an order cannot be lawful if it is an order to break the law, whether in wartime or in peacetime. Ergo, to bury evidence of a crime pursuant to orders is misprision which is a crime, this case being a crime in two parts: he who gave the order, and he who was expected to obey it. There has been no formal, legal declaration of war, therefore your treason argument is invalid (btw, it would be sedition, not treason, even there is no argument since THE UNITED STATES IS LEGALLY AT WAR WITH NOBODY).
I would suggest you learn the law of the land and the law of war before YOU start spouting about that which you know clearly nothing.
if you read the references, the Briginshaw case is Australia (civil damages case), Plevitz is an Australian academic work, Kinnane was an article in the NYT I believe, Black's Law Dictionary is the definitive reference for legal terminology, and Blackstone's is the Paralegal's Bench Book on English Statute - which includes the criminal code. The different burdens of proof are present in all legal systems where a civilian can bring a case himself.
Given the overstretched nature of the British legal system (I am talking about the courts of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Eire here, although NI and Eire are a slightly different system in that they are constrained by Constitutional Law), most cases, with the exception of the most serious criminal cases such as rape, robbery and murder, are disposed in courtrooms with a single Judge and no jury; where the representation for all parties execute most of the caseload in closed-door meetings out of earshot of the Judge, who is presented with Bench Memoranda and agreed points of "fact", with contested points being argued in front of him.
It is rare that a case not involving rape, robbery or murder will actually take place in front of a jury - the system is stacked against someone who, say, is charged with drug or firearms possession offences who demands a trial by jury, to actually get one. This is entirely a money and time saving exercise, and nothing whatsoever to do with the proper, lawful administration of Justice.
Absent that burden to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt to "Twelve Good Men And True", the burden drops to the Balance of Probabilities (and that burden shifts from the Plaintiff to the Defendant), the case is executed as if it were a normal civil dispute - and the Treasury (usually) finds itself up a few quid.
type-copied from my own collection of legal documents:
Burden of Proof A duty placed upon a civil or criminal defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact.
Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. But in some jurisdictions, the defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of certain facts that give rise to a defense, such as the insanity plea. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.
Burden of proof can also define the burden of persuasion, or the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed factual issue. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
Judges explain the reasonable doubt standard to jurors in a number of ways. Federal jury instructions provide that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is "proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to act upon it in the most important of his own affairs." State judges typically describe the standard by telling jurors that they possess a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt if, based on all the evidence in the case, they would be uncomfortable with a criminal conviction. In giving the reasonable doubt instruction, judges regularly remind jurors that a criminal conviction imposes a variety of hardships on a defendant, including public humiliation, incarceration, fines, and occasionally the Forfeiture of property. Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in any judicial proceeding.
Reasonable doubt is also a constitutionally mandated burden of proof in criminal proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution prohibit criminal defendants from being convicted on any quantum of evidence less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. in Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 23 L. Ed. 2D 368 (1970). Although the reasonable doubt standard is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, the Court observed that the standard is so deeply rooted in the nation's history as to reflect the fundamental value that "it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."
In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. Both are lower burdens of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree*. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact by a high probability. Criminal trials employ a higher standard of proof because criminal defendants often face the deprivation of life or liberty if convicted while civil defendants generally only face an order to pay money damages if the plaintiff prevails, or in the case of English Family Law (which falls wholly under the civil umbrella), the permanent separation of parents from their children.
*This is also known as the Balance of Probabilities, both terms freely interchangeable.
References:
Briginshaw - Qantas Airways v Gama [2008] FCAFC 69: Branson J:...which recognises, adopting the language of the High Court in Neat Holdings, that the strength of the evidence necessary to establish a fact in issue on the balance of probabilities will vary according to the nature of what is sought to be proved – and, I would add, the circumstances in which it is sought to be proved.
De Plevitz, L., (2003). 'The Briginshaw 'Standard of Proof' in Anti-di
considering a few things... to defend the Constitution of the United States, soil and citizens against all enemies foreign and domestic (I'm not a member of the US armed forces, I don't know the wording of the Oath)... if the military order him to conceal evidence of crime, then yes, they do become the enemy. The military is a tool, a means to an end. If your screwdriver breaks, you don't carry on using it - you get yourself another one.
The more I involve myself in this thread, the more I read, the clearer things become. I started out rooting for Manning getting the chair, now I'm thinking more along the lines of he did right, by disobeying unlawful orders to conceal that evidence. Assange is unfortunate in that he's the face behind Wikileaks.
If Manning had leaked information pertaining to then-current troop and equipment/munitions movements, you might have a point and I would agree with you. However, the documents I have read (quite a few) detail civilian casualties in civilian areas of foreign soil where no formal declaration of war aside the sensationalised "War on Terror" exists, by American service personnel using American equipment. That is not activity to be considered normal in the course of a legal war, it is the action of an invading force in the continuing commission of Crimes against Humanity to encompass genocide*. What Manning has done in this case is to disobey unlawful orders to conceal such evidence of crimes committed by United States service personnel and leak same to an organisation that he could trust to get that information "out there" where it would do the most good - rather than it being compartmentalised and buried and allowing the United States to continue committing such crimes with impunity.
*The UN definition of "Genocide" includes but is not limited to the forced relocation of individuals, the forced sterilisation of individuals, the nonlethal harm caused to individuals of any certain class, creed, religion or other belief system, the death of any single member of a specific class, creed, religion or other belief system absent a lawful declaration of war, and harm caused to any cultural bent, whether lethal or not. Genocide does not have to involve the deaths of thousands, it is harm to any single individual.
I'm not surprised. Assange released a bunch of classified military documents detailing crimes committed by elements of the US Military and by legislative and executive branches of same - at a time when two illegal incursions into sovereign territories were going on. Now, a lot of people might disagree with those illegal incursions into sovereign territories and would, therefore, agree with Assange releasing the information. Assange, himself, has said it was his mission to end the illegal incursions into sovereign territories - presumably, he meant that the release of classified US documents would damage the illegal incursions into sovereign territories effort so badly that the US would withdraw.
FTFY
Although, I have to wonder what our response would be if this was the early 1940s, the US was fighting Germany and Japan, and a character named 'Assange' released a bunch of documents relating to the US war effort. Would this be the same thing? Would we label Assange a hero or a traitor if he was degrading the US war effort against enemies which we all hate? I wouldn't be surprised at all if a 1940s-era Assange released this information (he talks about how he'll release anything), and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the US labelled him an enemy of the state, either. I would hope that people's outrage over this didn't seem to hinge on whether or not you agree or disagree with the US war.
There is a difference which you have conveniently omitted - that the United States legally declared war on the Empire of Japan following Pearl. Please adjust your argument accordingly.
His Oath was to obey LAWFUL ORDERS. The UCMJ gives latitude for disobeying UNLAWFUL ORDERS. As does every other military code. Knowing complicity in the cover up of a crime is the obedience of an UNLAWFUL ORDER, one that I hope gives Manning room for mitigation.
Citations needed - where is it determined that a specific document being leaked *to* Wikileaks and subsequently published (no harm in specifying the document since it is already in the public domain, people will have seen them anyway) directly caused a specific casualty or casualties?
You're not losing civil rights, you lost them a long time ago; it's only now you're realising that the yoke of Government about your neck is a heavy one.
OK, here's one: in recent years, you can go to jail for calling a black man "nigger". This isn't the Black getting one over on you by "gaining" rights, it's the State getting one over on you by taking it away from you. Give it a few years, and it'll be illegal for the majority Black to call the minority White, a "white trash piece of shit". That won't be the White Man getting one over on the Black, it'll be the State saying to the Black Man, "OK, we fucked the White Man, now it's your turn".
it *is* a citizen of the US. Specifically, a Person Entity. This is why you see New York Times Co. listed as such on civil court documents, instead of specific human beings holding certain positions within the company. That Person Entity has *exactly the same rights and privileges - and responsibilities* - as a flesh-and-blood Human Being with a Soul. If it did not, then it would not be able to be represented in a Court of Law, you wouldn't have such a specific offence as "corporate manslaughter" where a company is sued for money in the event of a wrongful death instead of an individual looking at Death Row for the same thing(!) (to give an extreme example), and you couldn't take an entire State Party to task in the International Criminal Court.
I can't see any way out for Manning. If he did leak compartmentalised material to Assange, the mere fact that he did it makes him culpable under UCMJ and the way that deals with secret information, since by taking the oath to serve the United States and defend Her from all enemies - foreign and domestic - he also agreed to keep Her secrets, he (probably) deserves getting the very substantial book thrown at him. Assange, on the other hand, has broken no US Law that I'm aware of, and I defy the United States Government to publish any evidence it claims to have that he did.
Assange signed no such contract, as far as I am aware. To do so would signify his acceptance of the terms by which he is being made privy to the subject matter, hence by publishing he would then be subject to prescribed penalty. Since he did not, he cannot be prosecuted under UCMJ (anywhere), and since he published details of what would be considered a crime anywhere, committed by certain and possible named members of the US Military and upper officers, then he cannot be prosecuted under any other Law since by reporting he has gained whistleblower status (and deserves the protection which to date only a small South American country has offered him) by turning evidence - albeit for *everyone* to see - of wrongdoing by States Parties in violation of international treaties and Laws.
Siege of Leningrad. Both sides (Nazi Germany and Russia) guilty of the same thing. The advantage the Russians had was the fact that the Nazis had to maintain long supply lines, while they could operate literally right under their feet. Disable the supply line (with mines and ambush), and drop the first responders. Once you've consolidated a position like that, it's hard to dislodge you, short an air strike - which the Nazis could little afford.
Hollywood goes to great pains to portray enemy combatants engaged in this tactic.
In the movie "Saving Private Ryan", there's a sniper in a building with a Karbiner 98K, taking chunks out of one soldier in the middle of the street and dropping anyone who tries to go help him.
IIRC a similar scene in "Band of Brothers" when they're moving to secure a bridge (episode 3/4?)
Didn't Ed Harris' character do the same thing in "Enemy At The Gate"? If I remember correctly, the British media had joygasms reporting a similar situation in Afghanistan in April; a "Taliban sniper" was apparently picking off members of 3 Bat. Rifles (including taking a sniper out by shooting him in the eye - through his own scope). I don't buy him being a Taliban sniper personally; more likely he was an ex-British Forces sniper gone rogue or freelance (how many British servicemen have actually deserted during this campaign of terror, anyway?) or a local trained in another country (Bosnia?). Back to the movie; isn't it wonderful that Jude Law's character had nothing but one-shot-kills the entire movie? I wonder how the Germans would have portrayed him, had they made the movie instead?
I didn't think India have any nuclear powered boats at all, actually... DLS doesn't list them, although Wikipedia claims they have but a single Akula-class nuclear attack sub on loan from the Russians, and that they previously borrowed a Charlie-class. Their single carrier is an ancient Centaur-class acquired in 1987 as the old British Navy's HMS Hermes.
When the Chinese outnumber the United States, militarily by nearly 2:1 and in terms of raw population, by over 4:1, the only advantage the US has over China is technologically. That said, China easily outperforms the US military-industrial complex in arms production, and with her next door neighbour India (who has the strange habit of aligning with whomever serves her political ambition best - during the Cold War it was the USSR, lately it's been the EU and US) adding another billion or so heads, the US could find herself alone in the World (with the possible exception of her lapdog, the UK) and facing down three billion very angry people.
What the US does have, which should be cause for concern for every single person on the planet, is one-button access to the largest consolidated nuclear arsenal the World has ever seen. They want to talk about terrorism? How about "You're not allowed to develop nuclear for peaceful purposes but we'll just keep these multi-megaton warheads pointed at your Capital cities".
Since misprision of crime trumps compartmentalisation? To conceal evidence of a crime behind "military secrets" - remember this shit has already happened - is a penal offence almost as serious as the act itself.
Assange did the American People a favour by exposing what their Government were doing in their name. The Joint Chiefs should all be sacked, all elected officials impeached, house cleaned and a paper election called immediately. And while we're at it, let's have a full and public paper audit of all intelligence services, starting with the CIA.
no; guilt by association is not recognised in common law - the United States is, when all is said and done, a common law jurisdiction.
When the most used maxim in US judicial proceedings, whether military or civilian, is "Balance of Probabilities*" over "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", then it's time to start worrying. The UK is already there.
*Balance of Probabilities: based on the testimony of "experts", in an often biased proceeding, and where the decision is often already made before the "judge" even takes the Bench, a "finding of Fact" is made if the balance moves 1% over either way of the midline. A finding does not even need a witness to events; in fact, a witness is more often than not ignored by the *single "judge"* in favour of the State who pays him. The "judge" is also jury and executioner.
If the United Stated wishes to prosecute Assange under THEIR Laws, then they had damn well better afford him the Rights guaranteed under the Constitution!
Slashdot Mirror
Multitouch trackpads?
Summary fail.
an order cannot be lawful if it is an order to break the law, whether in wartime or in peacetime. Ergo, to bury evidence of a crime pursuant to orders is misprision which is a crime, this case being a crime in two parts: he who gave the order, and he who was expected to obey it. There has been no formal, legal declaration of war, therefore your treason argument is invalid (btw, it would be sedition, not treason, even there is no argument since THE UNITED STATES IS LEGALLY AT WAR WITH NOBODY).
I would suggest you learn the law of the land and the law of war before YOU start spouting about that which you know clearly nothing.
if you read the references, the Briginshaw case is Australia (civil damages case), Plevitz is an Australian academic work, Kinnane was an article in the NYT I believe, Black's Law Dictionary is the definitive reference for legal terminology, and Blackstone's is the Paralegal's Bench Book on English Statute - which includes the criminal code. The different burdens of proof are present in all legal systems where a civilian can bring a case himself.
Given the overstretched nature of the British legal system (I am talking about the courts of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Eire here, although NI and Eire are a slightly different system in that they are constrained by Constitutional Law), most cases, with the exception of the most serious criminal cases such as rape, robbery and murder, are disposed in courtrooms with a single Judge and no jury; where the representation for all parties execute most of the caseload in closed-door meetings out of earshot of the Judge, who is presented with Bench Memoranda and agreed points of "fact", with contested points being argued in front of him.
It is rare that a case not involving rape, robbery or murder will actually take place in front of a jury - the system is stacked against someone who, say, is charged with drug or firearms possession offences who demands a trial by jury, to actually get one. This is entirely a money and time saving exercise, and nothing whatsoever to do with the proper, lawful administration of Justice.
Absent that burden to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt to "Twelve Good Men And True", the burden drops to the Balance of Probabilities (and that burden shifts from the Plaintiff to the Defendant), the case is executed as if it were a normal civil dispute - and the Treasury (usually) finds itself up a few quid.
type-copied from my own collection of legal documents:
Burden of Proof
A duty placed upon a civil or criminal defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact.
Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. But in some jurisdictions, the defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of certain facts that give rise to a defense, such as the insanity plea. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.
Burden of proof can also define the burden of persuasion, or the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed factual issue. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
Judges explain the reasonable doubt standard to jurors in a number of ways. Federal jury instructions provide that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is "proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to act upon it in the most important of his own affairs." State judges typically describe the standard by telling jurors that they possess a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt if, based on all the evidence in the case, they would be uncomfortable with a criminal conviction. In giving the reasonable doubt instruction, judges regularly remind jurors that a criminal conviction imposes a variety of hardships on a defendant, including public humiliation, incarceration, fines, and occasionally the Forfeiture of property. Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in any judicial proceeding.
Reasonable doubt is also a constitutionally mandated burden of proof in criminal proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution prohibit criminal defendants from being convicted on any quantum of evidence less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. in Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 23 L. Ed. 2D 368 (1970). Although the reasonable doubt standard is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, the Court observed that the standard is so deeply rooted in the nation's history as to reflect the fundamental value that "it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."
In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. Both are lower burdens of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree*. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact by a high probability. Criminal trials employ a higher standard of proof because criminal defendants often face the deprivation of life or liberty if convicted while civil defendants generally only face an order to pay money damages if the plaintiff prevails, or in the case of English Family Law (which falls wholly under the civil umbrella), the permanent separation of parents from their children.
*This is also known as the Balance of Probabilities, both terms freely interchangeable.
References:
Briginshaw - Qantas Airways v Gama [2008] FCAFC 69: Branson J: ...which recognises, adopting the language of the High Court in Neat Holdings, that the strength of the evidence necessary to establish a fact in issue on the balance of probabilities will vary according to the nature of what is sought to be proved – and, I would add, the circumstances in which it is sought to be proved.
De Plevitz, L., (2003). 'The Briginshaw 'Standard of Proof' in Anti-di
considering a few things... to defend the Constitution of the United States, soil and citizens against all enemies foreign and domestic (I'm not a member of the US armed forces, I don't know the wording of the Oath)... if the military order him to conceal evidence of crime, then yes, they do become the enemy. The military is a tool, a means to an end. If your screwdriver breaks, you don't carry on using it - you get yourself another one.
The more I involve myself in this thread, the more I read, the clearer things become. I started out rooting for Manning getting the chair, now I'm thinking more along the lines of he did right, by disobeying unlawful orders to conceal that evidence. Assange is unfortunate in that he's the face behind Wikileaks.
If Manning had leaked information pertaining to then-current troop and equipment/munitions movements, you might have a point and I would agree with you.
However, the documents I have read (quite a few) detail civilian casualties in civilian areas of foreign soil where no formal declaration of war aside the sensationalised "War on Terror" exists, by American service personnel using American equipment. That is not activity to be considered normal in the course of a legal war, it is the action of an invading force in the continuing commission of Crimes against Humanity to encompass genocide*. What Manning has done in this case is to disobey unlawful orders to conceal such evidence of crimes committed by United States service personnel and leak same to an organisation that he could trust to get that information "out there" where it would do the most good - rather than it being compartmentalised and buried and allowing the United States to continue committing such crimes with impunity.
*The UN definition of "Genocide" includes but is not limited to the forced relocation of individuals, the forced sterilisation of individuals, the nonlethal harm caused to individuals of any certain class, creed, religion or other belief system, the death of any single member of a specific class, creed, religion or other belief system absent a lawful declaration of war, and harm caused to any cultural bent, whether lethal or not. Genocide does not have to involve the deaths of thousands, it is harm to any single individual.
I'm not surprised. Assange released a bunch of classified military documents detailing crimes committed by elements of the US Military and by legislative and executive branches of same - at a time when two illegal incursions into sovereign territories were going on. Now, a lot of people might disagree with those illegal incursions into sovereign territories and would, therefore, agree with Assange releasing the information. Assange, himself, has said it was his mission to end the illegal incursions into sovereign territories - presumably, he meant that the release of classified US documents would damage the illegal incursions into sovereign territories effort so badly that the US would withdraw.
FTFY
Although, I have to wonder what our response would be if this was the early 1940s, the US was fighting Germany and Japan, and a character named 'Assange' released a bunch of documents relating to the US war effort. Would this be the same thing? Would we label Assange a hero or a traitor if he was degrading the US war effort against enemies which we all hate? I wouldn't be surprised at all if a 1940s-era Assange released this information (he talks about how he'll release anything), and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the US labelled him an enemy of the state, either. I would hope that people's outrage over this didn't seem to hinge on whether or not you agree or disagree with the US war.
There is a difference which you have conveniently omitted - that the United States legally declared war on the Empire of Japan following Pearl. Please adjust your argument accordingly.
snap. Mod insightful.
His Oath was to obey LAWFUL ORDERS. The UCMJ gives latitude for disobeying UNLAWFUL ORDERS. As does every other military code. Knowing complicity in the cover up of a crime is the obedience of an UNLAWFUL ORDER, one that I hope gives Manning room for mitigation.
Citations needed - where is it determined that a specific document being leaked *to* Wikileaks and subsequently published (no harm in specifying the document since it is already in the public domain, people will have seen them anyway) directly caused a specific casualty or casualties?
You're not losing civil rights, you lost them a long time ago; it's only now you're realising that the yoke of Government about your neck is a heavy one.
OK, here's one: in recent years, you can go to jail for calling a black man "nigger". This isn't the Black getting one over on you by "gaining" rights, it's the State getting one over on you by taking it away from you. Give it a few years, and it'll be illegal for the majority Black to call the minority White, a "white trash piece of shit". That won't be the White Man getting one over on the Black, it'll be the State saying to the Black Man, "OK, we fucked the White Man, now it's your turn".
it *is* a citizen of the US. Specifically, a Person Entity. This is why you see New York Times Co. listed as such on civil court documents, instead of specific human beings holding certain positions within the company. That Person Entity has *exactly the same rights and privileges - and responsibilities* - as a flesh-and-blood Human Being with a Soul. If it did not, then it would not be able to be represented in a Court of Law, you wouldn't have such a specific offence as "corporate manslaughter" where a company is sued for money in the event of a wrongful death instead of an individual looking at Death Row for the same thing(!) (to give an extreme example), and you couldn't take an entire State Party to task in the International Criminal Court.
I can't see any way out for Manning. If he did leak compartmentalised material to Assange, the mere fact that he did it makes him culpable under UCMJ and the way that deals with secret information, since by taking the oath to serve the United States and defend Her from all enemies - foreign and domestic - he also agreed to keep Her secrets, he (probably) deserves getting the very substantial book thrown at him. Assange, on the other hand, has broken no US Law that I'm aware of, and I defy the United States Government to publish any evidence it claims to have that he did.
Assange signed no such contract, as far as I am aware. To do so would signify his acceptance of the terms by which he is being made privy to the subject matter, hence by publishing he would then be subject to prescribed penalty. Since he did not, he cannot be prosecuted under UCMJ (anywhere), and since he published details of what would be considered a crime anywhere, committed by certain and possible named members of the US Military and upper officers, then he cannot be prosecuted under any other Law since by reporting he has gained whistleblower status (and deserves the protection which to date only a small South American country has offered him) by turning evidence - albeit for *everyone* to see - of wrongdoing by States Parties in violation of international treaties and Laws.
oh, it far predates that.
Siege of Leningrad. Both sides (Nazi Germany and Russia) guilty of the same thing. The advantage the Russians had was the fact that the Nazis had to maintain long supply lines, while they could operate literally right under their feet. Disable the supply line (with mines and ambush), and drop the first responders. Once you've consolidated a position like that, it's hard to dislodge you, short an air strike - which the Nazis could little afford.
Hollywood goes to great pains to portray enemy combatants engaged in this tactic.
In the movie "Saving Private Ryan", there's a sniper in a building with a Karbiner 98K, taking chunks out of one soldier in the middle of the street and dropping anyone who tries to go help him.
IIRC a similar scene in "Band of Brothers" when they're moving to secure a bridge (episode 3/4?)
Didn't Ed Harris' character do the same thing in "Enemy At The Gate"? If I remember correctly, the British media had joygasms reporting a similar situation in Afghanistan in April; a "Taliban sniper" was apparently picking off members of 3 Bat. Rifles (including taking a sniper out by shooting him in the eye - through his own scope). I don't buy him being a Taliban sniper personally; more likely he was an ex-British Forces sniper gone rogue or freelance (how many British servicemen have actually deserted during this campaign of terror, anyway?) or a local trained in another country (Bosnia?). Back to the movie; isn't it wonderful that Jude Law's character had nothing but one-shot-kills the entire movie? I wonder how the Germans would have portrayed him, had they made the movie instead?
I didn't think India have any nuclear powered boats at all, actually... DLS doesn't list them, although Wikipedia claims they have but a single Akula-class nuclear attack sub on loan from the Russians, and that they previously borrowed a Charlie-class. Their single carrier is an ancient Centaur-class acquired in 1987 as the old British Navy's HMS Hermes.
Has Clancy actually written anything since Op Center? I thought he had a team of ghostwriters doing all the work now?
When the Chinese outnumber the United States, militarily by nearly 2:1 and in terms of raw population, by over 4:1, the only advantage the US has over China is technologically. That said, China easily outperforms the US military-industrial complex in arms production, and with her next door neighbour India (who has the strange habit of aligning with whomever serves her political ambition best - during the Cold War it was the USSR, lately it's been the EU and US) adding another billion or so heads, the US could find herself alone in the World (with the possible exception of her lapdog, the UK) and facing down three billion very angry people.
What the US does have, which should be cause for concern for every single person on the planet, is one-button access to the largest consolidated nuclear arsenal the World has ever seen. They want to talk about terrorism? How about "You're not allowed to develop nuclear for peaceful purposes but we'll just keep these multi-megaton warheads pointed at your Capital cities".
Since misprision of crime trumps compartmentalisation? To conceal evidence of a crime behind "military secrets" - remember this shit has already happened - is a penal offence almost as serious as the act itself.
Assange did the American People a favour by exposing what their Government were doing in their name. The Joint Chiefs should all be sacked, all elected officials impeached, house cleaned and a paper election called immediately. And while we're at it, let's have a full and public paper audit of all intelligence services, starting with the CIA.
Come get me, Obama.
no; guilt by association is not recognised in common law - the United States is, when all is said and done, a common law jurisdiction.
When the most used maxim in US judicial proceedings, whether military or civilian, is "Balance of Probabilities*" over "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", then it's time to start worrying. The UK is already there.
*Balance of Probabilities: based on the testimony of "experts", in an often biased proceeding, and where the decision is often already made before the "judge" even takes the Bench, a "finding of Fact" is made if the balance moves 1% over either way of the midline. A finding does not even need a witness to events; in fact, a witness is more often than not ignored by the *single "judge"* in favour of the State who pays him. The "judge" is also jury and executioner.
If the United Stated wishes to prosecute Assange under THEIR Laws, then they had damn well better afford him the Rights guaranteed under the Constitution!
No, you will die a virgin.
because PET and MRI didn't exist in 1955?
mod up. Slashdot has turned into the tech-head's Fox News.