
Here you go. Mexico is ~2000 miles.
Canada/lower 48 border is ~4000 miles.
Canada/Alaska is ~1500 miles.
Coastal is ~ 12,500 miles.
Great Lakes is ~ 5000 miles

IOW, there is a grand total of 25,000 miles of perimeter that would have to be protected. Think that we can afford that?
I don't.

Far far cheapest, non-obtrusive, and easiest way is to simply phase-in e-verify on all business and their employees, along with stop states from giving illegals money.
We do that, and they go home, and few will come here.

Yes, a SINGLE geophysicist's opinion piece in Slate magazine claims it doesn't work; let's ignore all the other references in that section that say it can, the dozens of others who say it can and even include cost projections to get it working.

This is bizarre. I wonder if anyone involved in this has READ the Hatch Act.

Yes, they probably even read further than the Wikipedia entry!

I'm definitely not an expert but was curious so I checked a few sources on the matter.

As near as I can tell only the POTUS and VP are completely exempt from the law. The provisions you pointed out don't mean that positions subject to Senate confirmation are exempt from the entire act, just portions of it.

Here I don't think the problem was that he was an FCC commissioner appearing at CPAC (though I think that breaks the spirit of the law). But that speaking as an FCC commissioner he advocated for Trump's candidacy.

If he had been appearing at CPAC just as himself he'd probably be fine.

What election are they 'interfering' with, exactly, given that it was long over in February? It's incredibly weak to say that any random comment is "election interference." Can you tell me how they were 'on duty' during CPAC? Maybe you can point me to this FCC uniform? Was CPAC held in a government car? You might have to do a little more than just throw out random quotes, especially when you say he's a less restricted employee and then quote a section on the more restricted employees? You do know that there's a FAQ on this stuff at osc.gov, right?

Here's what the Congressional Research Service wrote about the act, too.

Did you confuse the FCC with the FEC or something?

We've only started having these problems recently.

That might have something to do with:

From 1968 to 2012 the number of guns per capita doubled.

From 2008 to 2013 gun manufacturers doubled their output from 630K/yr to 1200K/yr

Per capita. Means very little if Farmer Bob owns now 9 guns instead of the 3 he had 40 years ago while his 2 neighbors don't own any. Does he walk around with 9 guns on him at all time? Does he walk into a bar or the supermarket or to church with them? So even IF the number of guns in private ownership increased, and yet the overall firearms homicide rate dropped during that same period, I guess I should thank you for proving the point that it's quite unequivocally not the guns that are the causative agent here.

You've decided that instead of restricting the freedom of mentally ill people you'd rather restrict the freedoms of everyone in order to avoid dealing with the mentally ill.

Stop being so PC, persecution complexes are for betas.

Every other country in the world has the same amount of mental illness as the US. No other wealthy industrialized country as even close to the same level of gun violence. The problem isn't mental illness.

The US has the same amount of mental illness as every other country in the world? Citation please. In fact, for such a claim, multiple citations from differing sources, peer reviewed.

The US has always had lots of guns in civilian hands. It's one of the reasons Japan never invaded in WW2.

That and a couple thousand miles of blue water. But yeah, it was teh guns.

We've only started having these problems recently.

That might have something to do with:

From 1968 to 2012 the number of guns per capita doubled.

From 2008 to 2013 gun manufacturers doubled their output from 630K/yr to 1200K/yr

You've decided that instead of restricting the freedom of mentally ill people you'd rather restrict the freedoms of everyone in order to avoid dealing with the mentally ill.

Stop being so PC, persecution complexes are for betas.

Every other country in the world has the same amount of mental illness as the US. No other wealthy industrialized country as even close to the same level of gun violence. The problem isn't mental illness.

Negative, that is fake news. Fusion GPS was contacted by a GOP member (Washington Free Beacon) for opposition research. The Steele Dossier was separate. There were two separate work contracts for Fusion GPS. The media / DNC are pushing that narrative, but it's flat out wrong. The GOP didn't ask for the Steele Dossier, they asked for separate Opposition Research. The DNC / HRC campaign started the Steele Dossier.

Robert Mueller found such strong evidence of Trump colluding with Russia that he decided to chase down a couple of tax evaders instead. Fun fact: you know who wrote the infamous WMD memo that got us into the Iraq War? Robert Mueller. Yup, the same one. The smoking gun here.

The NSA's charter has two goals: improve the security of US stuff, and penetrate the security of non-US stuff...

From what I can tell, their "improvement" is restricted to "national security information and systems". I didn't know that included Windows XP.

From NSA story:
NSA Mission
NSA's Mission is to help protect national security by providing policy makers and military commanders with the intelligence information they need to do their jobs. NSA's priorities are driven by externally developed and validated intelligence requirements, provided to NSA by the President, his national security team, and their staffs through the National Intelligence Priorities Framework.

From the NSA website:
Mission Statement
The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances.

More from the NSA website:
What is Information Assurance?
Information Assurance involves preventing unauthorized access to sensitive or classified national security information and systems. The purpose of the Information Assurance mission is to keep others from stealing or tampering with our national security systems and information. This work not only keeps our vital information out of unauthorized hands, but helps ensure that the information our decision makers need is available and reliable when they need it.

Under National Security Directive 42, the Director of NSA has responsibility for the security of national security information systems, covering the Department of Defense and other Federal departments and agencies. NSA/CSS also helps improve the security of critical operations and information by providing know-how and technology to suppliers and clients.

Who are NSA/CSS' Customers?
NSA/CSS provides intelligence products and services to the White House, executive agencies (such as CIA and the State Department), the Chairman and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), military combatant commanders and component commands, military departments, multinational forces, and U.S. allies. In addition, we provide Information Assurance products and services to users of national security information systems and to government contractors, as required.

Nearly all innovation in solar and wind has happened in America.

Hahahahaha...are you on drugs? :-p

Re "If they have nearly unlimited resources to hide or obfuscate something, there is basically no way to know."
People can detect the shape moving, no matter the radar profile, a new color.
Something new and bright/dark moving in front of everything else thats not as dark up in space that was not moving yesterday is going to get noticed by most nations able to map the night sky above their own nation to some level of skill over decades.
The best way to avoid that is to use a space plane. Nobody expects an unmanned space plane and its very different movements.
CIA searching for answers behind its India-Nuclear failure (May 16, 1998) https://fas.org/irp/news/1998/...
"..able to halt suspicious activity during the periods when the spy satellites were passing overhead."

Short answer: No. Why? Because a CRA is a Joint Resolution (that means it has to pass both the House and the Senate), and the President has to sign it into law.

Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R...

Whoa, citizen, careful there! Looks like you've had a little too much to think! I hope you know that our elites are absolutely chomping at the bit for war with Russia right now and will do anything, up and including false flags and false memos, to get it. Remember the Bay of Tonkin? Remember the Maine? Remember the fake WMD memo that led us into war with Iraq? Fun fact: you know who wrote it? Robert Mueller. Yup, the same one investigating Manafort and Podesta right now. These people know how to start wars.

Input from independent doctors doesn't accomplish the goal and will not be allowed. You could very well get yourself on a watchlist with thinking like that! I'm going to let you off with a warning this time citizen, just make sure it doesn't happen again.

I just don't get Leftists - people who don't believe that the idea of "America" should even exist - complaining about "traitors". I mean, WTF? How can you betray a nation you hate? How can you complain about the world's biggest bully being taken down a notch by a silly President? It makes zero sense.

Oh, and fun fact: Fun fact: you know who wrote the infamous WMD memo that got us into the Iraq War? Robert Mueller. Yup, the same one investigating Manafort and Podesta right now. And people claim the Deep State doesn't exist. https://fas.org/irp/congress/2...

The APA requires that agencies go through a process of fact-finding and notice-and-comment periods. It doesn't require that their reasoning is correct or that they follow the public sentiment or the democratic majority. It does require an explanation of the logic behind it, but the court is supposed see that an explanation based on facts is there, not evaluate it for logical or empirical soundness.

You might wish for a more searching review process, but remember that Trump is doing a pretty good job getting conservatives appointed to the Federal Bench, especially the appeals courts. Just imagine the same precedent applied by an unfriendly judge towards the agency actions of a future Democratic President -- an unfettered ability to analyze not just the process and whether the facts were gathered but for an unelected judge with a lifetime appointment to evaluate whether those policies are a good idea.

America elected the wrong President. We got the wrong FCC chairman. To suggest that somehow that doesn't mean that the wrong policies should be enacted is contrary to the norms of our country. To the extent that Trump is bulldozing those norms, the rest of us shouldn't be helping him do it.

The American corporate sector is funding science and engineering grants only in the sense that they pay taxes that is used as the basis for the NSF, NIH, DOD, DARPA, and so forth.

If you're saying that corporate America is directly funding science and engineering grants and other research projects at public and private universities to the tune of >$60B/year, then show me the data. Here's my data from the US National Science Foundation (NSF) showing that for FY2015, the HHS, DOD, DOE, NSF, NASA, USDA and other federal agencies spent $63.645B on research endeavors, including grants:

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics...

For FY2017 and FY2018, the research budgets are $69.744B and $62.421B, respectively, according to the US Congressional Research Service (CRS), a non-partisan agency that works directly for Congress:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R...

In either case, you can go to the actual budgets passed by the legislative branch to verify these numbers.

I find it hard to believe that corporate America is outspending the federal government on research grants. If they are, however, then that's exciting news. Research is a primary driver of innovation that helps us remain competitive with the rest of the world.

GMO is bad because of mono crop issues.

Untrue, and a non-sequitur. GMOs come in different varieties for different plants, and the diversity will only grow as more and more variants for different conditions (heat, high salt, low water, etc.) are developed. More to the point, this is an issue with large-scale farming in general, not GMOs. Hell, GMOs allow us to more easily get around mono-crop issues.

GMO is bad because resistance to herbicides induces over-use of them.

This is mixed. Sometimes resistance allows farmers to use fewer herbicides, or smaller amounts, of more specific or less harmful ones. Sometimes they do over-use them. That's a potential knock against particular applications of GMOs, though, not GMOs as a whole.

GMO is bad because GMO has been used to have plants make toxins. So GMO food can contain poison. And there are no regulations about this or any other use of GMO.

Plants naturally make toxins to protect against things that want to eat them, so non-GMO food can contain poison. Guess that's bad too. Also, here is a short explanation of the regulations on GMO crops in the US.

GMO is bad because it has been used to make kill-genes, even if only in the lab, and between that and mono-crop the results of a wide-spread release could cause massive destruction.

So you're saying an entire technology is bad because if something that has never been sold commercially or even produced on a commercial scale had a wide-spread release, there would be consequences (what are those?). I guess we should stop all virology research, since that was created in a lab and could be harmful if it ever got out.

GMO is bad because Monsanto claims it's harmless, and when Monsanto says something, the opposite is more likely true.

Ridiculously unscientific, and ignores the non-Monsanto GMO research and options out there.

But the pro-GMO crowd doesn't talk about the reasonable objections. Instead, it's all about the strawman.

Ah yes, strawmanning your opponents while accusing them of strawmanning you. Well done.

Many supporters of the space program have placed great stock in the benefits of technological spinoff from the space effort for the American economy. Proponents estimates of the rate of return from NASA spending range from $7 in return from every $1 of NASA spending (Lyttle, David, "Is Space Our Destiny?" Astronomy, February 1991, page 6) to $23 in return for every $1 of NASA spending (Chase Econometric Associates, "The Economic Impact of NASA R&D Spending," prepared under NASA contract NASW-2741, April 1976).

.....

But the fact that the total NASA investment of $55 billion yielded a paltry $5 billion in true spinoffs, creating entirely new products or industries, suggests a very poor return of ten cents on the dollar. Again, this should not be surprising, given the highly specialized nature of much of the engineering and development work conducted by NASA.

So rather than being an unusually good investment paying 7:1 or 22:1 for each dollar invested, NASA has an astoundingly bad 1:10 payoff -- about a factor of 100 worse than the commercial economy as a whole.

NASA Technological Spinoff Fables by The Federation of American Scientists

https://fas.org/

Many supporters of the space program have placed great stock in the benefits of technological spinoff from the space effort for the American economy. Proponents estimates of the rate of return from NASA spending range from $7 in return from every $1 of NASA spending (Lyttle, David, "Is Space Our Destiny?" Astronomy, February 1991, page 6) to $23 in return for every $1 of NASA spending (Chase Econometric Associates, "The Economic Impact of NASA R&D Spending," prepared under NASA contract NASW-2741, April 1976).

.....

But the fact that the total NASA investment of $55 billion yielded a paltry $5 billion in true spinoffs, creating entirely new products or industries, suggests a very poor return of ten cents on the dollar. Again, this should not be surprising, given the highly specialized nature of much of the engineering and development work conducted by NASA.

So rather than being an unusually good investment paying 7:1 or 22:1 for each dollar invested, NASA has an astoundingly bad 1:10 payoff -- about a factor of 100 worse than the commercial economy as a whole.

NASA Technological Spinoff Fables by The Federation of American Scientists

https://fas.org/

Ummm..there is a LOT of misinformation. Problem is a lot of people are drinking the Kool-Aid. Trump is know for the very things he accuses anyone who speaks ill against him. It's true that we have a lot of misinformation or incomplete information but if you look CAREFULLY (like Fox News who constantly has to correct their headlines and are used by intelligent comedians for material), is the media with misinformation is often corrupted/coerced/bought out by the very people who accuse the media .Trump has been shown praising Fox news. Because they are basically mouthpieces of Republican party. Their official excuse is as a "balancing force" for the pro-Democrat news media outlets. All of that is basically government propaganda no better than the mainstream in China or Russia. So using Trump as an example of media abuse is a contradiction in terms (sorry but there is proven evidence). To be clear, I don't trust EITHER party (both have been shown corrupt at high levels) and I think we need a fresh 3rd party to keep them honest. But there ARE independent journalists and they are the ones primarily attacked. I'll give a few sources for you to examine:

https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/
http://theintercept.com/
http://www.theguardian.com/
http://independent.co.uk/

Hopefully there will be more. Folks, please feel free to add to this list. Of course these people need donations to pay for their work. BTW, The Guardian and The Intercept worked together to expose the unconstitutional behavior of the NSA provided by Snowden. Pretty ballsy. If we want "real news" we need to find it and support it. otherwise the media companies and/or political parties will mute anything we truly need to know to have a real democracy.

There is still a .38 round in the printed shell, it still has explosion for the propellant. Note practice round shells are much lighter , they don't have nearly as much kick as an HE round.(former US Infantry). https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sy...

You responded to a comment about the difference between marginal and effective rates by quoting an article that talks only about marginal rates. That's not much of a refutation.

Here is a report of the Congressional Research service comparing US to OECD: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R...

It's really striking how much larger the difference between marginal and effective rates for US (~7%) vs. OECD (~2%).

It's also funny to note that those notorious anti-capitalists in the UAE have a 55% marginal rate. ;-)

When quoting numbers of Executive Orders, please also include Presidential Memoranda, which carry the same basic weight of law, but just have a different title, and aren't numbered and indexed the way an EO is. Yes, Obama may have a lower EO count, but he issued 644 Presidential Memoranda that are basically the same thing, without the publicity and record keeping. Quite the record for 'the most transparent administration in history' that he wanted to run.

From this report published by the Congressional Research Service:

Executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations are used extensively by Presidents
to achieve policy goals, set uniform standards for managing the executive branch, or outline a
policy view intended to influence the behavior of private citizens. The U.S. Constitution does not
define these presidential instruments and does not explicitly vest the President with the authority
to issue them. Nonetheless, such orders are accepted as an inherent aspect of presidential power.
Moreover, if they are based on appropriate authority, they have the force and effect of law.

The distinction between these instruments—executive orders, presidential memoranda, and
proclamations—seems to be more a matter of form than of substance, given that all three may be
employed to direct and govern the actions of government officials and agencies. Moreover, if
issued under a legitimate claim of authority and made public, a presidential directive could have
the force and effect of law, “of which all courts are bound to take notice, and to which all courts
are bound to give effect.” The only technical difference is that executive orders must be
published in the Federal Register, while presidential memoranda and proclamations are published
only when the President determines that they have “general applicability and legal effect.”

Bolded emphasis is mine, in order to back up my assertions about transparency above. Obama used Executive Orders when he wanted to make a big thing out of it, and Presidential Memos when he wanted less attention. And he used the Memo 3x as much as the EO. That's not very transparent.

You should be condemning Wyden for this reckless stunt, not thanking him.

Blame Wyden, not Clapper, for ‘lie’ to Congress on NSA surveillance
The Clapper “Lie,” and the Senate Intelligence Committee

You don't seem to be familiar with some important background information on this issue:

The Clapper “Lie,” and the Senate Intelligence Committee
Blame Wyden, not Clapper, for ‘lie’ to Congress on NSA surveillance

Wonder no more:

Blame Wyden, not Clapper, for ‘lie’ to Congress on NSA surveillance
The Clapper “Lie,” and the Senate Intelligence Committee

The rainbow series of books lay out all you need to know about security. Just study them, and you'll do just fine, as long as you don't network anything. ;-)

First, she could relate aggregate data that would be classified, so your assumption is faulty in regards her authorship of classified information.

Second: she should know what is classified and what is not. That is her job. She was the boss at State.

Third - copying a post I made elsewhere:

If you receive a classified e-mail on an inappropriate system, this is called a spillage. In the event of a spillage, it is your responsibility to report this to your security manager. In this case, it would be someone at Hillary's State Department. That person would have confiscated all the devices the mail was received on, and identified the recipients. At that point, an evaluation would be made as to whether the recipients of the classified e-mail would be within USG control. If so, all of their devices would similarly be confiscated. If not, there might be a consultation with the authority in control of the classification guide(s) that made the e-mail classified. If it could be verified as not being under the guide and therefore arguably unclassified, it might end the tale there. But if the e-mail is in fact classified, all devices that have the e-mail on it will be wiped - either partially or wholly - of all evidence of the classified material. In addition, it might be necessary for the USG to take possession of the mass storage devices in question, as they would be assumed classified at the level of the material that passed over them. The technical guidance is that if, say, a "Secret" mail passed onto an unclassified system, the system's drive is now classified Secret and cannot pass out of the possession of the USG without destruction. At that point you'd get a new mass storage device with a new image on it, and your previous contents would be lost.

The documentation for these procedures is publicly available in Army Regulations AR 25-1 and 25.2, for the Army at least.

If you do not follow this procedure, you are guilty of a crime, which could reach up to espionage if intent can be determined.

Everyone who receives a clearance from the USG signs SF312. Hillary signed this too. She is in violation of its terms by her own admission and by the FBI's statements. She is guilty of more than one crime.

If you receive a classified e-mail on an inappropriate system, this is called a spillage. In the event of a spillage, it is your responsibility to report this to your security manager. In this case, it would be someone at Hillary's State Department. That person would have confiscated all the devices the mail was received on, and identified the recipients. At that point, an evaluation would be made as to whether the recipients of the classified e-mail would be within USG control. If so, all of their devices would similarly be confiscated. If not, there might be a consultation with the authority in control of the classification guide(s) that made the e-mail classified. If it could be verified as not being under the guide and therefore arguably unclassified, it might end the tale there. But if the e-mail is in fact classified, all devices that have the e-mail on it will be wiped - either partially or wholly - of all evidence of the classified material. In addition, it might be necessary for the USG to take possession of the mass storage devices in question, as they would be assumed classified at the level of the material that passed over them. The technical guidance is that if, say, a "Secret" mail passed onto an unclassified system, the system's drive is now classified Secret and cannot pass out of the possession of the USG without destruction. At that point you'd get a new mass storage device with a new image on it, and your previous contents would be lost.

The documentation for these procedures is publicly available in Army Regulations AR 25-1 and 25.2, for the Army at least.

If you do not follow this procedure, you are guilty of a crime, which could reach up to espionage if intent can be determined.

Everyone who receives a clearance from the USG signs SF312. Hillary signed this too. She is in violation of its terms by her own admission and by the FBI's statements. She is guilty of more than one crime.

The F-35 can typically provide CAS for two minutes - if you change the definition of CAS to include long range engagements.

You don't need to change the definition of CAS. The definition is about the need to closely coordinate the execution of the air mission with the forces on the ground. It does not mandate a short distance or low-altitude spatial relationship between the delivery platform and the target. Reference: Joint Publication 3-09.3 Close Air Support https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod...

wants to build a new generation of nuclear weapons

This one actually I don't mind because our infrastructure of nuclear arms is atrocious. It has been in disrepair for a long time now and even Obama has plans to modernize our nuclear weapons.

Yea, I agree almost five thousand nukes on hand isn't a great idea but if you are going to have them at least have the infrastructure, training, and man power to manage them in a safe manner. For example, I remember seeing (don't remember where) one of the missile silos had a broken blast door that was held open with a hammer. There are a few other examples that I am too lazy to remember or search.

The law is the financial disclosure law which Trump has complied with. This does not require disclosing tax returns but that is more of a tradition for presidential candidates.

I would imagine that people like Trump with lots of income and complex taxes get audited frequently as there are lots of questionable ways to hide things. The options for dodging taxes are high with with people like Trump and the amount of dodged tax is also likely high so it would make sense for them to be audited frequently.

If we include the wider intelligence community, from 1999 to 2009 it looks like 7 out of 10 made complaints that didn't include retaliation as an element.

Intelligence Whistleblower Law Has Been Used Infrequently

Does it somehow surprise you that someone engaged in shady behavior might also engage in harassment and retaliation? Vigorous enforcement of the protective statutes is going to help reduce the incidence of retaliation.

If you think that any of this is some excuse for Edward Snowden stealing a couple of million Top Secret documents and handing them to foreigners to make them available to all comers you've been chasing too many parked cars.

I hope you've found this educational.

I see comments RE the FTC. There is a good chance the call centers are not in the US, and therefor NOT subject to US law. Ah the fun of the borderless internet

Of course, the US really could solve it, and 100 years ago, countries that had citizens of other countries violating their wars did regularly

38 JDAMs would solve the problem, and send a warning at the same time
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys...

Anyone care to calculate the ROI for the handful of humans we put on the moon?

The Federation of American Scientists did: NASA Technological Spinoff Fables

But the fact that the total NASA investment of $55 billion yielded a paltry $5 billion in true spinoffs, creating entirely new products or industries, suggests a very poor return of ten cents on the dollar. Again, this should not be surprising, given the highly specialized nature of much of the engineering and development work conducted by NASA. So rather than being an unusually good investment paying 7:1 or 22:1 for each dollar invested, NASA has an astoundingly bad 1:10 payoff -- about a factor of 100 worse than the commercial economy as a whole.

Incorrect. Prolonged (non-routine) detentions must be based on reasonable suspicion. Even then, the duration of the detention must be limited to the time necessary to confirm or dispel that suspicion. And even if there is reasonable suspicion, under no circumstances can the duration exceed 48 hours without a judicial hearing.

See this handy guide [PDF] for more details and lots of citations. Or here's a quote for the lazy:

There appear to be no âoehard-and-fast time limitsâ that automatically transform what would otherwise be a routine search into a non-routine search, nor render a non-routine search conducted under the reasonable suspicion standard unconstitutional. Rather, courts consider âoewhether the detention of [the traveler] was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified it initially.â In order to provide perspective, the 16-hour detention in Montoya de Hernandez was considered a non-routine search (justifiable by reasonable suspicions), while a one-hour vehicular search did not require reasonable suspicion. The Second Circuit has characterized four- to six-hour-long detentions of individuals suspected of having terrorist ties as routine.

However, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Adekunle concluded that the government must, within a reasonable time (generally within 48 hours), seek a judicial determination that reasonable suspicion exists to detain a suspect for an extended period of time.

No, the great achievement really was putting people on the moon, and the enormous technical, industrial, and organizational effort that took....
At least one major power other tried and failed. It wasn't a given.

Tried and failed ?? Who was that ?

The Soviets once tried to work with the US on manned space missions to the moon but gave up.

A significant difference between the Soviet and the American space programs is that the American program was done in public, with failures as well as successes in the public eye, while the Soviet program was done in secret, with missions not announced until they succeeded.

After the Apollo successes, the Soviets let it be assumed that they didn't have a moon program at all; they never tried to beat the Americans. It was only years later that the Soviet society started to embrace openness ("glasnost", in Russian), and the full history of the Soviet manned moon program was slowly revealed.

They did have a manned moon program, and a big one.

* http://www.wired.com/2010/10/r...

* http://fas.org/spp/eprint/lind...

* http://www.popularmechanics.co...

The Soviets could have sent a man there but they realised it was too expensive for the result

As it turns out, no, they could not. They tried, but failed.
Ultimately, they gave up after their large booster, the N-1, failed for the third time. It was a key element in their lunar program, but they never got it to launch successfully. (By this time the Americans had already landed on the moon, so at best they would have come in second in a race with two competitors.

so they put their money into robotic exploration...

Or, more specifically, they made the announcement that this is what they were after all along. But it wasn't.

The Republicans certainly used the hostage crisis to campaign against Carter, but they didn't really do anything special to get the hostages released.

Other than sell weapon parts, probably violate the Logan Act, and lay the seeds for the IranContra scandal.

Yes, your argument sounds reasonable, if you have never been briefed on how to handle classified information. There is NO context that any leaking of any information is ever allowed. If it was deemed mission essential that the information be disseminated, she should have talked with the FSO to properly release the information in question.

Now, did she do something criminal, that is a fair question. Violating a national security policy is typically grounds for dismissal, with some folks let go after walking into a facility with their cell phone too many times. But Clinton is in a special class of people, along with a national security advisor that was caught sneaking documents out in their pants https://fas.org/irp/congress/2... . Typically those people make an oops, and slowly fade into history. The difference is that Mrs. Clinton is not fading, and is attempting to gain access to even more classified information, which she has a proven track record of mishandling in the interest of personal expediency.

If anything, this story shows that Clinton was willingly deteriorating departmental security measures to maintain her ability to control her professional communications. Regardless of the why (Bug, Misconfiguration, contractor incompetence), she valued personal protection over protection of her agency. And this is the basic argument that I have against her current run. Every time she has been "tested," she consistently comes out dirty, but not "legally" responsible.

In the 1930s, chemical warfare was looked on the same way. It was just assumed that the next war would be chemical. Remember all the gas masks that were issued during the London Blitz?

I don't know why this belief seems "bizarre" at all.

Given the widespread use of chemical weapons during WWI (despite the fact that the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 prohibited them and made their use a war crime), I think it was pretty reasonable for people to make preparations that assumed they might be used in a future war.

It looks bizarre to modern eyes as chemical weapons were not used during WWII but everyone certainly expected it.

Huh? The Japanese made widespread use of them in WWII, just not against Western troops (for fear of retaliation). But in their invasions of Asian countries (particularly China), they used them on a number of occasions... so much so that FDR threatened that America would use chemical weapons against Japan if they kept doing it. Note that the U.S. also had NOT ratified the Geneva Protocol prohibiting use of chemical weapons. (Just the number of unused abandoned chemical weapons shells the Japanese left behind in China probably number in the millions. Australia was so concerned that they'd be used in a Japanese invasion that they secretly imported and stockpiled nearly a million chemical munitions, since the Australians knew the only reason Japan targeted China with them was because the Chinese had none and couldn't retaliate with them.)

And both the Germans and the Allies seriously considered deploying them -- but unlike in WWI (where a gradual escalation of their use against treaties by both sides eventually led to open warfare -- at first the Germans merely opened up gas canisters when the wind was favorable, arguing that the international law only prohibited chemical shells) in WWII neither side was willing to be "the first." Instead they took up firebombing and other new methods to intimidate the enemy.

In the 1930s, chemical warfare was looked on the same way. It was just assumed that the next war would be chemical. Remember all the gas masks that were issued during the London Blitz?

I don't know why this belief seems "bizarre" at all.

Given the widespread use of chemical weapons during WWI (despite the fact that the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 prohibited them and made their use a war crime), I think it was pretty reasonable for people to make preparations that assumed they might be used in a future war.

It looks bizarre to modern eyes as chemical weapons were not used during WWII but everyone certainly expected it.

Huh? The Japanese made widespread use of them in WWII, just not against Western troops (for fear of retaliation). But in their invasions of Asian countries (particularly China), they used them on a number of occasions... so much so that FDR threatened that America would use chemical weapons against Japan if they kept doing it. Note that the U.S. also had NOT ratified the Geneva Protocol prohibiting use of chemical weapons. (Just the number of unused abandoned chemical weapons shells the Japanese left behind in China probably number in the millions. Australia was so concerned that they'd be used in a Japanese invasion that they secretly imported and stockpiled nearly a million chemical munitions, since the Australians knew the only reason Japan targeted China with them was because the Chinese had none and couldn't retaliate with them.)

And both the Germans and the Allies seriously considered deploying them -- but unlike in WWI (where a gradual escalation of their use against treaties by both sides eventually led to open warfare -- at first the Germans merely opened up gas canisters when the wind was favorable, arguing that the international law only prohibited chemical shells) in WWII neither side was willing to be "the first." Instead they took up firebombing and other new methods to intimidate the enemy.

I was pointing to the NDA linked in my previous comment. Section 3, first sentence ..."negligent handling".

I suggest this as a good read: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/se...

See page #7 (10 in the PDF)

Agency heads are required to establish procedures for receiving classified information in a manner that precludes unauthorized access, provides for detection of tampering and confirmation of contents, and ensures the timely acknowledgment of the receipt

I'm willing to sit here and have you explain how Hillary's private Email system was set up to follow the procedures she set up, or was supposed to setup.

Specifically

Section 2001.48 prescribes measures to be taken in the event of loss, possible compromise, or
unauthorized disclosure. It states: “Any person w
ho has knowledge that classified information has
been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s)
shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”

The problem is, that should COULDN'T have known because she didn't take the precautions needed, which is all that is required to prove negligence.

But what do I know, I'm just spewing Talking Points delivered by who knows who.

She had the responsibility to classify things that could cause substantial harm to the nation by their disclosure. And the rules for classifying and declassifying are very clearly stated.

For instance, here is an old NIMA guide for information classification.

What's interesting is that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of original classifiers in the United States, yet she is the ONLY ONE who seems to have been unable and/or unwilling to follow the rules.

It's treason, pure and simple. She thinks she's above the law... and people are proving that she's right. It's sad, it's idiotic, and it's scary.

She should be in federal prison.

Posting AC because honestly, I'm afraid of her, of people who think like her, and of the struthious apathy of the American public.

Here's a good place for handling of classified information, along with citations to relevant EOs and US Code.

Let me rephrase, if you will: "neither the US Constitution nor the Federalist Papers limit or prohibit a state from providing health care to it's residents."

I agree, but with the stipulation that such care meets the Federal standards. Thanks of taking this in the spirit it was intended; a conversation, and not an arguement. Here's a fun read: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R4...

"Under Deng Xiaoping, the penalty for back doors, and for violating any of the meta- software principles, was death." In the US it's just a mandatory minimum of one-year in federal prison. https://dockets.justia.com/doc...; https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mi...