The Founders were a wordy bunch who regularly committed their thoughts to paper or at least made public speeches which were transcribed for posterity. And of course there's those pesky minutes of all the meetings.
The military forces of a free country may be considered under three general descriptions — 1. The militia. 2. the navy — and 3. the regular troops — and the whole ought ever to be, and understood to be, in strict subordination to the civil authority; and that regular troops, and select corps, ought not to be kept up without evident necessity. Stipulations in the constitution to this effect, are perhaps, too general to be of much service, except merely to impress on the minds of the people and soldiery, that the military ought ever to be subject to the civil authority, &c. But particular attention, and many more definite stipulations, are highly necessary to render the military safe, and yet useful in a free government; and in a federal republic, where the people meet in distinct assemblies, many stipulations are necessary to keep a part from transgressing, which would be unnecessary checks against the whole met in one legislature, in one entire government. — A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided. I am persuaded, I need not multiply words to convince you of the value and solidity of this principle, as it respects general liberty, and the duration of a free and mild government: having this principle well fixed by the constitution, then the federal head may prescribe a general uniform plan, on which the respective states shall form and train the militia, appoint their officers and solely manage them, except when called into the service of the union, and when called into that service, they may be commanded and governed by the union. This arrangement combines energy and safety in it; it places the sword in the hands of the solid interest of the community, and not in the hands of men destitute of property, of principle, or of attachment to the society and government, who often form the select corps of peace or ordinary establishments: by it, the militia are the people, immediately under the management of the state governments, but on a uniform federal plan, and called into the service, command, and government of the union, when necessary for the common defence and general tranquility. But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expence, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from t
10 U.S. Code 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
It is quite clear from contemporary sources that all of the people were considered to be the militia. You may or may not be aware that shortly before the writing of the Constitution that many of those present had in fact been part of an armed insurrection against a government they found to be intolerable. They wrote this thing called "The Declaration of Independence", then took up arms against that government.
In other words, they found that a militia comprising the people may need to use arms to maintain freedom for that State against an intolerable government. They wrote it down just in case the government they were in the process of forming *itself* would someday need to be overthrown through armed insurrection; or at the very least, the knowledge that the people were at least as well armed as the Army and outnumbered them by orders of magnitude (and they were at the time--the people regularly had the same firearms, even canon, as the Army) was to serve as a check against the government from using the Army against the people.
Indeed, the Framers were keenly against having an Army at all, at least a standing regular Army. They recognized that Armies had always eventually been used against the people. So it certainly makes sense, historically speaking, that the Framers fully expected that the people had access to the same arms that the Army might have.
10 U.S. Code 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
And you have the additional expense of the rental car, plus the rental car return. And for the whole bus-to-the-rental-car building, and then renting the car, doing the walkaround, finding someone whom to report the half-empty gas tank, adjust the mirrors, get the phone-to-car link set for tunes...half-hour seems short.
My circle is at least 6 hours, and much of my travel is at least 4+ days. I can rent a car from a neighborhood rental location for a week with unlimited miles for 3oz the entire trip, don't have to try to pack into carry-on or worry about checked luggage. Just chuck everything into the big suitcase (or two). Plus, because most of my travel is through and within states which have reciprocity for my carry permit, I can keep the firearm too. Not to mention toting a set of golf clubs in case I find some free time on the trip is a lot easier.
So we're going to exchange that remote possibility for the prospect of putting all those lithium batteries in the hold?
2016: The international regulations applicable to air shipments of lithium batteries have changed. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council has approved amendments to the lithium battery provisions in the ICAO Technical Instructions. Compliance with the new regulations is mandatory effective April 1, 2016. These amendments include:
Passenger Aircraft Ban for Lithium Ion Batteries: All shipments of lithium batteries without equipment are prohibited as cargo on passenger aircraft. As a result, all lithium ion battery shipments must display the Cargo Aircraft Only label. Due to UPS's reliance on passenger aircraft to transport packages in some parts of its network, this change will restrict the origins and destinations available for lithium ion batteries. This limitation does not affect lithium ion batteries packed with or contained in equipment. State of Charge Limits: A 30 percent state of charge (SOC) limit on lithium-ion cells and batteries, including Section II cells and batteries. This does not apply to batteries packed with or contained in equipment. Restrictions on Package Quantity: A shipper is not allowed to offer more than one Section II package (batteries only) per consignment. Restrictions on Overpacks: Overpacks may contain no more than one Section II package - 8 cells or 2 batteries - (batteries only). Battery Package Separation: A shipper must offer lithium battery shipments (batteries only) separately from other cargo.
These amendments are detailed in a lithium battery update document found on the International Air Transport Association (IATA) web site: http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/c....
The Espionage Act of 1917 has been superseded by plenty of more modern law. As near as I can tell, there's nothing like "explicitly forbids the jury from hearing why the defendant acted, and bars them from deciding whether the outcome was to the public's benefit." in current law. Indeed, the matter is clearly described in US Code.
18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
It would be quite a stretch to try to jump to prosecuting under 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government
(which, by the way, is the only place in the Chapter where the word jury is used..."except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense...")
794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government
(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.
" In administering the DICWP, the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense (DoDIG) balances the competing national security and separation of powers interests raised by whistleblowing within the Defense Intelligence Community.The DoDIG provides a safe, authorized conduit for Defense Department whistleblowers to disclose classified information. The Inspector General also has authority to investigate whistleblowing reprisal allegations filed by civilian and military members of the Defense Intelligence Community. It therefore accepts the disclosures and provides source protection for those providing the information."
(different AC here) No it's not your decision to determine classification levels directly, but it's your duty to the citizens of the united states to expose the misuse of security classification which hides the illegal activity of government entities lest you be complicit in that corruption.
I agree in principle. However, there are plenty of legal venues for doing exactly this. As I understand it, she failed to pursue even one of these steps.
Pub.L. 113–126
TITLE VI--INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS
Sec. 601. Protection of intelligence community whistleblowers. Sec. 602. Review of security clearance or access determinations. Sec. 603. Revisions of other laws. Sec. 604. Policies and procedures; nonapplicability to certain
terminations.
Going to the press as step #1 means she didn't even try to be a whistleblower.
You have a constitutional right to write anything you want. But I don't think you get a 1st Amendment pass to lie of your taxes.
And she had the benefit of specifically subjecting herself to the strictures and subsequent penalties when she sign her security paperwork.
Mishandling classified data does not require treason, nor intent. You either handle it properly or you don't. If you fail to handle it properly, you can go to prison. Period. It doesn't matter why you did it, even if it was accidental.
What "whistleblowing" took place? Did she expose some illegal activity on the part of the US Government? Did she expose some illegal activity on the part of the US Government personnel? Not that I've seen. So far as I understand it, she just exposed normal, run-of-the-mill intelligence data collected about foreign government actions.
Did she pursue the "whistleblowing" chain-of-command? The United States Presidential Policy Directive 19, signed by President Barack Obama, is designed to ensure that employees who serve in the Intelligence Community or have access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse, while protecting classified information. Did she follow those procedures?
No, I think not. She took classified documents directly to the press, thus the charges she faces.
I think the above can be explored in court, and jurors can reasonably decide if she broke the law or should be protected as a whistleblower without requiring access to the classified data itself.
Kristian Saucier, of Arlington, Vermont, appeared in federal court in Bridgeport, where a judge also ordered him to serve six months of home confinement with electronic monitoring during a three-year period of supervised release after the prison time. He pleaded guilty in May to unauthorized detention of defense information and had faced five to six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.
Saucier admitted to taking six photos of classified areas inside the USS Alexandria in 2009 when it was in Groton and he was a 22-year-old machinist mate on the submarine. The photos showed the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment, prosecutors said.
Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorized recipient.
Prosecutors asked US district judge Stefan Underhill to send Saucier to prison for five years, saying his conduct put national security at risk.
She has been charged for removing classified data from controls and providing it to unauthorized persons.
If she had handed it out to her friends, she'd have been charged with the same thing (had it been discovered). Had she provided it to Russia or China or Israel, eventually she'd probably get caught and charged with spying too.
It was not because she provided it to media, although doing so certainly led the government right to her.
You simply cannot read and sign the security agreements that go along with access and expect to be able to ignore them because of feelz, politics, or even "whistleblowing" without consequences. Handing classified documents over to media is no different than handing them over to China.
The paperwork I signed for my clearance had "punishable by death" in them...
Trying to scroll FB on my phone I've accidentally liked or otherwise committed emoji actions. Just like I've accidentally caused videos to start playing, sites to be opened, etc.
Bill and Hillary Clinton enriched themselves through shady deals with Russian oligarchs and Russian government, quite possibly using her power as then SecState to enable the deal while she was pocketing millions.
Even the NY Times described it thusly: "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal"
"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation's donors."
"Uranium investors' efforts to buy mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States led to a takeover bid by a Russian state-owned energy company. The investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation over the same period, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's office was involved with approving the Russian bid.
SEPTEMBER 2005 Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.
2006 Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.
JUNE 2008 Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom.
2008-2010 Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal.
2010-2011 Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
JUNE 2010 Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.
JUNE 29, 2010 Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.
OCTOBER 2010 Rosatom's majority ownership approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
The 2016 presidential election season has been one most of us will never forget. The tone has been ugly, the controversies endless, the coverage unrelenting. Our social media feeds are full of politically charged statements, and what dialogue does exist between differing sides more often resembles a WWE match than nuanced debate.
Thankfully, I get to write about ESPN, where the focus on sports means I never have to deal with politics.
Ah, if only that were true.
As it turns out, ESPN is far from immune from the political fever that has afflicted so much of the country over the past year. Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
Before digging in, one quick clarification: I’m not here to advocate that ESPN take any particular political position or lean a certain way. It’s not my place to make that recommendation, and no one would listen anyway. This is more about the impact that taking a more identifiable political stance -- which I do believe ESPN has done -- is having on the company.
For most of its history, ESPN was viewed relatively apolitically. Its core focus was -- and remains today, of course -- sports. Although the nature of sports meant an occasional detour into politics and culture was inevitable, there wasn’t much chatter about an overall perceived political bias. If there was any tension internally, it didn’t manifest itself publicly.
That has changed in the past few years, and ESPN staffers cite several factors. One is the rise of social media, which has led to more direct political commentary by ESPN employees, even if not delivered via the network’s broadcast or digital pipes. Another is ESPN's increase in debate-themed shows, which encourage strong opinions that are increasingly focusing on the overlap between sports and politics.
There have also been concrete actions that have created a perception that ESPN has chosen a political side, such as awarding Caitlyn Jenner the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the 2015 ESPYS despite her not having competed athletically for decades, the company’s decision to move a golf tournament away from a club owned by presidential candidate Donald Trump and a perceived inequity in how punishments for controversial statements were meted out.
Many ESPN employees I talked to -- including liberals and conservatives, most of whom preferred to speak on background -- worry that the company’s politics have become a little too obvious, empowering those who feel as if they’re in line with the company’s position and driving underground those who don’t.
But, in talking to people in the course of reporting this piece, it is clear that ESPN has a challenge in front of it. I don’t think the answer is to try to stifle those with strong viewpoints; rather, it’s to make sure a broader range of voices are heard.
Why, some might ask? Because, at heart, ESPN is a business. And based on a Gallup survey on political affiliation from mid-September, 44 percent of the country identifies itself as either “Republican” or “leans Republican.” That’s less than the 49 percent that identifies itself as “Democrat” or “leans Democrat,” but not by much.
Longtime ESPN anchor Linda Cohn argued that her network’s alleged liberal bent scared off some of its viewers and subscribers, leading to this week’s “bloodbath” in Bristol.
During a radio interview on 77 WABC Thursday, Cohn addressed the mass layoffs at her network, which saw over 100 on-air talent get the pink slip this week — including a former co-anchor of Cohn’s. The sportscaster candidly blamed the firings on “bad decision making” by ESPN executives.
Talking head Bernard McGuirk, one of the hosts of “The Bernie and Sid Show,” asked Cohn if the “whole Kaepernick thing,” and Caitlyn Jenner winning an award at the ESPYs, perhaps explained the network’s dwindling audience.
“There seems to be a lot of folks that have distaste for the way ESPN goes about some of their programming, and some of their promotions, when socially folks don’t accept these things,” McGuirk said.
“That is definitely a percentage of it,” Cohn immediately agreed, according to the New York Post. “I don’t know how big a percentage, but if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind,” she said.
There are enough venues for progressive (and conservative, for that matter, even though its not a factor in this instance) media to promote their agenda. I just want the ball-game score and the highlights. I don't want social commentary.
It's a reason that's been discussed on other forums. Pointing it out, even if orthogonal to the original article is still informative, because if it is true and the ESPN honchos continue to ignore it based on their internal echo-chamber idea of what they did wrong, they might fix the wrong thing. OTOH, the SJW-angle could be insignificant and they can save the network by making various technical adjustments and double down on the SJW content. They can hire Colin Kaepernick as a talk-show host.
Dressing rooms, they have been experiencing peeping tom/"upskirt" video incidents because the men in question can walk into the ladies dressing area without fear of being stopped or anything--so long as they can avoid actually getting caught in the act.
It is certainly possible such incidents happened before the policy change, but at least then sales people who noticed a man going into the ladies dressing room are would have been allowed to say something about it and have the man removed.
" By the argument you're making, we should return to separate banks, separate train cars, separate waiting areas, etc.."
The argument you're making is that we should only ever have unisex bathrooms everywhere. That we should only have one locker room for the high-school football players and the cheerleaders.
Slashdot Mirror
The Founders were a wordy bunch who regularly committed their thoughts to paper or at least made public speeches which were transcribed for posterity. And of course there's those pesky minutes of all the meetings.
The military forces of a free country may be considered under three general descriptions — 1. The militia. 2. the navy — and 3. the regular troops — and the whole ought ever to be, and understood to be, in strict subordination to the civil authority; and that regular troops, and select corps, ought not to be kept up without evident necessity. Stipulations in the constitution to this effect, are perhaps, too general to be of much service, except merely to impress on the minds of the people and soldiery, that the military ought ever to be subject to the civil authority, &c. But particular attention, and many more definite stipulations, are highly necessary to render the military safe, and yet useful in a free government; and in a federal republic, where the people meet in distinct assemblies, many stipulations are necessary to keep a part from transgressing, which would be unnecessary checks against the whole met in one legislature, in one entire government. — A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided. I am persuaded, I need not multiply words to convince you of the value and solidity of this principle, as it respects general liberty, and the duration of a free and mild government: having this principle well fixed by the constitution, then the federal head may prescribe a general uniform plan, on which the respective states shall form and train the militia, appoint their officers and solely manage them, except when called into the service of the union, and when called into that service, they may be commanded and governed by the union. This arrangement combines energy and safety in it; it places the sword in the hands of the solid interest of the community, and not in the hands of men destitute of property, of principle, or of attachment to the society and government, who often form the select corps of peace or ordinary establishments: by it, the militia are the people, immediately under the management of the state governments, but on a uniform federal plan, and called into the service, command, and government of the union, when necessary for the common defence and general tranquility. But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expence, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from t
10 U.S. Code 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
It is quite clear from contemporary sources that all of the people were considered to be the militia. You may or may not be aware that shortly before the writing of the Constitution that many of those present had in fact been part of an armed insurrection against a government they found to be intolerable. They wrote this thing called "The Declaration of Independence", then took up arms against that government.
In other words, they found that a militia comprising the people may need to use arms to maintain freedom for that State against an intolerable government. They wrote it down just in case the government they were in the process of forming *itself* would someday need to be overthrown through armed insurrection; or at the very least, the knowledge that the people were at least as well armed as the Army and outnumbered them by orders of magnitude (and they were at the time--the people regularly had the same firearms, even canon, as the Army) was to serve as a check against the government from using the Army against the people.
Indeed, the Framers were keenly against having an Army at all, at least a standing regular Army. They recognized that Armies had always eventually been used against the people. So it certainly makes sense, historically speaking, that the Framers fully expected that the people had access to the same arms that the Army might have.
10 U.S. Code 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Either the land is in CPR and not being plowed, but being paid for the conservation effort.
Or they took the land out of CPR and are no longer being paid, but because they are plowing soil is eroding from wind.
The headline makes it seem like we're paying them to plow CPR lands.
And you have the additional expense of the rental car, plus the rental car return. And for the whole bus-to-the-rental-car building, and then renting the car, doing the walkaround, finding someone whom to report the half-empty gas tank, adjust the mirrors, get the phone-to-car link set for tunes...half-hour seems short.
My circle is at least 6 hours, and much of my travel is at least 4+ days. I can rent a car from a neighborhood rental location for a week with unlimited miles for 3oz the entire trip, don't have to try to pack into carry-on or worry about checked luggage. Just chuck everything into the big suitcase (or two). Plus, because most of my travel is through and within states which have reciprocity for my carry permit, I can keep the firearm too. Not to mention toting a set of golf clubs in case I find some free time on the trip is a lot easier.
TSA can suck it.
So we're going to exchange that remote possibility for the prospect of putting all those lithium batteries in the hold?
2016: The international regulations applicable to air shipments of lithium batteries have changed. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council has approved amendments to the lithium battery provisions in the ICAO Technical Instructions. Compliance with the new regulations is mandatory effective April 1, 2016. These amendments include:
Passenger Aircraft Ban for Lithium Ion Batteries: All shipments of lithium batteries without equipment are prohibited as cargo on passenger aircraft. As a result, all lithium ion battery shipments must display the Cargo Aircraft Only label. Due to UPS's reliance on passenger aircraft to transport packages in some parts of its network, this change will restrict the origins and destinations available for lithium ion batteries. This limitation does not affect lithium ion batteries packed with or contained in equipment.
State of Charge Limits: A 30 percent state of charge (SOC) limit on lithium-ion cells and batteries, including Section II cells and batteries. This does not apply to batteries packed with or contained in equipment.
Restrictions on Package Quantity: A shipper is not allowed to offer more than one Section II package (batteries only) per consignment.
Restrictions on Overpacks: Overpacks may contain no more than one Section II package - 8 cells or 2 batteries - (batteries only).
Battery Package Separation: A shipper must offer lithium battery shipments (batteries only) separately from other cargo.
These amendments are detailed in a lithium battery update document found on the International Air Transport Association (IATA) web site: http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/c....
Like every other government agency.
"You can't professionalize unless you federalize"...
Radio Shack?
The Espionage Act of 1917 has been superseded by plenty of more modern law. As near as I can tell, there's nothing like "explicitly forbids the jury from hearing why the defendant acted, and bars them from deciding whether the outcome was to the public's benefit." in current law. Indeed, the matter is clearly described in US Code.
18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
It would be quite a stretch to try to jump to prosecuting under 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government
(which, by the way, is the only place in the Chapter where the word jury is used..."except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense...")
794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government
(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.
No. However, there are first-line provisions that do not start with going to the press as step 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
" In administering the DICWP, the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense (DoDIG) balances the competing national security and separation of powers interests raised by whistleblowing within the Defense Intelligence Community.The DoDIG provides a safe, authorized conduit for Defense Department whistleblowers to disclose classified information. The Inspector General also has authority to investigate whistleblowing reprisal allegations filed by civilian and military members of the Defense Intelligence Community. It therefore accepts the disclosures and provides source protection for those providing the information."
(different AC here) No it's not your decision to determine classification levels directly, but it's your duty to the citizens of the united states to expose the misuse of security classification which hides the illegal activity of government entities lest you be complicit in that corruption.
I agree in principle. However, there are plenty of legal venues for doing exactly this. As I understand it, she failed to pursue even one of these steps.
Pub.L. 113–126
TITLE VI--INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS
Sec. 601. Protection of intelligence community whistleblowers.
Sec. 602. Review of security clearance or access determinations.
Sec. 603. Revisions of other laws.
Sec. 604. Policies and procedures; nonapplicability to certain
terminations.
Going to the press as step #1 means she didn't even try to be a whistleblower.
You have a constitutional right to write anything you want. But I don't think you get a 1st Amendment pass to lie of your taxes.
And she had the benefit of specifically subjecting herself to the strictures and subsequent penalties when she sign her security paperwork.
Mishandling classified data does not require treason, nor intent. You either handle it properly or you don't. If you fail to handle it properly, you can go to prison. Period. It doesn't matter why you did it, even if it was accidental.
What "whistleblowing" took place? Did she expose some illegal activity on the part of the US Government? Did she expose some illegal activity on the part of the US Government personnel? Not that I've seen. So far as I understand it, she just exposed normal, run-of-the-mill intelligence data collected about foreign government actions.
Did she pursue the "whistleblowing" chain-of-command? The United States Presidential Policy Directive 19, signed by President Barack Obama, is designed to ensure that employees who serve in the Intelligence Community or have access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse, while protecting classified information. Did she follow those procedures?
No, I think not. She took classified documents directly to the press, thus the charges she faces.
I think the above can be explored in court, and jurors can reasonably decide if she broke the law or should be protected as a whistleblower without requiring access to the classified data itself.
"if you mishandle classified data, expect prison...even under Obama..."
Should have said "Unless you're Hillary Clinton."
This is not some sort of overreaction, if you mishandle classified data, expect prison...even under Obama...
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
Kristian Saucier, of Arlington, Vermont, appeared in federal court in Bridgeport, where a judge also ordered him to serve six months of home confinement with electronic monitoring during a three-year period of supervised release after the prison time. He pleaded guilty in May to unauthorized detention of defense information and had faced five to six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.
Saucier admitted to taking six photos of classified areas inside the USS Alexandria in 2009 when it was in Groton and he was a 22-year-old machinist mate on the submarine. The photos showed the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment, prosecutors said.
Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorized recipient.
Prosecutors asked US district judge Stefan Underhill to send Saucier to prison for five years, saying his conduct put national security at risk.
She has been charged for removing classified data from controls and providing it to unauthorized persons.
If she had handed it out to her friends, she'd have been charged with the same thing (had it been discovered). Had she provided it to Russia or China or Israel, eventually she'd probably get caught and charged with spying too.
It was not because she provided it to media, although doing so certainly led the government right to her.
You simply cannot read and sign the security agreements that go along with access and expect to be able to ignore them because of feelz, politics, or even "whistleblowing" without consequences. Handing classified documents over to media is no different than handing them over to China.
The paperwork I signed for my clearance had "punishable by death" in them...
So the feelz...
Trying to scroll FB on my phone I've accidentally liked or otherwise committed emoji actions. Just like I've accidentally caused videos to start playing, sites to be opened, etc.
Bill and Hillary Clinton enriched themselves through shady deals with Russian oligarchs and Russian government, quite possibly using her power as then SecState to enable the deal while she was pocketing millions.
Even the NY Times described it thusly: "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal"
"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation's donors."
"Uranium investors' efforts to buy mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States led to a takeover bid by a Russian state-owned energy company. The investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation over the same period, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's office was involved with approving the Russian bid.
SEPTEMBER 2005 Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.
2006 Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.
JUNE 2008 Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom.
2008-2010 Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal.
2010-2011 Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
JUNE 2010 Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.
JUNE 29, 2010 Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.
OCTOBER 2010 Rosatom's majority ownership approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
From ESPN.com
http://www.espn.com/blog/ombud...
Jim Brady, Public Editor Dec 1, 2016
The 2016 presidential election season has been one most of us will never forget. The tone has been ugly, the controversies endless, the coverage unrelenting. Our social media feeds are full of politically charged statements, and what dialogue does exist between differing sides more often resembles a WWE match than nuanced debate.
Thankfully, I get to write about ESPN, where the focus on sports means I never have to deal with politics.
Ah, if only that were true.
As it turns out, ESPN is far from immune from the political fever that has afflicted so much of the country over the past year. Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
Before digging in, one quick clarification: I’m not here to advocate that ESPN take any particular political position or lean a certain way. It’s not my place to make that recommendation, and no one would listen anyway. This is more about the impact that taking a more identifiable political stance -- which I do believe ESPN has done -- is having on the company.
For most of its history, ESPN was viewed relatively apolitically. Its core focus was -- and remains today, of course -- sports. Although the nature of sports meant an occasional detour into politics and culture was inevitable, there wasn’t much chatter about an overall perceived political bias. If there was any tension internally, it didn’t manifest itself publicly.
That has changed in the past few years, and ESPN staffers cite several factors. One is the rise of social media, which has led to more direct political commentary by ESPN employees, even if not delivered via the network’s broadcast or digital pipes. Another is ESPN's increase in debate-themed shows, which encourage strong opinions that are increasingly focusing on the overlap between sports and politics.
There have also been concrete actions that have created a perception that ESPN has chosen a political side, such as awarding Caitlyn Jenner the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the 2015 ESPYS despite her not having competed athletically for decades, the company’s decision to move a golf tournament away from a club owned by presidential candidate Donald Trump and a perceived inequity in how punishments for controversial statements were meted out.
Many ESPN employees I talked to -- including liberals and conservatives, most of whom preferred to speak on background -- worry that the company’s politics have become a little too obvious, empowering those who feel as if they’re in line with the company’s position and driving underground those who don’t.
But, in talking to people in the course of reporting this piece, it is clear that ESPN has a challenge in front of it. I don’t think the answer is to try to stifle those with strong viewpoints; rather, it’s to make sure a broader range of voices are heard.
Why, some might ask? Because, at heart, ESPN is a business. And based on a Gallup survey on political affiliation from mid-September, 44 percent of the country identifies itself as either “Republican” or “leans Republican.” That’s less than the 49 percent that identifies itself as “Democrat” or “leans Democrat,” but not by much.
From Salon.com
Longtime ESPN anchor Linda Cohn argued that her network’s alleged liberal bent scared off some of its viewers and subscribers, leading to this week’s “bloodbath” in Bristol.
During a radio interview on 77 WABC Thursday, Cohn addressed the mass layoffs at her network, which saw over 100 on-air talent get the pink slip this week — including a former co-anchor of Cohn’s. The sportscaster candidly blamed the firings on “bad decision making” by ESPN executives.
Talking head Bernard McGuirk, one of the hosts of “The Bernie and Sid Show,” asked Cohn if the “whole Kaepernick thing,” and Caitlyn Jenner winning an award at the ESPYs, perhaps explained the network’s dwindling audience.
“There seems to be a lot of folks that have distaste for the way ESPN goes about some of their programming, and some of their promotions, when socially folks don’t accept these things,” McGuirk said.
“That is definitely a percentage of it,” Cohn immediately agreed, according to the New York Post. “I don’t know how big a percentage, but if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind,” she said.
There are enough venues for progressive (and conservative, for that matter, even though its not a factor in this instance) media to promote their agenda. I just want the ball-game score and the highlights. I don't want social commentary.
It's a reason that's been discussed on other forums. Pointing it out, even if orthogonal to the original article is still informative, because if it is true and the ESPN honchos continue to ignore it based on their internal echo-chamber idea of what they did wrong, they might fix the wrong thing. OTOH, the SJW-angle could be insignificant and they can save the network by making various technical adjustments and double down on the SJW content. They can hire Colin Kaepernick as a talk-show host.
Dressing rooms, they have been experiencing peeping tom/"upskirt" video incidents because the men in question can walk into the ladies dressing area without fear of being stopped or anything--so long as they can avoid actually getting caught in the act.
It is certainly possible such incidents happened before the policy change, but at least then sales people who noticed a man going into the ladies dressing room are would have been allowed to say something about it and have the man removed.
" By the argument you're making, we should return to separate banks, separate train cars, separate waiting areas, etc.."
The argument you're making is that we should only ever have unisex bathrooms everywhere. That we should only have one locker room for the high-school football players and the cheerleaders.
" you also need to prove that the law would do anything to change this."
You mean like gun-control laws?