Slashdot Mirror

It turns out that Polystyrene (aka styrofoam) is also a viable and cost-effective building material, currently being planned for deployment in Afghanistan by the Federation of American Scientists. According to this blog entry, "the New Harmony House (in New Harmony, Indiana) was built using this material as a demonstration, with impressive results (including the house using 50-70 percent less energy than a conventionally-constructed home)."

Did libertarian advocacy become a crime in some jurisdiction I frequent?

Hmm...with the advent of secret law, it looks like you wouldn't know until the friendly, neighborhood civil service men came to your door!

"Now I ask you, what use is a ballistic missle defense shield when the threat to human life comes from inside that shield? If your answer is none, why should we invest billions in something that is not likely to be used?"

....I think this might be a reasonable answer. And while what you say about finding bomb material within the target is valid, smuggling a nuke is not as easy as it may seem.

1. "No, there is no emulation in Wine."

1. "
2. George Bush is not an animal".

1. "The
2. AH-64 Apache is not an airplane"

The M151A2 was used by the Marine Corps as late as 1997 in Albania. The US Army replaced most of their M151's with the M998 HMMWV in the early 80's, so the old Jeeps were around quite a while after VietNam.

The HUMMWV has been used as a FAV by the Army and Marines for more than 20 years now, and it's configuration reflects this.

The HMMWV is unsuitable for the specific role the M151A2 filled. Note the requirements for the ITV/LSV/RST-V program: it needs to be internally transportable in the CH-46 CH-53 and V-22, a requiremtn the HMMWV cannot meet.

This is why the humvee is loathed by the Marines because it's too big and inefficient for what it's asked to do, but the DOJ forced it on them.

Yeah, the DOD forced them into the one-size-fits all nonsense without regard for the Marine Coprs' specific needs. That's why they didn't get a replacement for the M151A2 until 2000-- the Interim Fast Attack Vehicle (IFAV).

They'd rather use the Galendawagen.

Yes, the Mercedes-Benz Geländewagen, the IFAV. I think they should stick with that and shitcan that stupid hybrid FutureMobile.

The M151A2 was used by the Marine Corps as late as 1997 in Albania. The US Army replaced most of their M151's with the M998 HMMWV in the early 80's, so the old Jeeps were around quite a while after VietNam.

The HUMMWV has been used as a FAV by the Army and Marines for more than 20 years now, and it's configuration reflects this.

The HMMWV is unsuitable for the specific role the M151A2 filled. Note the requirements for the ITV/LSV/RST-V program: it needs to be internally transportable in the CH-46 CH-53 and V-22, a requiremtn the HMMWV cannot meet.

This is why the humvee is loathed by the Marines because it's too big and inefficient for what it's asked to do, but the DOJ forced it on them.

Yeah, the DOD forced them into the one-size-fits all nonsense without regard for the Marine Coprs' specific needs. That's why they didn't get a replacement for the M151A2 until 2000-- the Interim Fast Attack Vehicle (IFAV).

They'd rather use the Galendawagen.

Yes, the Mercedes-Benz Geländewagen, the IFAV. I think they should stick with that and shitcan that stupid hybrid FutureMobile.

Also of note is the fact that the Shadow IFV isn't even intended to replace the Hummer in any capacity. The moron author even says so himself:

"the Shadow RST-V is slated to replace the M151 A2 fast attack vehicle "

The M151A2 isn't the Hummer, it's the old Jeep!

The H2 is just a cheaper knockoff of the H1,but without a turbodiesel engine option, so you can't even *try* to keep fuel costs down.

Yeah, and it barely even counts as a knockoff. It's a Chevy Tahoe with a body kit that makes it resemble the H1. Doesn't even bother with the pretending it's for offroad use.

I don't see any evidence of a shift at the DoD.

Not to mention the fact that the hybrid vehicle in the article isn't intended to replace the HMMWV in any capacity whatsoever. It even says at the end of the military.com article that it's replacing the M151A2, which is the old jeep. The dumbass at military.com did no research whatsoever. He apparently just looked at the pictures and assumed that the Shadow Fast Attack Vehicle was some kind of Hummer replacement.

This at the same time when the DOD is undertaking serious efforts to remove public access to satellite imagery.

• THE ARRIVAL OF SECRET LAW
• TSA THREATENS TO ARREST LEAKERS
• SUPPORT SECRECY NEWS

THE ARRIVAL OF SECRET LAW

Last month, Helen Chenoweth-Hage attempted to board a United Airlines flight from Boise to Reno when she was pulled aside by airline personnel for additional screening, including a pat-down search for weapons or unauthorized materials.

Chenoweth-Hage, an ultra-conservative former Congresswoman (R-ID), requested a copy of the regulation that authorizes such pat-downs.

"She said she wanted to see the regulation that required the additional procedure for secondary screening and she was told that she couldn't see it," local TSA security director Julian Gonzales told the Idaho Statesman (10/10/04).

"She refused to go through additional screening [without seeing the regulation], and she was not allowed to fly," he said. "It's pretty simple."

Chenoweth-Hage wasn't seeking disclosure of the internal criteria used for screening passengers, only the legal authorization for passenger pat-downs. Why couldn't they at least let her see that? asked Statesman commentator Dan Popkey.

"Because we don't have to," Mr. Gonzales replied crisply.

"That is called 'sensitive security information.' She's not allowed to see it, nor is anyone else," he said.

Thus, in a qualitatively new development in U.S. governance, Americans can now be obligated to comply with legally-binding regulations that are unknown to them, and that indeed they are forbidden to know.

This is not some dismal Eastern European allegory. It is part of a continuing transformation of American government that is leaving it less open, less accountable and less susceptible to rational deliberation as a vehicle for change.

Harold C. Relyea once wrote an article entitled "The Coming of Secret Law" (Government Information Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 2, 1988) that electrified readers (or at least one reader) with its warning about increased executive branch reliance on secret presidential directives and related instruments.

Back in the 1980s when that article was written, secret law was still on the way. Now it is here.

A new report from the Congressional Research Service describes with welcome clarity how, by altering a few words in the Homeland Security Act, Congress "significantly broadened" the government's authority to generate "sensitive security information," including an entire system of "security directives" that are beyond public scrutiny, like the one former Rep. Chenoweth-Hage sought to examine.

The CRS report provides one analyst's perspective on how the secret regulations comport or fail to comport with constitutional rights, such as the right to travel and the right to due process. CRS does not make its reports directly available to the public, but a copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "Interstate Travel: Constitutional Challenges to the Identification Requirement and Other Transportation Security Regulations," Congressional Research Service, November 4, 2004:

• http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32664.pdf

Much of the CRS discussion revolves around the case of software designer and philanthropist John Gilmore, who was prevented from boarding an airline flight when he refused to present a photo ID. (A related case involving no-fly lists has been brought by the ACLU.)

"I will not show government-issued identity papers to travel in my own country," Mr. Gilmore said.

Mr. Gilmore's insistence on his right to preserve anonymity while traveling on commercial aircraft is naturally debatable -- but the government will not debate it. Instead, citing the statute on "sensitive security information," the Bush Administration says the case cannot be argued in open court.

Further

"I couldn't see this doing much for manned flight, but most of what we send up isn't manned anyway. It could also have some pretty kick ass millitary application, say for dramatically increasing the payload of current rocket propelled artillery rounds."

Funnily enough, studies about that go back a long way, circa 1930. dr.Sanger eventually studied a Ramjet powered design, a model of which is in the Deutsches Museum in Munich, Germany. It would have been a cheaper alternative to the Space Shuttle, with a mother vehicle starting from a plain aerodrome and an orbital vehicle piggybacking on it. Basically the mother vehicle is the same concept inferred for the mysterious project Aurore Recce aircraft.

The military have always been attracted to these concepts, witness the Dynasoar in the late fifties, but the rationale is the same for civilian uses; higher efficiency and flexibility in bringing payloads in low earth orbit or suborbital flight.

Good thing.

Now they should be set for another 20 to 40 years, along with the rest of the B-52H inventory.

Staggering to think that 80 year old bombers are currently what the US plans for the future.

"It showed they work," Kenneth Englade, an agency spokesman, said of the laser's six identical, pickup-truck-sized, modules linked to fire as a single unit. "The rest is fine-tuning."

Right - after you get the laser to turn on, getting it to shoot down a nuclear ICBM from a 747 (at combined speeds of over Mach 24) is just "fine-tuning". That is, if you're targeting only hundreds of billions of Pentagon tax dollars, and you've already bullshitted enough of Congress and the media (including, apparently, Slashdot headline writers) to have the contracts signed.

We are technically at war with North Korea, and have been for 50 years now. The North Koreans are a major source of ballistic missile proliferation as they continue to develop and export a range of sophisticated missiles to nations such as Iran and Yemen. They have tested components for a missile capable of reaching the United States. They either have, or are close to having nuclear weapons. The North Koreas bought 12 decommissioned Soviet submarines and have used them to advance their technology and may deploy weapons on them.

North Korea regularly threatens to attack the United States.

To get a sense of the nature of the North Korean government you can just look at how they treat: orphans, the US deserver who just returned after 40 years, the Japanese they kidnapped to teach their spies, and last, but not least, the victims of their gulag.

The North Koreans could teach lessons to the Iraqi Information Minister. They deny having dug the tunnels into South Korea, some of which are big enough to drive vehicles. (A handy thing if you were of a mind to invade the South, no?) They no doubt also deny their regular attempts to infiltrate groups of agents into South Korea.

The North Korean Army had million soldiers in it in 1992. The North Koreans have been willing to starve the population, significant numbers to death, in order to sustain the army.

North Korea is a designated member of the "Axis of Evil."

They seem like a bunch you might want to protect yourself against.

Isn't SIPRnet pretty much the same thing? Or have I misunderstood something?

It is depleted uranium not plutonium. They are mainly used to peirce armor.
Read this for more

Yeah, but the Canadians never were that quick. Eh? :) Just Kidding
OTH, this one should be able to do some speed

The primary military application for this technology would be for cruise missiles. The U.S. is by their own account 10 years behind Russia in cruise missile technology. The Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn Missile uses airbreathing ramjet technology and flies at roughly Mach 3, making it the most feared cruise missile in the world. The Russians have exported this (primarily anti-ship) missile technology to China and is also jointly developing a similar cruise missile with India which was test fired recently.

The U.S. would love to have a mach 10 cruise missile to counter this threat since their Tomahawk cruise missiles are inferior as they fly at subsonic speeds. As it is now, a Chinese or Russian destroyer/sub/plane could take out an aircraft carrier with one Sunburn missile that flies at a cruising altitude of 40 feet and is too fast for on board (phalanx) anti-missile systems to defend against.

Ames later told Senator DeConcini that these financial difficulties led him to first contemplate espionage between December 1984 and February 1985:

I felt a great deal of financial pressure, which, in retrospect, I was clearly overreacting to. The previous two years that I had spent in Washington, I had incurred a certain amount of personal debt in terms of buying furniture for an apartment and my divorce settlement had left me with no property essentially. Together with a cash settlement of about $12,000 to buy out my pension over time, I think I may have had about $10,000 or $13,000 in debt. It was not a truly desperate situation but it was one that somehow really placed a great deal of pressure on me... Rosario was living with me at the time...I was contemplating the future. I had no house, and we had strong plans to have a family, and so I was thinking in the longer term...

It was these pressures, says Ames, which in April 1985, led him to conceive of "a scam to get money from the KGB."

"1) What will we do with the waste? It should be reused for fuel. This allows a reactor to get more energy out of less nuclear material, resulting in both reduced cost and waste. The only reason why the US doesn't do this, is the concern over terrorists or spies obtaining bomb-grade materials. You still end up with waste. See: thermodinamics"

Yes, but LESS waste than otherwise. Moreover, it would produce more usable fuel than it would consume, making the " If it took 30 years to do a transiton you would only have 30 years before you would need to do the next one." argument a moot point.

Apart from that, it does not take a "nuclear" economy to prduce radioactive wastes, hospitals being one of the better producers of radioactive waste. In addition to that, remember that between the US and Russia, there are between 3000 and 4000 nukes to be dismantled.

would you prefer that nuclear material to pay for itself producing energy, or simply stored somewhere? and where?

Well, there's always room for improvement. I'm sure they'd like to send more men up with less rocket booster than we could do 40 years ago. I bet they've already caught up to where we were in the '60s; after all, they've been making ICBMs for a long time now, they claim.

As for the instrumentation, they make a lot of chips in China, but I think they're all consumer-grade, not radiation-hardened. Nowadays they should be able to collect a lot more data on the ship and its performance than we could get during the Apollo era.

FYI - Iraq did build biological weapons. The inspectors were still recovering supposedly destroyed biological bombs and components in 2002/3.

People always forget that the executive branch (aka president) only enforces the laws. You should ask whether the candidates will set up task forces to break down your door and arrest you.

Have you never heard of Executive Orders? The president can do quite a lot that has the same effect as passing laws without going through the House or any representitives.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/direct.htm

The INVAP, has put satellites into orbit before, it has created many nuclear reactors for Argentina, currently finishing Atucha 2, and building one in Australia.

Argentina had the technology to build the nuclear bomb as of 1982, after the fall of the military government because of the Falklands/Malvinas defeat, there hasnt been any significant nuclear developements except the Condor 1/2 projects.

The Condor 2 ballistic missile was developed along with Iraq & Egypt, more info here. But it was cancelled (or so everyone says) because of Israeli, US Pressure, along with the UK's concern that it could easily reach the Falklands.

Reports say that it was tested over Patagonia (no province specified), and it was detected by an american satellite. In 1998 the Fuerza Area Argentina (FAA) (Air Force), reported to congress that it still had two active missiles, and the remaining had been broken down into parts and sent to various Air Bases in the country. Besides that, there isnt much information in Argentina about it, since it has a very well kept secret for many years.

Anyways, Argentina joined the Nuclear non-ploriferation treaty in the 90's thanks to our traitor president Carlos Menem. Since then Brazil has taken the lead in technological developements, with all Argentine Science/Defense developements being cancelled.

Until now, even with the crisis that hit Argentina in 2001, that spread poverty, and destroyed the economy, Argentina still remains the country with the highest GNI Per Capita of L. America (info here), now with the Argentine economy rapidly recovering, the industry & exports booming, President Nestor Kirchner, reopened ship building stations to finish 2 remaining Diesel TR-1700 Submarines, called for INVAP to develop radars for the air force (3D/4D Radars), and & to help with the creation of an AWACS plane for early 2009.

But congrats to the Brazilians anyways!. (Their previous attempt was a total failure ending in an accident that killed twenty people).

So they can act influential ;-). try here for starters!

The temporary provisions are: sections 201 (wiretapping in terrorism cases),
202 (wiretapping in computer fraud and abuse felony cases), 203(b) (sharing wiretap
information), 203(d) (sharing foreign intelligence information), 204 (Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pen register/trap & trace exceptions), 206
(roving FISA wiretaps), 207 (duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States
persons who are agents of a foreign power), 209 (seizure of voice-mail messages
pursuant to warrants), 212 (emergency disclosure of electronic surveillance), 214
(FISA pen register/ trap and trace authority), 215 (FISA access to tangible items), 217
(interception of computer trespasser communications), 218 (purpose for FISA
orders), 220 (nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence), 223
(civil liability and discipline for privacy violations), and 225 (provider immunity for
FISA wiretap assistance).

Well, there are a couple of articles from the NY Times here, and one on the WASC website.

France, who was quite angry about Echelon, admits it.

"....all secret services of the big democracies undertake economic espionage." - French ex-intelligence chief

The Progressive magazine even did a story about how one works in 1979.

From the story: "How is this functionally different from a national ID card?"

It isn't different. The driver's license name is the kind of lying with which many things are sold to U.S. citizens. Other examples are: 1) The "Patriot" Missile, as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of a particular weapon of mass destruction. 2) The "Patriot" Act, as though you are not patriotic unless you are in favor of laws that most congress people passed without reading. And, 3) The "Peacekeeper" Missile, which tries to give people the idea that a nuclear weapon keeps the peace.

This kind of lying takes advantage of the fact that most U.S. citizens have to trust their government because they simply don't have time to understand what their government is doing.

Most media exists to make money. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one policy over another.

Books are the major media that are not ad-supported. Have a quick look at the reviews of 3 movies and 35 books that try to tell you a little about U.S. goverment corruption: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. If you don't read about the subjects mentioned, you are not informed. If you don't like the books listed, pick your own.

Even though most people simply don't have time to understand their government, it is still amazing how much distrust U.S. citizens have of their government, and yet they don't take control.

There is good reason not to trust a more efficient national driver's license, because it would be used by the government to suppress political dissent. For example, see the New York Times article, F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies. Here's a quote: "Critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, for instance, have sued the government to learn how their names ended up on a "no fly" list used to stop suspected terrorists from boarding planes." There are many people whose jobs depend on their ability to fly. They may be forced to stop any analysis of government activity if they are harassed when they try to fly.

That article discusses a few of the other abuses. If you didn't like the Vietnam War, and demonstrated against it, the FBI would go to your neighbors and friends and "investigate" you. Merely the investigation caused enough fear to discourage most people; they could not afford to lose friends and the support of neighbors. People would think, "If someone is being investigated, that person must have done something wrong."

(Note that you can read that article at the New York Times web site, but only under extremely adversarial conditions. You can pay more than the entire cost of the newspaper in which the article was originally printed. Or, you can get a discount under plans which cause you to lose your money in a short time if you don't use the plans quickly enough. No one should underestimate the self-destructive rapacity of managers of ad-supported media.)

Driver's licenses are already a national ID card. The U.S. government is only trying to make the data gathering more efficient. The fundamental problem is not whether or not a national ID card is a good idea, the problem is that, although the U.S. government functions well in many ways, the government is corrupt in many other ways.

If you truly love your country, you will not just enjoy the advantages, you will be there for your country when there are problems.

I'm quite worried about their No-Dong missiles.

Their Taepodong-2 series:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/missile/td-2.ht m

...has a long range, estimated to be 4300kms for the 3-stage model.

Guess where it is launched from? Air. From what? A Lockheed. Boring? Yes. Does it work? Oh, yes.

In a fission reaction the fallout comes from two sources. The first is the by-products of the fission reaction. I believe it is radioactive isotopes of Cesium and Potassium. This radioactive particles combine with the uranium/plutonim that did not fission and get distributed as fallout.

A pure fusion bomb, e.g. neutron bomb, has only a fusion reaction and thus theoretically produces no radioactive fallout. However in practice a fission reaction is used to create the pressure and heat needed to start the fusion reaction.

See the Special Weapons Primer at http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/index.html for more info.

Indeed. Much like the Iraq Libaration Act signed into law by Bill Clinton.

But hey. He's a good guy, and PNAC are the bad guys. The world is so much simpler in black and white!

Mr. Clinton sent his representatives to various forums (including the UN) in 1997 and 1998 during the height of the Iraq disarmament crisis in the 90s. In fact, the stated goal of Operation Desert Fox was to "degrade" Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities. Secretary Albright actually stated several times that Iraq had WMDs and that Hussein should be taken out - see Albright's March 1997 speech to Georgetown University on the subject

When? When did John Kerry know that aluminum tubes were not capable of being used in nuclear weaponsmaking, but claimed they were so capable anyway, and did so in front of Congress? Do tell.

Typical liberal, spinning what I said. The "lies" I was referring to was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Senator Kerry actually helped author and signed a letter to Clinton in 1998 which state [W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.". Hmm... 1998? Yeah, that's right, I'm pretty sure Bush wasn't given any intelligence on Iraq in '98, seeing as how he wasn't President and all... There are more quotes where that came from.

They were stating what they believed. When the Bush admin officials testified in front of Congress, they were intentionally LYING. Big difference. They had information beforehand that contradicted what they were saying, and can be proven to have known it.

The article doesn't really state anything new. It just says the administration embraced a disputed theory, and there's really nothing wrong with that. Saying that the 9/11 Terrorists were arabs and followers of Osama bin Laden is a disputed theory, as there are some out there that are silly enough to believe that the MOSAD did it. Bush Sr, Clinton, and Dubya all believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and unlike his father and BJ Boy, he took action after we were attacked on 9/11. Yes, I know, Iraq was not involved in 9/11. However, the policy of this administration is that if you support ANY form of terrorism, expect your ass to be taken out. The case can be argued that Hussein supported Palestinian suicide bombers by paying their families, and actually on occasion trained terrorists. In addition, some members of al-Qaeda received medical treatment in Baghdad. And oh yes, did you know there was a camp outside of Baghdad that contained a Boeing 707 that Iraqi Special Forces used to practice hijacking planes?

I'm not even going to go into the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed by President Clinton, which actually made the policy of the United States that of regime change in Iraq. I'm not going to go into the 16 UN Resolutions that the United States pushed since 1991 which stated Hussein was a threat.

Shyah? Conservatives alwas find it so easy to find a hole to crawl into when the rhetoric fails to be convincing.

I'm not going to go into the rest of the evidence out there, because you're just a blind ideologue. It was obvious that you are one when you made the Halliburton comment. At least I can see the other side, and I've proven that by campaigning for Democrats in the past (and currently in the Baton Rouge Mayor-President race). Stop being an ideologue with spun arguments and maybe people will listen to you.

1. Members were caught trading in sexual slaves. It was reported on by many mainstream media outlets, including newspapers and major networks. Go to http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8& q=united+nations&btnG=Search+News for a pretty good compilation of the various articles reporting on these sandals. 2. Kurt Waldheim was elected Secretary-General of the UN, despite the fact that he was a known war criminal (A Nazi Lieutenant). http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/warcrime.html and http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1995/191/191p21.h tm 3. A good chunk of our natinal parks have been GIVEN to the UN as collateral if we default on our debts. They intend to give them more. If you examine a map of what percentage of the U.S. the U.N. wants to get its hands on within 10 years, it takes up over somewhere in the area of 90%. Check out http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread45831/pg 1 and http://www.store.yahoo.com/infowars-shop/amdesbyde s.html You can also download the video on emule ed2k:7Cfile7CAmerica20Destroyed20By20Design20Plz20 Shareavi7C7306690567C93E0EE8D68CBE6221E90D20284B4A 9867ChTWFQ3T6MQZLW2BHYJ2TIZYY6J2G2SX5Q7C The author has given his permission for people to share this movie on the internet. There are plenty of other reasons to oppose any expansion of the UN's influence in America, but I'm tired and looking for refernces to back my claims has become a chore. Investigate and enjoy.

Clinton's Executive Order 12958 reduced that to 25 years in most cases. (The more recent version is Bush's Executive Order 13292).

But there are many ways to get around that in the latest EO. It won't be released if it will (to quote the EO):

(1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method;

(2) reveal information that would assist in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction;

(3) reveal information that would impair U.S. cryptologic systems or activities;

(4) reveal information that would impair the application of state of the art technology within a U.S. weapon system;

(5) reveal actual U.S. military war plans that remain in effect;

(6) reveal information, including foreign government information, that would seriously and demonstrably impair relations between the United States and a foreign government, or seriously and demonstrably undermine ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States;

(7) reveal information that would clearly and demonstrably impair the current ability of United States Government officials to protect the President, Vice President, and other protectees for whom protection services, in the interest of the national security, are authorized;

(8) reveal information that would seriously and demonstrably impair current national security emergency preparedness plans or reveal current vulnerabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, or projects relating to the national security; or

(9) violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement.

That determination is made by the agency head (e.g. CIA, NSA), not by an outside panel, and there's no appeal. So it's automatically declassified unless they care enough to stop it.

Clinton's Executive Order 12958 reduced that to 25 years in most cases. (The more recent version is Bush's Executive Order 13292).

But there are many ways to get around that in the latest EO. It won't be released if it will (to quote the EO):

(1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method;

(2) reveal information that would assist in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction;

(3) reveal information that would impair U.S. cryptologic systems or activities;

(4) reveal information that would impair the application of state of the art technology within a U.S. weapon system;

(5) reveal actual U.S. military war plans that remain in effect;

(6) reveal information, including foreign government information, that would seriously and demonstrably impair relations between the United States and a foreign government, or seriously and demonstrably undermine ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States;

(7) reveal information that would clearly and demonstrably impair the current ability of United States Government officials to protect the President, Vice President, and other protectees for whom protection services, in the interest of the national security, are authorized;

(8) reveal information that would seriously and demonstrably impair current national security emergency preparedness plans or reveal current vulnerabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, or projects relating to the national security; or

(9) violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement.

That determination is made by the agency head (e.g. CIA, NSA), not by an outside panel, and there's no appeal. So it's automatically declassified unless they care enough to stop it.

Sorry to reply to my own post, I thought I'd dig up some factual data. See http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/h070804.ht ml Congressional record for 7/8/2004, listing the establishment of said 877 number.

A different kind of ELF hazard. From here.

B.2.2 Extremely Low Frequency Biological/Ecological Monitoring and Interference Mitigation
The ELF ecological monitoring program is an independent evaluation of the possible hazards ELF RF transmissions may have on the environment. Sampling and gathering of data was completed at the end of FY93 with review and comments on the resultant data by the National Academy of Sciences expected during FY96. The ELF interference mitigation efforts fund the procurement and maintenance of devices used to ground electrical voltages induced in long metal inductors (e.g., wire fences, cable lines) in areas adjacent to the Wisconsin and Michigan ELF radio transmitters.

Why does the US need such a large submarine fleet? Perhaps to counter a possible naval conflict with China over Taiwan? I believe N. Korea has a few (ancient) subs...... More tactical boats perhaps would be prudent, but....

Check out this link about plans to refit some Ohio-class boomers from nuclear ballistic boats to basically submerged cruise missile and spec-ops platforms. 154 Tomahawks can make quite an impressive. Plus, submarines are less prone to little boats full of explosives. Also, I can't cite sources, but word is that boomers like Ohios are ever quieter than hunter/killers like the Los Angeles or Seawolf-class, which would make sense when you have a larger, slower boat.

There's a link-collection about anti-personell lasers (including blinding ones) with similar stories. Seems old, but relevant.

pudge: Second ... two star hitters ...
I plead nolo contendere on that one! On the other hand, Bush doesn't know the name of his star Supreme Court Justice Anthony/Antonio Scalia! And I could argue that Antonin Scalia counts as at least 1.8 Supreme Court justices because Clarence Thomas votes with him over 80% of the time! Which would you rather have, a President who didn't know his hometown baseball stars, or a President who didn't know who was on the Supreme Court? (Yeah, I know, Bush just misspoke. Lighten up, will ya!)

pudge: Third, you can't be serious about the forgeries. ...
I seriously think there's not enough information to draw a firm conclusion, and that's what I wrote. Look, all CBS ever had, all anybody's ever seen, are faxes from Burkett. Fax resolution is 150 DPI, which, for purposes of document forensics, is piss poor. As I type I'm looking at a blowup of a CBS doc that says "Report to the 111th" (with superscript). The 'o' in "Report" is exactly 9 pixels tall. The 'o' in 'to' is 10 pixels tall. the '1's in "111" are 7 pixels wide. My point is that no reputable expert is going to swear beyond the shadow of a doubt based solely on 150 DPI faxes. Sure, the preponderance of the evidence says they're forgeries, but the standard in a criminal trial is beyond the shadow of a doubt. You want a little doubt? It looks to me like some of the instances of the same glyph are higher or lower than others. Typewriters; especially worn ones, strike at varying heights. MSWord doesn't. I'm not claiming that proves the docs are valid; I just think there's still signifcant uncertainty about them. From what I know now, on a 50/50 bet I'd bet against them. But on a 20:1 bet, I'd put up $10 to say they're valid against your $200 claiming they're false. Would you take that bet? How about 100:1? See what I mean? There's still uncertainty about them.

pudge: Fourth ... he hasn't done anything..
Flat out false. here's a small summary from Kerry's Senate career awards. Here's another, comparing Kerry's legislative accomplishments with Cheney's. Read here and here about the BCCI affair.

A word of advice here. You've clearly been getting most of your information from anti- Kerry sources. It's a free country, you're welcome to do that, but my advice is: don't take all that stuff as the full and complete story on Kerry. Taking that stuff as gospel and ignoring the counter arguments makes you look, well, ignorant. I'm not saying you are ignorant; just that some of the things you say leave an unfortunate impression. Case in point:

pudge: Further, I don't know how you can consider what Bush has done in Iraq a substantive issue, ...
Most observers consider Iraq to be the most substantive issue of the campaign.

pudge: ... Kerry has completely reversed his position on Iraq ...
False. Read this analysis from the SF Chronicle's Marc Sandalow. Yeah, I know, you think you can safely igore it because the paper's probably liberal. But I'm telling you, that's the kind of ignoring that can lead to ignorance! By the way, Kerry didn't say 'the invasion was "the right decision,"' he

I'll be impressed when some 3rd world country builds their first jet

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited did that some time ago.

This question will never make it to the President, but I'd like to know how he responds to the arguments against the Iraq invasion presented by Brent Scowcroft in 2002 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.h tml?id=110002133)
Or George Bush Senior's statement in 1998 that invading Iraq would have "incalculable human and political costs" (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp ) He also said "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho?" he asked. "We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous. We don't gain the size of our victory by how many innocent kids running away -- even though they're bad guys -- that we can slaughter. ... We're American soldiers; we don't do business that way." (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/a19990303bus h.htm)
Or Dick Cheney's assessment in 1991 (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/che ney.htm)in which he said that "I think the proposition of going to Baghdad is fallacious," that invading would get the U.S. "bogged down in a quagmire," and that "Saddam Hussein's offensive military capability, his capacity to threaten his neighbors, has been virtually eliminated."
I want to know how the President (or anyone else, really) can reconcile the 2003 invasion of Iraq with these pronouncements. Obviously the situation has changed over the years, but it clearly has not changed enough to prevent the situation that Cheney described.

the U.S. has allready admitted to having large amounts of weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons, ready for use.

Not only that. The US also has sizeable stockpiles of chemical weapons, and it is still actively developing weapons systems for delivery of biological and chemical warfare agents.

Chitty Bang Specifications
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ )

NATO Designation: GEN11
Classification: Automobile, VTOL 3 rotor aircraft, hovercraft
Primary Function: Joymobile, sentient magic being
Builder:
Ken Adam, Rowland Emmett - Production Designers, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Movie
Alan Mann - Ford Racing Team
Fiirst Flight/Road Test: June 1967, UK
Power Plant: Ford 3000 V6 and automatic transmission
Fuel: Love
Thrust: Unknown
Length: 17 feet
Height: 5 feet
Wingspan: 10 feet
Rotor Diameter Vertical Lift Rotors(2)- 6 feet; Rear Propulsion Prop Diameter(1)- 6 feet
Speed: 100 Mph
Ceiling: 5000 Feet, est.
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 3500 lbs.
Range: Unknown; Recorded trip to Vulgaria from UK
Armament: Truly Scrumptious
(Source: http://chittygen11.com/index.html)

Yes, that's true in a conventional war, but the people the Americans are fighting now aren't the same people they invaded a year ago.

Back in 1998 a World Islamic Front statement justified killing Americians and their allies by stating that America wanted to distroy Iraq and "humiliate their Muslim neighbours" (full text here).

With the invasion of Iraq these claims seem a lot more credible, and by destabilizing Iraq there is now a convienent battleground for anyone with a bone to pick with the Americans.

The result is an unwinable situation. Until Iraq is stable the people of Iraq are really not better off, and America is definantly not safer than it was before the invasion. If the US pulls out now Iraq may never be stable and will become another Afganistan, but the longer the US stays the more hatred they engender and the more attackers come into Iraq.

Here's some more interesting quotes:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons

Some observers also think that South Africa conducted a nuclear test in the Indian Ocean in 1979, though this is very often disputed.