home

Wednesday Open Thread

Time for an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Colorado's "Make My Day" Law | A Few More NSA Surveillance Documents Declassified >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "Today in Responsible Gun Ownership:" (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    Police have found the father of the girl left alone in an apartment full of weapons in Little Havana.

    Luis Bianchi, 25, is being held on $5,000 bond on child neglect charges, according to Miami Police.

    Officials began looking for the man Wednesday night when they were alerted that a 3-year-old was roaming the halls of her father's apartment at 922 SW 3rd Street.

    When police arrived, they entered the apartment that the girl and neighbors said she lived in to try to find her parents. When they checked the bedroom, officers noticed several high-powered weapons, specifically AR-15s, and a grenade sitting on a table in plain view, according to an arrest affidavit.

    Officials said the weapons were unsecured and in arms reach of the child.

    Link, and h/t The Politics Blog @ Esquire.

    Even if he hadn't had the weapons, he shouldn't have left a 3-year old alone in the apartment - guns aren't the only thing that can harm a child.  

    The father said he left the child after he talked to her mother, who was supposed to be on the way.  The police were still looking for her parents the next morning - her father didn't even know about any of this until he saw it on the news, so I guess he didn't even think to check with the child's mother to see if she had gotten there.  

    Good luck to the kid - she's probably headed for foster care and all that goes with that.  

    But I guess it could be worse: she could have blown herself up with the grenade.

    this 75 year old woman (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    came out of her shower in her home to find a teenager pointing a gun at her.

    the woman, 75, told Basalt police that she had just gotten out of the shower around noon and was blow-drying her hair when she heard a loud crash in her home on Riverside Drive. She came out and apparently surprised Sanchez and Hawkins.

    The defendants believed the woman was going to be gone for a few days...

    The woman asked Sanchez who he was, and he allegedly pointed a handgun at her and told her to shut up, according to police.



    Parent
    Well, if she'd had a gun, what do (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:13:15 PM EST
    you think the chances are that the kid pointing the gun at her would have fired?

    This may be a case where not having a gun saved someone's life.

    But not really sure how or why it has anything to do with the incident I referenced, where a 3-year old was left alone with a cache of weapons.

    Parent

    Chances are (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    If she had owned a gun and had just come out of the shower and was blow drying her hair, she wouldn't have had access to that gun anyways.

    Parent
    Well that should increase the demand (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 03:57:04 PM EST
    for purchasing underwater assault rifles to accompany you whenever you shower. That way anyone, including the 75 year old woman, could come out shouting "Make my Day" as they fire their weapon. ;o)

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:15:26 PM EST
    would make an AWESOME youtube video....

    Parent
    "Underwater assault rifles"? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Prime on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:22:44 PM EST

    All modern rifles can get wet and still function.  Aluminum, stainless steel, and plastic hold up particularly well to the rigors of a light spritzing.  

    And what was it I said yesterday about ridiculous caricatures?
    Exhibit A.  


    Parent

    There was snark sign on that post (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:34:15 PM EST
    It was meant to be a ridiculous caricature. I guess the prime rule when discussing guns is that humor is prohibited.

    Parent
    Not prohibited... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:51:13 PM EST
    ...just in danger of going undetected.

    Parent
    Yes, well, (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:04:31 PM EST
    I don't see the relevance of the old lady with a gun, to the toddler left alone with a bunch of unsecured weapons, either, Anne.  Seems to me like two wholly unrelated incidents.
    But maybe that's just me.  
    Adults with weapons, versus small, unsupervised children in reach of weapons, are not at all equivalent.

    Parent
    Some of the 1st blowdryers (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    my sisters had long ago were lined with asbestos.  

    Parent
    Is that story supposed to somehow justify ... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:32:04 PM EST
    ... Luis Bianchi's decision to leave a 3-year-old girl at home alone, along with several high-powered AR-15s and a grenade on a table that were within her easy reach?

    Parent
    "This just in, criminals have kids too!" (none / 0) (#13)
    by Prime on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:57:10 PM EST
    "And more unexpected news when the Miami Herald reported that the grenade was inert six days ago and every story since has failed to mention that fact.  It certainly makes the story more credible since everyone knows you can buy grenades at gunshows. "


    Parent
    Here's some great statistics (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:17:05 AM EST
    The US is about to have its first confirmed ATF Director since August of 2006, when Carl Truscott resigned in disgrace.

    Guess how many background checks have been done in that time?

    I'll give you a minute to guess....

    The number of background checks? 104,011,544. One hundred four million and change; one every two seconds. If it were inches, it would reach two-thirds of the way from New York to Los Angeles.

    Why is this important? (and yes, I know some people around here don't like the ATF):

    Why is the director of the ATF so important? The ATF is responsible for conducting regulatory inspections of the nation's more than 123,000 licensed gun dealers. As a Department of Justice report released in April made clear, the agency is so hindered by congressionally imposed obstacles and "insufficient investigator resources" that it can't adequately perform its duties. In addition to preventing the ATF from keeping computerized records of gun transactions, Congress passed legislation prohibiting the agency from inspecting a licensed gun dealer more than once a year. Because the ATF has only 2,500 agents to police guns, tobacco, alcohol and explosives, the majority of gun dealers received no inspection at all from the understaffed agency over a five-year period.

    This failure comes at a price. From 2004 to 2011, the nation's gun shops lost 174,679 guns through theft or loss (that's the official number; actual losses are undoubtedly much higher). It's unknown how many of these ended up in the possession of criminals. Even when the ATF concludes that a gun dealer is not complying with the law, it can take years to revoke a license. The practical consequence is that rogue gun dealers can supply criminals for years without worrying about official disruptions to their business.

    Gosh, I feel safer.

    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 84 (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:32:36 PM EST
    Executive wardrobe meeting. (link)

    Have a good humpday, my friends.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY

    The secret's out...... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 01:25:16 PM EST
    We now know why the 1% needed the tax cuts, and all the other perks our government has bestowed on them; the money saved goes to pay our "regulators"  to look the other way as they rape, loot, and pillage the American people.
    ---------------------------------------------
    "US energy regulators have hit JP Morgan with $410m in penalties after accusing it of manipulating electricity prices in California and the mid-west.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said the bank used improper bidding strategies to squeeze excessive payments from the agencies that run the power grids in California and the Midwest.
    The energy unit used five "manipulative bidding strategies" in California between September 2010 and June 2011, and three in the mid-west from October 2010 to May 2011, FERC said............" NYT 7-31-13
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Naturally, this type of fraud is a criminal act, a felony, when committed by you, or me. But, our "watchdogs" concluded that a sternly worded letter, a promise never to do it again, and ten minute's profits, was enough of a penalty for these Job Creators.

     And, as always, no one goes to jail, the executives who authorized the criminal acts pay nothing out-of-pocket, and, they don't even have to admit that committing crimes is criminal. They just felt that shelling out half a billion dollars was a small price to pay to get this "nuisance" off their desks.

    Who knows, maybe after Holder is finished busting MJ Dispensaries he'll look at Wall St. (probably for an eight figure payday)


    To be fair, the SEC is going after Steve Cohen's (none / 0) (#70)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:53:31 PM EST
    SAC Capital Advisors' minions for insider trading.

    No idea if they can build a case against Cohen or his $18B (Billion) fortune.

    Parent
    Oops, he's only worth (none / 0) (#73)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 11:50:23 PM EST
    Toobin makes fool of himself today (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 01:53:55 PM EST
    on Twitter.

    (and bmaz and BTD help skewer Toobin's silliness)

    The flaw in health care economists (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 02:32:34 PM EST
    analysis of health care costs and their transfer to policies, has been, in my view, the lack of understanding of the differences in ordinary market forces and the extraordinary character of health care--based, in large measure, on the role of progress in treatments and their economic impact.

     Unqualified pronouncements such as less care is better, or fewer tests are needed may make some sense in a static economic field, but not in one with the dynamism of health care.  A case in point:

    Until recently, it was determined that there was too little evidence to justify annual X-ray screening for lung cancer--such testing seldom caught the tumors early enough.  However, based on new large scale clinical  trials by the National Cancer Institute, computed tomography (CT) scans can detect much smaller tumors and reduce mortality by 16 percent among patients with high risk.

    Based on these results, the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends (still in draft form) annual CT screening for those at high risk (55-74 years old, currently smoking or have quit within the past 15 years, pack a day for 30 years, or two packs/day for 15 years).  

    As a new standard of care, insurers will follow the recommendation of USPSTF and cover costs and Obamacare will have a no-pay for those eligible.  Medicare will reimburse, all at a new costs.   But ignoring this progress would be ignorant.

    I was thinking about this today (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 11:02:59 PM EST
    Many insurance exchanges are touting some low rates, and it puzzled me a bit about how they could be so low. These are rates for young healthy people that often in the past opted to spend NOTHING on healthcare, so while the rates may seem reasonable, the entire amount in an increase in cost for this group.

    Parent
    How Hollywood helped the Nazis (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 02:37:29 PM EST
    At this critical historical moment, when a major Hollywood production could have alerted the world to what was going on in Germany, the director did not have the final cut; the Nazis did.

    from the HOLLYWOOD REPORTER (link).


    Veddy interesting article (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 03:05:35 PM EST
    I knew there was some collaboration between Hollywood and the Nazis, but had no idea how deep and pervasive it was, or how long it lasted. Money, money, money. Not much has changed. American companies become outsourcing multinationals, and sell us down the river on a daily basis.

    It's strange that Mad Dog of Europe was never made, because the title sounds so familiar to me.

    Parent

    185,000 people currently on watchlist (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 02:40:18 PM EST
    according to James Bamford (speaking right now on my local NPR affiliate).

    Raise Your Hand... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    ...if you believe anything falling from that clowns mouth.  I would multiply by 10 and square it, then you might be in the ball park.

    And why is that list secret ? It would be nice to see if I am able to go on vacation before I try and board the plane.

    Parent

    Break time.. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by desertswine on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 09:34:30 PM EST
    Beautiful pictures of the earth and sky (while we still have them)- I suggest full screen and listen to the music.

    Fabulous! (none / 0) (#74)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 01:19:19 AM EST
    Thanks for sharing that. And the music really does enhance the photos and help create the mood. I love ambient with beats.  

    Parent
    Uruguay set to legalize marijuana (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 11:01:11 PM EST
    Uruguay's House of Representative has passed a bill to legalise marijuana.  If it goes on to be approved by the Senate, Uruguay will become the first country to regulate the production, distribution and sale of marijuana.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 85 (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    Recently (none / 0) (#2)
    by Nemi on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 11:56:53 AM EST
    I watched an episode of the British Court drama series 'Silk' in which the Prosecutor finds that the Defense - apparently they are both from the same firm - is doing such a terrible job, that she decides to help him in order to get the defendant a lesser sentence.

    It makes for great entertainment but is the scenario plausible? Whether they are working for the same law firm or not? An inquiring mind wonders.

    It might be (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:04:45 PM EST
    because of the differences between the rules English barristers and solicitors are under vs. American rules of ethics for lawyers. (Another example is the US military JAG corps - lawyers from the same office can act as either prosecutors or defense attorneys).

    I haven't watched the show (or even heard of it), so I went to Wiki and looked it up.  It sounds really interesting!

    Parent

    And this might explain it (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:07:35 PM EST
    (assuming I am reading the plot description correctly).

    The plot revolves around a group of barristers who share the same chambers. From Wiki:

    In England and Wales, New Zealand, and Australia, chambers may refer to the rooms used by a barrister or to an association of barristers, especially in the Inns of Court.[1] Barristers are not employed in a law firm but associate fraternally with each other, sharing the burden of costs, in a set of chambers. They are legally considered to be self-employed. Chambers are administered by barristers' clerks who receive cases from solicitors and agree on matters such as fees on behalf of their employers; they then provide case details to the barristers. There are chambers all over England and Wales; however, the largest concentration of them is in London.

    So, it doesn't sound like they work for the same firm - they jsut share office space.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#11)
    by Nemi on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    this was the first and, so far, only episode I've watched, but I liked it a lot. I was especially enthralled by Martha played by Maxine Peake, a first too. She plays one tough, unsentimental cookie.

    Parent
    What are you watching it on? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:50:26 PM EST
    I googled it and it seems that it will start on PBS in August.

    Is it airing somewhere else?

    Parent

    Ah, (none / 0) (#77)
    by Nemi on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 07:12:04 AM EST
    I should have mentioned, that I watched it abroad. I also wasn't clear (so what else is news, snort) about the prosecutor helping the defense out while in court. In front of the judge and the jurors. That seemed rather implausible ... or at least unusual.

    But lets 'talk' if/when you get to see the series. ;-)

    Parent

    I see (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 07:24:34 AM EST
    It's coming to PBS in late August.

    Will set my DVR!

    Parent

    OJ SImpson (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    granted parole on some charges stemming from 2008 robbery convictions, but still won't get out of prison.

    Breaking news - no link yet on CNN.

    Jeralyn and Talkleft Commentators are the experts (none / 0) (#20)
    by Visteo1 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    on a case that needs no introduction.  I apologize for the length and hope the is truly an open thread.  Please help to dispute or confirm the following:

    2/27/2012 - Fox Orlando airs report with  eyewitness "John" Good  interview at his door.  It includes interviews with Brandy Green, who is clearly identified in the video, as well as, Tracy Martin.

    2/27/2012  to  3/23/2012:

    -Orlando story is picked up by some sources, but largely is missed or attempts are made to discredit the eyewitness account.

    -Fox Orlando link to the original airing appears to stop working.  I am unable to locate the original on their website.  Here is the original report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfN7-2ErEk4

    3/23/2012 - Fox Tampa Bay airs an altered version of the Orlando story, including eyewitness "John" Good interview at his door, calling "John" someone we have not heard from before now.  Brandy Green's and Tracy Martin's video interview are cut from the new version.

    3/26/2012 - Fox News Hannity airs a report that does mention the eyewitness for the fist time.  The transcript of the show refers to the "John" Good interview at his door, but I cannot determine if the video was actually used, and the transcript is bad.  Here is the link...note the video starts after the "John" Good transcript and it makes sense based on the discussion that the video NEVER aired:
    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/03/27/witness-reportedly-saw-trayvon-martin-beating-georg e-zimmerman-shooting?page=1

    After 4/??/2012 - The Fox Tampa report from 3/23 appears to have been removed from the Tampa website.
    Here it is:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilrviX8LIZs

    4/10/2012 - Fox news affiliates everywhere have updated transcripts of  the 2/27/2012 report.  It is unclear if there ever was video from 2/27 to accompany these reports.  Brandy Green's comments are misidentified as coming from his MOTHER, Tracy Martin.  Here is but one of many samples.  This from Minnesota: http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/17374352/trayvon-martin-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-alterca tion

    Oh well. It WAS an open thread... (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 03:46:05 PM EST
    Thankfully (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:23:04 PM EST
    Voldemort has currently left the Sunshine State. Good luck Texas.

    Parent
    Your help is valued. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Visteo1 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:55:56 PM EST
    TV stations no doubt have retention schedules for videos.  It seems odd that videos would be removed less than a month after airing....especially ones that would be of continuing interest.  

    Parent
    This question could be overly morose (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:19:17 PM EST
    but does anyone want to take a guess as to what Judge Lind will rule in the Manning case?

    Not what you hope will happen, but rather what you think realistically will happen.

    The reason I ask is I have found no definitive reports suggesting what anyone thinks the Judge might do other than one saying "a long time", one saying "decades", and another saying "likely to be much shorter than 136". Much shorter than 136, decades, and a long time could be synonymous here.


    This judge has been very PC (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:48:16 PM EST
    Ruled on aiding the enemy to avoid troop morale problems too.  This judge is pretty courageous IMO.  The buck stops with her, she will always be on the record for finding him not guilty on aiding the enemy and obviously she is not afraid of that.

    In sentencing, evidence of Manning's command being an utter failure on all levels will be allowed.  Hopefully it will be well covered.  He was breaking down before even leaving for his last deployment and should have never been deployed.  Who deploys an intel analyst breaking down?  She understands what all that means and how that contributes. What an embarrassment though, what a dismal lack of ethics and command environment.

    Along with his own pleadings of guilt, I expect something middle of the road from what judge Lind has offered so far.  Nobody on the left is going to be happy, but neither is anyone who wants him roasted alive.

    Parent

    But the prosecution (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:57:31 PM EST
    Also gets to provide evidence of any damage done by these leaks (which hasn't been allowed before now), so the judge will have to weigh that evidence against breakdowns in the command structure and any other issues that may arise.

    The sentencing phase in Pfc. Bradley Manning's court-martial opened Wednesday with military prosecutors calling as their first witness a retired brigadier general who spent his career overseeing the Army's extensive intelligence-gathering operations to support war efforts in Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan.

    Robert A. Carr, now a corporate lead executive for defense contractor Northrop Grumman, is expected to give detailed testimony about the damage caused when Manning provided hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks.

    Much of Carr's work in his final Army assignment was to weigh what kind of secret data was being obtained by WikiLeaks and to gauge how it might harm infantry troops in combat areas or endanger U.S. national security issues and foreign policy.

    Prosecutors and defense attorneys agreed with the judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, that Manning, a 25-year-old former intelligence analyst in Iraq, faces a maximum prison term of 136 years, reduction in rank to enlisted private, a dishonorable discharge from the service and a forfeiture of all his pay and allowances.

    But they disagreed over how much in monetary fines, if any, Manning ultimately should be ordered to pay -- no easy task considering he likely will spend decades in a military prison at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.

    And I wonder how much weight, if any, the judge will give the testimony of Manning's former supervisor who testified that, before it was revealed that Manning had leaked this information, she suspected him of being a spy.

    The clues, she testified in his court-martial Friday, were everywhere. He worked long hours, stayed late and kept to himself inside the special classified intelligence collection "skiff" called Forward Operating Base Hammer. He inadvertently left his camera lying around. He sometimes slept in a ball in the corner. He smoked heavily and, when it came to hot coffee, he "had excessive caffeine consumption," recalled Jihrleah Showman, a former Army specialist and Manning's supervisor.

    There were other telltale signs. He complained someone was eavesdropping on his conversations, and "he indicated he was very paranoid," she said.

    Once, she said, she pointed to the U.S. flag decal on the shoulder of her Army uniform and he responded that "the flag meant nothing to him and that he did not believe himself to have allegiance to this country or its people." He told her he joined the Army to earn money for college, and to learn more about computers, she said.

    She said she told her supervisors that Manning was a "possible spy."



    Parent
    This judge already saw the evidence (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:36:13 PM EST
    Of what "damage was done".  She took a look at that when ruling on whether or not Manning had aided the enemy.

    I'm sorry if it pains you, but they will also be bringing up the fact that Manning was a "decorated" intel analyst.  He was very good at what he did.  In the past, most recently noted in military sexual assault cases, military judges have literally ruled in favor of the soldier because of the asset that they were in their jobs.

    I think those days are over, but now we have military defense lawyers making filings that those accused of sexual assault can't get a fair trial because the CIC (Obama) has said the book must be thrown at all sexual assaulters.  That was in the new Army Times that my husband brought home yesterday just so I could break something I was bored with I guess.

    Manning was an exceptional intel analyst when he was functional, and his command environment was insane and destructive in Iraq and that command has already been demoted and reprimanded for how they failed.  I think that right there is what can be called "some evidence" too.

    The military and the world is watching this judge, and based on what has transpired so far she seems to be determined to be viewed as a fair and honorable judge on all levels.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:42:39 PM EST
    There was no evidence presented at trial about any potential damage because the judge ruled it couldn't be presented until the sentencing phase.

    "They are going to try to show that nothing he did ultimately harmed the country," says Richard Rosen, former commandant of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's School and currently the director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University School of Law in Lubbock.

    The bulk of this sort of evidence could not be introduced before the judge rendered its verdict, because it could be deemed prejudicial or irrelevant, but in the sentencing phase of the proceedings, "The rules of evidence are relaxed," Mr. Rosen adds.



    Parent
    Because it could be (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:53:35 PM EST
    Deemed irrelevant?

    Parent
    And his immediate supervisor is not (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:48:58 PM EST
    In a comfy position.  She must address some very embarrassing command failures of giant proportions, she is suspected of having sexual affairs with her subordinates and condoning sexual relations among those she commanded.  Good luck to her, don't lie, you will likely regret that for the rest of your 15 inch bicep life.

    Parent
    Which is why I said (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:55:04 PM EST
    The judge will have to weigh things like that as well.

    Of course, she is not on trial here, and allegedly having sexual relations with her subordinates vs. her thoughts of him being a spy will have to be considered.

    If there's meat to your allegations, I'm sure it will be handled in the proper time and place.

    Parent

    Her thoughts on a spy? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    Because she was such a credible and sane supervisor :)

    Parent
    You know this, how? :) (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:58:56 PM EST
    Do you know her?  Does your husband?  Or are you just going off scuttlebutt?

    Parent
    It has been reported (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:12:11 PM EST
    She is no longer active duty as well...gone, and had very poor sexual boundaries.  She also had Manning do a few "computer things" for her that made her life in Iraq more leisurely and those "things" turned out to be against regulation.

    Parent
    Gotta tell ya too (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:16:37 PM EST
    No hotter MOS than anything M.I.  Safest job where job security is concerned in the United States.  A specialist with war time experience is no longer active duty because?  Not promotable?  Ever?

    Parent
    That is seriously creepy (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by sj on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:54:46 PM EST
    That she thought him to be a "possible spy" based on those behaviors. Worked long hours? smoked heavily? "had excessive caffeine consumption"?

    And then there is "indicated he was very paranoid". He seems to be a smart young man; paranoid seems like a smarter reaction than sanguine. If MT is correct above and the chain of command is being examined, then she was engaging in serious (and likely necessary) CYA, imo.

    Admittedly I'm not in the military, but frankly she doesn't have any credibility with me.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:58:22 PM EST
    you could be right, but since MT is the first person I've heard to make those allegations against her, I'm not sure how you judge whether she's credible or not.  If she's done so many bad things, don't you think a) the prosecution would have known that and wouldn't have used her or tried to neutralize those things, and b) wouldn't we be hearing that the defense destroyed her credibility with these allegations?  

    Parent
    MT is far from the (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by sj on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:06:38 PM EST
    first person who has commented on his chain of command. Okay, maybe here at TL but certainly the topic has been discussed at length at a number of places.

    A quick search didn't reveal very good historical results, but if you need me to I'll take a crack at it when I get home.

    I'm not going to leap to the same conclusions that you did above -- I have my own conclusions to leap to which are different from yours. Your "a)" and "b)" sound naive to me -- a search for black and white in a grey world. I'll just say that there is a great deal of room for interpretation in what we "know".

    Parent

    She doesn't have any with me (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:27:44 PM EST
    Mostly because I know how difficult it is to be fully accountable and maintain a good command environment.  It is very stressful, and it saps everyone in those places and spaces and serving far from home.  Just start with the little stuff she had going on, my God, she was a failure of historic proportions.  When I read the deal about her 15 inch biceps also, well I was embarrassed.  Good intel supervising takes into consideration how large her biceps are?  I think the Army she wanted to join existed about 35 years ago, wall to wall counseling and hookups.  Embarrassing!  

    Parent
    shoephone, Scott, MT and jb (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:17:36 PM EST
    You guys are no more specific than anyone else. Four replies, no definitive guess. Does no one want to be in Judge Lind's head today?


    Parent
    It is good to remember that the military (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:21:06 PM EST
    Is notorious for granting startling clemency too.  Bradley Manning will always be a political football.  Those who want him released in shorter order would do very well to understand that you do not want to rub the military's nose in this....you want them all to forget and feel warm and fuzzy.  You want those serving to not ever be able to look at all this and see it as the powers that be taking their lives and sacrifice for granted by letting someone with their lives in their hands off easily either.  If there is a danger of that perception, that makes clemency for Manning that much farther off in the distance.

    And ten years from now, if the public is feeling deeply sorrowful about Iraq in a Vietnamesque fashion after all the death and all the suicides stateside, that makes Manning's clemency even more politically correct.

    We should never forget what we did to Iraq and the populace there.  The better the upcoming documentaries, the better Manning's chances of seeing the light of day more than one hour a day.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:44:10 PM EST
    Because they are still hearing evidence in the sentencing phase, and since we don't know what that evidence is yet, it's hard to make a guess.

    But if you want me to guess, I'd say it will be a very, very long time.

    Parent

    Some of us hope (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:32:35 PM EST
    That when she is bored she reads Talkleft and is further reminded that a horrible command environment makes life for many soldiers almost impossible too.

    Parent
    Given that the kid doesn't get leukemia (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:51:29 PM EST
    She'll make him parolable, I don't think she will give him life sans parole.  She would have had to find him guilty of aiding the enemy to go there.

    Parent
    Because you asked... (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:52:47 PM EST
    about 20 years.

    Parent
    I will faint if she only gives him 20 (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:05:32 PM EST
    I wouldn't be angry, but I would be stunned.

    Parent
    It may (none / 0) (#57)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:07:28 PM EST
    or may not be true about people on "the left" not being happy about punishment meted out to Manning. I don't even know what "the left" is anymore - considering that we have a President who is considered by many to be on "the left"...

    I will be unhappy for any sentence meted out to Manning unless it be "time served".

    I am curious what sentence you would like to see imposed, if any.

    Parent

    Then you will not be happy (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:21:35 PM EST
    I'm (none / 0) (#60)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:29:57 PM EST
    prepared for that...

    But what I asked you is what you would like to see happen.
    What sentence would you like to see imposed?

    Parent

    I do not want him to do life (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:39:38 PM EST
    The military has granted clemency to some though who were sentenced to life.

    Because this judge has taken into consideration his incarceration abuse (which is astonishing within the military, I have known horrible things to happen to people who were arrested and then not even found guilty), and because she has also RULED on the issue of aiding the enemy, I think he is going to get the fairest military sentencing out there to be had.

    It isn't all about me though.  It is about the military and what every soldier must be able to trust an intel analyst with and for.  

    Manning can "earn" clemency with the military though, providing that those who champion him at this time allow for that after he is sentenced.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#63)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:52:38 PM EST
    realize that the sentence will be up to the judge - and that she will take into consideration many different factors.

    But I am curious about what you would LIKE to see.
    Not what you think the judge will do. Not what you would consider to be appropriate from the point of view of the military.

    What does your heart tell you?


    Parent

    My heart tells me (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:09:25 PM EST
    He needs to go to jail.  I hope not for the remainder of his life, but I must leave the length of time up to those he betrayed or this judge.  And he did betray them, even the judge.  I keep in mind as I have posted previously that the military is not afraid to grant clemency.

    Parent
    And if I have learned anything in the past (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:11:17 PM EST
    15 years about the military, it is that everything in one way or another or sometimes even every way is political.  Politics always figures in somehow.  

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#75)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:50:05 AM EST
    say that he should be judged by those he betrayed.

    It is interesting, because as someone in the military, you see things differently than I do. As a citizen, not in the military, I did not feel betrayed by the actions of Manning. I felt enlightened. It helps me feel that I have a better idea of what is actually going on - and helps me decide who to vote for, or whether to vote at all.

    Also, as you said, politics figures in.
    That would mean, to me, that a sentence might hinge on the administration's continuing desire to appear tough - to make an example of this man.
    I suppose that the decision could also be influenced by public opinion to spare the lad, if that existed. But at the moment, I sense only passivity, so that is not good for Manning.

    You said that your heart told you that Manning needed to go to jail, but you also referred to the fact that the military is "not afraid to grant clemency". To me, that implies that your heart is open, and that if Manning did receive clemency, you would not be at all distraught.

    This is an interesting conversation for me and I thank you for sharing your perspective.

    Parent

    I Predict Manning... (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:41:33 PM EST
    ...will die in prison.  

    Parent
    Sad to say, I agree (none / 0) (#32)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:02:50 PM EST
    and not necessarily because the sentence will be 80 years, or whatnot. But because it will be just long enough to send him over the edge. His solitary confinement alone has probably taken years off his life.

    All I know is, about 100 days will be deducted, plus the 3 years he has already served.

    Parent

    Remember all those (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:37:39 PM EST
    pundits and liberal bloggers who have insisted that North Carolina was turning purple,e ven blue?  The 2012 Democratic convetion was even held there to shore that up.

    Guess what?

    It's not.

    Four years ago, North Carolina was thought to be in transition, a Southern state turning blue in President Obama's "new America." But at the close of its legislative session last Friday, the Tar Heel State showed its true hue: deep red.

    Since the state's legislative session began in January, lawmakers have blocked a Medicaid expansion under Obama's Affordable Care Act, reduced access to federal unemployment benefits, cut the corporate tax rate, trimmed public-education funding, passed a bill that allows concealed weapons in bars and restaurants, tackled welfare reform, proposed a ban on Shari`a, restricted access to abortion and enacted stricter voting laws.

    It had been over a century since the GOP held both the legislature and governor's mansion in the moderate state, but after Republicans seized control of both houses of the general assembly in 2010, drew redistricting maps that will help solidify their control on local and federal levels over the next several years, and elected the first Republican governor since 1988 last November, state lawmakers were poised to push forward with their new, conservative agenda.

    And so they have.

    Over the next 30 days, Governor Pat McCrory will see 60 bills come across his desk, after what has been one of the most dramatic shifts in the political leanings of a state during one legislative session in recent history. The governor has been openly critical of a few bills; he plans to veto a proposal to drug-test welfare recipients and opposes another requiring employers to verify the immigration status of their workers.



    So, in response ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 05:12:02 PM EST
    the loyal & liberal opposition has Moral Mondays (aka protests); and, the Governor countered today with cookies.  Maybe Governor McDonnell & his well-dressed wife might want a break from nearby Virginia, and could hop on over and help out with their advice.

    Your point is a good one as to the state of North Carolina these days.  It is a turbulent transition to purple.

    Parent

    I know Charlie is right (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:13:25 PM EST
    here - Hillary running would bring out all the whole BS-storm. I have no doubt she is tough enough to take it on, and probably win, but I am not at all sure I have the stomach for it.

    On the other hand, could a Clinton v Ryan (or Cantor, or Paul or anyone)  campaign be the very definition of rock bottom we need to hit before things change for the better? Maybe she has to be the one to purge the system.

    The BS storm (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 06:58:20 AM EST
    Will be there no matter WHO is running.

    I think she's the best equipped to not only handle it, but squash it like a bug, and turn the tables.

    It would also be hard for the entire Republican establishment to get on board, as many of them are already on record saying many nice things about her and working with her.  It would just be the crazies left and that could actually destroy them as people who generally don't pay attention will wake up and say "Whaaaat?"

    Besides, much of it is old news.  Not saying there aren't lines of attack that may or may not be fair game, but who are most people going to believe Hillary Clinton or some unknown yappy Congressman?

    Parent

    Yes, I think you may be right (none / 0) (#92)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 12:36:21 PM EST
    The turning the tables might purge the current bile from the system.

    Of course more bile awaits...

    Parent

    Ryan Braun to get Suspension Company (none / 0) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 09:11:53 PM EST
    Most likely by Friday.

    Some of the names being dropped and facing possible lengthy suspensions after being linked to Biogenesis along with Braun are:

    Nelson Cruz - Texas Rangers
    Everth Cabrera - San Diego Padres
    Jhonny Peralta - Detroit Tigers
    Alex Rodriguez - New York Yankees
    Francisco Cervelli - New York Yankees
    Jesus Montero - Seattle Mariners

    Some others such as Bartolo Colon (Oakland A's) and Melky Cabrera (Toronto) are also linked but have already served suspensions.

    Alex Rodriguez is expected to get hit with the longest suspension.

    I read a lifetime ban from baseball may be the (none / 0) (#69)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:40:09 PM EST
    outcome for Rodriguez. I would not be sorry to see him go.

    Parent
    I'm expecting a negotiated deal for Rodriguez (none / 0) (#80)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 07:25:10 AM EST
    with no appeal like the one signed off on by Braun, although for a longer period of time. Somewhere north of 100 games and less than 200? Probably through the All-Star game next year.

    Looks like they are waiting for the rest of the players to sign off on their deals before announcing any of them. Makes me wonder why Braun's was announced so readily while the rest are planned to be announced at one time. Could be as simple as Braun's team was out of contention and most of the others are still trying to find a way to play through this season and into the playoffs.

    Parent

    Thursday Snowden Update (none / 0) (#78)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 07:13:57 AM EST
    He may (or may not) be on his way to a refugee center outside Moscow as he awaits word on his asylum request. This, depending on the accuracy of his attorney who was wrong last week.

    The Guardian reports, as follows: (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:52:16 AM EST
    Link

    Alec Luhn in Moscow has more on what lawyer Anatoly Kucherena told journalists at Sheremetyevo airport this afternoon.

       Kucherena said that the Federal Migration Service had granted Snowden temporary asylum for one year. He said that he had passed documents confirming this status from the migration service to Snowden, who left the airport for a "safe place".

        "This is a certificate that gives him the right to temporary asylum on the territory of the Russian Federation," Kucherena said, holding up a copy of the document.

        A security official said Snowden had crossed the border at about 3.30pm, and a source at the airport confirmed he had left the airport, state news agency RIA Novosti reported.

        According to Kucherena, the whistleblower left the airport alone in an ordinary taxi. He declined to provide details on where Snowden was located, citing safety concerns.

        "Since he is the most hunted person in the world, he will address the question of security today," Kucherena told journalists.

        The former National Security Agency employee will himself choose his place of residence and forms of protection.

        Although Snowden had originally said he intended to eventually move on to South America, more recently he had indicated that he wants to stay in Russia for the long term. Kucherena has previously said Snowden had been reading classic Russian literature and learning the language. In an interview today with Rossiya 24 television, he said Snowden had "no plans" to leave Russia for another country.

        The whistleblower's father Lon Snowden had reportedly been planning to visit his son, and Kucherena said yesterday that he was sending an invitation to the elder Snowden so he could obtain a Russian visa. Kucherena told Rossiya 24 television Thursday that he would be speaking to Lon Snowden later that day to arrange his visit.

        WikiLeaks announced that Snowden would make a statement Thursday about whistleblower Bradley Manning, who was found guilty of espionage Wednesday.



    Parent
    Most hunter's have rules that they (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:31:53 AM EST
    follow.

    "Since he is the most hunted person in the world, he will address the question of security today,"

    The prey, when they know of the hunt, will espouse their paranoia in many ways.

    I feel bad for Snowden.  I understand his paranoia that led him in the beginning, before he really did became the hunted.

    Did he have no other options?  

    Parent

    become (none / 0) (#86)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:34:44 AM EST
    Curious (none / 0) (#82)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:02:07 AM EST
    as to which is a better place for him to be. On legal Russian soil, or in the transit zone where technically (although not necessarily realistically) he couldn't be touched in sort of a non-country neutral ground. In the transit zone might he have had more protection than he does as a non-citizen inside the country?

    Parent
    If it were me, I'd certainly feel less (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:38:27 AM EST
    safe outside the transit zone, but then, I don't know what kinds of preparations were being made for his security in the event he was granted asylum.

    I have to think Wikileaks is on top of that, but even so, I would feel so much more vulnerable leaving the airport.

    Parent

    As would I (none / 0) (#88)
    by sj on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 11:06:48 AM EST
    Even though the confinement of the airport would chafe, I would feel so vulnerable and justifiably paranoid to leave. Especially knowing that Hasaan Mustafa Osama Nasr was abducted by the CIA in spite of having been granted asylum by Italy.

    Parent
    His worry right now (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    isn't the CIA but more the whims of Putin. Russia had declared a hands off policy while he was in the transit zone. Not so much now that he is on Russian soil.

    Although Julian Assange is in his own self-imposed personal cell at the Ecuadorian embassy in London with an indeterminate sentence, it may not be a bad idea for Snowden to choose the same route and see if he can get inside the Venezuelan embassy in Moscow. It's a step up from the airport and with more security from the whims of Putin than being on the streets of Russia. From here on out, Snowden won't be able to take a piss without the FSB monitoring him. (although they have probably been doing that since his arrival)

    Parent

    I really think he has to move from one (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 11:39:09 AM EST
    safe zone to another, and quickly.  Because as much as Snowden and Wikileaks may have been working on this, I'm pretty sure our people have been on it, too.  And I see us as being at a level of desperation that could prove to be quite dangerous for Snowden.

    Parent
    I wonder if he would agree with you (none / 0) (#91)
    by sj on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 11:57:28 AM EST
    His worry right now (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:30:43 AM MDT

    isn't the CIA but more the whims of Putin.


    I wouldn't. Putin is more of a long-term concern and something that can be watched and monitored. Abduction not so much.

    Parent
    One year (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    Gets him through the Winter Olympics, when the world will be watching.  Putin doesn't want any kerfuffle with the US right now.

    Parent