Slashdot Mirror

Sad reading:

p. 122, Section III, Subsection "INSPECTOR GENERAL’S ASSESSMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES", Subsubsection "Information and Security Management" http://www.state.gov/documents...

FACT: The State Department IG report said that "there are criminal penalties for the unlawful removal or destruction of Federal records" (page 57), repeating that "penalties exist for the unlawful removal or destruction of records" (page 48)

FACT: The report states, "At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." (Page 23)

FACT: It is clear that she broke this law (the Federal Records Act).

There are lots of times when someone breaks the law but isn't charged or convicted. That doesn't mean they didn't break the law.

IG Report is here https://oig.state.gov/system/f...

Strange, I don't see Scotland here:
http://www.un.org/en/member-st...

Or here:
http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls...

The UK has internationally recognised lands and assets. If Scotland wants to leave the union, they can ask nicely for some of them. They can have them - but they can have the debt associated with them too.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of how the law works in this area.

No, I merely have the ability to rip apart your pathetic arguments that continue to come out of your imagination. No more. Reply if you want but I wont even read it.

For fuck's sake, i even have provided the name of the treaty, are you too stupid to use a bloody search engine? http://m.state.gov/md108185.ht...

Office of the Secretary is comprised of roughly a dozen people:

http://www.state.gov/s/

They all printed out paper to archive?
   

I've not only answered these questions before but I provided links to the Inspector General's report. You want to go on and keep defending the indefensible, then go ahead. The links to the exact text of the laws is included in the IG's report. The IG gave a thorough explanation of the history of the legislation, the regulations and how Secretary Clinton failed to follow the law.

You want to armchair quarterback the IG's report then that's your business. But don't pretend to have a discussion or debate when you don't even bother read the fucking responses or citations you've been provided.

From a previous response I provided to you:

From the document, again:

In 2009, IRM introduced SMART throughout the Department, enabling employees to preserve a record copy of emails through their Department email accounts without having to print and file them. However, the Office of the Secretary elected not to use SMART to preserve emails, in part because of concerns that the system would allow overly broad access to sensitive materials. As a result, printing and filing remained the only option by which emails could properly be preserved within the Office of the Secretary in full compliance with existing FAM guidance.

The above comes from the first paragraph of page 8 of the IG's report.

I'm not interested in general "judgement" issues in this particular thread, I want to know the exact policies that were alleged violated and see the policy text for it. I want to nerdal around in the details, in terms of policy text and technology.

I suggest reading the Inspector General's report, specifically, page 7.

At the Department, compliance with this regulation and preservation of emails that constitute Federal records can be accomplished in one of three ways: print and file; incorporation into the State Messaging and Archival Retrieval Toolset (SMART); or the use of the NARA-approved Capstone program for capturing the emails of designated senior officials.

Copying or forwarding an email to someone else in the State Department is not one of the choices under the regulations that have been in effect since 1995.

In, fact, later on that page:

NARA regulations codified in 2009 also specified that agencies must not use an electronic mail system to store the recordkeeping copy of electronic mail messages identified as Federal records unless that system contains specific features. However, according to the Department, its technology has "lagged behind" this mandate.

The regulation referenced here is 36 C.F.R. Section 1236.22 (2009) and states that for records to be stored in an electronic recordkeeping system, that system must have the following functions:

(1) Declare records
(2) Capture records
(3) Organize records
(4) Maintain records security
(5) Manage access and retrieval
(6) Preserve records

The report then goes on to say that agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.

Further, the report states:

However, forwarding to or copying an employee's official email account alone is not sufficient to fully meet records management requirements unless an employee's email is being captured under the Capstone approach. If such an email qualifies as a record, employees are still responsible for preserving it in an appropriate agency recordkeeping system, such as through the use of SMART or printing and filing.

Bottom line:
- The employee is responsible for preserving records
- This isn't about making sure an email is kept on a system somewhere; the requirement is related to preservation of Federal records in a specific manner
- Copying and forwarding emails is specifically disallowed

"I really doubt that Trump would intentionally start WWIII. But he might insult someone else enough that it got started because of him."

You were a bit late to the party:

1. Hillary's husband Bill lit the fuse on WWIII when he appeased and ignored AQ as it arose under Bin Laden, and famously chose not to react to the bombing of the USS Cole, refused to kill Bin Laden, and bragged about his amazing agreement with North Korea that guaranteed North Korea would never get nuclear bombs.

2. George W Bush got into the office and infamously got all discombobulated and distracted from AQ in Afghanistan to run off and finish his daddy's unfinished business in Iraq. He did nothing about the already nuclear Pakistan (other than name them "evil"), left Bill Clinton's amazing act of gullibility in place in North Korea, and continues his daddy's policy of partnering with the evil Saudis who are half (the other half being Iran) of the evil intellectual and financial base of the militant Jihadi terrorism that now plagues the entire planet.

3. Obama got into office and, with Hillary Clinton as his SecState, celebrated the surrender of the few gains made in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hillary acted like a kindergarten teacher with a stupid prop "reset button" with Russia (with whom relations are now the worst since the Cold War) and she and Obama and their friends in airconditioned San Francisco "social media" companies lit the fuse on the "Arab Spring". They openly bragged that this embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood (which was the last fragment of Hitler's NAZI war machine) was a great thing. This action and the complete bumbling of Syria and Iraq have created and tolerated the rise of ISIS/ISIL, a modern terrorist state. You could some of Hillary's bragging about her role in all this here except that in this campaign year the Democrat-run State Department has scrubbed it from history.

Under Clinton/Bush/Obama China is rising to be a hostile global power, Russia is back to its old evil ways of arming bad guys around the planet and grabbing land from other countries, NATO has so degraded that it cannot currently defend or deter against anybody or anything. At worst a Trump presidency allowing it degrade further would have no actual impact because it's already so weak. At best, he might shock the allies enough to wake them up about their own needs for defense. Under the trifecta of bad presidents previously named, the US has been rapidly disarming, Russia and China are rapidly modernizing and arming, and every nasty theocrat and/or dictator is going nuclear and developing ballistic missiles.

In short: There's already a third war raging on this planet that is of global scope. Nobody now could possible accidentally trigger what is already underway. Obama has now given Iran (the planet's previously greatest sponsor of global Islamic terror) about a hundred billion dollars and a clear path to nukes. The fires are just kindling all about a significant part of the globe and all that's needed is for the mad mullahs of Tehran to get their nukes. I'd give it ten years before a Pearl Harbor-style day but on a massive scale.

You don't know for a fact that he didn't send any email to her

Except I do.

The crime here is not espionage, but theft of TVA's intellectual property.

Actually, the intended end use of exported sensitive material and/or information is irrelevant. Acting as an agent of a foreign government in the acquisition of sensitive information (where "sensitive information" is defined by the US State Department) is either a serious violation of export laws or espionage, depending on the material/information involved. You could learn a few things by reading up on MCTR and ITAR. And for "purely civilian use", you can add EAR (no, not that thing on the side of your head, but the Commerce Department's Export Administration Regulations) to that list.

Here's one document, marked classified (confidential) that she received. Yes, she read and then forwarded many such messages. https://foia.state.gov/Search/...

Sec. Clinton's released e-mails are searchable on line from the State Dept. at https://foia.state.gov/Search/... There are e-mails that are marked classified. One example: search for "hrc memo israel ideas" It's marked confidential. There are many others.

Here are some references from reputable sources. The US State Department estimates about 21 million human trafficking victims, of which about 20% are forced into the sex trade.

https://blogs.state.gov/storie...
http://www.unicef.org/protecti...
https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campa...

Here are some references. The US State Department estimates about 21 million human trafficking victims, of which about 20% are forced into the sex trade.

https://blogs.state.gov/storie...
http://www.unicef.org/protecti...
https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campa...

News outlets keep referring to it as ungoverned. We were all taught to trust the news, so there should be little reason to research a fact that is repeated without being contradicted. Except, news outlets can be wrong.

News outlets have gotten very good at copy & paste. It isn't just within a single story passed around. They'll keep copy & pasting pieces from stories, assuming nothing has changed, and that the fact checkers at the previous publication did their job.

It's trivial to check with respected sources for correct information. If they did, they would see that the US resumed formal recognition of the Somalian government just over 3 years ago.

CIA World Factbook

US State Department

United Nations

It doesn't have to be marked classified at the time of sending. It's the information contained that matters.

Look at the first clause. It's very clear, and yet you continue to hide behind this canard.

And another that specifically refers to unmarked classified information.

Finally something IT related instead of political bickering over whose fault the server is:

https://foia.state.gov/searcha...

That doesn't ring true. The UK does not need visa approval for US travel. Anyone with a British passport is part of the visa waiver programme, allowing entry to the US for up to three months (plus another three with an extension if you're rich enough), per year. The exception to this are those on the banned list, i.e. criminals and those with suspect pasts from other countries.

Yes, but those on the visa waiver program do need to apply for this in advance of travel via the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA)
https://travel.state.gov/conte...

Speaking of which, are all our H1b buddies from India required to convert all their dollars back to rupees on return at horrible official exchange rates? Another trick in this scam is to forbid keeping the dollars.

What is the official rupee:dollar exchange rate? What is the unofficial rate?

From what I can see, there's no significant difference between the two. Which would suggest that you don't think about things very carefully, and that colours the whole of the rest of your post.

(I get 1 rupee = 0.015$ from Google at the moment, and the US State department thinks the unofficial rate in 2013 was 0.016.

https://www.dosomething.org/fa... suggests it's over 10,000.

http://www.humantrafficking.or... suggests it's over 10,000.

Your blog merely states it's less than 200,000.

The truth is hard to ascertain, as official statistics can only count actual cases discovered, which are estimated to be a small (potentially only 0.4%) of the total cases. The 2015 state department 'Trafficking in persons' report (see http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls... for details and a copy of the full report) suggests 1366 new victims were assisted just by the DOJ in 2014 - at a 0.4% discovery rate that would be an extraordinary number of actual victims.

I think it's reasonable to suggest that human trafficking is a serious issue in the United States, whatever the actual fucking number.,

Now I can look for the next link in the chain: Why is it ignored by the very people it is aimed at?

That is, indeed, a very good question. I don't have a good answer, but I'm guessing it's for the same reasons that the majority of victims of Islamic State are other muslims. Religion is often an excuse or even a catalyst for violence (and these days, the religion is most commonly Islam). But the underlying reasons are often much more complicated, manifold and hard to decipher, and IS is probably the most complex threat the West have faced since... well, possibly ever.

(Man, to actually wish for the "simpler times" of terrorism...)

Some atheists conveniently forget that their godless brethern started much of this mess when the atheist Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

It requires some magical thinking to believe that atheism doesn't have blood on its hands, but I guess that goes with the territory.

It's sad how the US has capitulated to PRC demands. But secretly consider Taiwan to be an independent government, and most Americans when interviewed consider it an independent country. This is likely because of the rather complex mental gymnastics and double-think necessary to safely discuss PRC and ROC.

Why did I bother? Because facts should be sourced.

Why did I bring these particular facts in the first place? Because I was pointing out that anyone can say "This particular number is bigger than the number you're talking about" (as you did with the IRA deaths vs Islamic terrorists comment)...but that doesn't necessarily make it relevant. I even said as much in my comment.

Suicides aren't necessarily directly related to terrorism related deaths, although they do share the rather significant similar factor of death.

In this case, I'm also obliquely making the point that depression and suicide are a significantly bigger problem than terrorism (if a US citizen dies, they've got a 0.00061% chance it's from terrorism...and a 1.58% chance it's from suicide), and we in America are kinda idiots to ignore this.

Regardless of the motives of the kid who took apart the clock, regardless of whether or not it was random chance or a precisely calculated media blitz by someone trying to grab the spotlight...the fact remains that a kid got arrested because he had a box full of wires that may or may not have looked like a thing that actually kills or injurs less than 0.00071% of all humans, worldwide...and meanwhile, we've got depressed kids (and adults!) in every single school in our nation.

tl;dr version: We're severely overreacting to terrorism (especially in schools), and severely under-reacting to other causes of death.

Sources:
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/...

Why did I bother? Because facts should be sourced.

Why did I bring these particular facts in the first place? Because I was pointing out that anyone can say "This particular number is bigger than the number you're talking about" (as you did with the IRA deaths vs Islamic terrorists comment)...but that doesn't necessarily make it relevant. I even said as much in my comment.

Suicides aren't necessarily directly related to terrorism related deaths, although they do share the rather significant similar factor of death.

In this case, I'm also obliquely making the point that depression and suicide are a significantly bigger problem than terrorism (if a US citizen dies, they've got a 0.00061% chance it's from terrorism...and a 1.58% chance it's from suicide), and we in America are kinda idiots to ignore this.

Regardless of the motives of the kid who took apart the clock, regardless of whether or not it was random chance or a precisely calculated media blitz by someone trying to grab the spotlight...the fact remains that a kid got arrested because he had a box full of wires that may or may not have looked like a thing that actually kills or injurs less than 0.00071% of all humans, worldwide...and meanwhile, we've got depressed kids (and adults!) in every single school in our nation.

tl;dr version: We're severely overreacting to terrorism (especially in schools), and severely under-reacting to other causes of death.

Sources:
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/...

And depression invoked suicides have killed more people than both put together. Did you have a point, or were you just spouting Islamophobia and random "Number A is larger than Number B"?

17,891 deaths by terror attack in 2013.
41,149 deaths by suicide in 2013 (in the US).

Note that those figures for terror attacks may be just for the US, or they may be worldwide...I'm not bothering to check, because if they're just for the US, it means suicides outnumber terror attacks 2 to 1, and if it's NOT just for the US...it's a much worse ratio.

Source(s):
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/...
http://www.who.int/mental_heal...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...

CFR 1222 covering archival of Government communications was in effect from 2002, and State Department 12 FAM 541 to 12 FAM 545 covers sensitive but unclassified information (which includes things like meetings, schedules, promotions, personnel discussions) was in effect from 2005. She broke both of those, and they were in place for years before she was appointed SoS.

Search for "introduce":

http://history.state.gov/histo...

Israel claims it won't be the first to introduce nukes into the area.

While Israel does make it illegal to vandalize and destroy sites of all religions, they provide far more money for upkeep of Jewish sites than those of other religions. No, vandalism isn't legal. But they're clearly preferring Jewish holy sites over those of other religions. My source is the US State Department. Furthermore, although there is a 1967 law that's supposed to protect holy sites of all religions, it's only been implemented for 137 Jewish sites as of 2008. Again, I'll cite the US State Department on this one.

With respect to ownership of land, the land that was owned by the Jewish National Fund could not be sold to non-Jews. While this has actually been overturned recently, the government must compensate the JNF for land lost to non-Jewish bidders. I'll again cite the US State Department here.

The post you're replying to isn't quite accurate. But your post has some falsehoods, too.

While Israel does make it illegal to vandalize and destroy sites of all religions, they provide far more money for upkeep of Jewish sites than those of other religions. No, vandalism isn't legal. But they're clearly preferring Jewish holy sites over those of other religions. My source is the US State Department. Furthermore, although there is a 1967 law that's supposed to protect holy sites of all religions, it's only been implemented for 137 Jewish sites as of 2008. Again, I'll cite the US State Department on this one.

With respect to ownership of land, the land that was owned by the Jewish National Fund could not be sold to non-Jews. While this has actually been overturned recently, the government must compensate the JNF for land lost to non-Jewish bidders. I'll again cite the US State Department here.

The post you're replying to isn't quite accurate. But your post has some falsehoods, too.

While Israel does make it illegal to vandalize and destroy sites of all religions, they provide far more money for upkeep of Jewish sites than those of other religions. No, vandalism isn't legal. But they're clearly preferring Jewish holy sites over those of other religions. My source is the US State Department. Furthermore, although there is a 1967 law that's supposed to protect holy sites of all religions, it's only been implemented for 137 Jewish sites as of 2008. Again, I'll cite the US State Department on this one.

With respect to ownership of land, the land that was owned by the Jewish National Fund could not be sold to non-Jews. While this has actually been overturned recently, the government must compensate the JNF for land lost to non-Jewish bidders. I'll again cite the US State Department here.

The post you're replying to isn't quite accurate. But your post has some falsehoods, too.

• http://www.state.gov/t/isn/4797.htm
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Partial_Test_Ban_Treaty_signatories

How well do punchcards have to be kept in order to ensure they aren't damaged in a way that makes them unreadable. Has anybody studied this? Hanging chads? Data density? Not that the government would adopt it as a backup storage device, though.... How fast is the search function. I recently discovered that records from the Nixon Administration are online at http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/p... but that's probably a little off topic.

Two minutes of Googling found this:

http://www.state.gov/secretary...

Which is the statement in question.

Um, nope. You are just confused. Really confused. That web page is called "Statement by Secretary Clinton on Developments in the Middle East" and it is a list of things said by Hillary Clinton. The "smoking gun" thing was Hillary Clinton asking for an email with remarks made in public by a foreign government official (perhaps Jose Miguel Insulza, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States).

So, basically, someone made modifications to a statement that was intended to be a public statement in the first place on a classified system - and then they couldn't get the statement out, because it was on a classified system.

The thing is, Hillary doesn't get to decide what should be classified and what shouldn't be. If something is in the classified system she damn well shouldn't be berating her subordinates for not "just email[ing] it" to her.

I absolutely believe that there is a ton of stuff in the classified system that doesn't really need to be in there, but it is still not Hillary's decision. If something is in the classified system she needed to abide by that.

do you seriously think trying to swing a load like this past people is going to turn people towards your side?

I'm not sure whether you are "trying to swing a load" or just really really confused, but do you think you are turning anyone towards your side?

And do you really want to fly the banner that your side is the side of "just elect the Right People and then trust them to do any damn thing they please: subvert Freedom of Information Act requests, degrade classified information and send it over an insecure system, and lie about it all"?

Are you really that in-the-tank for Hillary? Or are you so afraid that Republicans might do something bad that you are willing to look the other way while a Democrat spends years doing lots of bad things?

A friend of mine commented that maybe the reason why Obama has been so frustrated in the Middle East was that spies were reading his Secretary of State's emails. If Hillary's lah-di-dah attitude toward email security screwed Obama's policy, are you still in the tank for her?

I don't think he'd be as bad as Nixon:
http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/p...

Try National Level Exercise 2011 (NLE2011) http://training.dps.mo.gov/tra... or http://www.state.gov/p/eur/ci/...

https://foia.state.gov/Search/... contains the released docs. Look for the one sent on 12/20/2012, titled H: Libya, Latest Benghazi Intel. It is marked "Confidential" as are many others. Is it really "Confidential?" I don't know. But it was born Confidential. And Sec. Clinton forwarded it on. The real sad thing is that Sec. Clinton decided to have a personal e-mail server, and those working for her will do jail time for getting her information she needed to do her job the only way they could have.

https://aoprals.state.gov/web9...

No per diem rates for the moon.

Well, that settles it. If the State Department doesn't have per diem for it, it must mean no travel took place.

How can you fill out TDY forms if you don't have a per diem rate that you can cash in on, amirite, Govvies on Slashdot?

Not in imaginary locations. Here's the approved places list: https://aoprals.state.gov/web9...

Opps, link I forgot to include
http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/p...
Nobody spends anything close to the amount the USA spends on clearing other people's landmines.

general info on mine clearing
http://www.halotrust.org/

Apparently you've never read the report on Amb. Gration. This is why he was forced out:

Key Judgments
  The Ambassador has lost the respect and confidence of the staff to lead the mission. Of more than 80 chiefs of mission inspected in recent cycles, the Ambassador ranked last for interpersonal relations, next to last on both managerial skill and attention to morale, and third from last in his overall scores from surveys of mission members. The inspectors found no reason to question these assessments; the Ambassador’s leadership to date has been divisive and ineffective.
  The Ambassador has damaged the cohesion of Embassy Nairobi’s country team by underscoring differences between offices working directly with Kenya and those with regional responsibilities. Country team members, particularly those from other agencies, relied on the recently departed deputy chief of mission to maintain a sense of common purpose at Embassy Nairobi. Unless corrected there is a risk that the country team will become dysfunctional. The Ambassador needs to broaden his understanding of why various agencies are part of his mission, cease avoiding contact with them, and work with the assistance of a senior Department of State (Department) official and the next deputy chief of mission to restore country team harmony.
  The Ambassador’s efforts to develop and focus the mission’s work around what he calls “mission essential tasks” have consumed considerable staff time and produced documents of unclear status and almost no value to the Department in approving priorities and assigning resources. His efforts have also created confusion about the relevance of the embassy’s annual Mission Resource Request (MRR). The Office of Inspector General (OIG) team agreed with embassy staff that the mission essential task process added no real value to the management of the embassy.
  The Ambassador’s greatest weakness is his reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions. He made clear his disagreement with Washington policy decisions and directives concerning the safe-havening in Nairobi of families of Department employees who volunteered to serve in extreme hardship posts; the creation of a freestanding Somalia Unit; and the nonuse of commercial email for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information. Notwithstanding his talk about the importance of mission staff doing the right thing, the Ambassador by deed or word has encouraged it to do the opposite.
  The Ambassador does not read classified front channel messages and has not established a system to have his staff screen incoming cables relevant to Kenya and U.S. interests in the region.
  The Ambassador’s initiative to redirect programming for nearly $550 million in U.S. health assistance, while well intentioned, has proven disruptive and created confusion about its relationship to existing programs. He announced to the Kenyans the establishment of a new unfunded program, called Let’s Live, with the unrealistic aim of reducing by 50 percent in 1 year Kenya’s premature mortality rates for infants, mothers, and noncommunicable diseases.

You'll note six bullet points, of which one mentions email. I've bolded it because you're clearly too lazy to find it yourself. It also specifies "commercial email," which means something like gmail or an ISP-provided email address, rather then a private email server. You'll also note that he was not Secretary of State so literally none of the argument you were responding to applies to him.

As for the Statute, if the interesting bit of legal jargon known as "records" applied to email sent by the Secretary of State why are 0 of Colin Powell's emails in the possession of the State Department? And, if it's so important to you, is it so important to drag Hillary over the coals for "breaking" the rules by not turning over half her emails for a few a few years, when it is literally physically impossible for anyone to get their hands on 100% of Colin Powell's emails because he deleted them all?

By international treaty, embassies are "sovereign territory", but consulates are not.

Are you sure about that?

http://diplomacy.state.gov/dis...

As far as I read that, a consulate is just a smaller version of an Embassy. I have never visited a US consulate, but I have been to a US embassy, and the security was pretty insane. Embassies are in the capital, consulates are in regional capitals.

http://geography.about.com/od/...

A consulate is just a smaller version of an embassy and is run by a person with the title consul. The embassy is only located in the capital city and is where the ambassador is in charge. Seeing how Chris Stevens was the ambassador to Libya, what was he doing in the consulate and not the embassy?

Also, from the wikipedia entry on the attack:

Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an information management officer, in the main building's safe haven.[79][81] Other agents retrieved their M4 carbines and tactical gear from another building. They tried to return to the main building but encountered armed attackers and retreated.[79]

What were they doing with M4 carbines if it is illegal to send US military there without permission!

As much as people want to believe, in the age of unattended Windows updates and package managers, that updating is painless and causes no problems, there are many famous examples of times people installed updates that proceeded to destroy or seriously disrupt operation of production environments.

It is arguable that the US is constitutionally prohibited from restricting US citizen travel. Technically, during the Cuba travel ban, it was spending money in Cuba that was prohibited, not traveling there.

The US State Department already urges US citizens, in the strongest terms, not to travel to North Korea:

http://travel.state.gov/conten...

Anyone who does anyway is a fool.

By international law, simply holding a passport is no proof of citizenship.

Then quote that law. I quoted the US Customs and Immigration, and they differ from your opinion. So post something other than your unsubstantiated opinion.

Quit asserting I'm wrong, and prove it.

http://travel.state.gov/conten...

The US goverment makes it quite clear you are an ignorant liar. There exist non-citizen passports. They are separate documents and aren't full passports. Anyone talking about "passports" isn't talking about refugee travel papers, non-citizen passports, or other non-passport travel documents.

You've heard of some exception that affects a few people, and think that makes you smart. But not being able to understand the general application of them, or the meanings of the rules around them.


As I've said, and you've never proven otherwise, a "full" passport (not a limited non-citizen passport, or other edge exceptions), is proof of citizenship.

If you could prove otherwise, you would, rather than lying to assert without proof, a stance that's been proven wrong with multiple cites of US policy on this matter.

Disagree with the above. While it is true that some things can be offshored, key technologies that fall under ITAR/EAR regulated by the State Department and Department of Commerce respectively require a US person to conduct the work.

http://www.state.gov/strategic...

https://www.bis.doc.gov/index....

If you look at Visa Bulletin for May 2015, all countries are "current" for First Preference Employment immigrant visas. There is no extra extra waiting time for them, other than usual processing, that takes many months. China and India do have few years waiting time for Second Preference, but that is how it is supposed to be, it is second preference. There are maybe 4 times as much people in India alone than in the US. You can't move them all to the US or US would become another India. The visa limits serve purpose.

"will an employer really be willing to wait 2-3 years for a new hire to join, however skilled that person is" - there are "O-1 Workers of Extraordinary Ability" temporary work visas. Processing time may be few months, the same or less than H1B. Status can be adjusted to immigrant later in the US. And no, employers are not supposed to bring any workers from around the world to new country, take profit, and than dump them to the society to take care of them. It is reasonable to make exceptions for people with extraordinary ability but it would be destructive to the country to do more than that.

Yes, immigrant visa processing is very slow and embarrassing. If you think it is easier in most other countries, you are mistaken.

So my 5 minute google search, heavily influenced by a blood alcohol level beyond all reason produced this: http://www.state.gov/strategic...

My reading indicates that if anyone is selling the particular xeon's in question to you (note that I believe not all Xeon's are controlled, just a subset), that either your country has treaties with the US that suggest they will in fact come down on you for selling to China, or the seller is committing a US crime and will be penalized for selling to you. I could not sell these to you now that I know your intent, for example. Since the US and UK tend to be as close as the US is to anyone not US, I'm going to assume the UK has the appropriate treaties and will in fact come down on you for reselling this to China. While I totally understand if that upsets you, and I feel much the same when the US government obeys UN regulations *I* don't approve of, it's how The Man works.

As I said, I don't really think you'd necessarily be caught, and I'm confident China will be able to get proc's for it's supercomputers regardless from someone. The issue really is about economic sanctions making it more difficult for China to be a producer of Intel-based server systems, which actually does hit them in the wallet, given how much Foxconn, Quanta and MSI do in the mfg space. China has a big business in the low level PCB mfg & board assy business, which it wants to expand into design & systems, but in this case may not be able to do legally if it continues to pursue nuclear tech. In a similar note, I doubt say, Iran, has any difficulty getting the latest Intel server for it's government operations. But the majority of the country is deprived, and the market is defunct.

Again, I don't care, I am entirely disgusted with anyone having a relationship with China that doesn't involve arm twisting and threats of some form of annihilation, but I feel your anger here is misplaced. I'm with you when some idiot senator decides she wants to erase the anarchists cookbook from the internet and will mock her to infinity when she tries to enforce her idiocy outside the US borders, but in this case we're dealing with China, and fuck China. Call me back when they have some form of believable democracy and even a hint of something like the magna carta. That was from the UK right? I thought your ancestors (and mine, as it happens) thought that was a big enough deal to die over, I'd hate to see it tossed out for cheap shit and rich people getting richer, or an only slightly misplaced anger over my country's ability to bully, which in this case may actually be to our collective benefit. The fewer people with effective nukes, the less likely the world ends tomorrow.

This isn't about spying its about compliance with records requests and privacy laws. EU has all kinds of (frankly downright crazy) privacy laws around email. That make it difficult to hand records to anything third party (that isn't an EU or member nation organ) and still be in compliance with the letter of the law; the US government is arguing that our courts etc have the power to subpena records on overseas servers.

This puts companies like Microsoft between a rock an hard place, they essentially can't follow both sets of rules if US jurisdictional rules are not limited in scope to well, the US.

The answer is for the DoJ to make a mutual legal assistance request to the Irish government and get a valid Irish court order for the material held in Ireland. I understand this case is about alleged drug smuggling, which is a crime in both countries so the Irish court is unlikely to create many difficulties.

This is the way these cases were always previously handled. In fact, there is an explicit treaty confirming this.