5 ms·

This would require Boeing's cooperation. Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks. You mean other than their many billions in military contracts, and criminal penalties for releasing classified information? I'm of the opinion that the missile theory is unlikely, but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate.
- yucky 4y ago
  >I'm of the opinion that the missile theory is unlikely, but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate. If the government accidentally blew the plane up and the CIA covered it up, then who exactly would be putting pressure on Boeing?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Is this a trick question? The government and specifically the CIA, presumably.
    - yucky 4y ago
      Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the government would be pressuring Boeing to show that the CIA covered up the real results of the investigation.
- anonuser123456 4y ago
  >but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate. Boeing is not 'a person' and neither is the government. Boeing is a conglomerate of affiliated smaller organizations. So is the FBI and CIA. Understanding those dynamics is what makes this scenario so implausible. - Boeing commercial programs are separately funded from military. The executives and engineers in charge generally have no interest in committing fraud for other programs. - Boeing has shareholders and a board of directors. There are no laws in the US that allow executives and staff to defraud shareholders and the board on behalf of the government. Employees/executives would be subject to criminal and civil liability. - At the individual level, many of these people have security clearances. Fraud/lying on official documents is the easiest way to lose your clearance. There are no provisions for "It's OK to lie for the good guys". If you lie in an official proceeding, you are going to lose your clearance. - FBI is composed of numerous divisions, with competing interests and turf to defend. At the end of the day, someone at Boeing legal would have to sit down and look at this and say "Well, if the hundreds of people involved all agree to commit fraud and no one finds out, we're in the clear for some nebulous illegal kickback down the line line. Sign us up!"
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > Boeing commercial programs are separately funded from military. Boeing still has a top level of management; the CEO's purview includes everything from SLS to Air Force tankers to the 737-MAX's problems. > There are no laws in the US that allow executives and staff to defraud shareholders and the board on behalf of the government. National security letters are a prominent counterexample to this claim. > There are no provisions for "It's OK to lie for the good guys". James Clapper lied to Congress about PRISM without repercussions. > At the end of the day, someone at Boeing legal would have to sit down and look at this and say "Well, if the hundreds of people involved all agree to commit fraud and no one finds out, we're in the clear for some nebulous illegal kickback down the line line. Sign us up!" That's backwards. Boeing Legal would go "we've been told the following items are classified Top Secret, and all of us can go to jail for disclosing them". Loss of future programs is a consequence - the stick, not the carrot.
  - licebmi__at__ 4y ago
    > Boeing is not 'a person' and neither is the government. Boeing is a conglomerate of affiliated smaller organizations. So is the FBI and CIA. Understanding those dynamics is what makes this scenario so implausible. >At the individual level, many of these people have security clearances. Fraud/lying on official documents is the easiest way to lose your clearance. There are no provisions for "It's OK to lie for the good guys". If you lie in an official proceeding, you are going to lose your clearance. Are these 2 arguments consistent with each other? I mean, Boeing, government and letter soup agencies don’t behave organizationally, except when it comes to upholding the right rules?
MichaelCollins 4y ago
How do you figure? Reflexive anti-Boeing groupthink? The government's narrative is that the plane blew itself up, e.g. it was Boeing's fault. The lawsuit contents that the plane was shot down, accidentally, by the US military. Boeing already took the reputational hit. If the allegations of the lawsuit are correct, it was never Boeing's fault in the first place. Boeing would be vindicated.
- trasz 4y ago
  Of course they would be vindicated; they would just lose military contracts afterwards. In a way that’s not in any way related to this affair of course.
pessimizer 4y ago
Boeing is part of the US government. I do not believe this story is true, although I do not dismiss it.
bombcar 4y ago
Boeing successfully (for awhile) cooperated in perpetuating “the pilots were holding it wrong) with the 737 MAX.

> Not clear why Boeing would cooperate given the legal risks. You mean other than their many billions in military contracts, and criminal penalties for releasing classified information? I'm of the opinion that the missile theory is unlikely, but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate.

yucky 4y ago
>I'm of the opinion that the missile theory is unlikely, but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate. If the government accidentally blew the plane up and the CIA covered it up, then who exactly would be putting pressure on Boeing?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Is this a trick question? The government and specifically the CIA, presumably.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the government would be pressuring Boeing to show that the CIA covered up the real results of the investigation.
anonuser123456 4y ago
>but the government absolutely has ways to make Boeing of all people cooperate. Boeing is not 'a person' and neither is the government. Boeing is a conglomerate of affiliated smaller organizations. So is the FBI and CIA. Understanding those dynamics is what makes this scenario so implausible. - Boeing commercial programs are separately funded from military. The executives and engineers in charge generally have no interest in committing fraud for other programs. - Boeing has shareholders and a board of directors. There are no laws in the US that allow executives and staff to defraud shareholders and the board on behalf of the government. Employees/executives would be subject to criminal and civil liability. - At the individual level, many of these people have security clearances. Fraud/lying on official documents is the easiest way to lose your clearance. There are no provisions for "It's OK to lie for the good guys". If you lie in an official proceeding, you are going to lose your clearance. - FBI is composed of numerous divisions, with competing interests and turf to defend. At the end of the day, someone at Boeing legal would have to sit down and look at this and say "Well, if the hundreds of people involved all agree to commit fraud and no one finds out, we're in the clear for some nebulous illegal kickback down the line line. Sign us up!"
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Boeing commercial programs are separately funded from military. Boeing still has a top level of management; the CEO's purview includes everything from SLS to Air Force tankers to the 737-MAX's problems. > There are no laws in the US that allow executives and staff to defraud shareholders and the board on behalf of the government. National security letters are a prominent counterexample to this claim. > There are no provisions for "It's OK to lie for the good guys". James Clapper lied to Congress about PRISM without repercussions. > At the end of the day, someone at Boeing legal would have to sit down and look at this and say "Well, if the hundreds of people involved all agree to commit fraud and no one finds out, we're in the clear for some nebulous illegal kickback down the line line. Sign us up!" That's backwards. Boeing Legal would go "we've been told the following items are classified Top Secret, and all of us can go to jail for disclosing them". Loss of future programs is a consequence - the stick, not the carrot.
- licebmi__at__ 4y ago
  > Boeing is not 'a person' and neither is the government. Boeing is a conglomerate of affiliated smaller organizations. So is the FBI and CIA. Understanding those dynamics is what makes this scenario so implausible. >At the individual level, many of these people have security clearances. Fraud/lying on official documents is the easiest way to lose your clearance. There are no provisions for "It's OK to lie for the good guys". If you lie in an official proceeding, you are going to lose your clearance. Are these 2 arguments consistent with each other? I mean, Boeing, government and letter soup agencies don’t behave organizationally, except when it comes to upholding the right rules?

MichaelCollins 4y ago

How do you figure? Reflexive anti-Boeing groupthink? The government's narrative is that the plane blew itself up, e.g. it was Boeing's fault. The lawsuit contents that the plane was shot down, accidentally, by the US military. Boeing already took the reputational hit. If the allegations of the lawsuit are correct, it was never Boeing's fault in the first place. Boeing would be vindicated.

trasz 4y ago
Of course they would be vindicated; they would just lose military contracts afterwards. In a way that’s not in any way related to this affair of course.

pessimizer 4y ago

Boeing is part of the US government. I do not believe this story is true, although I do not dismiss it.

bombcar 4y ago

Boeing successfully (for awhile) cooperated in perpetuating “the pilots were holding it wrong) with the 737 MAX.