VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

On May 1, 12:56 am, redc1c4 wrote:
Tankfixer wrote:

In article ,
mumbled

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 wrote:
Daryl Hunt wrote:

"DDAY" wrote in message
link.net...
----------
In article . net,
Tankfixer
wrote:

Look up the example of the classified history of the CIA's
involvement
in
the Iranian coup in the 1950s. Short story: the classified
document
was
leaked and put on the web. The government did nothing.

Depends who leaks it I supose.. ;')

Not really. Publishing classified material is not illegal in the
United
States, with a finite exception--the names of covert intelligence
officers
currently based overseas. This is based upon long precedent and the
belief
in the United States that a functioning democracy requires a free
press
that
can publish information that the government does not want released.

It's a little more complicated for leaking classified information to
the
press. In general, that's not actually illegal--99.999% of people
who do
it
get an administrative punishment (i.e. they get fired, fined, or
lose
their
security clearance). They don't go to jail. Only one person has
gone to
jail for this, Samuel Loring Morrison, back in the 1980s. There is
currently a case before the courts where the government is trying to
convict
two people for accepting classified information and making if
public.
Whether they will be convicted of that is an open question.

Put it this way:

Person A, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a
foreign
govt.
He goes to jail for espionage.

Person B, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a
newspaper
and
gets caught. He gets fired or given an administrative punishment.
It is
highly unlikely that he will go to jail. (And it is worth
remembering
that
top level officials leak classified information all the time.
People in
the
White House leak information to newspapers to make the White House
look
better. That's how the game is played in Washington.)

The newspaper publishes classified information. Nothing happens to
them.

If you're interested in learning about the subject, go to the FAS
website
and read multiple issues of Secrecy and Government Bulletin.
You'll
get a
sense of the limitations concerning the press and classified
information.

I may give them a look.

Read up on the AIPAC case.

If it's not on the Internet or it doesn't agree with Tinkerbelle then
it's
untrue. You are wasting your time with that low level troll.

tell us again about the Air Force flying P-38's in the 1950's.

redc1c4,
then we'll get into the *real* howlers.... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

Don't know about Air Force but this site says "late 50s" and I seem to
remember some P/F-38 camera or collection aircraft associated with
the JTF-8 nuke tests in the 1962 era. The Wiki cites F-4 and F-5
designations for the camera and recce version.
http://library.thinkquest.org/13831/p-38.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning

My Gawd, Jack, don't you DARE bring in any facts or information that
disagrees with the 404thk00ks. It's just plain unnatural.

Neither one of those sources make a claim that the F-4 or F-5 camera
versions were still in military service.

But you knew that already

well, all i have is an email from the USAF historical section, so
*obviously* we should rely on wikipedia and Duh-ryl instead.....

redc1c4,
after all, what could *they* know about Air Force history? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

Sometimes very little. The same people brought you the bombing
statistics during and after WWII and Vietnam.

In service to whoever was running JTF-8 in 1962 doesn't count?

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 1, 12:56 am, redc1c4 wrote:
Tankfixer wrote:

In article ,
mumbled

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4
wrote:
Daryl Hunt wrote:

"DDAY" wrote in message
link.net...
----------
In article
. net,
Tankfixer
wrote:

Look up the example of the classified history of the
CIA's
involvement
in
the Iranian coup in the 1950s. Short story: the
classified
document
was
leaked and put on the web. The government did nothing.

Depends who leaks it I supose.. ;')

Not really. Publishing classified material is not illegal
in the
United
States, with a finite exception--the names of covert
intelligence
officers
currently based overseas. This is based upon long precedent
and the
belief
in the United States that a functioning democracy requires a
free
press
that
can publish information that the government does not want
released.

It's a little more complicated for leaking classified
information to
the
press. In general, that's not actually illegal--99.999% of
people
who do
it
get an administrative punishment (i.e. they get fired,
fined, or
lose
their
security clearance). They don't go to jail. Only one
person has
gone to
jail for this, Samuel Loring Morrison, back in the 1980s.
There is
currently a case before the courts where the government is
trying to
convict
two people for accepting classified information and making
if
public.
Whether they will be convicted of that is an open question.

Put it this way:

Person A, a govt. employee, gives classified information to
a
foreign
govt.
He goes to jail for espionage.

Person B, a govt. employee, gives classified information to
a
newspaper
and
gets caught. He gets fired or given an administrative
punishment.
It is
highly unlikely that he will go to jail. (And it is worth
remembering
that
top level officials leak classified information all the
time.
People in
the
White House leak information to newspapers to make the White
House
look
better. That's how the game is played in Washington.)

The newspaper publishes classified information. Nothing
happens to
them.

If you're interested in learning about the subject, go to
the FAS
website
and read multiple issues of Secrecy and Government
Bulletin.
You'll
get a
sense of the limitations concerning the press and
classified
information.

I may give them a look.

Read up on the AIPAC case.

If it's not on the Internet or it doesn't agree with
Tinkerbelle then
it's
untrue. You are wasting your time with that low level troll.

tell us again about the Air Force flying P-38's in the 1950's.

redc1c4,
then we'll get into the *real* howlers.... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and
bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

Don't know about Air Force but this site says "late 50s" and I
seem to
remember some P/F-38 camera or collection aircraft associated
with
the JTF-8 nuke tests in the 1962 era. The Wiki cites F-4 and F-5
designations for the camera and recce version.
http://library.thinkquest.org/13831/p-38.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning

My Gawd, Jack, don't you DARE bring in any facts or information that
disagrees with the 404thk00ks. It's just plain unnatural.

Neither one of those sources make a claim that the F-4 or F-5 camera
versions were still in military service.

But you knew that already

well, all i have is an email from the USAF historical section, so
*obviously* we should rely on wikipedia and Duh-ryl instead.....

redc1c4,
after all, what could *they* know about Air Force history? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

Sometimes very little. The same people brought you the bombing
statistics during and after WWII and Vietnam.

In service to whoever was running JTF-8 in 1962 doesn't count?

Thanks for the assist, Jack but it will do no good. These are wannabe
people that actually think that the movie Green Beret showed what it was
really like. They actually want us to believe the "Army of One" crap.