Slashdot Mirror

And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.

Like so many others, you're making the same mistake believing the US military will fight against it's own citizens. It didn't work for the Chinese during the Tiananmen Square protests and it won't in the US. See the party bosses in Beijing feared local army units would join with the protesters if ordered to fire on them and fight against other army units. There were even reports of some army units shooting at others. So what did the bosses do? They had to order the PLA's, People's Liberation Army, 27th Army into the city from other provinces or parts of China.

It's my guess you've never served in the US military either. When I was in the US Army I was in the infantry, you know one of those on the front line shooting at and being shot at by the enemy. I and others I served with would have shot or fragged an officer giving a bad order. I bet my nephew who's a Marine, and has served in Iraq, would not hesitate to do the same.

Oh, and let's look at Iraq. The US military hasn't been able to stop the insurgency and fighting there yet. There is less fighting but partially because the Iraqi and US military negotiated with some of the militia factions there.

Falcon

Difference being, each of those countries were/are seen as enemies to the West for what they have done. China is seen as a business partner.

Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq by Reagan to patch things up with Saddam in 1983 only months after Saddam had used chemical weapons. There is even an official photo of them meeting. You see, however bad Saddam was, he was considered better than the bogeyman-of-the-day Iran. And to make things even more stomach-churning, Rumsfeld used Iraq's purported chemical weapons arsenal in 2003 to justify invading the country. They couldn't even bother to find a person to head up the propaganda push for the invasion who hadn't been one of the chief apologists for the regime twenty years before.

So Iraq wasn't seen as 'just' a business partner - it was seen as a key ally in the region. Of course, Reagan's team had previously bribed the Iranians to release hostages using illegal arms deals, so it's not like there was no contact at all. Meanwhile Russia was selling massive quantities of raw materials and heavy industrial products onto the market through the 80s to make up for its lack of success in producing higher-grade technology or consumer goods. The idea that realpolitik is new, and that previously US foreign policy was based on some sort of assessment of moral purity is hypocritical bullshit.

i'm glad someone on the inside gives a hoot, but there are far too many who aren't just over cautious, but maliciously or cravenly overclassify. even things that had been in the public domain for years:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB179/

The briefing book that the Archive published today includes 50 year old documents that CIA had impounded at NARA but which have already been published in the State Department's historical series, Foreign Relations of the United States, or have been declassified elsewhere. These documents concern such innocuous matters as the State Department's map and foreign periodicals procurement programs on behalf of the U.S. intelligence community or the State Department's open source intelligence research efforts during 1948.

Other documents have apparently been sequestered because they were embarrassing, such as a complaint from the Director of Central Intelligence about the bad publicity the CIA was receiving from its failure to predict anti-American riots in Bogota, Colombia in 1948 or a report that the CIA and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community badly botched their estimates as to whether or not Communist China would intervene in the Korean War in the fall of 1950. It is difficult to imagine how the documents cited by Aid could cause any harm to U.S. national security.

You know your government has tanks, missiles, stealth bombers and is on its way to warships with laser cannons right?

And those tanks, missiles, stealth bombers and other weapons are manned by citizens. I used to be one. While we were joking about it a number of us, including me, argued we'd frag someone giving us a bad order. While I'm no longer in the Army my nephew is in the Marines and I could see him doing it.

Heck even the Chinese had difficulty having it's army fire on civilians during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Commanders for the local army units refused to order soldiers to fire on civilians. Protesters were even cheered on by the police. Communist party bosses were scared the local military units were going to revolt so Beijing called in units from other parts of China. Even then there were reports of sporadic gunfire and interfactional fighting among PLA units.

It's not as easy to get a nation's military to fire on its own citizens as you seem to think. Heck in the Israeli military there are even refuseniks who refuse to take part in the occupation.

Falcon

It amazes me how many U.S. citizens are ignorant of the violent, corrupt activities of the U.S. government. The violence is always for the profit of a few.

In the case of the U.S. government overthrowing the democratically elected Premier of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddeq, the CIA was allowed to act in secret: "The CIA, with help from British intelligence, planned, funded and implemented the operation." The purpose was to insure huge profits for British Petroleum (Yes, that BP), and U.S. oil companies.

Quote from the Wikipedia article: "Overnight, the CIA became a central part of the American foreign policy apparatus, and covert action came to be regarded as a cheap and effective way to shape the course of world events"--a coup engineered by the CIA called Operation PBSUCCESS toppling the duly elected Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, which had nationalised farm land owned by the United Fruit Company, followed the next year."

Military action so that U.S. investors can make more money has ever since been a central policy of the U.S. government. The families and friends of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had oil and weapons investments, so the U.S. military was used to get control of the oil in Iraq. That violence has made U.S. citizens much poorer, through taxes and inflation.

There are worse things that can happen than losing a bit of your privacy to a government you cant trust.

How many people have terrorists killed? Now how many people have governments killed? In the past century NAZIs killed more than 600,000 Jews alone. At the same tyme Stalin's Soviet Union killed 20 million and Mao 60 million in China. More recently, from 1975 to '79 the Khmer Rouge beat the NAZIs body count, estimates of more than a million were executed. At the same tyme with the support of the US Indonesia's ruler Gen Suharto ordered the invasion of East Timor. After the 1975 invasion 200,000 East Timorese, 1/3 the population, were killed. Also in 1979, and after, people in Iran were persecuted for not living according to Sharia Law. Next door in Iraq throughout the 1980s and '90s Saddam ordered chemical weapons be used against others in Iraq. Or take Rwanda, in 1994 an estimated 800,000 people were mass murdered.

Still think terrorists are a greater threat than government?

Falcon

I agree that it *should* be that way, but the debate regarding text vs. intent is alive and well in judicial circles, including (and especially) in the USSC.

e.g.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v103/n2/983/LR103n2Treanor.pdf
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/publications/irt.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm

Read from the bottom up for chronological order, which goes roughly like this:

Pre election: Allende may align himself with the Communists, so prepare for divestment and possible action if he's elected. We cannot tolerate any example of an OAS country independent and working with Russia or Cuba, or in any way harming US interests.

Post election: Now that Allende has been elected, here are the options for getting rid of him. Propaganda campaigns have already begun.

Post assassination: "Chile's coup d'etat was close to perfect."

Post political executions: This telegram, written by Ambassador Popper and directed to the U.S. Secretary of State, reports on a meeting between Assistant Secretary of State Jack Kubisch, and Chile's foreign minister General Huerta on the controversy over two U.S. citizens--Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi--executed by the military after the coup. Kubisch notes that he is raising this issue "in the context of the need to be careful to keep relatively small issues in our relationship from making our cooperation more difficult."

Allende, who was the elected president of Chile before the coup, gave a final speech while British-made jets dropped bombs on the presidential palace on 9/11/73:

My friends,
Surely this will be the last opportunity for me to address you. The Air Force has bombed the antennas of Radio Magallanes.
My words do not have bitterness but disappointment. May they be a moral punishment for those who have betrayed their oath: soldiers of Chile, titular commanders in chief, Admiral Merino, who has designated himself Commander of the Navy, and Mr. Mendoza, the despicable general who only yesterday pledged his fidelity and loyalty to the Government, and who also has appointed himself Chief of the Carabineros [paramilitary police]...

Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Go forward knowing that, sooner rather than later, the great avenues will open again and free men will walk through them to construct a better society.

Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!

These are my last words, and I am certain that my sacrifice will not be in vain, I am certain that, at the very least, it will be a moral lesson that will punish felony, cowardice, and treason. --Salvador Allende

I read a long-winded description of the processes involved in an interview with a couple of officers in charge of this (they also trained soliders to resist torture and interrogation.) You take a person, strap him to a board, lean the body backwards, put a towel in their mouth, and pour water onto the towel. This stimulates the drowning reflex, which causes panic and immense psychological suffering. They had a series of tricks they had developed to streamline the process and counteract breathing techniques, but they wouldn't tell those. Most people break in a few seconds, apparently.
I'm quite for torturing sufficiently guilty/evil people if results can be had from it, but applying this to try to determine if someone is guilty in the first place is ovbiously inane. I'd like to think that most "interrogation" work U.S. intelligence conducts is done like this: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/index.htm

You're sure there are abuses? well so am I. In fact I have no doubt personally that the abuses far outweigh any possible good that can come of the classification system. Time after time throughout history the US government has classified information for the sole reason that it's embarrassing to those currently in power. Until we require a judge to review every classification for legality (and I mean every one from presidential orgies to black ops) the abuses will continue. The government's record on this is absolutely unacceptable.

GWU

"Balance of power" during the Cold War consisted of the Soviet Union arming and funding communist insurgencies, coups and outright invasions, and the US desperately trying to contain the spread, until around 1980.

Oooh! Scarrry communists! They're teaching children to read in Nicaragua and kicking out our corporations in El Salvador! Quick, someone rape and kill some nuns! For freedom!

By the way, if you're afraid of the Nicaraguan Army, you're a coward.

Negotiation with a sovereign nation with an elected government is quite different from dictating to a puppet regime that came to power in a coup.

Is it different from overthrowing a democracy in Iran in 1953 and installing the Shah? Or funding coups throughout central and south America and in fact, all over the world? Is it different from hand-picking Saddam Hussein to rule the Ba'ath Party, support his rise to power, removing him from the State Sponsors of Terror in order to arm him with chemical weapons, and then claim America had nothing to do with it when he stops following orders?

Your best evidence is that the Ford administration and subsequent administrations are guilty of not caring enough about East Timor. Not caring enough does not equal support.

You're a fucking liar. Again.

Here's the source document: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/doc4.pdf

Here's the important text:

SUHARTO: I would like to speak to you, Mr. President, about another problem, Timor... in the latest Rome Agreement the Portuguese government wanted to invite all parties to negotiate... Fretelin has declared it's independence unilaterally... if this continues it will prolong the suffering of the refugees and increase the instability in the area... We want your understanding if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action.

FORD: We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem you have and the intentions you have.

KISSINGER: You appreciate that the use of US made arms could create problems... It depends on how we construe it, whether it is in self interest or is a foreign operation. It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly, we would be able to influence the reaction in America if whatever happens happens after we return. This may be there would be less chance of people talking in an unauthorized way... We understand your problem and the need to move quickly but I am only saying that it would be better if it were done after we returned.

FORD: It would be more authoritative if we can do it in person...

KISSINGER: If you have made plans, we will do our best to keep everyone quiet until the president returns home.

There's a cable called "Plans for Indonesian Invasion of East Timor" that is still classified which Kissinger received before this conversation occurred.

A more appropriate spectrum would be 'totalitarianism' and 'freedom', with people like me coming down on the side of 'freedom', and "leftists" like Chomsky coming down on the side of totalitarianism.

You're an apologist for depraved violence as long as the person holding the gun is wrapped in an American flag and saying some nice words that you don't really comprehend. The only difference between you and a sovi

The USSR. After 1945, wherever there was a war, if it wasn't started by the USSR backing communist insurgency or outright conquest, it was there pouring fuel on the fire.

Wow. Just wow. You may want to slow down on those daily viewings of Red Dawn. I think everyone can understand certain cold war moves in terms of balance of power, but I doubt you have any particular understanding on anything that happened before 1980.

That is manifestly not how "we" are "running" Afghanistan and Iraq. Both nations are sovereign, and both have our enemies in power.

So, as long as the Soviets said Afghanistan was a sovereign nation whose government requested their help - which they did - then the military presence had no effect on their government? That's a wonderful bit of fantasy. Is that why the White House was negotiating with the government of Iraq on how long US troops would stay in 2008? Why wasn't Iraq allowed to hire Iraqi contractors to rebuild the country instead of western companies that are much more expensive?

What happened in East Timor most certainly wasn't supported by the US.

Once again, you are a liar.

The Archive's postings reveal a consistent pattern by successive U.S. administrations - stretching over twenty-five years - of subordinating East Timor's right to self-determination to its relations with Indonesia. They also demonstrate that Washington realized Indonesia's intention of taking East Timor by force far earlier than previously recognized, was aware of - and discounted or suppressed - credible reports of ongoing Indonesian atrocities from 1975 to 1983, turned a blind eye to the extensive use of U.S. weapons in East Timor, and through 1999 viewed the crisis in East Timor primarily as a distraction from its priority of maintaining close relations with the Indonesian government and armed forces. (Since this briefing book overlaps with the Archive's previous document release on East Timor, readers are encouraged to consult that briefing book for more background on the Portuguese revolution, the decolonization of East Timor, the period immediately surrounding the invasion of East Timor and other essential material) Among the revelations in these documents:

notice how the left wasn't complaining

You fail to notice that there is no "left" or "right" - those are just labels in your head. However, having judged you by your words, I can say that you're a spurious and ill informed person, and you lack the capacity to place the most basic information in context. And sadly, you can't even bring yourself to consider being critical of the place where you were born. I would like to say that I don't need to draw the obvious parallels between yourself and the hapless shortsightedness of citizens of nations past, but I doubt you'd fucking get it otherwise.

I remain hopeful that at some point the entire truth will be revealed. My hope has been diminished by the fact that the current president seems content to simply "move on" and forget the criminal activities of the prior administration, but it's not too late.

Well, if you're satisfied simply knowing the truth, whether or not it results in justice being meted out, then I'd take heart. Because personally I bet that in about twenty years the truth, straight from the horse's mouth, will be available at the National Security Archive.

Ever wonder if the CIA and Oliver North were really allowing the Contras to smuggle cocaine into the U.S. in order to buy weapons, to get around the Congressional ban on material assistance? Did the U.S. government really know that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds at the same time we sent Donald Rumsfeld to go shake our good buddy's hand?

Well it's all right there. BTW, the answer to both questions, according to the U.S. government itself, is "yes".

So did the US. Don't believe me? The US protected the bombers of Cubana Flight 455, who included CIA operatives, in 1976. The year before, in 1975, the US supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, in which 200,000 East Timorese were massacred. In 1973 the US supported Gen Pinochet's overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government in a coup d'état Thousands of people disappeared afterwards. The US has a history of arming and supporting repressive regimes with large human rights violations.

Heck, at the same tyme the US was supporting Saddam, the US was also arming Iran, who he was fighting against. If the US had allowed democracy in Iran, instead of aiding the overthrow of Iran's elected government and installing the Shah in a dictatorship, there would not have been the revolution in Iran in 1980.

As far as Iraq goes, we had a treaty in place that allowed us to investigate them at will and they broke that treaty.

What treaty was broken and when? After Scott Ritter came out and stated Iraq had no significant WMDs the Neocons in Bush Jr's admin had to besmear him for not supporting their lies.

As for breaking treaties, the US has broken many treaties. I can think of 2 treaties Bush Jr broke or tried to break. With Starwars he was breaking the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. In trying to locate the permanent nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mount he would also have violated the Treay of Ruby Valley which granted the Western Shoshone Yucca Mount and the surrounding land. The US broke a number of treaties with the Sioux. When Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee to march on the Trail of Tears he broke a treaty when the Cherokee.

The US also supports Israel who has consistently disregarded UN resolutions, there was an uproar when VP Biden went to Israel and they announced more settlements in occupied territory.

the point was to keep Iran's military in line.

Why then did Reagan administration officials sell weapons to Iran in the Iran-Contra Affair? Quite simply they were supporting a number of different sides who were repressive.

At that time there was also a threat by the Soviets against northern Yemen (after they invaded Afghanistan) and Iraq was prepping to fight with Saudi Arabia to defend against them.

Afghanistan was the Soviet's Vietnam. And the same Muslims going there to fight would have fought for the Saudis as well, heck a lot of Saudis went to Afghanistan. After Saddam's invasion of Kuwait al qaeda offered to protect Saudi Arabia against Saddam. They would have caused the Soviets trouble too.

By the way, the USA did NOT give Saddam chemical weapons. Did you just make that up?

• How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons
• Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein
• Where Did Saddam Get His Chemical Weapons?
• Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
• How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
• Congressional Record: September 20, 2002

Same thing happened when the Iranians overtook the US Embassy in 1979. The students pieced the documents back together looking for identities of CIA informants and the like. An example of the reconstructed documents is in the National Security Archive at GWU.

Not necessarily. The percentage of patents being granted to residents of a country doesn't tell the whole story. For example, Japan has an extremely high percentage... but recently, so has Armenia. You can't therefore conclude that both Japan and Armenia are economically dominant. What this percentage best shows you is the attractiveness of patenting a product in that domestic market. In that sense, to a certain degree the more foreigners who want to patent in the U.S., the more attractive our market is to them - which almost leads to the opposite of your conclusion.

The consistently high Japanese numbers have to do with the level of innovation in that country, yes, but also with the fact that when it comes to patent heavy sectors (technology, chemicals, pharma), their economy is almost entirely export driven. How many U.S. companies do you see making products for the Japanese domestic market versus the other way around?

Not necessarily. The percentage of patents being granted to residents of a country doesn't tell the whole story. For example, Japan has an extremely high percentage... but recently, so has Armenia. You can't therefore conclude that both Japan and Armenia are economically dominant. What this percentage best shows you is the attractiveness of patenting a product in that domestic market. In that sense, to a certain degree the more foreigners who want to patent in the U.S., the more attractive our market is to them - which almost leads to the opposite of your conclusion.

The consistently high Japanese numbers have to do with the level of innovation in that country, yes, but also with the fact that when it comes to patent heavy sectors (technology, chemicals, pharma), their economy is almost entirely export driven. How many U.S. companies do you see making products for the Japanese domestic market versus the other way around?

These graphs show the total number of patents granted for all available years with data.

These show the percentage granted to residents of the country for all years with data.

These graphs show the total number of patents granted for all available years with data.

These show the percentage granted to residents of the country for all years with data.

I actually calculated the percentage for about 150 countries using all available data from WIPO, and you do find some interesting patterns. What you've said is pretty much right... the U.S. has a strong patent system, and huge internal market, so it's no surprise foreigners want to patent their inventions here.

GDP per capita plays a big role in this percentage, as does the total population of the country, and the strength of the patent system. I'm not going to upload all my images, but here are a few interesting ones:

China Russia (not USSR) Germany (including West Germany) USA Japan India

The dashed line indicates when the country implemented TRIPS.

I actually calculated the percentage for about 150 countries using all available data from WIPO, and you do find some interesting patterns. What you've said is pretty much right... the U.S. has a strong patent system, and huge internal market, so it's no surprise foreigners want to patent their inventions here.

GDP per capita plays a big role in this percentage, as does the total population of the country, and the strength of the patent system. I'm not going to upload all my images, but here are a few interesting ones:

China Russia (not USSR) Germany (including West Germany) USA Japan India

The dashed line indicates when the country implemented TRIPS.

I actually calculated the percentage for about 150 countries using all available data from WIPO, and you do find some interesting patterns. What you've said is pretty much right... the U.S. has a strong patent system, and huge internal market, so it's no surprise foreigners want to patent their inventions here.

GDP per capita plays a big role in this percentage, as does the total population of the country, and the strength of the patent system. I'm not going to upload all my images, but here are a few interesting ones:

China Russia (not USSR) Germany (including West Germany) USA Japan India

The dashed line indicates when the country implemented TRIPS.

I actually calculated the percentage for about 150 countries using all available data from WIPO, and you do find some interesting patterns. What you've said is pretty much right... the U.S. has a strong patent system, and huge internal market, so it's no surprise foreigners want to patent their inventions here.

GDP per capita plays a big role in this percentage, as does the total population of the country, and the strength of the patent system. I'm not going to upload all my images, but here are a few interesting ones:

China Russia (not USSR) Germany (including West Germany) USA Japan India

The dashed line indicates when the country implemented TRIPS.

I actually calculated the percentage for about 150 countries using all available data from WIPO, and you do find some interesting patterns. What you've said is pretty much right... the U.S. has a strong patent system, and huge internal market, so it's no surprise foreigners want to patent their inventions here.

GDP per capita plays a big role in this percentage, as does the total population of the country, and the strength of the patent system. I'm not going to upload all my images, but here are a few interesting ones:

China Russia (not USSR) Germany (including West Germany) USA Japan India

The dashed line indicates when the country implemented TRIPS.

I actually calculated the percentage for about 150 countries using all available data from WIPO, and you do find some interesting patterns. What you've said is pretty much right... the U.S. has a strong patent system, and huge internal market, so it's no surprise foreigners want to patent their inventions here.

GDP per capita plays a big role in this percentage, as does the total population of the country, and the strength of the patent system. I'm not going to upload all my images, but here are a few interesting ones:

China Russia (not USSR) Germany (including West Germany) USA Japan India

The dashed line indicates when the country implemented TRIPS.

Definitely a move in the right direction to address the now prophetic "untold consequences" foreseen by Judge Archer and Judge Nies in their dissenting opinion in In Re Alappat, No. 92-1381 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 1994).

Unfortunately, as with the majority decision in the 1994 Tektronix appeals case, the tests provided to determine patent-ability of software algorithms continues to leave the door wide open to incessant lawyering not for the purpose of upholding the constitution and promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

No, instead we will continue to waste investment resources to stifle competition in the name of profit margins and monopolies.

Most people likely will not read the dissenting opinion so I'll quote the conclusion from the dissenting opinion here with emphasis added so others can see the prophecy for themselves:

The majority's holding is dangerous in the following way. First, it reasons that one can obtain a patent for a discovery in mathematics as long as some structure is formally recited on the face of the claim. Under this aspect of the holding, many of the requirements for patentability other than "newness," such as nonobviousness, make no sense and cannot be meaningfully applied. Thus, mathematical patents will be easier to obtain than other patents. Moreover, the patent law will now engage in the charade wherein claims directed to a particular method of calculating numbers (for use in a computer) are unpatentable, but claims directed to a computer (performing a particular method of calculating numbers) are patentable. (Mercifully, the majority leaves open the possibility that a claim reciting structure on its face can still be rejected under 101. The majority says that this will happen where the claim reciting structure on its face is merely a "guise" for a claim to a mathematical process. Although the majority finds that Alappat's claim to a rasterizer is clearly not a "guise" for a discovery of a mathematical process, the majority does not describe in detail how one distinguishes in general a "true" apparatus claim from an apparatus claim in "guise." Presumably, the way this is done is to determine what is the invention or discovery for which the patent applicant seeks an award of patent, and then to determine whether that discovery is the kind the statute was enacted to protect, as this dissenting opinion does.)

Second, the majority accepts the argument that all digital electronic circuitry is statutory subject matter when it performs a mathematical operation, and it is all equivalent when the particular mathematical operation is the same. Under this aspect, the mathematical patents will create an enormous scope of technological exclusivity. The lack of meaningful examination and the breadth of exclusive rights conferred by patents for discoveries of bare mathematical operations are repugnant to Congress's careful statutory scheme for the promotion of the useful arts.

As the player piano playing new music is not the stuff of patent law, neither is the mathematics that is Alappat's "rasterizer." And the Supreme Court has in its decisions required it so. Alappat's claimed discovery is outside 35 U.S.C. 101, and for this reason I would affirm the board's rejection. I dissent from the majority's decision on the merits to the contrary.

Oh come on... We've done a lot better than that lately.

I knew this was coming when I first heard about the White House scrapping their previous GroupWise based email archiving system, as they were switching to Exchange, and deciding to roll their own archiving system.
Thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley, email archiving is big business now and you can buy enterprise ready solution from the likes of EMC.
Instead they decided to have a private contractor roll a custom system, spent a couple hundred million and 2 years, and then scrapped it for not working right (scrapped by the White House CIO).
In the end they implemented an EMC solution, right before Bush left office.
They can pull the wool over non technical peoples eyes, but I have no doubt they purposely FUBAR'ed this, there was no reason not to go with an industry standard solution from the get go unless they were up to no good.
Supporting facts: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20080417/chron.htm

If it really was a coverup, then they would have been deleted completely.

Not necessarily, because if evidence of that deletion was found, then that in itself would have led to prosecutions. Violating the archiving laws is a serious crime, and letting the special prosecutor get them with an Al Capone gambit would have been foolish. No, much better that the data be "lost", as in present but unavailable for current use. After all, the e-mails would only have to stay missing until the investigation was concluded. Then the emails show up again, and voila -- as far as the official record goes, the Bush administration violated neither intelligence nor data archival laws.

Of course there's a simpler explanation. As TFA states: "Records released as a result of the lawsuits reveal that the Bush White House was aware during the president's first term in office that the e-mail system had serious archiving problems". So odds are that it was simply that their archival system sucked and it really did lose the emails accidentally. Sure one could argue that having a system that accidentally loses emails is convenient if you want to "accidentally" lose some emails without it being obvious, but again according to TFA they did try to get Microsoft's help to fix it before the issue even became public. And evidently failed.

Which is somewhat related to the topic my sibling post pointed out, the always droll "How can Bush be both an evil genius and a complete moron at the same time?" Well the obvious answer is that most people are some combination of smart and stupid at the same time. The Bush Admin being a perfect example. They were collectively extremely smart at getting the nation to think a war of choice was a necessity, yet they were terrible at prosecuting said war. They were great at political manipulations and neutering opponents, yet terrible at leveraging that advantage to achieve results. They were geniuses at filling positions with cronies and yes-men, but morons at hiring people who were actually competent -- including the IT department, apparently.

Anyway, getting back to the topic of these emails and how hiding them for only a short time is sufficient, the National Security Archive who the former White House spokesmen slams as "liberal" and "distorting the facts" demonstrates this clearly. They might be liberal, though they uncover dirt on liberal Presidents like Kennedy, and regardless I don't see how their liberal bias can modify the contents of documents received via FOIA. If you didn't know whether to believe that the U.S. government, and specifically Oliver North, were aware the Contras were smuggling drugs into the U.S. and approved of this, well, here's the U.S. government telling you in black and white. But it doesn't matter anymore, at least as far as North et. al. are concerned, now does it?

I have just spent some time reviewing documents from just before the Wall fell and it was very clearly revealed that letting people have a little bit of freedom was ultimately disastrous.

WTF? Would you prefer the European Communist regimes run people over with tanks instead? You've pretty much Godwined the discussion right there.

That's not the point. The point is, Apple must control everything. Yes, they regard even a BASIC interpreter as a threat. And they are very correct to do so. You might laugh but Apple's principles are sound. I have just spent some time reviewing documents from just before the Wall fell and it was very clearly revealed that letting people have a little bit of freedom was ultimately disastrous.

thanks to the Freedom of Information Act that was passed by Democrats over the objections of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Scalia.

What you are referring to are the amendments to the FOIA in 1974. The FOIA itself was passed in 1966 and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson.

President Ford vetoed the amendments to FOIA, but was overridden by congress. The House voted 371-31 to override the veto, and the Senate voted 65-27.

If you want to read the full story, I suggest looking here, as there are links to scans of the actual documents involved.

Weirdly enough, Johnson was against FOIA, and Rumsfeld was originally for it.

thanks to the Freedom of Information Act that was passed by Democrats over the objections of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Scalia.

What you are referring to are the amendments to the FOIA in 1974. The FOIA itself was passed in 1966 and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson.

President Ford vetoed the amendments to FOIA, but was overridden by congress. The House voted 371-31 to override the veto, and the Senate voted 65-27.

If you want to read the full story, I suggest looking here, as there are links to scans of the actual documents involved.

Weirdly enough, Johnson was against FOIA, and Rumsfeld was originally for it.

The reactor you're referring to in France is a 3rd generation reactor, the first of its kind.

It is not the first of it's kind. It is a clone of the reactor in Finland.

Subsequent reactors built on the same technology will naturally cost less and not be underbudgeted.

Except it is a subsequent reactor and is still over budget and overdue.

In a previous post you mentioned people should have more "personable responsibility" when it comes to food choices. That is a truly crass and elitist statement,

No, those who want a nanny state are crass and elitist. Only the nanny state has the wisdom to decide what people can and can not do. Now tell me how many capitalists, free market advocates, and businesses have massacred more than 10 million people, massacred or repressed more than 10 million others, or killed tens of millions more people?

And don't say the US hasn't had it's hands on anything like that. Ask the Cherokee about the Trail of Tears President Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee to march on, in which thousands died, breaking a treaty despite the USSC ruling he was breaking the law. Ask the Sioux how many treaties the US broke with them. Ask them what happened in the Black Hills and at Wounded Knee. Ask the American Indian women who were forcibly sterilized up through the 1970s by the government. Ask the East Timorese about President Ford and Henry Kissinger's support of Indonesia's invasion of the sovereign nation of East Timor and the subsequent massacre of 200,000 East Timorese, on third of the population. Ask about Ford and Kissinger's support for the overthrow of the democratically elected in Chile by General Pinochet after which tens of thousands simply disappeared with thousands more bodies found.

Falcon

How exactly is an unsubstantiated comment from some random nerd "symptomatic" of anything, other than the well-known level of anti-government paranoia on Slashdot?

How some people on Slashdot trusts government I don't know. During the past century governments, yes even the US government, has killed millions of people and experimented with millions more. And that's not unsubstantiated. NAZI Germany, a democracy, exterminated not just large numbers of Jews in the Holocaust but also other ethnic groups such as the Romany, Sinti, and other Gypsies and Serbs. Communists and Social Democrats were also targeted. About the same tyme Stalin ordered the death of some 20,000,000. And estimates say Mao had some 50,000,000 killed. During WWII the US Army Air Corps did medical experiments on the Tuskegee Airmen, the first Blacks the US trained as airmen, without their knowledge or consent. The Bureau of Indian Affairs had doctors sterilize American Indian Women, forcibly and unknowingly, up through the 1970s. Here are more experiments the US government or military has done. The Tonkin Incident was made up in 1964 to justify the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which authorized President LB Johnson to use military force in Viet Nam without an official declaration of war, which only congress can do. The US Army also killed hundreds in the My Lai Massacre in Viet Nam in 1968. The US even played a part in the death of some 200,000 East Timorese with the arming and backing of General Suharto's Indonesian invasion of the sovereign nation of East Timor in 1975.

I fear government far more than any other nation or terrorists. Much of the distrust of government has been earned not made up.

Falcon

And something that statists don't understand, or try to hoodwink people about, is that governments have caused more harm than any individuals or businesses. Hitler killed more than 600,000, Stalin more than 20 million, and Mao some 50 million. The most deadly business accident I know of was Union Carbide's Bhopal disaster which killed an estimated 25,000.

That's ancient history? After General Pinochet's overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile in 1973 thousands of people disappeared. During his rule in the later 1970s Pol Pot was responsible for "slave labor, malnutrition, poor medical care, and executions resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1.7 to 2.5 million people, approximately 21% of the Cambodian population." After Indonesia's president Suharto ordered the invasion of the independent nation of East Timor in 1975-75 some 200,000 East Timorese, one third of the population, was massacred.

Still too far in the past? How many people did Saddam have tortured and killed? Hundreds of thousands were killed during the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. How many have been killed in Darfur?

Governments have caused far more deaths and human rights violations than any business.

Falcon

we've deregulated

Deregulated? More like changed regulations not dropped them. Mortgage companies were encouraged to loan to under qualified people. That is to make bigger loans than borrowers were qualified to borrow. Regulations barring redlining were taken too far. As was the Community Reinvestment Act, which was meant to reduce redlining. Yes the Community Reinvestment Act was passed and became law in 1977 but it was changed in 1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2007, and 2008. Two of the mortgage companies that had high mortgage defaults were Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and they were created by the federal government.

supported brutal dictators, and overturned governments because of Friedmanism

None of which is true. No matter how many tymes it's told a lie is still a lie. Friedman opposed dictators and coups against democratically elected governments. He believed economic freedom would lead to political freedom but he did not support dictatorships. "Defaming Milton Friedman" disputes the efforts to discredit Milton Friedman. One such effort, which you allude to here, is his supposed support for Augusto Pinochet the army general who lead the coup against Chilean president Salvador Allende. Friedman never advised Pinochet or accepted money from the regime. Yes he went to Chile, where after he was invited by a private foundation he gave public lectures. He was offered two honorary degrees from Chilean universities which he turned down.

Perhaps Friedman himself would have taken it farther but to deny his influence in modern America is exceptionally naive.

No, what is naive, or passing the blame, is accusing Friedman of the problems caused by governments as well as the overthrow of a democratically elected government. If you want to blame someone for these blame politicians and the US intelligence system. It was Nixon and Kissinger along with the CIA who supported Pinochet. Ford and again Kissinger then supported Indonesian President Suharto's invasion of the independent country of East Timor. Approximately 200,000 East Timorese, one third of the population, was massacred afterwards. Neither had anything to do with Milton Friedman, the only thing that mattered was that those being supported was anti-communist.

Milton Friedman on the other hand did support the opening of the bamboo curtain, China. That was the one thing he had in common with Nixon and Ford. He thought a freer economy would lead to freer politics as well.

Falcon

Absolutely correct. And the origin of all this is DISTURBING.

Wrong, the SUPREME COURT JESTERS have RULED that the 16th amendment "gives no new power to tax"

Thus, the Sixteenth Amendment gives no new power to tax incomes, because that power always existed, but it relieves the pre-existing power from the requirement of apportionment. Income taxes are now constitutional because they are no longer subject to the apportionment requirement.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16thb.htm
They myght be lying YmmV.

IF what you say is true, his eyes likely glazed over because he already knew the information and warned the Bush administration multiple times with no equivocation, and even included several action plans, as this 2001 memo clearly documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf

That very memo (one of many) may possibly even include some of what those 'smart security folks' said.

Funny how despite numerous warnings and plans of action from various intelligence organizations, the Executive branch, whose job it is to coordinate that information and put plans into action, not only did not put any of the plans into motion, or for that matter do ANYTHING to respond to the security threats or obviously increased chatter... In fact, even after the Taliban destroyed many priceless world treasures and were actively aiding and abetting Osama, the Bush administration gave them MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Religious extremists tend to sympathize with one another.

Anyway, as a supporter of revolutions of higher expectations I must commend Obama for yet again attempting to break out of the beltway bubble for real solutions to real problems. Yes, he is up against bureaucracy, the party of no (Republicants), and the back stabbing Democratic party, but we have the best government on earth and an intelligent, wise, and ambitious leader who is determined to help us help ourselves.

Silly me thinking attacking two neighbors, genocide, religious persecution, utter failure to comply with terms of surrender, and last but not least intelligence claims of WMDs, etc had something to do with it. Fascinating.

Yeah, it is pretty silly to think we invaded Iraq in 2003 because... ... they committed genocide against the Kurds in 1983 which we knew about at the time and kept quiet about because we supported their war with Iran. ... they went to war with Iran in 1980 and used chemical weapons against them, which we later supported and helped Iraq to fund because we wanted Iran contained. ... they invaded Kuwait in 1990, initiating the Persian Gulf War.

I mean I can at least see how you could think WMD were a reason to invade... though when they come up with the reason first, and then demand the intelligence community support that reason, you should wonder...

But to think that one action that already resulted in us going to war, and two other actions which we supported at the time, warrant an invasion twenty years later is just nutty. I mean how can you watch a guy stand at a podium and tell you we need to invade Iraq because of genocide twenty years ago, when that same guy twenty years ago was shaking the murderer's hand while the U.S. government was aware of what he was doing, and nod your head and go "yup yup!"

Just because you're naive doesn't mean you're right.

I didn't say I was right. But someone's going to have to prove it to me active sonar is NEEDED!

We need sonar because people we don't implicitly trust (Iran, China, Russia, NKorea?) have submarines.

So? That doesn't prove it's needed.

They are not under our control.

Good! I don't want to control anyone and I don't believe we should act like an empire or bullies.

The fact is we have potential enemies.

And we are potential enemies to others. The US supported the invasion and overthrow of a number of other countries resulting on the death of a lot of people. After President Ford and Henry Kissinger supported Soharto's Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor 200,000 East Timerese were massacred. After they supported Gen Pinochet's overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile tens of thousands disappeared. The US supported military in Guetmala massacred the Mayans. The US invaded Iraq supposedly to get rid of Saddam Hussein but originally the US supported him. Both Reagan and Bush Sr armed Saddam. The Shah of Iran was supported in his overthrow of another democratically elected government.

Don't try to tell me the US is some angel in shining armor.

Falcon

I've oft heard that it's not what you learn at college, it's who you meet.

The only people I met in grad school are my ex-girlfriends. I guess it depends on which university you go to, but , the engineering graduate school was no haven for social activities. Every week night, I went to class at 6pm and left 2-3 hours later. I didn't talk to anyone in my classes, and there were no group projects.

I went to the same school for my undergraduate degree, and it was a completely different experience, much like any typical college. Not only that, but no one I knew in undergrad was also in my grad classes. I also had mostly different instructors, even though it was the same major.

Wait attempting to acquire/read, let alone posting, of CLASSIFIED documentation is illegal?

This case was in Germany. But since you seem to be in the USA, here's some information on a landmark case about publishing leaked classified information:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/

Summary: The New York Times and Washington Post published the so-called "Pentagon Papers", illegally leaked to them by Daniel Ellsberg. The government sought and obtained an injunction against further publication, but the Supreme Court overturned the injunction 6-3.

I have no doubt that this effect is replaying itself yet again. It's a good sign that there are so few real scandals that we have to invent our own, but a bad sign that we are so eager to be distracted by scandal.

Yeah, there's no doubt this is the same thing as before. Because in TFA written by one of the plaintiffs itself it says that the Motion to Dismiss was filed by the government on January 21, and the National Security Archive is only just now responding to that motion.

January 21, one day after inagration and weeks before Obama's Attorney General was confirmed. Exactly like in the case of the motion to stay in the illegal wiretap lawsuit (that everyone who didn't RTFA went so ballistic over), this motion was not filed as a conscious policy decision by the Obama administration. It was a default continuation of the policies of the Bush DoJ, by Bush DoJ appointees. The paperwork had already been done before Obama took office.

That doesn't mean Obama actually disagrees with Bush on this, and won't try to have the lawsuit dismissed. It does mean that this is in and of itself not indicative of anything other than that a previous President's influence does not immediately end as soon as the next guy takes office.

I love the National Security Archive, I wish them well in their suit (and their response to the motion seems pretty strong). But I think they too should wait to judge Obama's Justice Dept. until after Obama's Justice Dept. actually weighs in on the issue.

You make some very good points. I absolutely agree that the most important thing is to move forward, and the last thing we need is an attempt to persecute the previous administration in what would certainly be termed -- at least somewhat accurately -- a "witch hunt" by the ones who would never be convinced that the previous administration did anything wrong. And a good number of these people would be Congressmen. Sounds like a bad choice for an administration who I'm counting on to get things done.

However, it would be unfortunate if this case is in fact dismissed and these emails are permanently lost. National Security Archive, one of the two plaintiffs in the suit, does a great job of providing information about the past that informs the present. For example, if you ever wondered if Reagan's government really allowed the Contras to sell cocaine in the U.S. to raise money for weapons, well, there you have it in the government's own words.

In a contemporary discussion about the War on Drugs, knowing that the government that fought this war the hardest and put so many people in jail was also the same government that was partially and intentionally responsible for the cocaine explosion in the 80s is highly useful in seeing how hypocritical the whole thing is.

In twenty years, I want to be able to point to an official email which shows them asking for skewed intelligence about WMD in Iraq, shows the discussions about invading Iraq immediately after 9/11, or whatever else we can find in these emails so that regardless of whether anyone is ever punished, there will at least be fairly rigorous historical record. If the Global War on Terror is still ongoing, and some blow-hard wants to invade Iraq again because now they're allies with Iran, we can look at the past and see how we got to where we are.

Seeing as how the Motion to Dismiss was filed on Jan 21, before Obama could have realistically weighed in on the subject himself, and weeks before his Attorney General was confirmed meaning he wasn't even practically in charge of the DoJ, I am not willing to conclude that he really is going to block this lawsuit. Even though there are more important things going on, I'll certainly be disappointed if he does.

You make some very good points. I absolutely agree that the most important thing is to move forward, and the last thing we need is an attempt to persecute the previous administration in what would certainly be termed -- at least somewhat accurately -- a "witch hunt" by the ones who would never be convinced that the previous administration did anything wrong. And a good number of these people would be Congressmen. Sounds like a bad choice for an administration who I'm counting on to get things done.

However, it would be unfortunate if this case is in fact dismissed and these emails are permanently lost. National Security Archive, one of the two plaintiffs in the suit, does a great job of providing information about the past that informs the present. For example, if you ever wondered if Reagan's government really allowed the Contras to sell cocaine in the U.S. to raise money for weapons, well, there you have it in the government's own words.

In a contemporary discussion about the War on Drugs, knowing that the government that fought this war the hardest and put so many people in jail was also the same government that was partially and intentionally responsible for the cocaine explosion in the 80s is highly useful in seeing how hypocritical the whole thing is.

In twenty years, I want to be able to point to an official email which shows them asking for skewed intelligence about WMD in Iraq, shows the discussions about invading Iraq immediately after 9/11, or whatever else we can find in these emails so that regardless of whether anyone is ever punished, there will at least be fairly rigorous historical record. If the Global War on Terror is still ongoing, and some blow-hard wants to invade Iraq again because now they're allies with Iran, we can look at the past and see how we got to where we are.

Seeing as how the Motion to Dismiss was filed on Jan 21, before Obama could have realistically weighed in on the subject himself, and weeks before his Attorney General was confirmed meaning he wasn't even practically in charge of the DoJ, I am not willing to conclude that he really is going to block this lawsuit. Even though there are more important things going on, I'll certainly be disappointed if he does.

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed simulated attacks on US military or civilian targets as a pretext for all-out war on Cuba. So I'm not sure that you want to give control to the military either.

We know today that there were only two bombs, but the Japanese didn't know it then

Umm, says who?