The first thing you can imagine the officer asked was, "What's a domain?"

I get it! Cops are all dumb, lazy, and technically illiterate!

Seriously, everyone. I know we all resent cops, but to imply that a whole department can't find a single officer who knows what a domain is is ridiculous and insulting. Let's try to keep our government/authority-hate at least sort of grounded in reality.

Who can argue against that?

Probably a corporate-backed lawyer arguing in front of a friendly, corporate-backed judge. Quite successfully, I imagine.

Yeah, I wonder how long it'll be before the first person dresses in a full-body Clippy suit and goes to troll the stores. I want video!

Just to be pedantic, it was actually the Commander (Armstrong) who actually flew the LM to the surface, not the misnomered LMP, who mainly monitored things and called out warnings and readings. So if anyone said P66 (which the transcript doesn't indicate literally happened), it was more likely the Commander, who would've entered the program. The transcript has Armstrong saying "I'm going to..." when he goes into P66.

If they're so inclined (i.e. if the public reaction is great enough), couldn't they re-try on more appropriate charges?

It probably has to do with the fact that, generally, MIA soldiers are identified publicly by the DoDâ"at least after a while. Once the Pentagon's gone public, there's no reason not to report on it. This sort of goes to my problem with some of the "double standard" replies here: It's true that the media tend to report widely on kidnapping victims when they're not kidnapped by terrorists, but instead by rapists or murderers or just plain crazy folk. I'm uncomfortable with the scope of some of this reporting, but it has a positive function in that it might just help people recognize a kidnap victim. Just like Amber Alerts. Now, the rules should change when terrorists are doing the kidnapping. Many Middle Eastern terrorists have shown a clear pattern of kidnapping, hyping, hyping, threatening, hyping, and then killing their captive, all for publicity and political ends. If the hype and publicity are denied them, they might not cross the line into killing. They're after a fundamentally different thing from what non-terrorists are after. Of course, part of the decision here was that it was a reporter, and the media like to protect their own for obvious and understandable reasons of human emotion; and sometimes (though not always) the media report on terrorist hostages even when it's detrimental to the hostages' interests, but what the Times did here was probably the right thing.

Now that Michael Jackson is dead, who will rear the children?