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:
QuoteA 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.
I think I saw exactly this title in some newspaper in the news stand today. I don't recall which one it was.
Is Israel or the BBC important to you? If so, why?
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.
Sub-editor extrapolates article to create interesting headline. Film at 11.
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2011, 02:27:24 PM
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
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 06:03:02 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2011, 02:27:24 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 06:03:02 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2011, 02:27:24 PM
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).
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 06:23:48 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 06:03:02 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 07, 2011, 02:27:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 06:23:48 AM
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.
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)
Quote from: Gups on September 08, 2011, 07:06:32 AM
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."
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 07:06:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 06:23:48 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 10:11:09 AM
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?
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2011, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 10:11:09 AM
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?
Sorry, make it US law. I thought this was a UK story.
Not sure what your beef is Grumbler. According to the article he tried to sell secrets for money. He thought he was selling the secrets to Israel. The charges he faced we based on those facts. If he was convicted on all charges he would have faced the death penalty.
The headline seems pretty accurate with the possible exception that it might lead someone who does not actually read the article to think Isreal was trying to buy US secrets. But since a headline is designed to get people to read the article and only a moron would conclude such a thing after getting a few lines into the story I think your allegation of anti-semitism is entirely overblown.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 09:57:55 AM
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.
I am not sure what your objection is. If a man tries to kill his neighbor Joe thinking that Joe is an alien, he is not charged with attempting to kill an alien, and no competent headline writer or story-summarizer will claim that he tried to kill and alien or was charged with attempting to kill an alien. The BBC might...
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 11:12:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 09:57:55 AM
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.
I am not sure what your objection is. If a man tries to kill his neighbor Joe thinking that Joe is an alien, he is not charged with attempting to kill an alien, and no competent headline writer or story-summarizer will claim that he tried to kill and alien or was charged with attempting to kill an alien. The BBC might...
If a man tries to kill his neighbor Joe and is set up in a sting operation where he can't possibly harm Joe but goes through with the act thinking he going to kill Joe, I don't see a problem with a newspaper story claiming he tried to kill Joe (even if Joe was out of the country or in FBI protection).
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 10:25:29 AM
Not sure what your beef is Grumbler. According to the article he tried to sell secrets for money. He thought he was selling the secrets to Israel. The charges he faced we based on those facts. If he was convicted on all charges he would have faced the death penalty.
My beef is as I have stated it. What words didn't you understand, that you cannot follow my complaint that the headline, link, and summary are all false?
QuoteThe headline seems pretty accurate with the possible exception that it might lead someone who does not actually read the article to think Isreal was trying to buy US secrets. But since a headline is designed to get people to read the article and only a moron would conclude such a thing after getting a few lines into the story I think your allegation of anti-semitism is entirely overblown.
The headline is "pretty accurate" except where it is false. I am not beefing about the accurate parts.
If the headline is written to get people to read the story, at the expense of saying untrue things, then the headline writer is thinking more people will read the story because it contains Israeli misdeeds then will read it if it does not. That isn't journalism, at least by my standards. That's tabloid shit.
I made no allegations of antisemitism, btw. Read the OP again. Your allegation about my allegation is entirely overblown.
So was the title "Anti-Semitic BBC Strikes Again?" just an idle question and not an accusation of bad faith?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 11:21:29 AM
If a man tries to kill his neighbor Joe and is set up in a sting operation where he can't possibly harm Joe but goes through with the act thinking he going to kill Joe, I don't see a problem with a newspaper story claiming he tried to kill Joe (even if Joe was out of the country or in FBI protection).
The actual equivalent in your scenario is for the man to attempt to kill an FBI agent who he thinks is Joe, and you having no problem with the newspaper headline reading "Man Attempts to Kill Joe." I
would have a problem with that headline - it would be a lie.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 11:24:59 AM
So was the title "Anti-Semitic BBC Strikes Again?" just an idle question and not an accusation of bad faith?
That isn't the title.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 11:24:59 AM
So was the title "Anti-Semitic BBC Strikes Again?" just an idle question and not an accusation of bad faith?
Maybe it was written to get people to read the thread?
Alternatively, grumbler may be anti-BBC or an idiot.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 11:25:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 11:21:29 AM
If a man tries to kill his neighbor Joe and is set up in a sting operation where he can't possibly harm Joe but goes through with the act thinking he going to kill Joe, I don't see a problem with a newspaper story claiming he tried to kill Joe (even if Joe was out of the country or in FBI protection).
The actual equivalent in your scenario is for the man to attempt to kill an FBI agent who he thinks is Joe, and you having no problem with the newspaper headline reading "Man Attempts to Kill Joe." I would have a problem with that headline - it would be a lie.
:console:
I do have to admit if I saw an article titled 'dude admits to spying for Israel' I would think that Israel was spying on the US somehow.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2011, 11:40:49 AM
I do have to admit if I saw an article titled 'dude admits to spying for Israel' I would think that Israel was spying on the US somehow.
The question is whether that was, indeed, the intent of the headline writer, or whether he was, as Warspite says, simply trying to get people to read the story by making up the facts.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 11:23:03 AM
I made no allegations of antisemitism, btw.
Grumbler, read the title of the thread.
I can now understand your confusion. You are not even sure what you are saying.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 11:25:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 11:21:29 AM
If a man tries to kill his neighbor Joe and is set up in a sting operation where he can't possibly harm Joe but goes through with the act thinking he going to kill Joe, I don't see a problem with a newspaper story claiming he tried to kill Joe (even if Joe was out of the country or in FBI protection).
The actual equivalent in your scenario is for the man to attempt to kill an FBI agent who he thinks is Joe, and you having no problem with the newspaper headline reading "Man Attempts to Kill Joe." I would have a problem with that headline - it would be a lie.
Your example doesn't work as well since presumably the person
could kill the FBI agent. In this situation the defendant can't do any harm. It's more like trying to shoot a dummy he thinks is Joe or attempting to kill Joe with a gun that isn't loaded (there was a case where this actually happened. The defendant argued it was impossible to shoot his wife with an unloaded gun and so he couldn't be charged with attempted murder. The Judge disagreed.) The intent is the main thing. And a newspaper reporting what the suspect
intended to do is fully justified. Alan Dershowitz tried just such a case (attempted murder when the victim was already dead), eventually the defendant was found guilty of attempted murder despite it being physically impossible to do it.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 11:26:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 11:24:59 AM
So was the title "Anti-Semitic BBC Strikes Again?" just an idle question and not an accusation of bad faith?
That isn't the title.
:lol: It's the title of this thread!
Grumbler. :lol:
No, it's not. :huh: The title is: "Anti-Semitic BBC Strikes Again? Or just incompetence?" I'm sure that's what grumbler's issue was. :unsure:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 11:44:40 AM
Grumbler, read the title of the thread.
I can now understand your confusion. You are not even sure what you are saying.
Ah. You don't understand the meaning of "allegation." In understand why you don't know what I am saying, and think it something else entirely.
That the BBC has been widely criticized for being anti-Semitic is hardly news - nor that the BBC has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds trying to prevent the release to the public, under the FOIA, of
its own investigation into the matter (the Balen Report). I ask a question, which is not the same as making an allegation. Find a good lawyer and he can explain the difference to you (hint: don't trust "internet chat board lawyers" who are as likely to be frauds as "Internet former SEALs").
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 12:04:34 PM
:lol: It's the title of this thread!
:huh: Okay. If that's all you can see, then there is no communicating with you. Our conversation is perforce over.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 12:40:20 PM
Ah. You don't understand the meaning of "allegation."
And you dont understand that stating a reason for a course of conduct is antisemtism is in fact an allegation.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 12:43:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 12:04:34 PM
:lol: It's the title of this thread!
:huh: Okay. If that's all you can see, then there is no communicating with you. Our conversation is perforce over.
What's wrong with my statement? I think our conversation is over because you just made a fool of yourself.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 01:11:07 PM
What's wrong with my statement? I think our conversation is over because you just made a fool of yourself.
I don't know. I can see how that is a pretty misleading title. You would have to read the article a bit with the title in mind to realize Israel was not actually spying on the US and that was just the cover of the FBI agent.
Ni hao!
Oh sorry, I just got a vision of grumbler digging any deeper.
"Hinckley admits to assassination conspiracy with Jody Foster"
Hinckley admits to attempt to assassinate Ronnie to win Jodie's love.
Hinckley megathread?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 12:53:44 PM
And you dont understand that stating a reason for a course of conduct is antisemtism is in fact an allegation.
And you don't understand that a question isn't a statement. You don't need a lawyer to correct that misapprehension; any handy fourth grader should be able to set you straight.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2011, 01:31:21 PM
"Hinckley admits to assassination conspiracy with Jody Foster"
Ni hao!
Oh sorry, I just got a vision of Minsky digging any deeper.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2011, 01:16:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 01:11:07 PM
What's wrong with my statement? I think our conversation is over because you just made a fool of yourself.
I don't know. I can see how that is a pretty misleading title. You would have to read the article a bit with the title in mind to realize Israel was not actually spying on the US and that was just the cover of the FBI agent.
I agree the title of the story is misleading. I did argue that mentioning Israel in the story is legitimate since it's reasonable to ask who he thought he was selling secrets to. Since Grumbler is arguing with me, I take it that he disagrees.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 02:07:21 PM
Hinckley admits to attempt to assassinate Ronnie to win Jodie's love.
Doctor admits to operating on Ronnie to save his life from Hinckley bullet.
Lee Harvey Oswald arrested for suspicion of murder.
This thread is like a French indie film. You watch it and go: "Huh? What the fuck is going on?" Unfortunately, this thread doesn't have any nudity in it.
Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2011, 02:37:59 PM
Unfortunately, this thread doesn't have any nudity in it.
so you think :perv:
Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2011, 02:37:59 PM
This thread is like a French indie film. You watch it and go: "Huh? What the fuck is going on?" Unfortunately, this thread post doesn't have any nudity Hinkley in it.
BYPFY
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 02:30:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 12:53:44 PM
And you dont understand that stating a reason for a course of conduct is antisemtism is in fact an allegation.
And you don't understand that a question isn't a statement. You don't need a lawyer to correct that misapprehension; any handy fourth grader should be able to set you straight.
Nice try but the question mark does not take away the inference. The "or" means you are alleging one of two explanations for the conduct.
Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2011, 02:37:59 PM
This thread is like a French indie film. You watch it and go: "Huh? What the fuck is going on?" Unfortunately, this thread doesn't have any nudity in it.
You should watch Swedish films instead. They finish with a slut.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 11:25:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 11:21:29 AM
If a man tries to kill his neighbor Joe and is set up in a sting operation where he can't possibly harm Joe but goes through with the act thinking he going to kill Joe, I don't see a problem with a newspaper story claiming he tried to kill Joe (even if Joe was out of the country or in FBI protection).
The actual equivalent in your scenario is for the man to attempt to kill an FBI agent who he thinks is Joe, and you having no problem with the newspaper headline reading "Man Attempts to Kill Joe." I would have a problem with that headline - it would be a lie.
I don't see how that would be a lie. The man intended to kill Joe, and took steps towards that goal...therefore he attempted to kill Joe. In the same way, Stewart Nozette intended to sell secrets to Israel and took steps towards that goal...attempting to sell secrets to Israel.
This is the same as someone attempting to buy drugs from a police officer; they attempted to buy drugs, notwithstanding that no drugs were there to be had.
Quote from: ulmont on September 08, 2011, 03:01:39 PM
I don't see how that would be a lie. The man intended to kill Joe, and took steps towards that goal...therefore he attempted to kill Joe. In the same way, Stewart Nozette intended to sell secrets to Israel and took steps towards that goal...attempting to sell secrets to Israel.
This is the same as someone attempting to buy drugs from a police officer; they attempted to buy drugs, notwithstanding that no drugs were there to be had.
I was thinking of Abscam. The perps were attempting to bribe members of Congress. Even though they didn't meet anyone from Congress.
Oh shit, Abscam was the other way around wasn't it? Takes backs. :Embarrass:
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2011, 02:54:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2011, 02:37:59 PM
This thread is like a French indie film. You watch it and go: "Huh? What the fuck is going on?" Unfortunately, this thread doesn't have any nudity in it.
You should watch Swedish films instead. They finish with a slut.
So boring boring boring, cut to women briefly - the end?
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 02:30:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 12:53:44 PM
And you dont understand that stating a reason for a course of conduct is antisemtism is in fact an allegation.
And you don't understand that a question isn't a statement. You don't need a lawyer to correct that misapprehension; any handy fourth grader should be able to set you straight.
It isn't a statement, but just asking it does carry certain implications. That was the M.O. of that allegedly Icelandic guy--I forget his name--who used to post here. He'd post something in question form, such as, "Well, hasn't it alway been the policy of the US government to torture enemy POWs?" and and get everyone all riled up, then, after 4 or 5 pages of arguments about what does or doesn't constitute torture (and usually, a lot of tangents, too), he'd break out the, "I never said that the US has ever tortured POWs" post, and we'd get 4 or 5 more pages of people arguing that he did; while technically, he was correct that he had never outright stated that the US had tortured POWs, he had clearly implied it. It was pretty obvious that he had intended it to be inflamatory, but he always tried to give himself some wiggle room.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2011, 03:13:42 PM
Oh shit, Abscam was the other way around wasn't it? Takes backs. :Embarrass:
Yeah, it was members of Congress (and some other officials) agreeing to take bribes from foreign nationals. Only they weren't foreigners, they were FBI agents. Still, the principle is the same--they thought they were taking bribes from foreigners, but their mistake in identifying who they were dealing with didn't change their intent, nor their guilt.
Quote from: ulmont on September 08, 2011, 03:01:39 PM
I don't see how that would be a lie. The man intended to kill Joe, and took steps towards that goal...therefore he attempted to kill Joe.
:huh: Intent /= attempt Logic fail
QuoteIn the same way, Stewart Nozette intended to sell secrets to Israel and took steps towards that goal...attempting to sell secrets to Israel.
Nope. Nozette intended to sell secrets to a man he thought was an Israeli. There is no evidence Nozette inteded to sell secrets to Israel per se. The FBI guy could have said he was from France, and the exact same thing would have happened.
QuoteThis is the same as someone attempting to buy drugs from a police officer; they attempted to buy drugs, notwithstanding that no drugs were there to be had.
That's not the way the law works around here - you must "possess with intent to purchase" an actual drug to violate the law... but that doesn't matter. The analogy that would apply is if you buy ecstasy from an undercover cop thinking it is cocaine, and get charged with (and the newspaper headline reports you as having been charged with, even knowing differently) the buying of cocaine. That's not going to fly.
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2011, 01:24:36 PM
Ni hao!
Oh sorry, I just got a vision of grumbler digging any deeper.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 02:32:31 PMI did argue that mentioning Israel in the story is legitimate since it's reasonable to ask who he thought he was selling secrets to. Since Grumbler is arguing with me, I take it that he disagrees.
i think mentioning israel in the story is perfectly fine, and i don't see grumbler disagreeing with that. however, the way they--and other sites--went about it is simply wrong and poor journalism. these aren't the tabloids, and they shouldn't post horribly misleading titles that sort of condemn a nation that millions across the globe already have problems with. a lot of people skim articles, or simply don't read them, so when they see such titles it leaves an impression that they could later fallback on when engaging in circle-jerks about israel's evilness months down the line
i don't get the hostile reaction to this thread (well, actually, i kinda do). the complaint is well justified. israel, in this story, is pretty meaningless. the reason why fbi agents posed as israeli operators is because the man had a connection to israel and not, say, china. explaining why the fbi used israel as their cover rather than another country is perfectly fine. what isn't fine is that some news outlets have taken the story and, on purpose or sloppy writing, placed a sort of blame on israel
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2011, 04:03:24 PM
Yeah, it was members of Congress (and some other officials) agreeing to take bribes from foreign nationals. Only they weren't foreigners, they were FBI agents. Still, the principle is the same--they thought they were taking bribes from foreigners, but their mistake in identifying who they were dealing with didn't change their intent, nor their guilt.
But no headlines on Abscam that I have been able to find even mention the name Kraim Abdul Rahman... mostly because who the Congressmen thought they were being bought by didn't greatly matter. Any more than it greatly matters which country Nozette thought the man paying him was from. and yet the BBC not only falsely claimed that the charges named the country, but includes "spy-for-Israel" in its headline.
No one is questioning Nozette's guilt. I just find the bogus BBC wording interesting.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2011, 05:22:20 PM
:huh: Intent /= attempt Logic fail
Legally it can be. I brought up two cases where someone was convicted of attempting to do something which was actually impossible. You ignored it. Was it because your are dishonest? Or Just incompetent?
Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2011, 02:37:59 PM
This thread is like a French indie film. You watch it and go: "Huh? What the fuck is going on?" Unfortunately, this thread doesn't have any nudity in it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_ov6z2TwdHKg%2FTK8kau09HJI%2FAAAAAAAAEU8%2FfSan6tEpSJ4%2Fs1600%2FEctac.Audrey-Tautou.01.jpg&hash=2eda6ffc28dcde667a4621c9f03139914b3040c7)
:)