You destroy someone's tanks and fighters today. Next week you sell them new tanks and fighters. Profits and Chaos are the byproducts of the transaction.
Sorry for the flippant answer. I am sure that whoever replaced Halliburton in controlling the current administration did an analysis that showed deployment of ground troops was not necessary to generate obscene profits.
I completely agree,but I doubt that an order to treat Manning with some respect has been issued. You seem to think I was suggesting that Obama has acted properly in this issue. I think the problem starts at the top, and that military personnel should be refusing to carry out any unlawful orders that violate Manning's rights. State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley who called the conditions of Manning's confinement, "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid," resigned over this affair. Why do you think he would do that? Was it because Obama was telling the public that he had been assured the conditions were necessary, and was doing nothing about it? Obama is part of the problem here.
The Geneva Conventions do not cover how a country deals with traitors, it deals with prisoners of war, which Manning is not. Section IV is titled, "Financial Resources of Prisoners of War", I am not sure how you believe that applies. Americans have been tried and convicted, recently, for mistreating POWs, and that is as it should be. Amnesty International has no standing in the issue. How Manning is treated is a separate issue from what he has done, and those responsible should be held accountable. The prisoners held at Guantanamo are a separate issue, one to which the Geneva Convention does apply, and for which those responsible should be held accountable, all the way to the top in two administrations.
Manning's motivation is not relevant in prosecuting him, his actions establish guilt or innocence. His motivations would be used to determine a more appropriate sentence, and may establish that he is a patriot. You seem to forget that the greatest patriots are traitors, but many traitors are not patriots.
Or you could design for the specific task, putting in only necessary parts, and gain even more efficiency. To use the bicycle analogy of the article, you could design a carbon fiber framed racing bike instead of taking the kickstand off the Schwinn. Even more newsworthy.
Magnitude 9.3, between 9 and 10 PM PST to be precise. The only problem with this evidence is that it didn't exist at the time the Japanese were making their design decisions. The man who put the date on the event said, "There was plenty of respectable scientific opinion at the time that an earthquake of a magnitude-9 was just ludicrous. A tsunami modeler in the late 1980s could not have assumed an earthquake of that magnitude without being called an alarmist or being laughed at." All in the citation.
So, no, they could not have predicted a 9.0 quake.
You can't really criticize the President on that one since the press won't ask the question since the President won't let them ask unscripted questions. Oops.
No they do not. The oath is absolute to the Constitution, but it is conditional to the president and superior officers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, those semicolons make it so. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice following unlawful orders is punishable.
Military personnel take the following oaths:
Upon Enlistment: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
Upon commission, "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."
The United States does not recognize the authority of the International Court of Justice unless it rules in our favor, so what would be the point?
Manning appears to be a traitor, history may vindicate him, but he is still answerable to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Both Germans in WW II and Americans today were/are not obligated by their respective codes to obey unlawful orders. Many Germans refused to obey unlawful orders without consequences, so their "following orders" defense was not compelling.
Manning had no authority to look at the communications he allegedly subsequently divulged. Since he had no reason to believe that they contained information about illegal activities, he was simply snooping in conflict with his lawful orders and he did not have a moral purpose for doing so. His moral purpose may have developed after the fact, but do not confuse that with his initial actions. If he divulged them without examining them, then he can't claim a moral purpose since he would not have known what was in them, and violating his orders and his oath. There is no getting around the fact that he violated legal orders.
Eurocentric nonsense. If it is a global measure why are China, India, United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, and Vietnam not included in your list? All have greater population and some have larger economies, but don't let facts get in the way.
Nixon inspired a lot of people to alter reality to fit their preconceptions.
I believe the real reason was that a portion of the building had been condemned and 3000 of the 7000 occupants had been relocated in 1969. If you have a citation that indicates he was ever stationed there I would like to see it, I thought he was stationed in the South Pacific. The building was an eyesore, neglecting the entrance perhaps, from the time it was built. Your comparison to Mr. Jefferson's home indicate you are not an "architecture buff."
He stated his expectation, you made your statement as a fact. Neither of you know, but stating something that is unknown is lying even when it later turns out to be correct.
I contacted the original developers of those games but they were still being sold a week later.
The question remains, did those developers contact Google in a timely manner? Google responded to his request in two days. I think two days is pretty reasonable. If Google was contacted, we do not know what Google has done. They could be doing something clever, but they are a big company so we aren't supposed to assume anything but incompetence or malice.
The problems of piracy, malware and promotion (discoverability) would exist with or without Google having a store. Baker said of Amazon, "hopefully they can do a better job than Google. They will,... until they don't.
The Tokaimura incident (hand mixing of uranium) has no connection with TEPCO, or with commercial nuclear power. Kei Sugaoka waited eleven years before reporting the incident, two years after he was fired. He may be completely forthcoming in his assessment, but...
The TEPCO official was either mistaken, misquoted or mistranslated. A spent fuel pool is forty feet deep, the bottom of the pool is at ground level (low) in a BWR, the spent fuel is in the bottom third of the pool. Access to the pool is on the top floor of the building, but there is no nuclear waste stored "on the top of the building". Here's a link with a nice description: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/sabotage_and_attacks_on_reactors/spent-reactor-fuel-security.html
If was thinking total loss of water recirculation in the ponds. Let's say "total loss of water in the ponds", whatever the cause.
You can't say what you mean, and I am an asshole for not understanding you? I had thought you might wish to actually understand what is going on. I stand corrected.
Anyway in the US you have the 5th amendment. In most other societies based on common law, you have the right to silence under other names. It's your only right, but it's pretty powerful. All the police can expect from you is your name and address. Period.
In the US you can be charged with perjury for lying under oath, and for obstruction of justice, impeding a criminal investigation, etc. for lying when interrogated. Common law is a English concept, only a few places other than its former colonies recognize the concept. In France you can be compelled to testify, but you can lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence This rule is followed in many of its former colonies.
In the some parts of the world silence is interpreted as admission.
Slashdot Mirror
You destroy someone's tanks and fighters today. Next week you sell them new tanks and fighters. Profits and Chaos are the byproducts of the transaction.
Sorry for the flippant answer. I am sure that whoever replaced Halliburton in controlling the current administration did an analysis that showed deployment of ground troops was not necessary to generate obscene profits.
Courtesy of the NSA.
I completely agree,but I doubt that an order to treat Manning with some respect has been issued. You seem to think I was suggesting that Obama has acted properly in this issue. I think the problem starts at the top, and that military personnel should be refusing to carry out any unlawful orders that violate Manning's rights. State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley who called the conditions of Manning's confinement, "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid," resigned over this affair. Why do you think he would do that? Was it because Obama was telling the public that he had been assured the conditions were necessary, and was doing nothing about it? Obama is part of the problem here.
The Geneva Conventions do not cover how a country deals with traitors, it deals with prisoners of war, which Manning is not. Section IV is titled, "Financial Resources of Prisoners of War", I am not sure how you believe that applies. Americans have been tried and convicted, recently, for mistreating POWs, and that is as it should be. Amnesty International has no standing in the issue. How Manning is treated is a separate issue from what he has done, and those responsible should be held accountable. The prisoners held at Guantanamo are a separate issue, one to which the Geneva Convention does apply, and for which those responsible should be held accountable, all the way to the top in two administrations.
Manning's motivation is not relevant in prosecuting him, his actions establish guilt or innocence. His motivations would be used to determine a more appropriate sentence, and may establish that he is a patriot. You seem to forget that the greatest patriots are traitors, but many traitors are not patriots.
Tsunamis do not happen to gun toting populations. California better get its act together quick!
Your own.
No, if you want authoritative debunking you must consult an ASTROLOGER: http://www.findanastrologer.com/Latest/supermoon-hype
Or you could design for the specific task, putting in only necessary parts, and gain even more efficiency. To use the bicycle analogy of the article, you could design a carbon fiber framed racing bike instead of taking the kickstand off the Schwinn. Even more newsworthy.
obvious or oblivious?
So well known that Wikipedia has had an article on it for almost a week!
Nuclear power plants in the US are designed to withstand the anticipated ground motions. This link http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread674273/pg1 points out the presumed issue, but read the responses. So here's a ridiculously alarmist link for those who lean that direction: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/225939-15-Nuclear-Reactors-on-New-Madrid-Fault-Line
Magnitude 9.3, between 9 and 10 PM PST to be precise. The only problem with this evidence is that it didn't exist at the time the Japanese were making their design decisions. The man who put the date on the event said, "There was plenty of respectable scientific opinion at the time that an earthquake of a magnitude-9 was just ludicrous. A tsunami modeler in the late 1980s could not have assumed an earthquake of that magnitude without being called an alarmist or being laughed at." All in the citation.
So, no, they could not have predicted a 9.0 quake.
Thanks Iowa. Primaries are now their #1 industry and look what kind of shit they turn out.
You can't really criticize the President on that one since the press won't ask the question since the President won't let them ask unscripted questions. Oops.
No they do not. The oath is absolute to the Constitution, but it is conditional to the president and superior officers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, those semicolons make it so. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice following unlawful orders is punishable.
Military personnel take the following oaths:
Upon Enlistment: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
Upon commission, "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."
The United States does not recognize the authority of the International Court of Justice unless it rules in our favor, so what would be the point?
Manning appears to be a traitor, history may vindicate him, but he is still answerable to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Both Germans in WW II and Americans today were/are not obligated by their respective codes to obey unlawful orders. Many Germans refused to obey unlawful orders without consequences, so their "following orders" defense was not compelling.
Manning had no authority to look at the communications he allegedly subsequently divulged. Since he had no reason to believe that they contained information about illegal activities, he was simply snooping in conflict with his lawful orders and he did not have a moral purpose for doing so. His moral purpose may have developed after the fact, but do not confuse that with his initial actions. If he divulged them without examining them, then he can't claim a moral purpose since he would not have known what was in them, and violating his orders and his oath. There is no getting around the fact that he violated legal orders.
Eurocentric nonsense. If it is a global measure why are China, India, United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, and Vietnam not included in your list? All have greater population and some have larger economies, but don't let facts get in the way.
I think France knows to stay out of the fight, surrendering to Libya would accomplish nothing.
Nixon inspired a lot of people to alter reality to fit their preconceptions.
I believe the real reason was that a portion of the building had been condemned and 3000 of the 7000 occupants had been relocated in 1969. If you have a citation that indicates he was ever stationed there I would like to see it, I thought he was stationed in the South Pacific. The building was an eyesore, neglecting the entrance perhaps, from the time it was built. Your comparison to Mr. Jefferson's home indicate you are not an "architecture buff."
Nixon entered office in 1969 demolition began in the spring of 1970 and was completed in 1970 That's not two years even with rounding.
Someday he will be the patron saint of the nuclear power industry.
He stated his expectation, you made your statement as a fact. Neither of you know, but stating something that is unknown is lying even when it later turns out to be correct.
I contacted the original developers of those games but they were still being sold a week later.
The question remains, did those developers contact Google in a timely manner? Google responded to his request in two days. I think two days is pretty reasonable. If Google was contacted, we do not know what Google has done. They could be doing something clever, but they are a big company so we aren't supposed to assume anything but incompetence or malice.
The problems of piracy, malware and promotion (discoverability) would exist with or without Google having a store. Baker said of Amazon, "hopefully they can do a better job than Google. They will, ... until they don't.
The Tokaimura incident (hand mixing of uranium) has no connection with TEPCO, or with commercial nuclear power. Kei Sugaoka waited eleven years before reporting the incident, two years after he was fired. He may be completely forthcoming in his assessment, but ...
If was thinking total loss of water recirculation in the ponds. Let's say "total loss of water in the ponds", whatever the cause.
You can't say what you mean, and I am an asshole for not understanding you? I had thought you might wish to actually understand what is going on. I stand corrected.
Anyway in the US you have the 5th amendment. In most other societies based on common law, you have the right to silence under other names. It's your only right, but it's pretty powerful. All the police can expect from you is your name and address. Period.
In the US you can be charged with perjury for lying under oath, and for obstruction of justice, impeding a criminal investigation, etc. for lying when interrogated. Common law is a English concept, only a few places other than its former colonies recognize the concept. In France you can be compelled to testify, but you can lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence This rule is followed in many of its former colonies. In the some parts of the world silence is interpreted as admission.