Slashdot Mirror

but it's expecting a bit much of civilian oil tanker captains to navigate without GPS

Enter the $1 per shot naval laser.

Coming soon to an Israeli occupied territory near you!

I'm stick of people lying about this. He was trying to hurt Clinton and still should be fired and never hired for any position of trust again, but even he recognized we can't prosecute clinton for something no one else has been prosecuted for ever.

Why are you lying?

http://www.navytimes.com/story...

Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.

Your ignorance

A sailor going and photographing classified sections of a submarine over a period of months. Basically looking like he was engaged in active espionage.

So no, not a comparable incident.

subject

Petraeus deliberately shared highly classified materials with his mistress and biographer.

Not a remotely comparable incident.

not our problem.

Oooh, "10 people were actually punished for similar or lesser offenses than what Mrs. Clinton got away with yesterday".

This should be good for a laugh.

1. "pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it.”

Nope, he was deliberately removed classified documents and they proved he lied about it.

2. "Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was “showing ‘bad judgement’ by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.”

Sounds more like someone being punished for writing a book critical of their employer.

3. Was a CIA director storing classified info at home. This is the most comparable though the CIA director was dealing with more sensitive information, should have been more aware than Hillary, and it sounds like he knew he had mishandled classified intel.

So a little worse than Hillary though roughly comparable. He also got pardoned by Bill Clinton before he even finished the plea deal. So that actually kinda sets a no jail-time incident.

4. “A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent.”

Wow, #4 and they're already claiming a guy trying to sell classified intelligence to the Chinese was a lesser offence than Hillary?

I seriously checked all of the examples and even read the links on a few that looked promising.

This one was actually hilarious:

Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to “knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.”

Talk about misrepresenting the facts. She was charged because she was running a meth lab!!

Still I learned something, don't believe a damn thing you read on "The Political Insider".

Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.

Your ignorance on the subject is not our problem.

I too expect exaggeration. The aircraft has numerous external hardpoints so if it were a problem all you'd do is mount something reflective on one of those.

The fact that they're claiming this is a "problem" suggests to me they weren't trying very hard. I expect Russia and China will be a little more enterprising.

Even the US Navy is beginning to make noises about backing away from stealth, and that may be because they've been studying the problem of detecting enemy stealth aircraft. Some people believe the Navy's actually has the capability of targeting stealth aircraft today. It's possible that may be an exaggeration, but if the Navy at least isn't working on it then something is very wrong with them.

Mens rea is irrelevant to cases concerning classified information. All that's required is gross negligence, not intent. Kristian Saucier is currently serving 6 years in jail because he took photos of the reactor room where he worked aboard a U.S. Navy submarine. He didn't intend to distribute them, and AFAIK the Navy never found any evidence he intended to distribute them. Merely possessing them (gross negligence by taking the photos) was enough to bring him up on charges, to which he eventually pled guilty last month.

I don't plan on voting for Trump so I haven't been following what he said about Russian hackers. But I suspect his quip was aimed at getting the Russians to reveal if they had in fact hacked Clinton's email server. If they did, that would pretty much seal the case that Clinton's negligence in setting it up was in fact gross.

(I'm sorry for the outdated article, but nearly all of the manstream media is refusing to carry anything about this story. And that old article was the one with the most details. People like you who believe Mens rea is required are eating up the lie being fed to you by those in the media who support Clinton. Talk to anyone with a security clearance and ask them what the standard is. Clinton's polling numbers actually dropped after the FBI announced no charges were going to be filed, not increased as you would expect after having this shadow lifted from her future. I suspect that was due to her losing the support of lots of people with security clearances. Most of us weren't expecting jail time like the Right wanted; we were however expecting something minor like a reprimand, and rescinding her access to classified info (if she still has it). But for there to be no charges at all...)

Fantastic! Now you can prove me wrong. Just find one person who did what Hillary did (mishandle classified data but with no intent to leak and with no data leaked) and is in jail, and you will prove me terribly mistaken.

Or, if you can't, then it will be clear that your hatred of Hillary is greater than your love of facts or fairness or patriotism, and that you will make anything up if it fits the narrative you wish were true.

How many cases would you like links to? Here is one from NPR that talks about David Petraeus who was indicted for mishandling classified data. He received one year of probation after pleading out. The same article mentions John Deutch, who was the CIA director under Bill Clinton. President Clinton had to grant him a pardon when he was facing indictment for "Improper handling of classified data." In fact, he basically did the same thing as Clinton - had classified data on a (government owned) computer at home. He was facing indictment because he didn't turn over classified material several days after leaving the CIA. How long did Clinton keep the classified data at her house? Oh and here's another Clinton aid mentioned in the same article: Samuel "Sandy" Berger who destroyed copies of classified data and then lied about doing so. Hmmm didn't Clinton do the same thing - only in her case it was to destroy evidence of wrongdoing? And then again we have Alberto Gonzales, AG under GW Bush. He was investigated just for storing material in a safe that non-cleared people had access to - inside the Justice Department office - though in this case there was no indictment. What about this Navy Engineer who was indicted and convicted for mishandling classified data with no intent to distribute it? This young sailor just took a picture on a submarine and then destroyed the evidence and was indicted and convicted. How about this Marine Corps Major who was dishonorably discharged after using personal email to send classified documents? And here is a lab tech who was prosecuted for taking classified material home from the office - again with no evidence of intent to distribute. How about an NSA Employee who was indicted for leaking material to the press? And a State Department Employeee indicted and convicted for taking classified material home. Are these enough references? Because it took me all of 30 seconds to find these news articles.

And what did the FBI basically say? She's too big to indict.

You have a rare talent, to interpret what people "basically" say. My poor brain can only handle what they "actually" say: "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: [various bad stuff]. We do not see those things here."

How else can you interpret the comment that "No reasonable prosecutor would indict" when it was clearly a violation of the law and we can clearly see dozens of cases above where people were indicted for doing similar things, and in some cases, far less than Clinton? If they could not find cases of prosecution in events similar to hers then

Does he anecdotally know anyone? Probably not. There are literally millions of people with clearances and, as his response notes, cleared individuals are reminded annually that doing what Hillary did will land them in jail along with stiff fines. What's almost amusing is that the videos show missteps like Hillary because they're so comically wrong that it's obvious ("send all of my official work to my private email server, which is running in a bathroom" -- this is literally what happened!!!!).

But, since you specifically asked about someone being convicted without intent for perform espionage: yes, it happens. That was an example of solely gross negligence. And what's great is that he was a random reservist who would never be on anyone's radar. However, Hillary was the Secretary of State and very likely had people consistently attempting espionage.

And, for an even more pathetic example, here is a Major in the USMC being charged with sending a classified email about a corrupt Afghan Police Chief (who effectively went on to kill 3 Americans less than 3 weeks later!) using his personal account. Somehow the government decided there was a prosecutor willing to prosecute that case though.

It all comes back to Comey's quote during the FBI announcement that it won't seek prosecution:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

There are those of us that will be punished: you, me, and every normal person. And then there's Hillary, who has the money and power to escape prosecution. If that doesn't terrify you in terms of the rule of law, then I honestly have no idea what does. Anyone that votes her is literally voting for a caste system in the US.

I suppose the shame is that Trump is her competitor and people will feel obliged to vote against him, but I'd sooner not vote than vote for an actual criminal. But honestly, I don't really think it's about Trump. I think a lot of people will use that excuse to knowingly vote for a criminal to become our next President.

Yep. See other examples like this navy reservist.

Key points: FBI search of Nishimura's home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them. He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance.

Or Petraeus who got 2 years probation along with a $100k fine. And that's just the tip of the iceburg for people who've been caught doing exactly the same thing as she did.

But you're right, defying Clinton is like defying the mob. Ask this guy who just happened to "crush his own throat" right before testifying. Then there are all those other mysterious deaths, and so many of those.

i never thought of petraeus' girlfriend as an email server, but OK.

How about Kristian Saucier? http://www.navytimes.com/story...

Yep. See other examples like this navy reservist.

Key points: FBI search of Nishimura's home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them. He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance.

Or Petraeus who got 2 years probation along with a $100k fine. And that's just the tip of the iceburg for people who've been caught doing exactly the same thing as she did.

But you're right, defying Clinton is like defying the mob. Ask this guy who just happened to "crush his own throat" right before testifying. Then there are all those other mysterious deaths, and so many of those.

You mean he isn't? Shutting down a government during a time of war requires a misplaced focus on political games instead of reality.

The last time we were at war was World War II. Everything else has just been police actions. Technicalities aside, shutting down the government came with an exemption for the military.

The fact that the Navy blasted XBONE ( http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130614/OFFDUTY02/306140030 ) is probably the biggest reason Microsoft took such a drastic 180, not us regular consumers.

I am hearing that the XBox One pre-orders are dismal and that is the real reason for the about face by Microsoft.

The fact that the Navy blasted XBONE ( http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130614/OFFDUTY02/306140030 ) is probably the biggest reason Microsoft took such a drastic 180, not us regular consumers.

Aluminum is flammable - get a good roaring fire going (a distinct possibility on a warship) and bad things happen..

Belknap was severely damaged in a collision with John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1975 in heavy weather off the coast of Sicily. A fire broke out on Belknap following the collision, and during the fire her aluminium superstructure was melted, burned and gutted to the deck level. -- This fire and the resultant damage and deaths, which would have been less had Belknap's superstructure been made of steel, drove the US Navy's decision to pursue all-steel construction in its next major classes of surface combatants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Belknap_(CG-26)

"US Navy request raises issue about aluminum ships [Mar 16, 2010] ... The U.S. Navy is seeking an analytical tool to predict problems with aluminum-hulled ships just months before it is due to announce the winner of the Littoral Combat Ship competition involving such a ship."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/16/navy-aluminum-idUSN1513314120100316

"Cracks plague Ticonderoga-class cruisers [Dec 9, 2010] ... it’s an issue that is plaguing all 22 cruisers in service: cracks in the aluminum superstructure ... The problem, according to the Naval Sea Systems Command, is the aluminum alloy used in the superstructure of the cruisers, which have steel hulls."
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/12/navy-cracks-plague-ticonderoga-class-cruisers-120910w/

I read an article in the past month that the US Navy was experimenting with similar technology to produce Jet Fuel

Here is a copy of one http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/10/navy-turn-sea-water-into-jet-fuel-101312w

They are extracting the CO2 from the ocean because the concentration in the ocean is higher than the atmosphere.

This is yet another career-ender for some unfortunate officer. These incidents aren't even called "relieved" any more, they're flat-out called "firings". They have skyrocketed in recent years, so much so that the Navy Times keeps a list, updating it frequently. It is a long list. A few of them are justified, such as "a loss of confidence in Parkerâ(TM)s ability to command" (incompetent) or "a survey found a poor command climate" (officer is such a prick above and beyond normal officer prickishness that it makes his subordinates do a bad job). A few are DWI or other arrests, which makes sense as you don't want someone with that lack of self-control in charge of nuclear weapons. A lot of these firings are what's called "zipper failure" or more formally "having an âoeunduly familiar relationshipâ with a female member of the crew." Hey, humans are humans, you put females on a ship and this is what will happen. Well, equal opportunity, right? Cmdr. Etta Jones was fired for among other things, taking a 9mm pistol out of a gun safe and pointing it hat her crew. It's a hard life being a Navy commander, all eyes are on you and you can be held accountable for everything, even if you didn't do it.

Navy Times has better information. The collision occurred off Jacksonville, FL. The sub was surfacing to periscope depth when it was hit by the cruiser. The cruiser's bow sonar dome was damaged. No injuries.

"A collision at sea can ruin your whole day". It's usually a career-ending event for a Naval officer. The captain of the USS Essex, which had a collision with a fleet oiler during a replenishment operation in May 2012, was removed from command. Even though the collision was apparently due to a steering malfunction, the captain is responsible.

From the Navy Times:

But the fact they are Russian ships is not in doubt. In addition to the ship’s radar arrays and hulls, which are dissimilar from U.S. warships, the photo features one more give-away: a large white flag with a blue ‘X’ at the ships’ sterns.

The CIA only -ahem- "freed" countries when it was economically advantageous to replace the established regime.

The CIA helped to support local peoples fighting to roll back Communism, such as in Poland and other places.
Was that economically advantageous in any immediate sense? What about Korea? The CIA also assisted the Kurds resist Saddam. I think you've got some bad data there.

And are you really trying to argue that America is still a force of freedom in the world?

There is no need to argue the point - I would say that overall it is an established fact. Recent example: Iraq is now a democracy, has been runing it's own affairs for some years, asked American to withdraw its combat troops - and it did. Iraq has many challenges as a country, the ultimate of which is to keep their democracy which is a challenge for every such country. ( Iraqi news )

Of course it isn't just freedom, or the CIA:

Navy sends 8 ships to provide tsunami relief (2011)
TSUNAMI DISASTER: Relief Effort (2005)

Clearly, you haven't had an American corporation step into your life and tell you how things are going to be from now.

I'm pretty sure that American corporations: 1 - Aren't the government. 2 - Aren't allowed to keep slaves and serfs

Your perception of the circumstance is about 50 years outdated, my friend.

You might be missing a few years of news and events.

Without a huge enemy, America has no choice but to bully.

Without a huge enemy, America cuts its defense spending drastically (as it did in the 90's after the Cold War ended) and tries to go about its business.

I think, my friend, that you would benefit from a wider range of news sources. Peace.

We are going to be retiring Hornets much faster than we are bringing anything new on-line to replace them. (I was in the Navy - spend more time hanging out with Navy folks so I'm more familiar with their situation). I don't know how it compares for the zoomers - but the USN, unless something changes will be putting more and more workload onto fewer aircraft and people in the years to come.
 
  This is from last year but I haven't seen anything to make me believe the situation has improved.

Here http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/05/navy_videogame_bootcamp_052610w/

Just a shame they test it in Scotland then - with lots of lovely depleted uranium. Aye, it's braw stuff. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3148853.stm

Let us rewind:

• 1990 - Facility at Dundrennan Range, Kirkcudbright announced http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517010.300-scotland-to-host-rail-gun-testbed-.html
• 1995 - Velocities by 5MJ's performed http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel3/3330/9963/00472945.pdf
• 2003 - First sea trials at 1/8 scale http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/05/mil-030512-navsea04.htm
• 2005 - Commenced construction of the new test launcher facility at Dahlgren, VA, using old Army refurbished SDI launcher http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/emrg.htm
• 2007 - Delivery to Dahlgren by BAE of new system - 40 ton, "laboratory" version with removable rails - aiming for 32MJ (scaling to 64) http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/01/aprailgun070117/

And may, I draw you attention to this http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/DayII/SessionI/01_Cilli_EM_Gun.pdf. Slides 12/13 are particularly interesting... ("use their test facility at no cost to US")

In my book, using violence or threat of violence to take control over a ship you do not own, is piracy. Selling counterfeit CDs? Not piracy. Piracy involves vessels moving on the surface of a large body of water, and weapons

Yes, and not just in silly movies: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/06/navy_somali_ hijack_070605w/

For another example, look at the Seawolf class submarines. They cost nearly a billion dollars each and were also designed to meet a threat that no longer exists.

Sorry, I can't stand bubble-heads any more than the next guy, but subs play a critical role as a deterrant. First of all, China is currently playing games, feeling out our military capabilities and responsiveness, and they're only increasing their submarine production. Granted, the motivation of the source (the Pentagon) for disclosing this information is undoubtedly to procure more funding, but that doesn't negate the fact that these vessels give us the capability to meet the potential threat of naval warfare, in the unlikely event that China decides to engage in open hostilities.

Aside from that, the missiles launched against Afghanistan in 1998 (in response to the embassy bombings) were launched from -- you guessed it -- a sub. Submarines provide a US military presence throughout the world, without everyone knowing where we are, or when we're there. Additionally, subs play a large role in Mutually Assured Destruction -- meaning that even if all of our land and surface facilities were wiped out, there are enough missiles in the water that whomever was responsible would be eliminated as well. While the practicality or sanity of such a response is questionable (why bother killing more people if you've already lost?), I'm sure that knowledge doesn't make Kim Jong-il sleep any better at night. Naturally some people are uncomfortable with the idea that there's probably a US sub lurking somewhere off their coastline, but from a national defense standpoint there's no question that submarines are an essential part of the strategy.

Some may argue that the threat of the future is not conventional warfare, but terrorism. I would argue that the only reason terrorism is a viable attack vector is because conventional warfare has been so heavily dominated by the US. If we were to, in essence, demilitarize (and getting rid of subs would seriously weaken our naval position, akin to demilitarization), it would only compromise our ability to deal with future threats. Similiarly, advocating that we abandon, say, strong passwords, because most attacks use completely different vectors, would make little sense. Granted, it is difficult to measure the deterrant effect of something when its effectiveness, by definition, provides a lack of data points, but as long as other countries posess the capability for naval warfare, it behooves us to maintain an equal or superior capability (preferrably the latter).

I'm fairly liberal, but I'm a big fan of the big stick policy, though not quite the way Roosevelt practiced it. There's little point in making laws, for example, without the capability to enforce those laws, which is the function of the police. Likewise, we need a capable military to enforce our position in the global playing field. But with power comes responsibility. It is encumbant upon us to use our power judiciously, not to abuse and squander it in frivilous conflicts (and I use the term frivilous with respect to its importance in global strategy, not the lives of those directly affected) with dubious merit.

Final Flight - NavyTimes.com - very good send-off!

This guy might have.

You are wrong. (See question 13).

D

a quick search shows some of the BEST navy bases, they are fairly high for your average town of that size population.

Navy Times base report