MH17 investigators still awaiting U.S., Russian intelligence reports

[The Magistrate]

Source: Rueters

Dutch prosecutors are still awaiting U.S. intelligence reports on the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 but American laws on passing on such information to criminal investigations are complicating the process, the Dutch government said on Tuesday.

"In the American legal system it is judicially complicated to pass intelligence information to the criminal justice system," the letter said.

Prosecutors have also said they plan to ask Russian authorities for radar data supposedly in Russian possession that shows a Ukrainian fighter was in the vicinity of the airliner, German magazine Der Spiegel reported on Monday.

Last month's interim report by the Dutch Safety Board, which investigates air crashes, said there were several civilian airliners flying nearby but no military aircraft that would have been capable of shooting it down.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/us-ukraine-crisis-mh-idUSKBN0IH15N20141028

[ColesCountyDem]

1. Excellent article, Sir!

Much more accurate than this one, posted earlier: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=930016

Thank you for posting it!

[The Magistrate]

2. 'Newsweek' Has Not Been A Serious Publication Foir Some While, Sir

Just some vultures wringing the last drops out of an old name....

[elias49]

3. I can't imagine it would be 'judicially complicated'

if US data proved it was the responsibility of Russia.
So what does that tell you?
Yeah. Me too. Cover-up.

[The Magistrate]

4. I Expect Public Disclosure Would Remain Quite Complicated, Sir

Disclosure of satellite imagery, for example, would reveal a great deal about actual capabilities, which would be of help to people desiring to evade their surveillance. The agencies will always prefer people simply take their word for what their materials show. What you imagine it may mean has no weight at all.

[elias49]

6. Well it HAS been 3 months, plus.

I guess there's no hurry.

[stevenleser]

8. LOL, three months? Transfer of info that indicates intel capability sometimes takes an act of

congress and years. This is nothing.

[elias49]

10. An act of Congress??

Bwahahaha!

[stevenleser]

11. Yep, that is exactly what I said.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/It+would+take+an+act+of+Congress+to+do

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=act%20of%20congress

http://www.yourdictionary.com/act-of-congress

[elias49]

13. Haha. That's good.

Funny and sad at the same time!
Thanks...

[The Magistrate]

9. Stick With It As Long As You Want, Sir

You are not even presenting, let alone making, a valid point.

[stevenleser]

12. That person doesn't seem to care about not having a point or any knowledge of what they are talking

about.

[The Magistrate]

14. Yet Another Instance Of Ritual Noise, Sir, I Agree

[elias49]

15. Actually Steve, I have an opinion. That OK?

Get back to me after that act of Congress. What? Maybe after the 2016 elections??

[stevenleser]

16. No, it's not "OK" because it's not merely an opinion. It's an agenda couched in an opinion.

It's not unlike the opinion of someone who has no meteorological experience and has never done any research on the topic claiming that global warming is a hoax. They want to believe that so they say its their "opinion" and they argue with folks who have done the research to know that all of the facts are in their corner.

Willful ignorance that serves an agenda presented in debate as 'opinion' is not "OK"

[elias49]

17. Bite me oh wise one.

I haven't seen any in-depth analysis from you on this. You, too, have an opinion.
And an agenda.
Lighten up

[stevenleser]

18. About what I would expect from you since you had nothing on this from the get go. nt

[elias49]

19. Bye bye

You need to get a handle on your emotions.

[The Magistrate]

20. Fairly Good Definition Of An Ideologue, Sir

"They believed nothing they could not prove, and could prove anything they believed."

[stevenleser]

21. That is an excellent quote and very apropos, sir.

People are so used to having their unsupported screeds deemed acceptable if they precede or follow them up with "well, it's my opinion." In their minds, that is supposed to be equal in a discussion to folks who have done a fair amount of reading on the subject and have backup.

That might work on conservative sites as conservatives tend to view ignorance as a virtue and knowledge and erudition as either having no value or a vice, but it should not work here.

[stevenleser]

5. Transfer of info that indicates intelligence capabilities is always complicated. This isnt new.

Nice try though.

[elias49]

7. See #6 if you care to. nt