Hollywood certainly has had no problem making the US Military look like boobs in any number of films. I think it's only the movies where they need to use fighter jets, or tanks and the like, that they need to play nice.
Mod this up. I know one large pharmaceutical company that requires dual logins (i.e. two sysadmins) to do anything out of the ordinary - and everything is logged. Why the f-ing NSA can't do this is beyond me.
Thanks Linus, but I think it's an established rule that you can't go releasing new versions of software until the ridicule surrounding your last release has died down. How else are we going to get stories for
I think this is the first time I've noticed a post moderated -1, Insightful.
It's a 42 megapixel nude Assange selfie. Please, in the name of all that is blessed and holy, DO NOT LET THE KEY BE RELEASED! It can only bring tears.
Instant Runoff Elections solve this dilemma.
They should enlist the aid of the National Security Agency. Nobody can steal data from that place.
I can't comment on the capability of their optical sensors, but regarding the windows, how well do you see details when they're 8 football fields away?
I don't even know what you're talking about. Not only did I not mention anything being 'Top Secret', I didn't even characterize what he leaked. You must've been waiting to make that Top Secret point, but pulled the trigger in the wrong place.
Did I say anything about an official methodology? Um, no. It appears that you're seeing things that are not there.
Leaking happens all the time without people getting caught. Journalists have often gone to jail to protect their sources.
To explain is not to excuse. Don't read more into people's comments than is there.
Try to post a screen gab that shows children in the helicopter footage. You won't be able to because the children were inside a van. Therefore, you clearly are remembering things that are not there.
"Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, in an interview with Assange, dropped his rightwing-blowhard persona momentarily to make a serious point, calling the edited version 'emotional manipulation'".
And Manning specifically requested a single judge rather than a panel.
In this case there is no constitutional issue, so it doesn't matter.
Yes, and a situation like this is specifically anticipated. There exists the concept of an 'unlawful order'. If an officer orders a soldier to carry out an unlawful order (e.g. "kill this child"), not only can the soldier refuse to carry out the order, but he is duty bound not to carry it out.
Now, here's the thing. If the soldier refuses to carry out the order, the officer can have him court martialed. But he will argue that it was an unlawful order and *should* get off. Of course, all the inherent limitations of a trial process apply and the result is never certain. But it's the best way we have.
Now, Manning could argue that he was implicitly ordered to keep this airstrike video secret. But he'd have to prove that there was something unlawful there. It also doesn't explain all of the other stuff he leaked. Clearly, he didn't have a reason for every single document.
Did Manning's defense make that argument? I don't know. But if they did, it failed. But his defense team did describe him as naive. So it seems like they (having already plead guilty to 10 counts of wrongdoing) were going for the leniency angle.