Obviously there's limits, and several types of equipment are restricted based on where you are and what unit or branch you are with. Some units don't let you use non-standard at all.
I mostly just use a few attachments to my rifle that I prefer to have as personal comforts, and I use my own holster for my sidearm. But it's just a sling and a forward grip, and I bought the Safariland M9 holster instead of that shitty Blackhawk! SERPA holster. That thing is a piece of shit.
Some: Of course the actual leak is going to suffer severe repercussions (if he hasn't already, I haven't heard much of him from the news). That's a foregone conclusion. I was attempting to address the idea of preventing future leaks efficiently. Part of that is creating an environment that minimizes resentment by those on the inside.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.A note regarding the criminality issues of this leak, at least according to a BBC interview with an international law expert I listened to this morning:
The wikileaks people could be held criminally liable if (and only if) it can be shown that they were active participants in obtaining the leaked data from its original source. If they passively received the data, then they cannot be charged with anything.
The fact that the wikileaks people are not citizens of the United States doesn't enter into the equation of criminal liability * due to the nature of the international laws in question.
Standard disclaimer here: This is just what I heard from the BBC. I'm not a international law expert, so I cannot vouch for its accuracy.
edited 1st Dec '10 9:17:04 AM by OscarWildecat
Please spay/neuter your pets. Also, defang your copperheads.So, theoretically, what happens if someone mirrors/links some of the files? I want to collect the cables regarding my country for the lulz, as one of them happens to be hillarious and exploitable.
↑Define "actively". If you call my name and I instinctively turn around to see who is talking to me, are the shitty US politicians going to consider that "actively"?
edited 1st Dec '10 11:19:30 AM by SilentReverence
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?
Okay, let's see if I can I can pull out from context of the interview.
"Active" (or "Actively") in this context would mean that they were active participants in the theft of the data from US servers. It would mean that the person who stole the data either was a member of the wikileaks team or hired by wikileaks to perform the theft in question.
However, if wikileaks did not have a role in the actual act of stealing the data, then their subsequent actions in publishing the data cannot be construed as being active.
Given that the cables are in the "wild" (so to speak) now, anybody is free to use them. This is why organizations such as the New York Times and such are able to use the contents of the cables in their stories.
===
To say it another way, if what happened is a disgruntled government worker zipped up a bunch of secret documents and emailed them to wikileaks on his own volition, then the only person who can be charged with any sort of crime is the worker. Wikileaks would be free and clear.
On the other hand, if wikileaks hired somebody to break into government servers to steal sensitive data, they become as guilty as the person they hired.
edited 1st Dec '10 2:03:27 PM by OscarWildecat
Please spay/neuter your pets. Also, defang your copperheads.![]()
In a word, no. Only the actual thief is liable.
Nah, that's just going to get the US more pissed.
Related: Pfffff haha
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the amazon thing. It made a local free paper.
Wiki Leaks was apparently being hosted by Amazon after their server got hacked (?), and after this leak, Amazon kicked them out. There's a (fairly pathetic attempt at a) boycott being organized.
BTW, I'm a chick.Yeah, Wikileaks was hit by a D Do S attack on Tuesday, apparently by a hacker called "jester". Wikileaks moved their servers to Amazon's, but were promptly kicked out when US senators started complaining.
Pay Pal? I didn't hear anything about that.
Il n'y a rien à regretter. Tout est déjà oublié.I think the site was responsible for handling their Pay Pal donations; Money-something.
Anyway, now Assange is getting death threats from people who should know better.
"That said, as I've mentioned before, apart from the helmet, he's not exactly bad looking, if a bit...blood-drenched." - juancarlos^^^^ lol yah
Harper advisor (Canada) calls for assassination of Assange http://www.zerohedge.com/article/university-calgary-professor-and-senior-advisor-canadian-pm-calls-julian-assange-assassinati
US Politico (he ran for POTUS in 2008, was governor of US state of Arkansas, etc) calls for assassination too
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee
Sarah Palin is thinkin the same thing. LOL -_-
edited 2nd Dec '10 8:37:42 AM by BalloonFleet
WHASSUP....... ....with lolis!

British politicians reacted the same way, jumping for the anti-terror legislation, when it was revealed that they were lining their pockets with millions of pounds and sending soldiers into Iraq without body armour because it was too expensive.
Some of our soldiers wore bulletproof vests they had personally bought on ebay. Unsurprisingly this leak was also orchestrated by a disgruntled soldier.
Claims of national security gave way to accusations that the leak was intended to destabilise Britain which gave way to indignant insistances of not having done anything wrong which gave way to a small number of resignations and a token amount being repaid.