Anti-Semitic BBC Strikes Again? Or just incompetence?

[grumbler]

The BBC has a story at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14825820 entitled "Stewart Nozette admits spy-for-Israel charge."  The link to the story is titled "US man admits Israel spy charge."  The story summary reads:

A former government scientist charged with attempting to sell technology secrets to Israel has confessed to one count of attempted espionage.

The only problem with all of this is that the story doesn't involve Israel at all!   A former US government scientist offered to sell secret information to a man who he thought was an Israeli - that's the only connection to the name "Israel" involved in the case.  He was never charged with "attempting to sell technology secrets to Israel" because he never attempted to sell anything to Israel - the man he was trying to "sell to" was an American, not an Israeli.

So why does the BBC create a headline and link title and summary that are designed to tell a lie?  Are they too stupid to understand the story?  Are they attempting to engage in some cheap shots at Israel?  Or are they too inarticulate to summarize the story with any accuracy?

I dunno the answer, but the BBC has proven itself once again to be one of the world's crappiest sources of "news."  At least with the openly-hack government-owned media of places like Russia, there is no real pretense to professionalism or objectivity - no one really believes that one is getting real news there.

[DGuller]

I think I saw exactly this title in some newspaper in the news stand today.  I don't recall which one it was.

[The Brain]

Is Israel or the BBC important to you? If so, why?

[derspiess]

Agree with your beef about the link headline, but the quote is accurate IMO.  If I'm attempting to drive to Chicago but misread the map and end up in Detroit, that doesn't mean I wasn't attempting to drive to Chicago-- it just means I'm dead.

[Warspite]

Sub-editor extrapolates article to create interesting headline. Film at 11.

[grumbler]

Agree with your beef about the link headline, but the quote is accurate IMO.  If I'm attempting to drive to Chicago but misread the map and end up in Detroit, that doesn't mean I wasn't attempting to drive to Chicago-- it just means I'm dead.

There are three quotes.  None of them are accurate.  The man was never "charged with attempting to sell technology secrets to Israel" because he never attempted to sell secrets to Israel.

Edit: typo

[The Brain]

Agree with your beef about the link headline, but the quote is accurate IMO.  If I'm attempting to drive to Chicago but misread the map and end up in Detroit, that doesn't mean I wasn't attempting to drive to Chicago-- it just means I'm dead.

Three are three quotes.  None of them are accurate.  The man was never "charged with attempting to sell technology secrets to Israel" because he never attempted to sell secrets to Israel.

I can't think of an appropriate comment here.

[Martinus]

Agree with your beef about the link headline, but the quote is accurate IMO.  If I'm attempting to drive to Chicago but misread the map and end up in Detroit, that doesn't mean I wasn't attempting to drive to Chicago-- it just means I'm dead.

Three are three quotes.  None of them are accurate.  The man was never "charged with attempting to sell technology secrets to Israel" because he never attempted to sell secrets to Israel.

Incorrect. This is what is called an "inept attempt" (I am roughly translating from the Polish legal expression, don't know what is the correct legal phrase in English) - i.e. an attempt that cannot succeed because the perpetrator is acting in a mistaken state of mind about some qualities of the object or subject of the crime. These are usually treated more leniently than an attempt which can succeed but is still prosecutable.

A classic example of an "inept attempt" is when a perpetrator e.g. fires a gun at an inanimate object or an animal, mistaking it for a human being. This attempt cannot succeed for obvious reasons, but is actionable as a murder attempt (evidentiary side is a bitch of course in most such cases, but sometimes it can be proven that he/she thought that he/she is firing at a human being).

[mongers]

Agree with your beef about the link headline, but the quote is accurate IMO.  If I'm attempting to drive to Chicago but misread the map and end up in Detroit, that doesn't mean I wasn't attempting to drive to Chicago-- it just means I'm dead.

Three are three quotes.  None of them are accurate.  The man was never "charged with attempting to sell technology secrets to Israel" because he never attempted to sell secrets to Israel.

Incorrect. This is what is called an "inept attempt" (I am roughly translating from the Polish legal expression, don't know what is the correct legal phrase in English) - i.e. an attempt that cannot succeed because the perpetrator is acting in a mistaken state of mind about some qualities of the object or subject of the crime. These are usually treated more leniently than an attempt which can succeed but is still prosecutable.

A classic example of an "inept attempt" is when a perpetrator e.g. fires a gun at an inanimate object or an animal, mistaking it for a human being. This attempt cannot succeed for obvious reasons, but is actionable as a murder attempt (evidentiary side is a bitch of course in most such cases, but sometimes it can be proven that he/she thought that he/she is firing at a human being).

Poland needs better opticians.

[grumbler]

Incorrect. This is what is called an "inept attempt" (I am roughly translating from the Polish legal expression, don't know what is the correct legal phrase in English) - i.e. an attempt that cannot succeed because the perpetrator is acting in a mistaken state of mind about some qualities of the object or subject of the crime. These are usually treated more leniently than an attempt which can succeed but is still prosecutable.

A classic example of an "inept attempt" is when a perpetrator e.g. fires a gun at an inanimate object or an animal, mistaking it for a human being. This attempt cannot succeed for obvious reasons, but is actionable as a murder attempt (evidentiary side is a bitch of course in most such cases, but sometimes it can be proven that he/she thought that he/she is firing at a human being).

Stricken as non-responsive.  You cannot argue that Nozette was charged with something he was never charged with because someone could be charged with attempted murder for shooting an animal. 

What Nozette was charged with is a matter of record.  He was never charged with attempting to sell secrets to Israel because he never attempted to sell secrets to Israel.  He was just charged with (and pled guilty to) attempting to sell secrets, period.  The charges would have been identical if the FBI dude had claimed to be from China or Canada.

[Gups]

Other headlines on this story

Ex-White House Scientist Pleads Guilty in Spy Case Tied to Israel (NYT)

Former NASA, DOD Scientist Pleads Guilty to Attempted Spying for Israel (ABC blog))

US scientist guilty of spying for Israel (Herald Sun)

Scientist who aimed to spy for Israel pleads guilty (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

[grumbler]

Other headlines on this story

Ex-White House Scientist Pleads Guilty in Spy Case Tied to Israel (NYT)

Former NASA, DOD Scientist Pleads Guilty to Attempted Spying for Israel (ABC blog))

US scientist guilty of spying for Israel (Herald Sun)

Scientist who aimed to spy for Israel pleads guilty (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The NYT article is correct - the man was "tied to Israel" in that he had worked for an Israeli company as a consultant (which was why he was more vulnerable to an approach from someone claiming to be an Israeli agent).
ABC blogs are no better than any blogs, and no more authoritative.
The Herald Sun and JTA headlines are as incompetent as the BBC's.

Some Australian papers got it right: "US space scientist admits spy charge" - The Australian.

I would also note that Nozette never offered or tried to spy for anyone.  He offered to sell information he already had, but not to spy (i.e. collect more).  He told his supposed handler that he no longer had access to classified information.  But that's a distinction that I wouldn't expect the average journalist to even understand, let alone incorporate in his or her story, so I don't feel any real disdain for stories that talk about "spying."

[Razgovory]

Incorrect. This is what is called an "inept attempt" (I am roughly translating from the Polish legal expression, don't know what is the correct legal phrase in English) - i.e. an attempt that cannot succeed because the perpetrator is acting in a mistaken state of mind about some qualities of the object or subject of the crime. These are usually treated more leniently than an attempt which can succeed but is still prosecutable.

A classic example of an "inept attempt" is when a perpetrator e.g. fires a gun at an inanimate object or an animal, mistaking it for a human being. This attempt cannot succeed for obvious reasons, but is actionable as a murder attempt (evidentiary side is a bitch of course in most such cases, but sometimes it can be proven that he/she thought that he/she is firing at a human being).

Stricken as non-responsive.  You cannot argue that Nozette was charged with something he was never charged with because someone could be charged with attempted murder for shooting an animal. 

What Nozette was charged with is a matter of record.  He was never charged with attempting to sell secrets to Israel because he never attempted to sell secrets to Israel.  He was just charged with (and pled guilty to) attempting to sell secrets, period.  The charges would have been identical if the FBI dude had claimed to be from China or Canada.

I'm not sure what your point is.  When you are charged with attempted murder the crime isn't "attempted murder of Ed Anger", it's simply attempted murder.  The word "Israel" offers context.  If they wrote charged with attempted murder, the first question someone would as would be attempted murder of who.  I agree the headline is bunk, but adding in who he was attempting to sell secrets is to is a natural question in such a case and appropriate even if that party was not actually involved.

[Martinus]

Indeed. And while I don't think there is a separate crime of "selling secrets to Israel" in the UK legal system, it is not inconceivable that there is a separate crime of "selling secrets to a foreign country" as opposed to "selling secrets to some unaffiliated dude", hence the distinction whether he thought he was selling the secrets to an Israeli agent or not is important.

[dps]

Indeed. And while I don't think there is a separate crime of "selling secrets to Israel" in the UK legal system, it is not inconceivable that there is a separate crime of "selling secrets to a foreign country" as opposed to "selling secrets to some unaffiliated dude", hence the distinction whether he thought he was selling the secrets to an Israeli agent or not is important.

Since this is a US citizen charged with committing a crime under US law, what does the UK legal system have to do with it?