Engineer gets 32 years for military secrets sale

A former B-2 stealth bomber engineer was sentenced to 32 years in prison Monday for selling military secrets to China in the latest of several high-profile cases of Chinese espionage in the U.S.

This is ridiculous:

The judge sentenced Gowadia to 32 years for each of two counts of communicating national defense information to aid a foreign nation. She also gave him 20 years for each of four counts of violating the arms export control act, and 10 years for each of five lesser counts including money laundering. He received five years for one count of conspiracy and three years for two counts of filing a false tax return. But Mollway ordered the sentences to run together. [emphasis Murdoc’s]

Why is it not 202 years? This “run together” crap means he’s effectively been sentenced to the same term that another guy convicted of one count for 32 years gets.

It should be a six month sentence (to allow time for an appeal) then a firing squad.


  1. Wait, so if I get this judge, I should commit all my crimes at the same time so I only have to serve time for the worst one? That’s a screwed up incentive system.

  2. Running the sentences together is called “concurrent sentencing” in legalese. The Europeans are great for that, since the newspaper headline show multiple sentences of jail time and the public is happy. But in reality they do it to save money.

    So when the criminal who is sentenced to 2-concurrent 5-year terms the papers read criminal “X” sentenced to 10-years, but in fact the criminal only serves about 4-years total due to the two running together and, in addition, “good-behavior” time off cuts another year off.

    It sucks, but then again so does most of Europe!

  3. Yep, 36 years of jail time is cheaper than life imprisonment, but do you know what is even cheaper and solves the problem? Three 5.56mm rounds.

    There are punishments worthy of execution and treason like this is one of them.

  4. Sheesh! What a bunch of hard noses! Guess I’m changing my plan to sell “fill in the blank” to China; too much of a chance one of you “hangin judges” might end up presiding at my trial.

    William C, three 5.56 rounds???? Damn, Bro………..are you using the first two, to knee cap him? LOL! Good plan though; I agree.

  5. Last April in Everett, in a tense meeting with an investigator sent by Boeing headquarters, a small group of 787 engineers dropped a bombshell.

    The engineers, veterans of Boeing’s work on the B-2 stealth bomber two decades ago, told investigator Rick Barreiro that technology and know-how developed for that secretive military program would be used in manufacturing the company’s newest commercial jet.

    The engineers refused to sign forms declaring that the 787 program is free of military data. One said he feared signing would leave him open to federal indictment.

    Their assertions set off flashing red lights at Boeing. Federal law prohibits U.S. companies from letting militarily sensitive technical expertise go abroad.

    Yet Boeing’s entire global manufacturing plan for the 787 hinges on having foreign suppliers build large structures out of advanced composite materials.

    The standoff with the engineers caught Boeing managers by surprise. “We all underestimated the amount of screening we needed to do” for military technology, said Walt Gillette, head engineer and vice president for airplane development on the 787.

    In the months that followed, outside lawyers pored over 1970s-era documents in search of proof that some key manufacturing techniques originated in the commercial business, not in military programs.

    And to satisfy the letter of the law, Boeing workers have embarked on some surreal tasks.

    One example: Boeing’s B-2 work showed that the plasticized carbon-fiber tape used to make composites can be safely frozen and stored for up to a year — twice as long as previously thought.

    That fact is now well-known in the composites industry, yet 787 engineers can’t inherit that knowledge from the B-2 program, Gillette said. So they conducted fresh tests to prove a result they already knew.

    “It is our clear intent to make sure we comply with the law,” Gillette said.

    The underlying issue is whether Boeing’s plan to outsource high-tech 787 composites manufacturing could put U.S. government technology in the hands of either enemies or potential future economic competitors.

    Yet Boeing’s internal response to Barreiro’s findings suggests a reverse perspective: that the laws designed to protect military secrets create barriers to legitimate sharing of commercial technologies, which executives see as essential in the globalized aviation marketplace.

Comments are closed