Nun faces 30 years in prison for exposing security lapses in nuclear weapons program




Ahem. She BROKE IN to a facility. There are words for that. BURGLARY. BREAKING AND ENTERING. On top of the "Destroying Federal Property", etc charges. She may be a nun, and calling it "civil disobedience", but calling a hand a foot does not make it one. She is a violator of the CRIMINAL code, not the Civil code. .


I just LOVE your unique writing STYLE and its EMPHASIS in weirD placEs. Very intellectual. Much LEET.

Although I read the ARTICLE, too, I think you are being a LITTLE small MINDED about WHAT this PERSON actually DID. The LAWS are there TO PROTECT US from HARM. Notice that is SOMEthing the FaCiIItY couldn't do. IT SEEMS the facility is at fault not a bunch of PENSIONERS.


Let me get this straight. This nun and her compadres break into a facility, and you blame the facility ? I don't care if they're 80 or 8: the law applies to everyone equally. Well, except Congress and the President, but that's an argument for another day,

I seem to recall an old TV theme, something along the lines of "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". These people were not threatened or coerced, they chose to break the law, Now, they face the consequences. Roll credits, cut to commercial, story over. . .


the way this post is worded, it makes it sound as if Rice's goal was to expose how lax the security was at the facility, when in fact she had no idea how lax it would be at the outset. her actual goal was to break into the facility to protest that the uranium enriched there was destined to be made into atomic weapons, which are decidedly un-christlike.

nothing I read indicated any theft, but breaking and entering and destruction of federal property applies if only because she and her party cut a hole in a chain link fence. cool capslock, though, bro.


Perhaps intent ought to be taken into account. The greater good to society is that she and her compatriots exposed a serious condition which (presumably) will now be remedied.

To punish her with 30 years would be unethical.

Reminds me of hmmm...what's-his-name- oh yeah - Snowden.

Sometimes, you need to break the law in order to do the Right Thing.


but... that wasn't her intent. I just wrote a post explaining this. unless you mean the greater good to society involves less nuclear weapons, in which case I agree and carry on.


This country is a dark nightmare. People who do good are destroyed and the guilty rule. The powerful in this country are evil.

(Extra words because the online editor will not post this otherwise. )


Somehow, the hacker defense "but I have to try to break-in in order to uncover security flaws," to which I'm so sympathetic when used in that world, feels much more problematic to defend in the meatspace.

Real life isn't the film Sneakers, though I'd support making the transition to that reality.


Baretta? Classic morality tales.

[Edit: Blake did the crime, but didn't serve the time. "In 2005, Blake was tried and acquitted of the 2001 murder of his second wife, Bonnie Lee Bakley, but on November 18, 2005, Blake was found liable in a California civil court for her wrongful death."]


This nun and her compadres break into a facility, and you blame the facility ?

I see you're a self described IT Security Geek, for a minute I'll assume that is your job and put this hypothetical situation to you: If your employer hired you to secure some sensitive data, and three days later that data was hacked into by an inexperienced hacker through simple methods, would you expect to retain your job? Or would you expect to be blamed for not actually doing your job and get fired?

The facility in question exists to process and secure weapons grade uranium. Its a facility with hundreds of millions of dollars of security in place. If it can't keep out a couple of pensioners then those running the facility certainly do need to be blamed, and held to account. This doesn't necessarily excuse Megan Rice or her comrades, but their peaceful and honourable intentions most certainly should be considered when sentencing them.


About a week ago two climate change protesters managed to get into a Vancouver Board of Trade meeting where Stephen Harper was on stage and hold up a sign a few feet behind him. They weren't charged with anything, but it sparked a debate where talking heads said that he could have done something, so we must outlaw getting near the Prime Minister.


Prosecutorial discretion, ladies and gentlemen.


This is probably a case of maximum sentence hyperbole perpetuated by US Attorney. Unless the sister has a past that we don't know about a maximum sentence isn't possible withing the federal sentencing guidelines despite the media's predilection for citing the maximum sentance for any crime when reporting on a trial. It is way to complicated for me to explain but Ken White does a very good job in his post Crime: Whale Sushi. Sentence: ELEVENTY MILLION YEARS.


Actually that's bullshit. A court has plenty of leeway to interpret the motives of criminals and apply leniency or otherwise. The idea that in this case the justice system should show leniency is not some radical proposition made without regard to the rule of law, its just common sense.


He typed on his computer, sitting on a relatively comfortable couch, in a climate controlled house with a steady supply of electricity, clean drinking water, internet access and cable television being pumped in for pennies a day. He continued to ruminate on the frightening and terror inducing state of the society surrounding him in as he walked down the street relatively unafraid as the chances of him being robbed, murdered, kidnapped for ransom, or persecuted for his political, social or religious beliefs was infinitesimally small. "I'm just not sure I'm going to be able to take it any more" He thought as he arrived at his destination. And as he walked down the long aisles of the grocery, well stocked with not only the basic staples needed to sustain life, but nearly overflowing with a myriad of choices in fresh vegetables, fruits, meats, delicacy's, fine cheeses and beer he began to contemplate taking his own life. "It's so awful here, living in this dark nightmare of a country. Perhaps it would be better not to live at all?"

Get some perspective. We've got problems, no doubt, but to refer to anything in this country (with a few exceptions) as a "dark nightmare" is a fucking slap in the face to those who would gladly trade places with you and "suffer" in your stead.

EDITED by Mod: To remove inflammatory language.


Get the fuck out of Malibu, Lebowski. Jk. She's a heroine. Hope sanity prevails and she stays out of the clink.


Perhaps this will smack a little much of "Cool story bro", so take it or leave it.

I grew up in Oak Ridge, and was visiting town when the break in occurred. The consensus among the plant workers and such I spoke to was not that these people were lucky that they didn't get shot and killed that night, but that they should have been shot and killed that night. Not out of vindictiveness, or because it was believed they "deserved" it, but because that is what the actual security protocols dictate. When you break into a nuclear storage facility, they shoot first and ask questions later. Or at least thats how it's supposed to happen.

I don't know how a trio of sexta+genarians might protest the facility in the dark of night, but I do know that if things had been played by the book, they'd be dead. Spending the rest of their lives in prison ain't anything to look forward to, but at least they're still alive.


Yea, well here's the thing. Some of us would like it to not go in the direction of dark nightmare (clearly his hyperbole), rather than wait for it to suck shit and become like the places where there are people who would gladly trade .... places.
You know how when there's a story in the news how they chopped someone's hand off because he stole some bread and the rubes come out of the woodwork saying "damn, we should do that in 'merica, too!"?
All the while not getting the irony that they cheered when we bombed the same country.

EDITED by mod: To remove inflammatory language.


I would think that none of us want that. And fortunately for us, there is every indication that simply is not, and will not happen. Again, I'm not saying we don't have problems. But we'll always have problems, and we'll always strive for ways to solve them. That's the reason we're here today, because people strove to solve the problems that presented themselves in the past. We got some new problems to deal with, but that doesn't indicate that things are getting worse. In fact it's quite the opposite. New problems means we're making progress.

I would much sooner endure 10,000 NSA agencies tapping my phone, and every zealot nun who sprays inane and useless dribble on the side of a building spending the rest of their lives in prison than live in a world where the entire western world at is at war, or a person's worth and humanity is decided by the color of their skin, or a person's ability to own property is determined by their genitals, or a country outlaws my sexuality, or I could be killed for believing in the wrong god/not believing hard enough/not believing in the right way.

Are the problems we face vexing and troubling? Yes. Is it sad that this silly, silly woman will spend her life in prison? Yes. But these issues are not unsolvable, and they are certainly no "dark nightmare".