Yes, and let me guess: my job is to argue with people on slashdot, in order to secretly "defend" an administration that has been out of office for over an entire Presidential term, for a war that is over. That about sum up the implication? If slashdot commenters are good for one thing, it's amusement. Myself included.
The motto of CIA's National Clandestine Service is the Latin "Veritatem Cognoscere": Know the truth. It's no wonder that so many believe the function of intelligence services is to discover the "truth".
Mark Lowenthal, former CIA Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, spent some time in his book "Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy", now the gold standard for undergraduate and graduate intelligence texts, explaining that intelligence is not about truth at all, but rather about arriving at some informed conclusion about reality, or possible future realities, neither of which can be considered strictly to be "truth".
"Intelligence is not about truth. If something were known to be true, states would not need intelligence agencies to collect the information or analyze it. Truth is such an absolute term that it sets a standard that intelligence rarely would be able to achieve. It is better - and more accurate - to think of intelligence as proximate reality. Intelligence agencies face issues or questions and do their best to arrive at a firm understanding of what is going on. They can rarely be assured that even their best and most considered analysis is true. Their goals are intelligence products that are reliable, unbiased, and honest (that is, free from politicization). These are all laudable goals, yet they are still different from truth."
Perhaps the biggest issue with "truth" in intelligence work is the absolute nature of "truth". If it is an analyst's job to find the "truth", then any deviation from that analysis by actual events means that the analysis was a "lie".
"Is intelligence truth-telling? One of the common descriptions of intelligence is that it is the job of 'telling truth to power'. (This sounds fairly noble, although it is important to recall that court jesters once had the same function.) Intelligence, however, is not about truth. (If something is known to be true then we do not need intelligence services to find it out.) Yet the image persists and carries with it some important ethical implications. If truth were the objective of intelligence, does that raise the stakes for analysis? [...] A problem with setting truth as a goal is that it has a relentless quality. [...if] an analyst's goal is to tell the truth - especially to those in power who might not want to hear it - then there is no room for compromise, no possible admission of alternative views."
This creates an environment where success is impossible, because discovering "truth" by every measure is a standard that can never be reached. It also discourages differing analytic viewpoints, each of which may be equally valid. Ultimately, someone needs to look at the available information and make a decision:
"[T]he role of intelligence is not to tell the truth but to provide informed analysis to policy makers to aid their decision making."
Synthesizing information into some measure of "truth" needs to consider all of the above. What, then, happened to the "truth" in the case of this famous so-called "intelligence failure", that of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? The intelligence components of the US, Russia, France, Germany, and the UN as a whole believed Iraq to be in continuing possession of WMD, not to mention that Iraq was in material breach of no less than three binding and in-force UNSEC resolutions (the only kind of UN resolution with the "teeth" to compel member nations to use force to ensure compliance, unlike oft-cited General Assembly resolutions regarding Israel); witness this exchange on NBC's Meet the Press in 2004:
"MR. RUSSERT: When you look at the CIA information on the weapons of mass destruction, former President Clinton said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, as well as current President Bush. The U.N. inspectors. The Russian, French and German intelligence agencies said he had weapons of mass destruction. What happened? How could there have been such a colossal intelligence failure?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, maybe because what we were all looking at was a body of evidence that gave you every reason to believe that he did have weapons of mass destruction. He had the intention. He used them. He stiffed the U.N. for 12 years. He had the infrastructure. He had the capability. The only thing we haven't been able to find are actual current stockpiles of such weapons. Everything else was there. Everything else was there with respect to capability and intention. And any reasonable person looking at this regime, looking at the threat inherent in that intention and capability would have come to the conclusion based on unanswered questions."
So, what was the truth? In this case, the truth, as established prior to 2003, is that Saddam Hussein had the intent and capability to possess WMD. Without physically discovering WMD themselves, all information, history, and evidence - even when viewed in the context of contradictory evidence - indicated that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
Unfortunately, the most important aspect - namely, Iraq actually having WMD - ended up being absent. When the policy of containment with regard to Iraq changed to a more aggressive posture after 9/11, the truth pointed to Iraqi possession of WMD. This enabled policymakers to push forward with a policy to remove Saddam from power.
After the invasion, only then did we discover that the US analysis was almost all wrong. But was the analysis wrong? This is remembered by many, incorrectly, as an example of "politicized intelligence". In fact, it is simply an illustration of how intelligence is not about truth, but rather is a vehicle to inform the decisions of policy makers.
Furthermore, there is never "one" reason a military action may be undertaken. Does anyone honestly believe there was only a single publicly-discussed reason the US entered World War II? If there were more complex reasons than those put forth for public scrutiny, does that mean our leaders are "lying"? It's hilarious to me, if sad, that people tend to fall neatly in political boxes with respect to things like the Iraq invasion.
Intelligence exists solely to support policy makers. Most policy makers are politicians. This does not mean that intelligence itself is politicized, only that it is, necessarily, serving a political master.
The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths. - William James
There is no truth. There is only perception. - Gustave Flaubert
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. - Niels Bohr
The truth will set you free - but first it will make you angry! - Anonymous
It links to an AP story with the headline "Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson", which says...
GENEVA -- The search is all but over for a subatomic particle that is a crucial building block of the universe.
Physicists announced Thursday they believe they have discovered the subatomic particle predicted nearly a half-century ago, which will go a long way toward explaining what gives electrons and all matter in the universe size and shape.
The elusive particle, called a Higgs boson, was predicted in 1964 to help fill in our understanding of the creation of the universe, which many theorize occurred in a massive explosion known as the Big Bang. The particle was named for Peter Higgs, one of the physicists who proposed its existence, but it later became popularly known as the "God particle."
[...]
...no, no -- that's not how it's going to be "picked up".
Let's take a look:
NBC News: Particle confirmed as Higgs boson
Associated Press: Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson
Reuters: Strong signs Higgs boson has been found: CERN
Wall Street Journal: New Data Boosts Case for Higgs Boson Find
FOX News: Physicists say they have found long-sought Higgs boson
Washington Post: A closer look at the Higgs boson particle that helps explain what gives matter size and shape
Chicago Tribune: Strong signs Higgs boson has been found: CERN
Sky News: Higgs Boson: Experts Sure Of 'God Particle'
New York Daily News: Physicists say they have discovered crucial subatomic particle known as Higgs boson
Boston Globe: Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson
BBC (UK): LHC cements Higgs boson identification
BusinessWeek: Case for Higgs Boson Strengthened by New CERN Analysis
The Daily Mail (UK): Scientists say they HAVE found the 'God particle' - but admit they still aren't sure what type of Higgs boson it is
The Independent (UK): Have they found the Higgs boson at last? Cern physicists say they're confident of 'God particle' breakthrough
Telegraph (UK): Higgs boson: scientists confident they have discovered the 'God particle'
News Limited (AU): Higgs boson, the God particle, discovered by CERN
US News and World Report: Physicists Observe Higgs Boson, the Elusive 'God Particle'
None of these articles make any links to "God" other than a few -- mostly UK, not US -- sources referring to it as the so-called "God particle", but even those explain exactly what this particle is theorized to be, not anything supernatural, "proving God exists", or having anything whatever to do with God.
It is factually correct to say that there could be a hypothetical, however unlikely, future scenario where it would be both lawful and Constitutional for the President to authorize the use of military force within the United States. (This already occurred during the Civil War.) That would include any weapon in the US arsenal, including "drones". "Drones" are an evolution in warfare that started with the rock, the spear, the bow and arrow and continued with guns, cannons, bombs, and missiles â" nothing more.
The ONLY valid question is whether it is lawful to execute a military or covert action under some particular circumstance, and whether it is lawful and necessary to target an individual or a place. I'm not making those value judgments, but the tool used, while absolutely an enabler, is utterly and completely irrelevant. Furthermore, both Brennan's and Holder's responses are completely accurate and not contradictory. It is accurate to say that CIA does not have this authority in the United States, and it is accurate to say that there could be a scenario where the military would have such authority. There is no conflict, no subterfuge, no conspiracy.
People are conflating multiple things. The justification for targeted killing of US citizens OUTSIDE the US includes several narrow criteria, a key one of which is being OUTSIDE the US. Holder's response is that the President has the authority to use the military within the US, which is factually correct, and necessarily includes any weapon in the US arsenal, including "drones". So why would they be "ruled out"? I understand the arguments, but people are really conflating multiple issues, and don't seem to even understand why we're using unmanned aircraft where we're using them in the first place.
If Paul wants the President to "rule out" the use of some particular military tool on US soil, why isn't he also asking the President to "rule out" manned aircraft, guns, or anything else?
Even the Posse Comitatus Act is very straightforward:
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
The "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress" allows domestic use of the military in cases authorized by Congress OR the Constitution. Many legal scholars would agree that the President's inherent Article II authority would allow such employment of the military -- as was the case with President Lincoln. This is not a new concept.
If people can't envision any case where it would ever be appropriate to use US military force on US soil, then they aren't very imaginative -- or knowledgeable of history.
Of course, if there ever were a September 11-scale event where it would be clearly appropriate to employ the US military on US soil, there would be a large contingent of Americans -- who I am ashamed to call fellow citizens -- would immediately think it was a "false flag operation" used as an excuse to carry out domestic military operations.
Paul doesn't really want debate; he is pandering to those who think the government is constantly looking for ways to "go after" Americans at home, and to people with this paranoia complex, it connects quite well.
...except for its completely different orbital path, direction of entry into Earth's atmosphere, and timing of the encounter with Earth, all of which definitively prove that it is not related to 2012 DA14.
No, but North Korea's nuclear device yields are getting bigger:
Here’s How Geology Shows North Korea’s Nukes Are Getting Bigger
"The antivirus industry has a dirty little secret: its products are often not very good at stopping viruses."
(The linked New York Times story is a great read.)
-August 11-12, 2012. The incident that began this case occurred.
-August 14, 2012. The incident was reported to Steubenville Police.
-August 16, 2012. Electronic devices of people who potentially had knowledge of the incident were taken, pursuant to search warrants.
-August 17, 2012. Steubenville Police request technical and investigative support from the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation "BCI" (a state agency supervised by the Ohio Attorney General). At the request of Steubenville Police, BCI expedited the evidence analysis. The analysis involved uncovering and reviewing tens of thousands of emails, texts, and photos from approximately a dozen electronic devices. The vast majority of such data was unrelated to the case. Investigators and forensic examiners never found any video of the alleged crime.
-August 22, 2012. Based on the investigation of the Steubenville Police, two juvenile males were arrested and charged. Their names are Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond. Suspects remained in juvenile detention until November 1, 2012 when the Visiting Judge (from outside the county) assigned to the case placed the suspects on home arrest.
-August 28, 2012. County Prosecuting Attorney delegates her authority to special prosecutors from the Ohio Attorney General's Office.
-August 30, 2012. Steubenville Police meet with the special prosecutors.
-The Juvenile Court trial in this case is scheduled for February 13, 2013. Circumstances surrounding media and public access to that trial are controlled by the Visiting Judge.
"Under Ohio law, the Ohio Attorney General is elected by the voters of the state and does not have the independent jurisdiction or ability to undertake investigations or prosecutions of juvenile crime. In this case, the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney who has such authority delegated her authority to the Attorney General's office to act as special prosecutor in the matter. The special prosecutors are not from the Steubenville area and graduated high school elsewhere."
First of all, you can tell a LOT from this particular data point.
That aside, what are you insinuating? That a group widely and routinely chastised as espousing a "liberal" and/or "leftist" agenda by conservatives, opposed the now-cancelled US Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, and is opposed to nuclear weapons in general, is executing a propaganda campaign to make North Korea look more primitive than it really is when it comes to its rocket programs?
Are you serious?
After a veritable comedy of errors, North Korea finally has a successful launch, can't even get or keep the satellite launched from it into a stable orbit, and now an anti-nuclear advocacy group is really a secret US propaganda campaign to inappropriately embarrass the North Koreans, who are really more advanced in rocketry than all of their misadventures would indicate? The same North Koreans who just announced they have uncovered a unicorn lair?
Really? I mean...really?
Please â" I would love to hear how this is "propaganda", and how the DPRK is really a capable member of the space and nuclear clubs. To what possible end? Even IF it were true, why/how would that be a good thing?
Or is this one of those topsy-turvy bizarro-world lines of reasoning where anything and everything that is in ANY way opposed to anything related to any US or Western interest is automatically true and pure, but anything that originates from the US or West, in any way, shape, or form is always "propaganda"?
How are you replacing the trees that had to be removed?
The California Science Center Foundation is investing approximately $2 million to replace 400 trees removed along the route with over 1,000 trees. These replacement trees are between 10 and 14 feet in height -- about the same size as most of the trees they will be removing. A minimum of two years of free maintenance will also be provided. Within five years the community along route will have an even greener and more beautiful tree canopy.
A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't broken.
