nerdgirl

#13) Make more dinosaurs and Paleozoic and Mesozoic marine plankton & algae. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you mean military size in terms of uniformed and non-uniformed personnal or in terms of major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs)? Or both? Or something else? This week's Defense News has (what I think is) a great quote from F Whitten Peters, who was acting Secretary of the USAF at the end of Pres. Clinton's administration, in its cover story on the (forced) resignation of the USAF Secretary and USAF Chief of Staff, "Beheaded USAF Braces for Change" [requires subscription ... I have hard copy on my desk]: "The reality is that we have too many major defense programs and not enough money to fund them. There has been a lack of political leadership on the defense side in this administration." MDAP spending. Over half of the Defense Department budget goes right back out to the private sector. (No commentary on that being good, bad, or indifferent just information). As a green-uniformed, former colleague once commented, 'the State Dept doesn't have a lobbying base.' The next administration -- whether Republican or Democratic -- is going to be faced with tough choices: Army and Marine field equipment that needs replacing, underfunded intelligence capabilities (DIA, NSA, NRO, NGIA, all 4 service intelligence offices - all DoD agencies), and nuclear stewardship. Will they be responsible and make tough decisions, that will make some folks unhappy (read: major defense contractors & "Beltway bandits")? It may not be a choice. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you have that definition handy? Yes. Please see post #36 in this thread (page 2). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Mike, you keep mentioning the al-Shifa incident. Would you what you see as the relevence? "political gain or influence", perhaps? Would you care to elaborate further? I think there was enough information provided in the reporting on it at the time, to be honest. Like so many have said here about Bush... "I suspect the timing". How was it indication of "political gain or influence" or terrorism? Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Mike, you keep mentioning the al-Shifa incident. Would you what you see as the relevence? "political gain or influence", perhaps? Would you care to elaborate further? Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Mike, you keep mentioning the al-Shifa incident. Would you what you see as the relevence? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

A uniformed serviceman fits that definition. Uniformed service members acting under the laws of war (LOW) (also called the laws of armed conflict (LOAC)) at the direction of the head of state (in some states may be the head of the military) and commanders are acting lawfully. For the US, see DoD Directive 2311.01E. Relevant excerpts: 1. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE This Directive: 1.1. Reissues Reference (a) to update the policies and responsibilities ensuring DoD compliance with the law of war obligations of the United States. 3. DEFINITIONS 3.1. Law of War. That part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities. It is often called the “law of armed conflict.” The law of war encompasses all international law for the conduct of hostilities binding on the United States or its individual citizens, including treaties and international agreements to which the United States is a party, and applicable customary international law. 3.2. Reportable Incident. A possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war, for which there is credible information, or conduct during military operations other than war that would constitute a violation of the law of war if it occurred during an armed conflict. 4. POLICY It is DoD policy that: 4.1. Members of the DoD Components comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are characterized, and in all other military operations. 4.2. The law of war obligations of the United States are observed and enforced by the DoD Components and DoD contractors assigned to or accompanying deployed Armed Forces. 4.4. All reportable incidents committed by or against U.S. personnel, enemy persons, or any other individual are reported promptly, investigated thoroughly, and, where appropriate, remedied by corrective action. That's why the "unlawful" part of the DoD (JCS) definition of terrorism/terrorists/terrorist groups is so important. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

After your suggestion in a post Sunday (?), I submitted an application for the Atlanta Citizens Police Academy. Was not aware such things existed. Great suggestion! Thanks! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You're correct. Taser® used to market the devices as non-lethal but no longer seems to openly. They're now “conductive energy devices” (CEDs) or “electronic control devices” (ECDs) (to me the latter sounds likr an RF tag slapped on an MP3 player at Best Buy). Many (most?) Taser® distributors still market them as “Taser Non-Lethal Defense.” Another example from “Taser.org” of “Non-Lethal Taser” moniker remaining. Also on adds for the pink Taser C-2. Among the more colorful monikers that have been applied as to such weapons/devices are “soft-kill,” “pre-lethal” and “weapons that do not intentionally cross the death barrier.” The latter is attributed to GEN “Shy” Meyer, USA (ret) by COL John Alexander, PhD, USA (ret) … Alexander, while active duty and after remains one of the main proponents of non-lethal weapons, as well as more esoteric ‘techniques’ and concepts. The DoD still calls it the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program (NLW). The DOJ & NIJ has largely, imo, been responsible for the shift to “less-than-lethal” and “less-lethal” for domestic LEO use. Non-lethal/less-lethal/”weapons that do not intentionally cross the death barrier” span a range of technologies. Regardless, NLWs are an “alternative to lethal” not an alternative to good, professional law enforcement. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I agree you’re right that the moniker “terrorist” gets used imprecisely. While there is still discussion on the specific definition, the ones I use are based on the DoD’s (JP 1-02): “terrorism -- The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. “terrorist -- An individual who commits an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives. “terrorist group -- Any number of terrorists who assemble together, have a unifying relationship, or are organized for the purpose of committing an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of their political, religious, or ideological objectives.” Preferable, imo, because (1) includes “threatened use” – terrorism is psychological – to force/cause change through non-traditional/asymmetric/unconventional means therefore threats, hoaxes, etc can be terrorizing to a populace. (2) includes reference to political, religious, or ideological objectives as motivation. (3) “unlawful” violence, whether one agrees or not, armed conflict between/among uniformed military can be lawful (lawful does not mean that it’s pleasant, easy, or anything less than a horrible, grave undertaking). While the majority of terrorist acts are committed by non-uniformed individuals (non-state actors), this definition does not, however, completely exclude the possibility that states & uniformed military can act as terrorists if they commit “unlawful violence.” (4) excludes criminal acts. One piece that the DoD definition is missing is acts of unlawful violence for political, religious or ideological motivations that are against property. The FBI definition includes acts against property, which is more a factor w/r/t environmental terrorists (e.g., ELF) than al Qa’eda. Both definitions are problematic w/r/t cyberterrorism. The definition employed by the State Dept. for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983 is: “Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 CFR Ch. I, § 0.85a). The term “international terrorism” is definid as “activities that - (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;” (18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)). The USA PATRIOT Act has its own definition. (I have that & more definitions on my hard drive ….) An excellent, imo, discussion of the definition of terrorism from the first chapter of Bruce Hoffman’s (Georgetown) book, Inside Terrorism. Depends on whether they are a member of the uniformed military acting as part of a lawful armed conflict. There are some international laws w/r/t use of indiscriminate force or weapons against civilians. If an individual violates international (or national) law, whether it is terrorism or not can depend on whether or not laws have been passed. (Can’t break a law if it doesn’t exist.) E.g., before Larry Wayne Harris (a member of the Aryan nations, btw) ordered through the mail B. anthracis & Y. pestis (causative agents of anthrax & plague, respectively) and threatened to use the agents, there were not federal laws against bioterrorism. (Killing is still homicide … and there’s mail fraud, because he pretended to be a legitimate representative of an approved biological facility.) As a result of Mr. Harris, Congress passed the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act, which made it a federal crime to use or threaten to use biological or chemical agents. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That's a legitimate question that a lot of folks have asked. Among those who have suggested answers, the leading ones don't reflect any of the poll choices above - institutional corruption, greed of those in power/with power, exploitation of those without any due course to pursue redress -- significantly including lack of women's and children's right -- is a very rough distillation of voluminous works of economist Amartya Sen. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The thread title and the your post bring up some intellectually provocative issues -- that are only going to increase as the world's demographics shift to mega-cities, become less rural, and more globalized. Much of the thread title does not seem to relate to the accompanying post upon further consideration ... there is no poverty in rural areas? There is no lack of adequate medical care in rural areas? What proportion of large and small urban homelessness is due to mental illness? (Having spent considerable time as a volunteer with the Catholic Worker Movement -- completely non-govt supported -- in a small city surrounded by very rural cornfields and less intensively as a volunteer at a battered women's shelter in LA, mental illness and "family" violence were the two largest contributors I witnessed. In the former, there was a depressingly large number of Vietnam & Gulf War I veterans.) Which states have the higher divorce rates? What states receive the highest amount of federal aid per capita? (None of them have large urban areas.) Otoh, there is advocacy of proposals like 'gas tax' holidays that disproportionately benefit rural citizens (people in cities proportionately drive less, use public transportation more so benefit less from gas tax holidays). The largest contributor to rise in gas prices is the global market ... not "government" (& not anyone's policy.) Cities -- large and small -- are also the drivers of the economy and drivers of innovation. We've all heard I hope at some point that if California were an independent country, it would have somewhere between the 7th & 11th largest GDP, largely because of SF Bay area, greater LA area, and more recently greater SD area. Similar patterns in Boston, NYC, Chicago, Denver, Seattle-Tacoma, Atlanta, etc. Can you provide some evidence to support your assertion of "near 0%" success? How does the situation in the US' largest cities compare to other vibrant capitalistic democracies, e.g., India, Canada, Japan, and Norway? Or other large urban areas with fewer or no "Great Society" type social programs, e.g., Dhaka, Karachi, Lagos? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It's >100 pages. There's a fair bit of discussion on success of transferring, trends, and motivations. As you might expect in an unclassified document, public affairs-approved document, the full value of all information is not disclosed. The authors did explore correlation between age & success (along w/other correlations). In a general sense, looking to the individuals who were noted as "most successful," they did tend to be older, e.g., Aldrich Ames, Jeffrey Carney, James Hall, Robert Hanssen, Ronald Pelton, John Walker Jr. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Please explain it to me. What do you mean by "economic policy"? Are you referring to Congress' role in authorizing and appropriating or something else? Where do you see the PBR, OMB, & the FRB fitting into US economic policy? Thank you. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I voted “no.” Those real security incidents are something of a non-sequitur to the poll & thread title. Who were the sources of those serious leaks you mention? The Cox Report concluded that China's espionage programs have resulted in the acquisition of “classified information on seven thermonuclear warheads, including every currently deployed thermonuclear warhead in the U.S. ballistic missile arsenal,” from the Department of Energy weapons laboratories, e.g., LLNL, LANL, LBNL, SNL, and ORNL. (That was part of the underlying context of this thread.) The submarine defense espionage w/which I am familiar has been predominantly by defense contractors, e.g., TRW, other than more recent conviction of Petty Officer Ariel Weinmann (spying for Israel and Russia). A few more illustrative examples of recent (

You do realize that Gowadia and Chi Mak worked for defense contractors, yes? Neither were academics. Security is a very serious issue. The vast majority of US academics are not involved in anything classified. Some universities do not allow any classified research; e.g., at MIT, all classified research must be done through MIT Lincoln Laboratories. Per President Reagan’s Executive Order 12356 basic scientific research is unclassified. (Sec. 1.6.b “Limitations on Classification.” Sec 1.6.a says you can’t classify to hide breaking the law, screw-ups, embarrassments, or for non-national security reasons.) That EO has been supported and re-issued by every President since, including President GW Bush. The EO notes: “Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national interest has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, and our participation within the community of nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation's security remains a priority. In recent years, however, dramatic changes have altered, although not eliminated, the national security threats that we confront. These changes provide a greater opportunity to emphasize our commitment to open Government." VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Some data for context: No correlation, no claims of causation … history is not predictive. Espionage Against the United States by American Citizens 1947-2001 (available via Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), http://www.dtic.mil/). Abstract: “Analyses of 150 cases of espionage against the United States by American citizens between 1947 and 2001 [all those openly available] provide detailed data on the demographic and employment characteristics of American spies, on the means and methods they used to commit espionage, on their motivations, and on the consequences they suffered. Collected materials on the cases supplement the analyses conducted with a database that allows comparison of groups and the identification of trends.” What was found: Most spies have been white males under 30. 46% had a high school education or less. Of the 150 cases of espionage by American citizens between 1947 & 2001, 73 were uniformed military. 17% were naturalized citizens (versus 3.8% of overall population). Between 1950 & 1975 most spies were members of the military or defense employees. Since the end of the Cold War [1991 in this study], more spies have been civilians, twice as many government employees and twice as many contractors. A majority of military spies came from upper enlisted ranks (E4 and above). Among the non-uniformed military spies, one quarter were employees of government contractors. Among the most successful spies were: Aldrich Ames (CIA), Christopher Boyce (contractor employee), Andrew Lee (uncleared civilian – [“The Snowman,” Lee’s co-conspirator was “The Falcon,” a TRW defense contractor]), Jeffrey Carney (active duty Air Force), Larry Wu-tai Chin (CIA), Clyde Conrad (active duty Army), James Hall (active duty Army), Robert Hanssen (FBI), James Harper (uncleared civilian [his wife was a defense contractor]), Ruby Schuler (contractor employee), Ronald Pelton (NSA), Earl Pitts (FBI), Jonathan Pollard (Navy civilian employee), and John Walker Jr (active duty Navy). The 1980s were the decade with the most spying (40%). Between 1990 & 2001, 25% were uniformed military, 40% civil servants [includes intelligence community and Dept of Energy weapons lab civilians], 25% government contractors, 10% other [including "unknown"]. Between 1990 & 2001, 55% of spies had a foreign attachment. Of the non-government affiliated civilians (8 total), one was a former Army officer, the brother of one was Navy enlisted, and one was the wife of a Navy intelligence analyst. Of the non-government affiliated civilians, three were spying for Cuba. None were academics. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In a highly unexpected turn of events, “Bush Derangement Syndrome” announced its illicit love affair with “Hillary Haters” in a modern political version of Romeo & Juliet. “What's in a name? That which one calls a hate, By another word would smell sweet.” “Hate goes toward hate, as schoolboys toward their stones, But hate from hate, away from school with heavy looks.” “For naught so vile that on the earth doth live But to the earth some special good doth give; Nor aught so good but, strain'd from that fair use, Revolts from true birth, stumbling on the abuse: Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied; And vice sometimes by action dignified.” “Where be these enemies? Clinton! Bush! See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate, That heaven finds means to kill your sense with hateful rhetoric! And I, for winking at your discords too, Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish'd.” (Apologies to the Bard.)

You are right that the OIF and OEF played a role, not in the way described. As the draw-up to the invasion of Iraq was occurring, the career foreign service officers and diplomatic corps were able to do their jobs of pursuing US policy interests as promulgated and defined by the administration. Diplomacy worked. The stage for Libya’s renunciation had been set during President Clinton’s administration, predominantly through strong support of UN efforts. Diplomacy takes time, i.e., it’s not a vocation for those who demand instantaneous gratification, & diplomacy is an a-partisan endeavor. Sanctions and negotiations pre-dated 9-11 and March 2003. The findings of the Lockerbie trial set the international stage. It’s an example of successful treatment of prosecution of terrorism as an international criminal issue and the affect that such criminal prosecution can have on states. For more see the US State Dept’s Background Note: Libya and the US Congressional Research Service Libya : Background and U.S. Relations from November 2005 (i.e., still a Republican-controlled Congress, if that’s important to you) and mirrored currently on the US State Dept website. Qadhafi wanted to open his country in response to UN economic sanctions – a very capitalist motivation for a supposed “socialist.” UN sanctions were effective: not in “starving” people (starving the populace was *never* the intention) but in isolating Libya from the international community and global market place. Oil is/was Libya’s principal source of income. Qadhafi is also getting old. He’s not apocryphal is his Islam. And he has a very politically-active son, Sayf al Islam, an alum of London School of Economics, who widely believed to be the likely successor (although he has hinted at advocacy for direct democracy ). If the President wants to take all the ‘credit’ for the diplomatic success of normalizing relations with Libya and claim it as a high point of foreign policy success of his administration – yeah! The security interests of the US were served in an economically-effective manner with no loss of US life – yeah! “Who” gets credit – John Holum or John Bolton – is far less important. The Bush administration State Dept – under both SecStates – and the foreign service corps deserves substantive credit & kudos for successful use of diplomacy to achieve rollback of a nuclear and chemical weapons programs and reducing the threat a state sponsor of terrorism. That’s the point – diplomacy worked! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Iirc, the "Blood, toil, tears, and sweat" speech was *after* WWII had begun, yes? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes ... and in response to Operation El Dorado Canyon in 1986 the Libyan regime metaphorically 'dug in more.' Q'addafi responded by accelerating his covert nuclear and chemical weapons programs, attempted to get an offensive biological program going, and increased state sponsorship of terrorism: admittedly to the bombing of Pan Flight 103 (Lockerbie), allegedly supporting the hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 by Abu Nidal, increasing illict arms deals (sales to other non-state actors), was complicit in the kidnapping and execution of at least half-dozen American and British nationals in the Middle East immediately after, and tried to pay (~$2.5M. iirc) inner city American gangs to commit terror against US citizens. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

History is a neat thing … instructive but not predictive. Remember the Arab leader that President Reagan called the “mad dog of the Middle East"? As a result of a decade of quiet diplomacy spanning the Clinton & GW Bush administrations (i.e., it takes time & the a-partisan nature of diplomacy), Libya voluntarily gave up its nuclear and chemical weapons programs after relations were normalizing with the west and demonstrated to the Bush administration's satisfaction that it was no longer a state sponsor of terrorism. Full diplomatic ties were re-established in May 2006. Are things still less than ideal? Yes. More importantly, have the security interests of the US been served through diplomacy with less-than-palatable regimes? Yes. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You’re correct. The DoD, particularly OSD AT&L & the service laboratories (ONR, ARO, AFOSR), consider highly knowledgable, technically adroit individuals critical to national security. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I don't know the specific demographics, technical backgrounds (beyond what has been publically reported), or skill sets. It's unlikely that any more than a few will have skill sets directly transferable to civilian nuclear power generation or reactor design. Speculate more likely will be defense & intelligence community support contractor positions. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Non-sequitor ? In Canada, where the incident took place, the government is led by the Conservative Party … unless you’re asserting all Canadians, even the Conservative ones, are liberal? As we all know TSA is a federal agency. All rules, implementation, & execution have been under the current administration. If the flight was arriving in the US, TSA rules would be relevant. Are you going to assert they should "admit that they screwed up" ? I wasn’t allowed to bring dinner-ware spoons on an international flight, is that partisan? I was annoyed but just checked the bag. I've had TSA agents at DCA & IAD tilt my clear plastic baggie of