backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by SlyNine.. on Nov 16 at 2:06 PM


"Medal of Honor: Warfighter"  (Source: itechbook.net)
They all received letters of reprimand and a cut of half their pay for two months

Seven U.S. Navy SEAL members are in hot water for participating in the making of the video game, "Medal of Honor: Warfighter."

Video game developer Electronic Arts (EA) recently paid seven active and retired U.S. Navy SEALs to help in the creation of "Medal of Honor: Warfighter" in order to make it as realistic as possible.

However, the Navy wasn't too pleased with this move. It said that their participation was a violation of Article 92, which basically states that members of the Navy SEALs cannot disclose classified material to anyone. The Navy believes that these members provided classified information to EA for the making of the game, but it is unclear what this classified information was.

Now, the seven SEALs are facing punishment, according to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). DOD said that a non-judicial punishment hearing was carried out on November 7 where the seven SEALs faced administrative proceedings. An NSW investigation is now being conducted to see if more members of the Navy were involved.

The seven Navy SEALs consist of two Senior Chief Special Operators and five Chief Special Operators, which all received letters of reprimand and a cut of half their pay for two months.

According to EA, they were unaware of whether the seven Navy SEALs asked the DOD for permission to participate first.

Back in 2010, EA's "Medal of Honor" was banned from military PXs globally because of multiplayer Taliban characters.

Source: Polygon



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By maugrimtr on 11/12/2012 9:12:31 AM , Rating: 0
I'm supposed to vote differently based on a wall of demented text? This is why the right lost - if you talk crazy, act crazy, and make crazy promises to crazy people...well, some of us might think you actually ARE crazy. Republican politicians need to get their heads out from under the extremists who have taken over the GOP, with their appalling ignorance and bluster, and deal with the real world. Then, right minded folk with a brain might consider voting in that direction again.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2012 9:14:59 AM , Rating: 4
Yes because it's "extreme" to support family values, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and equality for all. Not equality for some via a law that institutes reverse racism against anyone not in the group(s) they're attempting to make more "equal".


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By Richlet on 11/12/12, Rating: 0
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2012 10:01:08 AM , Rating: 5
Good to know I can count on it for people who just call me stupid or extreme without giving any kind of counter argument.


By Kurz on 11/12/2012 10:16:21 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry but trying to make society Equal with law never works.
Fit Is completely right.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By Rukkian on 11/12/2012 11:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
No, it is "extreme" to push your "family values" on everybody else. Let people marry who they want, do what they want and leave people alone. Don't berate people because they have other beliefs than you and keep religion out of politics.

I personally do not like Obama, and wished somebody else had been a choice. Mitt was out of touch with a large portion of the population and did not seem to even understand that. Yes, he got the rich, old, male, white vote, but pretty much got smoked out side that. Give an actual plan other than lower taxes, spend more, and let congress figure out how to pay for it. That is not a plan, it is an empty promise that cannot possibly be done.

There were several people in the primaries that I would have voted for over obama, unfortunately everybody fell for Romney's ideology of the month during the primaries. I liked alot of Herman Caines Ideas, and if he did not have the skeletons in the closet that came out, I would have probably voted for him. Ron Paul also had many good ideas, but some were just a little too far out.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By JediJeb on 11/12/2012 6:08:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Mitt was out of touch with a large portion of the population and did not seem to even understand that.


If Mitt had lost by a huge percentage I could buy into this thought, but when it is 45% to 51% you can say the same thing about both sides. Mitt is out of touch with half the population and Mr. Obama is also out of touch with one half of the population, otherwise he would have taken a larger percentage of the votes.

I agree with you on Herman Cain, seemed to have some good business oriented ideas for running the government.

The biggest problem facing the country is that the person who needs to be elected will never be elected. It is a person who will take command and actually cut spending, reform taxes and take control within the bounds of the Constitution to push forward the changes needed even at the risk of his popularity. The fix for this nation is going to hurt, just like pulling a tooth, but the long term health of the nation will be worth the short term pain.

quote:
Let people marry who they want, do what they want and leave people alone.


Though it sounds like a good idea, study up on the Ancient Greek Empire and the Roman Empire and see what happened to them once their societies decided to put more emphasis on personal entertainment, pleasures and popularity. Personal freedoms are protected by the Constitution, but they come with a price. Letting people do what they want is fine as long as what the people want is not detrimental to society as a whole. "If it feels good do it" is not a good way to run a society. Suppose one group thinks that killing people "feels good", or stealing "feels good", do you still allow them to do what feels good or do you put a limit on their actions? Some people want to legalize drugs, but ask yourself, do you want a doctor doing heart surgery on you if he has just gotten high? Do you want the pilot of a plane carrying your family flown by someone so stoned they can hardly see? There has to be some type of limits, the arguments come in where those limits are set. There is always someone upset because the limit was set either to far past or too short of their ideal position. Be careful to suggest a "do what they want and leave them alone" stance, it can lead to some very bad circumstances because someone always wants to take what they want to the extremes without regard to how much it might hurt others.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2012 8:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't 51% to 45%. It was 51% to 48%.

Fun facts.

Romney got 3 million less votes than McCain in 08.
Obama got 9 million less votes than in 08.

Who do I think those missing voters were? Mostly people in their 20s who voted for Obama's "hope and change" and were severally disappointed but didn't like Romney either.

Funny thing is if more liberals voted for conservatives, then we'd live in a nation where they could institute their utopias at the state level where they live. Then the rest of us would get to watch them collapse the way Europe, the Soviet Union, and California have.


By JediJeb on 11/12/2012 10:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yea the 45% was a typo, but alas no edit button.

The only thing the close margin shows is that this country is as split down middle now as it was at the time Lincoln took office. Only this time the divide isn't so much north versus south, but urban verses rural. Just watching the returns from Ohio showed that Obama won by carrying the cities while Romney carried the rest of the state.

An interesting thing I saw on the news this evening was just how many new regulations are going to go into effect at the first of the year. They want to put one in effect that will require all cars to have a backup camera. I know many will say "oh that's a great idea" but how many of those have already gone out and bought an after market backup camera and installed it in their vehicle? Some regulations are good, but to just pile more on when the economy is struggling is not so good. Compliance with regulations is not free, I have seen both sides of the equation on that myself. I work in an environmental testing laboratory where we analyze samples for clients needing to comply with ever changing regulations, and each new analysis costs more for that client to have done, because it costs us money to perform them and we can not pass them along for free or we go out of business. If we can't keep the price down then the client may have to cut workers to stay profitable, or if we may lose money we may have to cut workers to stay competitive, either of which is not good for the current economy.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By peter7921 on 11/12/2012 5:56:21 PM , Rating: 1
No it's extreme to support a part full of religious nuts, that over spend on military, destroy an economy, and push the debt to crazy heights! George Bush almost bankrupted the US, with two wars, and removing regulation that started a housing bubble and caused the biggest reccesion since the great depression! In fact most republican candidates were more worried about women's vagina's(Abortion) then the economy.

It seems most right wing nut jobs can't seem to grasp facts!

Fact: The stimulus worked without it, the US economy would have been worse.

Fact: Trickle down economics do not work, cutting taxes to the rich, does not creat more jobs.

Fact: The only president with a great fiscal record in the last 20 years was a democrat his name was Bill Clinton.

The republican party is not about fiscal responsibility, they want to cut taxes even lower, which will make the debt situation worse.

How do they expect to pay it off? Oh wait they want to cut planned parenthood and PBS which is .001% of the budget.

They are all talk without any real solutions.

BTW: I am what you could consider a fiscal conservative and somewhat of a libertarian. Which is why I don't support a party (Republicans)who want to ban abortion, impose there crazy religious beliefs on me. I also don't want to support a party that will spend the country into bankruptcy! They are not fiscally responsible look at their record.


By JediJeb on 11/12/2012 6:28:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
George Bush almost bankrupted the US, with two wars, and removing regulation that started a housing bubble and caused the biggest reccesion since the great depression!


Im not the biggest fan of Bush myself but he is not to blame alone. Clinton began the push to get banks to lend money to people who really didn't have the ability to pay those loans off just to get more people into home ownership. Plus President Obama did quite a bit himself to put us farther into debt.

While cutting taxes may not be the boon it has been made out to be, taxing the rich to make up the difference will never work also. Consider the deficit on the proposed budget from the White House this year that had a $1+ Trillion shortfall. To make that up by taxing the rich we need to tax one thousand billionaires and extra $1billion in taxes. Not sure we have one thousand billionaires in the country, so lets take it down to millionaires, we have to tax one million millionaires and extra $1million per year to make that shortfall up. Do we have one million millionaires in the country? If several of them only made one million dollars last year then you would be taking all of their earnings and next year they may not even be millionaires so they would drop from the tax bracket making it even harder to pay for the budget. When you crunch the numbers you end up finding out that it would take a 30% increase in taxes for everyone making about $35,000 per year to make up the shortfall in that budget. But guess what, if you add about 10% taxes to every single wage earner, you make up the shortfall easily. So why not ask everyone to pay their fair share instead of only "rich" people to pay their "fair" share? Every citizen benefits from the taxes collected by the government so why isn't every single person required to contribute to those taxes? Wouldn't a fair rule be that only people who pay taxes can benefit from those taxes? Of course I am being somewhat sarcastic there, I believe we should have compassion on the less fortunate among us, but asking everyone to contribute is not showing a lack of compassion, it is asking them all to contribute to the betterment of the whole.

Just as rich kids who have everything handed to them as they grow up have less respect for what they have versus those who worked their way to the top starting with nothing, the poor who have everything handed to them will have less respect for what they have than those just above the poverty level who have struggled and made something out of their life without having everything given to them. Nowhere does the Constitution say we are entitled to the good life, but it does guarantee us the right to strive for it.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki