Actually this policy originated during the Bush administration.

If anything, the department of justice simply codified the policy and circulated the memo to select members of the senate. The memo being leaked is a legal framework for considering when it's applicable to assassinate a US citizen. It basically gives the authority of the state department to kill a US citizen if that citizen poses an immediate threat to the US or its other citizens. It rehashes article 3 section 3 of the US constitution where the conditions of the treason act is described in relation to Al-Qeada and circulating the memo to select members of the senate to grant the power to declare punishment. They will probably justify all this secrecy as "state secrets".

I would consider this more constitutional than just having the CIA do it and just keeping the act classified.

Think of it as something similar to what your local law enforcement does when it kills a suspect that posses an immediate threat like a mentally ill man with a child buried in a bunker.

Actually Perl with its CPAN.

I'm one of the first C programmers and I've switched to js and node.js. it's better and faster than C.

What is your definition of fast?

I'm sure the fact that a Java plugin is not the same as the Java JDK has nothing to do with your troll.

Preaching to the choir, but this is what happens when the powers that be think it's a great idea to remove divisions or subsidiaries from the email address.

I agree. I think part of the problem is the lack of exposition for the sake of inspiring the public. Most of the current expositions are marketing fairs that only show off products that investors hope will have mass appeal and not necessarily ground breaking inventions. Since truly ground breaking or inspirational inventions may not do well at your local electronic retailer, this means most of the public's attention is focused solely on consumer items.

The world's fair use to played a role during the beginning of the industrial age. When its focus changed to being a cultural exchange around 1939, it has devolved into a traveling Disney Epcot theme park.

I'm sure there's a protocol for three people joining where the second and third share a middle initial, but I haven't seen it come up and we're not a small place.

I have and the conflict is solved by reverting back to first_name.last_name format with a number appended at the end for the second (and later) full name with same middle initial or for all names without a middle initial.

Why do people say "one time" when there's been a shorter word for it for hundreds of years? Damn Fugees...

Don't blame the Fugees. That's a Justin Bieber song.

Don't forget "Mindless Obama Worshipers". In this case, the ad hominem rebuttal was retaliation for an ad hominem attack. Neither side added any intelligent thought to the discussion.

The subject was Lamacchia Loophole not Lamacchia. The wire fraud charges against Lamacchia didn't stick because it was misapplied. The wire fraud charges against Swartz would apply because unlike Lamacchia he was not authorized to be on MIT campus and gained fraudulent access to their internal network via a wiring closet which allowed him to gain access to JSTOR. The Lamacchia Loophole wouldn't apply since, in this particular case, the prosecution isn't using wire fraud charges as a means to prosecute copyright infringement. The copyright law has been strengthen to the point where they no longer need to try to make a related charge. Of course, I am not a lawyer so this is pure speculation.

You mean like when the United States sent Alan Shepard into space in 1961, but didn't pass the civil rights act until 1964?

I'm curious. How is Alan Shepard related to the civl rights act?

WIRE FRAUD?? Really? Intentional deception of others to personally gain from them? Where? How? Who? did that happen.

At the risk of condoning prosecutor's reach, I believe the wire fraud charge resulted from the trespass, wiretap, and using MIT's credentials to gain access to JSTOR.

I do not believe any crime occurred.

From the details given by most of the articles detailing the events leading up to his arrest, I would have to disagree with your assertion.

I think the more apt term is "alleged criminal" and playing semantics doesn't invalidate the OP's opinion. You are entitled to disagree.

MLK was fortunate he lived in a country where and at a time when the rule of law was respected.

Yea he was fortunate up until the time he got assassinated...

I think history pretty much invalidates you assertion.