Rapid Fire 02/​15/​06

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

1. Joe Katzman says:

   February 15, 2006 at 2:44 pm

   Thanks Noah, but gotta be care­ful about that “con­tinue read­ing” link vs. the perma­link. The nEU­ROn UCAV project perma­link is just:
   http://​www​.defen​sein​dus​try​daily​.com/​2​0​0​6​/​0​2​/​n​e​u​r​o​n​-​u​c​a​v​-​p​r​o​j​e​c​t​-​r​o​l​l​i​n​g​-​d​o​w​n​-​t​h​e​-​r​u​n​w​a​y​/​i​n​d​e​x​.​php

   Reply
2. Noah Shachtman says:

   February 15, 2006 at 2:58 pm

   Fixed.

   Reply
3. NotAlawyer says:

   February 15, 2006 at 7:14 pm

   “Tice said he believes it vio­lates the Constitution’s pro­tec­tion against unlaw­ful search and seizures but has no way of shar­ing the infor­ma­tion with­out break­ing clas­si­fi­ca­tion laws. He is not even allowed to tell the con­gres­sional intel­li­gence com­mit­tees — mem­bers or their staff — because they lack high enough clear­ance.“
   Tice’s con­cern is cor­rect con­cern­ing staff mem­bers, but mem­bers of con­gress, the POTUS and VPOTS and the Supremes do not have clear­ances as a con­se­quence of their office. They have access to clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion as a con­se­quence of their office, sub­ject to some vaguely stated and untested “need to know.” Presumably mem­bers of the intel­li­gence over­sight com­mit­tees have a need to know about intel­li­gence activ­i­ties.
   So Mr. Tice would be per­fectly within the law if he were to ask for a members-​​only hear­ing and Tell All. Or go to any sub­set of the com­mit­tees’ mem­bers and Tell All.
   Of course, he’d never get a clear­ance again and be black­listed from intel­li­gence jobs.

   Reply
4. Daskro says:

   February 16, 2006 at 2:59 am

   I’m just curi­ous, is it pretty typ­i­cal for defensetech​.org to post links to pro­gres­sive blogs such as nation​in​sti​tute​.org?

   Reply
5. TrustButVerify says:

   February 16, 2006 at 9:58 am

   The arti­cle about a long-​​term pres­ence in Iraq shouldn’t come as a sur­prise after all this time. Two con­di­tion prob­a­bly need to be met for a major U.S. with­drawl: A strong and self-​​sufficient Iraqi mil­i­tary in trust­wor­thy hands able to defend against major exter­nal threats (read: Iran), and major ide­alog­i­cal changes in the Middle East as a whole away from the cur­rent brand of homo­ci­dal mania we’re accus­tomed to today. I can tell you which one I won’t be hold­ing my breath for, too.
   Unfortunately this is also sub­ject to con­tin­ued sup­port from the White House and Congress. The next eight to twelve years may just give us a President with a cut-​​and-​​run philosophy.

   Reply
6. Joe says:

   February 16, 2006 at 5:06 pm

   “I’m just curi­ous, is it pretty typ­i­cal for defensetech​.org to post links to pro­gres­sive blogs such as nation​in​sti​tute​.org?“
   It’s pretty clear defensetech​.org is a closet lefty plat­form. Why not say new Abu Ghraib pics, instead of “awful”? Those pics are pretty damned tame com­pared to what ‘ole Saddam did to folks. Big whoop.

   Reply
7. daskro says:

   February 17, 2006 at 10:01 am

   “It’s pretty clear defensetech​.org is a closet lefty plat­form. Why not say new Abu Ghraib pics, instead of “awful”? Those pics are pretty damned tame com­pared to what ‘ole Saddam did to folks. Big whoop.“
   That’s sad then it has to through pun­ditry into the mix.

   Reply