nerdgirl

In other words you cannot provide PROOF that Dr. Edward teller one of many REAL scientists, is not a false signatory. Did you know that he can in fact be contacted through Sandia? When was the petition in question started? (I honestly dunno). Since Teller died in 2003, if the petition was started after September 2003, Dr. Teller is unlikely to have signed it. Considering that the last paper published to which Dr. Teller contributed (it was published posthumously) was a proposed solution to anthropogenic climate change and the eventual depletion of fossil fuels, I suspect the weight of evidence leans toward a forgery. Abstract: As far back as the 1990s, Teller was proposing technical solutions to global warming. Abstract: /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Pretty much concur. And I very much appreciated the folks who let me jump their gear when I was looking to downsize, or when for novelty sake, I jumped a Para-Commander. Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

[tongue in cheek] The most important thing to remember is captured in [lawrocket] and [idrankwhat]'s sig lines in the attached pdfs. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

"On March 7, 2008, President Bush vetoed the Intelligence Authorization Act, ... The Intelligence Authorization Bill, which cleared the House in December 2007 and passed the Senate in February 2008, would ban the controversial practice known as waterboarding, as well as sensory deprivation or other harsh coercive methods to break a prisoner who refuses to answer questions." And he should have vetoed this whiny piece of liberal feel good crap. Good job sir! GEN Colin Powell, USA (ret), and the 42 other retired generals and admirals and 18 national security experts, including former secretaries of state and national security advisers, supported HR 2082, the “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.” The bill would have required the CIA to use the Army FM 2-22.3 as guidance – & that’s ‘guidance’ in military speak not popular vernacular – w/r/t interrogation operations. HR 2082 was co-sponsored by Reps Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). Maybe the characterization above is worth re-examining in context of additional information, eh? How many people here other than me actually read the text of the bill or even Section 327 on "Limitation on Interrogation Techniques"? In my reading of the bill and understanding of some of the intelligence community concerns and classification issues (mostly having to do with requirements to reveal information on Special Access Programs (SAP) and other high-level classified programs to Congressional oversight committees), I would argue that President GW Bush’s veto was more complicated and reflects larger executive branch privilege disagreements than being a simple ‘up’ or ‘down’ vote on water-boarding by the CIA. Executive privilege was the main factor in the veto not waterboarding, “enhanced interrogation” methods, or other euphemisms for torture. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the clarification. Soldiers who have been found to be in violation have been tried through military courts. (Using “soldier” as short-hand for all members of the uniformed military service.) E.g., convictions (i.e., laws that were broken) for prisoner abuse and maltreatment in Iraq and abuse at Bagram in Afghanistan; the findings of the DoD’s (MG) Taguba report; the findings of the Army’s (MG) Fay report, which explicitly found that the abuse and maltreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was tantamount to torture (p. 98 & p. 145); and what’s been publically revealed about findings of the Army’s (still classified) Ryder report. Individual soldiers violating law and doctrine have been prosecuted. Things happen in the ‘fog of war;’ it would be naïve to suggest otherwise. That’s (one more reason) why there are policies and procedures to deal with potential violations on the field of battle/in theater. I am not aware of anything that rises to the level of war crimes with respect to action of individual deployed soldiers, sailors, airman, or Marines in Afghanistan or Iraq. As I noted above there have been criminal prosecutions in which individual have been found guilty of violating military codes. Some have been found innocent and some have been convicted. W/r/t the most well-known incidents of prisoner abuse, “torture” per MG Fay’s report, the 1-star General in charge of the prison at the time was demoted. BG Karpinski asserts that she was made “scape-goat” for policies of SecDef Rumsfeld’s OSD. I don’t think there substantial evidence to support a case of war crimes against the OSD leadership at the time. There might be … but the court of public opinion is not where the decision should be made, imo. I do acknowledge that it is more likely to be, tho.’ Otoh, if we go to the issue of interrogations by CIA federal employee and CIA contractors, there is also substantial evidence, but there has neither been the level of public and publically-disclosed investigations nor the same effort of prosecution. E.g., documented medical evidence; the FOIA-obtained FBI memo stating interrogators from an ‘other-government-agency’ (OGA) & OGA contractors impersonated FBI agents and used “torture techniques” against Guantanamo detainees; and the library of other FOIA-obtained documents mostly on policy. I disagree with the suggestion of “reasonable.” May an individual inclined to behave sadistically or criminally rationalize their behavior if he or she considers it “sanctioned by the Chief” or other influential figure? Perhaps. (E.g., John Hinckley, Jr's demented beliefs that shooting President Reagan were what Jodie Foster wanted.) And one can build an argument such w/r/t at least one of the soldiers convicted for abuses at Abu Ghraib. For the vast majority of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, I disagree. First order "reasonable" is more likely to be based on institutional and institutionalized behavior, e.g., those FMs I keep citing, the warrior ethos, appeal to history of honor and valor (e.g., “History is the Marine Corps’s religion”), and the examples set by senior officers and NCOs. Concur. I’d still like to “put Senator McCain in charge of bi-partisan investigation of inappropriate use of ‘enhance interrogation,’ ‘exceptionally harsh questioning,’ or whatever euphemism one wants to use for torture. Give it teeth and the power to impact appropriations, i.e., budgets.” When the issue of immunity from prosecution came up past November, in the thread “Obama advisers: No charges likely vs interrogators” w/r/t the comments by two of then-Sen Obama's advisors, my speculation at the time was that they would pursue something closer to a “Truth & Reconciliation”-esque policy than aggressive prosecution. Aggressive prosecution may not only be hard politically (e.g., see folks here who still argue torture/water-boarding is somehow justifiable [aka situational ethics]), it may also be impossible by standards of evidence required under rule of law. As it was then, it remains the policy option that I would recommend pursuing. Pursuit of what might be perceived as vindictive retribution does not serve the interests of the US. Likewise, ignoring it, wishing it would ‘just go away,’ or being in denial about actions executed by individuals acting on the behalf of the USG does not serve US interests. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You don't need to. You've got a signed statement from the Justice Department saying that it is. How's that for confusing? On one hand, it is. Otoh, federal laws (including any international laws that have been ratified by the US Senate) trump executive orders and memos (DOJ/John Yoo's interpretation) every time. Yes, but remember that the laws were thought unclear, which is why clarification was necessary. So, you've got no clear law, and a statement from the Justice Department. I'd be pretty confused. Actually the laws were not thought to be unclear. Until John Yoo, et al. the laws, legal precedents, hostorical experience, and underlying issues were considered very clear, i.e., prohibiting water-boarding and other “enhanced "methods. See prosecution of Japanese for waterboarding during WWII as just one illustrative example. What you suggest is the argument that was created and perpetuated by the DOJ and ODCI in order to permit actions. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Last Thursday afternoon, Secretary of Defese Gates spoke at the Army War College. While he siad lots of things that I found very interesting, one response to a question from the audience has relevance to this thread, imo. It was also, again imo, very much an unscripted moment of insight. Q. "As we study strategic leadership here, we've learned that many times a strategic leader makes decisions and policies that are often resisted by various stakeholders for political, financial and sometimes moral reasons. As a strategic leader, sir, what have been some of your greatest ethical challenges as a leader making decisions, and what recommendations do you have to us?" SEC. GATES:"Well, I don't know if -- I would say I probably faced more ethical issues when I was director of CIA than as -- (laughter) -- the secretary of Defense. "I -- my watchword -- and actually, I suppose it's a function of having spent a lifetime in the CIA, or a good part of it -- I believe that the guiding star for me has always been adherence to United States law. "And in recognition and embrace of congressional oversight, I have always believed that, as painful and frustrating as it can be, that congressional oversight, whether it's over intelligence or over the military, is absolutely essential to keeping us all on the right track. "I think that, you know, in terms of the core of your question, in terms of ethical decisions, I think it's – I guess I would put it in a different way. And what is -- what I have always observed about the president -- presidents, and President Obama is the eighth president I've worked for -- and I find to be the same case as secretary of Defense -- and that is that by the time a decision gets to the president, there are no good options." "If there was a good option, somebody at a lower level would have made the decision and taken credit for it. (Laughter.)' /Marg .... okay gotta go get on a plane Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Good advice! And I learned what "craic" means.

Front line soldiers are no lawyers. It's one thing if you're talking about killing the prisoners. But the nuance between legal interrogation and unlawful torture? Just a bit past their pay grade. I think they can reasonably rely on the information they've given. If it's false, those supplying it are responsible. I agree the legal implications and limits is not approporiate for every individual soldier to be interpreting and implementing in theater. That's (one reason) why the military has policy and doctrine. I'm not understanding how that relates to [funjumper101]'s factural observation that DOJ memos on CIA interrogations methods (both by civilian federal employees and contractors) do not obviate federal law. I also completely agree that it *is* the responsibility of folks/civilian leadership in Office of the Secretary of Defense, e.g., USD(I), to set policy and make decisions, and it is the responsibility of the service Secretaries, e.g., "Army Staff," to promolugate clear doctrine to the members of that service. Similarly, within the office of the DCI, the civilian leadership, which was led from May 2006 to February 2009 by an active duty USAF General, should similarly establish priorities and policies for the Directorate of Operations (DO), who do HUMINT and interrogation. What am I misssing in your response? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Anyone on dz.com? Or anyone as representative of the federal government? Or both? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You don't need to. You've got a signed statement from the Justice Department saying that it is. How's that for confusing? On one hand, it is. Otoh, federal laws (including any international laws that have been ratified by the US Senate) trump executive orders and memos (DOJ/John Yoo's interpretation) every time. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you meaning SERE training? If yes, you do know the history behind that, yes? The SERE training methods were largely derived from tactics used or believed used by North Koreans and Soviets. The training manual was intended as training doctrine to enable US soldiers, airman, sailors, and Marines to develop skills to resist torture by our enemies ... it was *not* intended as an instruction manual for what we should do. The military services have been unequivocal in their objection to the use of torture. I supect that, yes, that (what I wrote immediately above & have written before) was considered as part of President Obama's decison-making process, along with other factors. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the link. I think one can see it also as a possible indicator of a 'whole of government' approach w/r/t strategic communications. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

As far as I am aware, none of them were. In January 2008, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Mike McConnell (Vice Admiral, USN (ret)), acknowledged during Congressional testomony “'If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful! Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture.' McConnell said the legal test for torture should be ‘pretty simple. Is it excruciatingly painful to the point of forcing someone to say something because of the pain?'" /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. Suggested the same thing here last year: Is it time to be thinking about a domestic American-style “truth & reconciliation” Commission or Vergangenheitsbewältigung? Until it’s dealt with effectively, it will be an impediment to advancing US foreign policy from a realist perspective. There are lots of additional normative arguments … but I resist arguing from normatives. Burying one’s metaphorical head in the sand is not helpful. There is some small percentage that will never acknowledge there’s anything wrong with torturing other humans (from across the planet). There is another portion who are fundamentally good, smart people, who nonetheless will protest loudly – very loudly – and with great indignation … some will have very heart-felt reasons for their protests … some will just be partisanly stubborn … and some will be like those who vehemently objected to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education SCOTUS ruling, etc., who now recognize the wisdom in that ruling. That’s the portion in which I am most interested. If the President directed the Executive Branch (the entire Executive Branch not just any one department) to begin a serious, open effort at “truth and reconciliation” – even tho’ one might personally disagree with that directive – how would you propose it go about being established and conducted? Who would you want to see on such a commission? Where would you want it to be held? Who would you want to ensure testified for it to be ‘fair and balanced’? Should there be any limits placed on it? Full or restricted access for the media? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, that is correct. Sen McCain has also said: the use of torture and “enhanced interrogation” has been the “greatest recruiting tool” for al Qa’eda, al Qa’eda in Iraq, and other insurgents targeting US soldiers, airmen, sailors, Marines, deployed civilians, and US nationals abroad. “So you can't underestimate the damage that our treatment of prisoners, both at Abu Ghraib and other [facilities, has] ... harmed our national security interests.” “What I am interested in and committed to is making sure we don't do it again. We're in this long twilight struggle here, and so America's prestige and image, as we all know, was damaged by these stories of mistreatment. And we've got to make sure the world knows that that's not the United States of America that they knew and appreciated for centuries.” More from Sen McCain: “I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not 24 and Jack Bauer. “Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively [i.e., no torture - nerdgirl], and he didn’t think they need to do anything else. “My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

As I wrote before: One of the resident SERE experts around here can fill in the history more fully and correct any innacuracies. The SERE training methods were largely derived from tactics used or believed used by North Koreans and Soviets. The training manual was intended as training doctrine to enable US soldiers, airman, sailors, and Marines to develop skills to resist torture by our enemies ... it was *not* intended as an instruction manual for what we should do. Some of the evidence and documentation of torture has been collected and provided by the US military. The military services have been unequivocal in their objection to the use of torture. To avoid the strawman "comfy green cushion" or "Coke & a smile" suggestions, torture is prohibited by (1) US Army FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation (large pdf file), which states in Chapter 1, under the heading “Prohibition Against Use of Force” “Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.” “The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.” and (2) Techniques deemed prohibited by US Army Field Manual 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations (warning large pdf file). More on military opposition to use of torture, including ”enhanced interrogation.” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This sounds like some R&D guy's wet dream - a live experiment where the collateral damage of the fire/no fire logic will be ignored. And tens of thousands? That was the wet dream of the CFO. It is, e.g., see the attributes of the proposer that I mentioned in my response. Thanks for calling that out for those who might not realize the current technical challenges of such a scenario. From a first order analysis – without even considering the strategic implications – simple autonomous behavior (i.e., shoot/don’t shoot when certain set of physical criteria are met) is a lower technical hurdle than some other technical ones (e.g., for UUVs: generating movement, sensor ranges are limited [

Are you talking about devices that would make their own fire/no-fire decisions??? Some - Yes. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Proposed response to piracy that I heard today: deploy tens of thousands of autonomous, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned sea vehicles (USVs), some of which can be armed. I don't know the ratio legitimate Somali fishermen to pirates, suspect there are A LOT more fisherman than pirates. That is one common modus operandi the priates have used, however. Armed autonomous UAVs & USVs - bad idea. The suggestion was made by the President of Robotic Technology Inc, who’s currently working on a DARPA-funded project to develop a robot that obtains energy by foraging in the natural world (EATR). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

They're Xe, which sounds like the American pronounciation of the letter "Z," now. Xe (nee Blackwater) announced their intention do that last October. They haven't had much success, however. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Not sure if this is poignantly ironic … or maybe President Obama needs a copy: a book entitled Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands is being distributed to all new General Officers in the military. Out of curiosity, I ordered a copy from my library.

Is that an indictment of government or an effective argument indicting business interests for having inherent conflicts of interest? Seems to me, one can make the latter case more robustly than the former. The vast majority of the folks who you note above are in political appointments. What you've written above is an argument for increased influence/power/oversight by federal civil servants & technocrats and for increasing the attractiveness and quality of the federal workforce. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Can you provide any specific examples of that? Food & product safety has repeatedly been shown to be the first casualty of relaxed regulatory policies. E.g., just off the top of my head: Are you familiar with thalidomide? How many thalidomide babies were there in the US? (versus Europe, which at the time had a private sector driven regulatory framework; it’s largely inverse now.) E.g., Are you familiar with melamine in baby food and ethylene glycol (anti-freeze) in toothpaste & cough syrup (used because it's cheaper than non-toxic glycerin)? Ethylene glycol-contaminated cough syrup has likely killed hundreds to thousands in places like Bangladesh, Panama, & Haiti, where there are limited regulations & less governments. FDA regulations, inspections, and enforcement are critical to keeping melamine- and ethylene glycol contaminated products out of the US. As the melamine poisonings of over 50,000 infants in Asia vividly illustrates, regulation without enforcement is not effective whether it be the US financial system or Chinese dairy system. [NB: also a vivid example of where Austrian School economic theory fails; it relies too much an underlying assumption that people will *not* behave deleteriously, i.e., not add cheap poison to products.] As was discussed previously, the GA peanut company is an example private sector failing at food safty. FDA regulations were violated, but there were no consequences. New laws are not needed; the ones that exist need to be enforced, and hampering the individuals charged with enforcing the standards is ineffective. The business failed to self-regulate. Do you know what is the leading international food safety organization? The private sector is notoriously inefficient when it comes to safety. There are no inducements for it. Business exists to make money. There's everything right with that. Ya don't go to a whore-house for instruction in nuclear physics & BASE jumping; don't ask the private sector to do something that is counter to its mission and outside its scope. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I know of one company, Noblis, who is has hired for a range of energy and environmental sustainability projects and is waiting to receive stimulus money to hire more people for specifically engineers for water projects, altho’ I think that one is looking for master’s or maybe even PhD level. Another company, A123 Systems is planning to build a manufacturing plant & R&D facility in the US, rather than southeast/east Asia, if they receive stimulus funds. Executing those contracts is likely to take more than 90 days. A few agencies are using mechanisms to fund proposed projects from the past fiscal year that were not funded due to lack of money, i.e., ones that have already been through merit-based competition. For new projects, there is another complicating factor: contracting workforce (or in DoD-speak: acquisition-certified workforce). Had lunch on Saturday with a friend from the DoD who’s an SES overseeing USAF programs – they’re concerned that other agencies are going to “poach” their contracting workforce (who are substantially contractors rather than federal employees). This is one thing that SecDef Gates addressed in the proposed FY10 defense budget. It’s my understanding that the ‘shovel-ready’ portion of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act refers to infrastructure projects at the State level. /Marg p.s. Good luck with the job search!