> If the facility hadn't been completely incompetent in their security, these people would have been stopped at the first fence and not even made the news. Tha

> If the facility hadn't been completely incompetent in their security, these people would have been stopped at the first fence and not even made the news. That's like me arguing that if you'd had stronger locks, I would have only been charged with attempted breaking and entering. Going down that route opens the doors to defense arguing in many cases how if the police had arrested people on their first offense in a series, they wouldn't have committed the rest. Heck, just drive 5 miles over the speed limit and say "Hey, if the cops had stopped me, I wouldn't have done X". > Why were they not immediately charged with such high crimes? Because the prosecution was fine with letting them off leniently. But they wanted to make a point. Let's not forget that these people did break into and damage a facility that is a part of our national defense. Whatever else you might think, they did that. That they chose not to plead guilty of lesser crimes is their choice. Why were they not immediately charged with such high crimes? Because the government was trying to be reasonable.