No one is claiming the Russians were altruistic. However it has not been proven that Wikileaks's sources were Russian nor that Wikileaks is under Russian influence. Apparently key Democrat email addresses were vulnerable to script kiddy attacks, not sophisticated state level hacking required.
If Republicans had been similarly lax with their security they would have been exposed too. Where "lax" could refer to securing email communications or not typing incriminating things into emails in the first place.
More importantly, what could have been possibly found in Republican emails that would have been more damaging than what was being said in public and on twitter by candidate Trump. Any exposed emails would likely be tamer than things said publicly by Trump.
Plus its not like the emails actually revealed much and changed many minds. It was already plainly obvious that the press was on Hillary's side, that the DNC was trying to derail Bernie, etc. The emails merely confirmed what many were already believing.
Hillary lost because of a crap/missing economic message. Blue collar union workers did not shift their votes because of email revelations that were just one more piece of sleaze in a long line of sleaze going back decades for the Clintons and the DNC. These "forgotten" workers are where Hillary lost, not because of the Russians.
Referring to the National Geographic channel documentary ("America vs Iraq" ?) which interviewed many American and Iraq principals...
To begin with the war was based on a lie. So if not WMD...
Saddam and various Iraqi political and military officials have confirmed that Iraq secretly held WMD in violation of the first gulf war cease fire and UN agreements. They also admit bio and chemical research programs, however these were small scale and made little progress. A nuclear program was also continued in a covert planning sense and it was estimated to need 18-24 months to get up to speed from its current state (mostly planning on paper). One official said that Iraq had approximately 80 chemical rockets that could hit Tehran, Iran.
The Iraqi military officials then went on to say that Saddam eventually became concerned the US would discover the above and ordered it all destroyed. However he ordered that it all be **secretly** destroyed, no paper trail. He feared the papers could leak and prove Iraq was in violation. Plus Saddam wanted the Iranians to suspect he had something to keep them at bay.
So yes Iraq was technically free of WMD at the time of the invasion, but scraps of evidence of WMD programs were legitimate. Saddam was successful at hiding the destruction of his hidden caches and hidden programs. He wanted the US and more importantly Iran to keep guessing, unfortunately he could not predict the US' post-911 intolerance of not knowing for sure.
But anyway, after the invasion, Col. Ted Spain was the guy in charge of law & order, he seems like a great resource: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s deployment plans. They didn’t include an adequate number of military police to control the routes during the ground war, and then we didn’t have sufficient military police to control the streets after the ground war.
True, but that seems to refer to the US providing all security. As in past wars the pentagon was expecting the Iraqi army to provide manpower. At the end of WW2 surrendered german military were used to help control traffic and the streets, to pick out the die hards trying to hide among ordinary civilians and soldiers, to conduct searches of German civilian homes, confiscating weapons, etc. In the Pacific surrendered Imperial Japanese troops were used to police some territories until a functional local government could be elected and established.
Plus Bremer was being repeatedly warned by Iraqi political leaders and former military to put "the men" on the US payroll to keep them from becoming angry and desperate.
... The Coalition Provisional Authority, under the leadership of L. Paul Bremer III, dismantled the Iraqi Army, and the highest level of the Baath Party. Under Saddam Hussein, the highest ranks could only belong to Baath Party members, so we lost some of the most experienced personnel that were so vital in putting Iraq back together again...
My understanding is that the original pentagon plan was to remove various officers with personal connections to Saddam, atrocities, etc. While this may decimate the upper most ranks it was thought it would only minimally impact NCOs and lower ranks of officers. Allowing these NCOs and lower ranking officers to remain in command of the troops. The Iraq officers would essential receive their instructions from US officers.
However Bremer rejected this plan because he wanted the symbolism of Saddam's army being completely "destroyed" and a new army created. Unfortunately the insurgency began in earnest with days of the army's dismissal.
Abu Ghraib certainly accelerated the insurgency, but it was the second major acceleration. The first major acceleration being the dismissal of the army. A valuable and wasted resource for the US.
No matter who took or was given power in Iraq there would have been an insurgency.
A token one, some Saddam diehards. Not enough to effect the direction of the nation. For that wide scale involvement in the insurgency was necessary and dismissal of the army was the key precipitating event. Bombings and US casualties immediately jumped after the dismissal, within days. Also note that once the "army" was "sort of" reformed in the sense that the sunni and other militias were put on the US payroll to fight al-Quaeda in Iraq (proto-ISIS) insurgent activity dropped significantly.
If they had such an option they would probably want to return to a point in time to prevent Bremer from disbanding the Iraqi army and delaying Iraqi's from taking control of the government. These two decisions by Bremer, a career diplomat who served numerous administrations, essentially started the insurgency and created an opportunity for al-Queda in Iraq.
Bremer says those weren't his decisions.
Absolutely false according to a National Geographic channel documentary ("American vs Iraq" ?) that was interviewing many American and Iraqi principals.
The military and white house plan was to use the Iraqi army. The day before the army dismissal Bremer had a call with Bush pleading the case for dismissal , Bush responded something to the effect: You're the person on the scene so if you think it is necessary. The Pentagon was not happy.
With respect to pushing back the timeframe of turning over the government to Iraqis the white house and pentagon were completely taken by surprise by Bremer's announcement of days, learning of it only through the newspaper stories covering Bremer's announcement. It was in response to Bremer's actions and to prevent more delays that Bush declared a date for the government turnover. Bremer was strongly against allowing Iraqi's to vote early on, he didn't think they were "ready". To counter Bremer the Iraqi's turned to the United Nations to get election scheduled at an earlier date and there was some progress but it all ended with an al-Quaeda attack on the UN compound with caused the UN to withdraw from Iraq.
Right, because Americans would never have trolled Hillary. And the Democrats would never have trolled Trump. Sorry, if you lose an election to Trump or you lose an election due to trolling, then you are truly a pathetic candidate. If you lose to Trump and its because of trolling you must be the most pathetic political candidate ever, which leads to you never having had a chance to begin with, so there was no outcome that the Russians could possibly have changed.
Nutsign detected: vague non-specific claims with "Google it" instead of providing links to corroborating evidence.
No. Some of us are old enough to remember and its only the "kiddies" who need to Google things. Some of the top links for Clinton and Chinese donations.
"The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.
While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe invited the Chinese businessman whose donations to him have been named as a focus of Justice Department investigators to a 2013 fundraiser at Hillary Clinton's personal Washington, D.C., residence.
Wang Wenliang, a Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency, briefly shook Clinton’s hand at the Sept. 30 event, a representative for Wang told TIME. An American company controlled by Wang made a $60,000 contribution to McAuliffe’s campaign three weeks before the fundraiser. Less than a month later, a separate Wang company pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the first of several donations that eventually totaled $2 million." http://time.com/4348675/terry-...
"Ng, a Macau businessman with ties to the Chinese government, was accused of funneling over $1 million in illegal foreign donations to support Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996.
"Ng, a Macau businessman with ties to the Chinese government, was accused of funneling over $1 million in illegal foreign donations to support Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996... According to congressional investigators, Ng laundered the illegal campaign donations through a close Clinton associate in Arkansas named Charlie Trie during the 1996 election." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
The Russians have been interfering for decades, hell in Europe the Green parties received huge amounts of funding from the Soviets back in the day. In the 90s the Chinese were working hard to funnel money secretly to the Clinton campaign.
And despite all the interference all the US intelligence agencies agree. There is no evidence that votes were tampered with; nor the outcomes of the election changed.
And even from Hillary, there is no dispute that the damaging emails were fake, merely that they were stolen.
I've always wondered, if the Iraqi people had the choice to go back in time and keep Saddam and his progeny instead of what they have now, would they? At the time they seemed very happy when he was removed.
If they had such an option they would probably want to return to a point in time to prevent Bremer from disbanding the Iraqi army and delaying Iraqi's from taking control of the government. These two decisions by Bremer, a career diplomat who served numerous administrations, essentially started the insurgency and created an opportunity for al-Queda in Iraq.
The generals and the White House had originally planned on using the Iraqi army to maintain security and law and order; and getting elections going as soon as possible to create a new constitution and government.
The problem with Iraq wasn't really the invasion, it was the occupation that followed.
In the minds of many fly-by-wire was also removing the pilots, having the computer fly the aircraft. However after decades of use in military aviation the general public accepted it for passenger aviation. The complete removal of pilots will likely follow a similar adoption, it will need to have a highly successful decades long history of use in military aviation first.
Plus, even with removal of human pilots from the aircraft there may be the capability to remotely pilot the aircraft.
What windscreens or windows? Everyone will get a display that can be configured to show forward, side, rear, etc cameras. Windscreens/windows add complexity and cost.
My point is that he would not have been denied a jury trial given the charge.
Nasty of you to try to twist it another way just to cheer for a convicted felon just because he's a member of your political tribe.
Actually he is not part of my political tribe. I'm just being objective. You were simply wrong about Petraeus having a jury. As many are wrong that a jury is always available, as many are wrong that some rights can not be voluntarily waived through contract with the government (military enlistment, security clearance, etc.)
new NSA contractor and Manning released the classified information to the public.
No - to an American journalist each time and not directly to the public.
Leaked to a journalist with the intent of the information going public.
Petraeus leaked it to a journalist as well. Distracting with reserve ranks and so on is just dishonest - she was not cleared for the information and she was working in the capacity of a journalist and not in the capacity of a military officer with a right to the information.
Hence his guilty plea, yet the simple truth is that she had no intention to pass the information on to the public. She was working as a co-author on his bio. Very different circumstances. A very poor analogy for the current NSA contractor.
No, parent is more correct than you. Unintentional disclosure is incompetence.
The disclosure to the press was not unintentional and my point that the motivation for the disclosure is irrelevant stands.
It's espionage when the other person is an agent of a foreign government who does not have a clearance as part of an intelligence sharing agreement that covers the information in question.
You are mistaken, there is no requirement for the recipient to be a foreign agent.
"The Espionage Act of 1917 was passed, along with the Trading with the Enemy Act, just after the United States entered World War I in April 1917. It was based on the Defense Secrets Act of 1911, especially the notions of obtaining or delivering information relating to "national defense" to a person who was not "entitled to have it""
"It made it a crime: To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From your apology for a real felony far greater than anything people have imagined about Hillary's email, and for the most base of motives, you have made it extremely clear how partisan you are.
Manning was guilty of far less, leaked far less sensitive material and had far purer motives yet spent years imprisoned.
Sorry, the partisanship is demonstrated by you in your equating these cases. This new NSA contractor and Manning released the classified information to the public. Petraeus leaked it to a fellow Army officer working on his biography, a biography that would go through a Pentagon approval process. Still wrong, but nothing like the two public disclosures.
So he did absolutely nothing wrong?
Then why was he fired, why did it go to court and why was he found guilty?
He plead guilty to misdemeanor mishandling, obviously he did some wrong. However it was nothing like this new NSA contractor's case and you were absolutely wrong regarding Petraeus having had a jury trial.
He shared it to a journalist for sex you tool.
It's astonishing how partisan people are getting here now.
That "journalist" was a long term lover (mistress) who was also a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve with a security clearance who was working on his biography. Such biographies go through a Pentagon approval process to avoid accidental disclosures of classified information. And again, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor mishandling so there was no trial.
The two situations are nothing alike.
You might want to re-think who is being the partisan here.
Petraeus did the same only with far more sensitive material and he had a jury.
Petraeus plead guilty, there was no trial, no jury. He also mishandled information by sharing it with someone who was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army and possessed a security clearance, that is quite different than sharing it with the press.
But in this case, they'd be trying to determine if it was whistleblowing vs leaking. If there are legitimate (not necessarily encoded-in-law) reasons for the disclosure, then the jury should be able to hear them to allow for possible nullification.
Whistle blowing doesn't mean you can give the info to just anyone. A proper whistle blowing channel for her would have been to contact Congress.
yes, it does matter. You have accidental death, manslaughter, murder and murder 1 in the USA all differentiated on what you intended and why you did it.
Indeed the jury has to derermine whether the law was INTENDED to cover the case at all, no matter what the wording of the law says, it's WHY there is a jury nullification.
And if the reason for doing it is irrelevant, then there's no such thing as espionage, just leaking confidential information. That you did it for a foreign power you are in thrall to is irrelevant, because that's merely WHY you did it, not WHAT you did. She could just say "Not guilty" because the charge is being a spy. And since she's not, she's not guilty. If asked "did you leak information", then this isn't a charge of being a spy, so is irrelevant and doesn't have to be answered. "Did you give russians confidential information at their behest" is what being a spy is, but she didn't do that. And "Trying to harm the US" isn't spying, and is still another "why you did it" that is, apparently, irrelevant.
Poor analogy. The legal concept of intent requires knowing the person's motivation to distinguish between these various forms of death. However in the case of this NSA contractor's alleged crime intent only involves whether or not she intentionally gave the information to a journalist.
"Was the killing intentional?" requires info regarding motivation.
"Was the disclosure intentional?" does not require info regarding motivation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Just what don't you understand about the word "unalienable"? The government doesn't have the authority to construct a contract that waives your right to fair trial.
Your citation omitted "... that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". A "fair trial", the protection of "Liberty", is generally considered one that presumes innocence and follows a "due process". That "due process" is not necessarily one that involves a jury for example. And the rules and details of that "due process", and also what is or is not a crime, can vary considerably by signing a contract with the US government. For example when you exchange normal civil law when you voluntarily join the military and become subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice rather than normal civil law. In effect you have waived some of the protection and privileges of civil law. Similarly some protections and privileges are waived when one voluntarily seeks and acquires a security clearance.
The Intercept is foreign? Have we really reached a level of Russiafication of the US now that American journalists are considered foreign, presumably because they're not Russian?
I thought Greenwald was UK for some reason, probably because of his work for The Guardian.
Slashdot Mirror
No one is claiming the Russians were altruistic. However it has not been proven that Wikileaks's sources were Russian nor that Wikileaks is under Russian influence. Apparently key Democrat email addresses were vulnerable to script kiddy attacks, not sophisticated state level hacking required.
If Republicans had been similarly lax with their security they would have been exposed too. Where "lax" could refer to securing email communications or not typing incriminating things into emails in the first place.
More importantly, what could have been possibly found in Republican emails that would have been more damaging than what was being said in public and on twitter by candidate Trump. Any exposed emails would likely be tamer than things said publicly by Trump.
Plus its not like the emails actually revealed much and changed many minds. It was already plainly obvious that the press was on Hillary's side, that the DNC was trying to derail Bernie, etc. The emails merely confirmed what many were already believing.
Hillary lost because of a crap/missing economic message. Blue collar union workers did not shift their votes because of email revelations that were just one more piece of sleaze in a long line of sleaze going back decades for the Clintons and the DNC. These "forgotten" workers are where Hillary lost, not because of the Russians.
To begin with the war was based on a lie. So if not WMD ...
Saddam and various Iraqi political and military officials have confirmed that Iraq secretly held WMD in violation of the first gulf war cease fire and UN agreements. They also admit bio and chemical research programs, however these were small scale and made little progress. A nuclear program was also continued in a covert planning sense and it was estimated to need 18-24 months to get up to speed from its current state (mostly planning on paper). One official said that Iraq had approximately 80 chemical rockets that could hit Tehran, Iran.
The Iraqi military officials then went on to say that Saddam eventually became concerned the US would discover the above and ordered it all destroyed. However he ordered that it all be **secretly** destroyed, no paper trail. He feared the papers could leak and prove Iraq was in violation. Plus Saddam wanted the Iranians to suspect he had something to keep them at bay.
So yes Iraq was technically free of WMD at the time of the invasion, but scraps of evidence of WMD programs were legitimate. Saddam was successful at hiding the destruction of his hidden caches and hidden programs. He wanted the US and more importantly Iran to keep guessing, unfortunately he could not predict the US' post-911 intolerance of not knowing for sure.
But anyway, after the invasion, Col. Ted Spain was the guy in charge of law & order, he seems like a great resource: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s deployment plans. They didn’t include an adequate number of military police to control the routes during the ground war, and then we didn’t have sufficient military police to control the streets after the ground war.
True, but that seems to refer to the US providing all security. As in past wars the pentagon was expecting the Iraqi army to provide manpower. At the end of WW2 surrendered german military were used to help control traffic and the streets, to pick out the die hards trying to hide among ordinary civilians and soldiers, to conduct searches of German civilian homes, confiscating weapons, etc. In the Pacific surrendered Imperial Japanese troops were used to police some territories until a functional local government could be elected and established.
Plus Bremer was being repeatedly warned by Iraqi political leaders and former military to put "the men" on the US payroll to keep them from becoming angry and desperate.
... The Coalition Provisional Authority, under the leadership of L. Paul Bremer III, dismantled the Iraqi Army, and the highest level of the Baath Party. Under Saddam Hussein, the highest ranks could only belong to Baath Party members, so we lost some of the most experienced personnel that were so vital in putting Iraq back together again ...
My understanding is that the original pentagon plan was to remove various officers with personal connections to Saddam, atrocities, etc. While this may decimate the upper most ranks it was thought it would only minimally impact NCOs and lower ranks of officers. Allowing these NCOs and lower ranking officers to remain in command of the troops. The Iraq officers would essential receive their instructions from US officers.
However Bremer rejected this plan because he wanted the symbolism of Saddam's army being completely "destroyed" and a new army created. Unfortunately the insurgency began in earnest with days of the army's dismissal.
Abu Ghraib certainly accelerated the insurgency, but it was the second major acceleration. The first major acceleration being the dismissal of the army. A valuable and wasted resource for the US.
No matter who took or was given power in Iraq there would have been an insurgency.
A token one, some Saddam diehards. Not enough to effect the direction of the nation. For that wide scale involvement in the insurgency was necessary and dismissal of the army was the key precipitating event. Bombings and US casualties immediately jumped after the dismissal, within days. Also note that once the "army" was "sort of" reformed in the sense that the sunni and other militias were put on the US payroll to fight al-Quaeda in Iraq (proto-ISIS) insurgent activity dropped significantly.
If they had such an option they would probably want to return to a point in time to prevent Bremer from disbanding the Iraqi army and delaying Iraqi's from taking control of the government. These two decisions by Bremer, a career diplomat who served numerous administrations, essentially started the insurgency and created an opportunity for al-Queda in Iraq.
Bremer says those weren't his decisions.
Absolutely false according to a National Geographic channel documentary ("American vs Iraq" ?) that was interviewing many American and Iraqi principals.
The military and white house plan was to use the Iraqi army. The day before the army dismissal Bremer had a call with Bush pleading the case for dismissal , Bush responded something to the effect: You're the person on the scene so if you think it is necessary. The Pentagon was not happy.
With respect to pushing back the timeframe of turning over the government to Iraqis the white house and pentagon were completely taken by surprise by Bremer's announcement of days, learning of it only through the newspaper stories covering Bremer's announcement. It was in response to Bremer's actions and to prevent more delays that Bush declared a date for the government turnover. Bremer was strongly against allowing Iraqi's to vote early on, he didn't think they were "ready". To counter Bremer the Iraqi's turned to the United Nations to get election scheduled at an earlier date and there was some progress but it all ended with an al-Quaeda attack on the UN compound with caused the UN to withdraw from Iraq.
Chalabi and other Chenney friends came later.
Right, because Americans would never have trolled Hillary. And the Democrats would never have trolled Trump. Sorry, if you lose an election to Trump or you lose an election due to trolling, then you are truly a pathetic candidate. If you lose to Trump and its because of trolling you must be the most pathetic political candidate ever, which leads to you never having had a chance to begin with, so there was no outcome that the Russians could possibly have changed.
Nutsign detected: vague non-specific claims with "Google it" instead of providing links to corroborating evidence.
No. Some of us are old enough to remember and its only the "kiddies" who need to Google things. Some of the top links for Clinton and Chinese donations.
... According to congressional investigators, Ng laundered the illegal campaign donations through a close Clinton associate in Arkansas named Charlie Trie during the 1996 election."
"The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.
While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe invited the Chinese businessman whose donations to him have been named as a focus of Justice Department investigators to a 2013 fundraiser at Hillary Clinton's personal Washington, D.C., residence. Wang Wenliang, a Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency, briefly shook Clinton’s hand at the Sept. 30 event, a representative for Wang told TIME. An American company controlled by Wang made a $60,000 contribution to McAuliffe’s campaign three weeks before the fundraiser. Less than a month later, a separate Wang company pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the first of several donations that eventually totaled $2 million."
http://time.com/4348675/terry-...
"Ng, a Macau businessman with ties to the Chinese government, was accused of funneling over $1 million in illegal foreign donations to support Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996. "Ng, a Macau businessman with ties to the Chinese government, was accused of funneling over $1 million in illegal foreign donations to support Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
The Russians have been interfering for decades, hell in Europe the Green parties received huge amounts of funding from the Soviets back in the day. In the 90s the Chinese were working hard to funnel money secretly to the Clinton campaign.
And despite all the interference all the US intelligence agencies agree. There is no evidence that votes were tampered with; nor the outcomes of the election changed.
And even from Hillary, there is no dispute that the damaging emails were fake, merely that they were stolen.
I've always wondered, if the Iraqi people had the choice to go back in time and keep Saddam and his progeny instead of what they have now, would they? At the time they seemed very happy when he was removed.
If they had such an option they would probably want to return to a point in time to prevent Bremer from disbanding the Iraqi army and delaying Iraqi's from taking control of the government. These two decisions by Bremer, a career diplomat who served numerous administrations, essentially started the insurgency and created an opportunity for al-Queda in Iraq.
The generals and the White House had originally planned on using the Iraqi army to maintain security and law and order; and getting elections going as soon as possible to create a new constitution and government.
The problem with Iraq wasn't really the invasion, it was the occupation that followed.
The military has been using remote piloted and autonomous drones for a while now.
I was referring to top tier fighters and bombers. Current drones and RPV seem to mostly be of a lesser tier of aircraft.
I don't know of any auto-takeoff ...
F/A-18 carrier launches.
i'm still stupefied as to why the MTA (NYC Subway etc) and other cities trains still run things completely manually.
Government employee unions with a sympathetic city government.
In the minds of many fly-by-wire was also removing the pilots, having the computer fly the aircraft. However after decades of use in military aviation the general public accepted it for passenger aviation. The complete removal of pilots will likely follow a similar adoption, it will need to have a highly successful decades long history of use in military aviation first.
Plus, even with removal of human pilots from the aircraft there may be the capability to remotely pilot the aircraft.
What windscreens or windows? Everyone will get a display that can be configured to show forward, side, rear, etc cameras. Windscreens/windows add complexity and cost.
You realize the HAL 9000 murdered all its crew and passengers? ;-)
My point is that he would not have been denied a jury trial given the charge. Nasty of you to try to twist it another way just to cheer for a convicted felon just because he's a member of your political tribe.
Actually he is not part of my political tribe. I'm just being objective. You were simply wrong about Petraeus having a jury. As many are wrong that a jury is always available, as many are wrong that some rights can not be voluntarily waived through contract with the government (military enlistment, security clearance, etc.)
No - to an American journalist each time and not directly to the public.
Leaked to a journalist with the intent of the information going public.
Petraeus leaked it to a journalist as well. Distracting with reserve ranks and so on is just dishonest - she was not cleared for the information and she was working in the capacity of a journalist and not in the capacity of a military officer with a right to the information.
Hence his guilty plea, yet the simple truth is that she had no intention to pass the information on to the public. She was working as a co-author on his bio. Very different circumstances. A very poor analogy for the current NSA contractor.
No, parent is more correct than you. Unintentional disclosure is incompetence.
The disclosure to the press was not unintentional and my point that the motivation for the disclosure is irrelevant stands.
It's espionage when the other person is an agent of a foreign government who does not have a clearance as part of an intelligence sharing agreement that covers the information in question.
You are mistaken, there is no requirement for the recipient to be a foreign agent.
"The Espionage Act of 1917 was passed, along with the Trading with the Enemy Act, just after the United States entered World War I in April 1917. It was based on the Defense Secrets Act of 1911, especially the notions of obtaining or delivering information relating to "national defense" to a person who was not "entitled to have it""
"It made it a crime: To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From your apology for a real felony far greater than anything people have imagined about Hillary's email, and for the most base of motives, you have made it extremely clear how partisan you are. Manning was guilty of far less, leaked far less sensitive material and had far purer motives yet spent years imprisoned.
Sorry, the partisanship is demonstrated by you in your equating these cases. This new NSA contractor and Manning released the classified information to the public. Petraeus leaked it to a fellow Army officer working on his biography, a biography that would go through a Pentagon approval process. Still wrong, but nothing like the two public disclosures.
So he did absolutely nothing wrong? Then why was he fired, why did it go to court and why was he found guilty?
He plead guilty to misdemeanor mishandling, obviously he did some wrong. However it was nothing like this new NSA contractor's case and you were absolutely wrong regarding Petraeus having had a jury trial.
He shared it to a journalist for sex you tool. It's astonishing how partisan people are getting here now.
That "journalist" was a long term lover (mistress) who was also a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve with a security clearance who was working on his biography. Such biographies go through a Pentagon approval process to avoid accidental disclosures of classified information. And again, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor mishandling so there was no trial.
The two situations are nothing alike.
You might want to re-think who is being the partisan here.
Petraeus did the same only with far more sensitive material and he had a jury.
Petraeus plead guilty, there was no trial, no jury. He also mishandled information by sharing it with someone who was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army and possessed a security clearance, that is quite different than sharing it with the press.
But in this case, they'd be trying to determine if it was whistleblowing vs leaking. If there are legitimate (not necessarily encoded-in-law) reasons for the disclosure, then the jury should be able to hear them to allow for possible nullification.
Whistle blowing doesn't mean you can give the info to just anyone. A proper whistle blowing channel for her would have been to contact Congress.
yes, it does matter. You have accidental death, manslaughter, murder and murder 1 in the USA all differentiated on what you intended and why you did it.
Indeed the jury has to derermine whether the law was INTENDED to cover the case at all, no matter what the wording of the law says, it's WHY there is a jury nullification.
And if the reason for doing it is irrelevant, then there's no such thing as espionage, just leaking confidential information. That you did it for a foreign power you are in thrall to is irrelevant, because that's merely WHY you did it, not WHAT you did. She could just say "Not guilty" because the charge is being a spy. And since she's not, she's not guilty. If asked "did you leak information", then this isn't a charge of being a spy, so is irrelevant and doesn't have to be answered. "Did you give russians confidential information at their behest" is what being a spy is, but she didn't do that. And "Trying to harm the US" isn't spying, and is still another "why you did it" that is, apparently, irrelevant.
Poor analogy. The legal concept of intent requires knowing the person's motivation to distinguish between these various forms of death. However in the case of this NSA contractor's alleged crime intent only involves whether or not she intentionally gave the information to a journalist.
"Was the killing intentional?" requires info regarding motivation.
"Was the disclosure intentional?" does not require info regarding motivation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Just what don't you understand about the word "unalienable"? The government doesn't have the authority to construct a contract that waives your right to fair trial.
Your citation omitted "... that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". A "fair trial", the protection of "Liberty", is generally considered one that presumes innocence and follows a "due process". That "due process" is not necessarily one that involves a jury for example. And the rules and details of that "due process", and also what is or is not a crime, can vary considerably by signing a contract with the US government. For example when you exchange normal civil law when you voluntarily join the military and become subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice rather than normal civil law. In effect you have waived some of the protection and privileges of civil law. Similarly some protections and privileges are waived when one voluntarily seeks and acquires a security clearance.
The Intercept is foreign? Have we really reached a level of Russiafication of the US now that American journalists are considered foreign, presumably because they're not Russian?
I thought Greenwald was UK for some reason, probably because of his work for The Guardian.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books.
Exposing hidden evidence of a foreign power attacking US voting machines? Whistleblowing works for me.
Whistle blowing would be going to Congress, not the foreign press.