Yeah, but if you smoke the pot, you won't worry about the water any more . . . except for your bong.
That was the plan in the 1960s, according to declassified national security documents released this week — some of them stamped as "SECRET."
Today those schemes may sound as outlandish and dusty as a relic black-and-white episode of "Space Patrol."
The U.S. Army brainchild "Project Horizon" was born.
Its proposal to leap beyond the Soviets opened with the line: "There is a requirement for a manned military outpost on the moon."
The paper argued that it was imperative for the United States to develop and protect its potential interest on the Earth's natural satellite — and to do so quickly to protect the American way of life.
"To be second to the Soviet Union in establishing an outpost on the moon would be disastrous to our nation's prestige and in turn to our democratic philosophy," the paper surmised.
It should have the kind of priority and authority given to the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb, the Army said.
"Once established, the lunar base will be operated under the control of a unified space command." The space around the Earth and moon would be considered a military theater."
Link to Original Source
. . . and their wave function would be the "brown note" . . . ?
Link to Original Source
I don't see why they can't do this with the Magic 8-Ball.
"The Truth" . . . is the first casualty in war.
That didn't work out too well.
Hmmm . . . but then again . . . didn't Apple and IBM try to collaborate on something called Taligent and Kaleida . . . ?
Well, those two never managed to see the light of day. I believe Taligent is often used as an example of a "Death March" project. It ran for over seven years, but at any point in time during the project, it was only planned as a two year project.
Seriously, try to imagine describing a lot of the things people do professionally now to someone 30 years ago.
Prostitution . . . the world's oldest profession will be around . . . well, as long as humans are still around.
If any American receives a request under a Patriot act subpoena they not only will have to hand over the information but if they tell you they handed it over they could do lots of hard time.
So even if asked in a court, under oath, they would be forced to deny it? Wouldn't that be forcing them to commit perjury? Or does the Patriot Act maybe have a "get out of jail free" card for perjury? The Patriot Act sounds like a carte blanche for a Gestapo or Stasi.
So I understand that a Patriot act subpoena can force you to hand over information, even if that would force you to commit a crime by breaking data privacy and security laws in a foreign country where the data and you reside. Now, what else can these National Security Letters tell you to do, besides handing over data? In the case of an ISP, they were forced to allow NSA technicians to install bugging devices in their data center. So, apparently, the National Security Letter can force you to do more than just hand over data.
Where are the limits to the National Security Letters defined? If two folks turn up on your doorstep with FBI IDs, they could be Mulder and Scully, or they could be the Supernatural boys. I'm assuming that they actually give you a physical document, that you could give to a lawyer to check. But how can a lawyer know if the request is within any limits of any law? Up until know, it still seems that a National Security Letter can turn an ordinary American citizen into a spy or a criminal.
The Patriot act.
. . . but you said earlier:
We don't know the scope
This is starting to sound rather Kafkaesque . . . specifically, "Before the Law".
The limits are in the law
How do you know that? What proof do you have? Maybe limit number one states, "There are no limits!"
So trying to summarize where we are this far, if I am a customer in a foreign country, and I hire a company as a contractor that has any business at all in the US, the US government could at any time request that company to break the laws of my country, if a court makes a decision based on the Patriot Act Law, the contents and limits of this law being totally unknown to me.
Is that at least a correct summary?
The major rulings by the courts are that the legal justification for the drone strikes cannot be classified so high that the courts can't review the memos.
Which courts? An open one? Or a secret one? And is the judge independent? Or a stooge? Is there a functioning system of "checks and balances", like the one US kids used to learn about in school?
We don't know the scope but they have never indicated the scope would be anything like that broad.
They never indicated very much at all . . . until it was exposed by Snowden. Given the current track record of the US government right now, assuming the worst is quite justified as to the scope.
They've said much the opposite: terrorism related suspects who present a high level of threat in countries where the government can't or won't control the territory... That's far from anyone, anywhere.
Not at all. The US government can, will and does call anyone they want a terrorist. And if they tell France to arrest a terrorist suspect, and France refuses, the US can claim that the French "government can't or won't control their territory".
National Security letter's scope is defined by law.
Now we're getting close to the interesting part of this topic . . . which law? And what are the limits? A National Security letter can tell you that you have to let a bunch of spooks into your data center to install bugging devices. Can it tell you to set a trap for your best friend, because the government thinks he is a terrorist? Can it tell you that you must cooperate with the government agencies, as they plan to murder him?
IBM did this repeatedly, and is still doing it, as large corporations regularly have to sift their work force and reset priorities, UNLESS they are consistently evaluating their strategies, have truly strategic planning that looks beyond the horizon, and work from a position of true knowledge of their business and performance. Microsoft is regularly accused of failed strategy and poor performance. And they can certainly be accused of being too big to be well managed, especially in the eyes of the minions who live with the decisions.
In the early '90s, when IBM nearly burned down, fell over, and sank into the swamp, Lou Gerstner came in as a new CEO, and also oversaw massive layoffs, which helped it get back on track. However, a lot of people he let go were top executives, who were "yes men" to the old CEO, John Akers.
It would do Microsoft a world of good if it got rid of their Ballmer retinue who are still holding key positions in Microsoft. Just letting go a bunch of minions is not going to cut at the root of the problems at Microsoft.
Rephrase this in terms of the actual laws and actual courts
Ah, but the secret courts are actual courts. The US government has admitted that it uses them to rubber stamp those National Security Letters, which are court decisions forcing companies to give the government access to whatever data they want. As you have previously noted, any US company must comply with whatever instructions are stated in these court judgements, wherever they are in the world.
The US courts have already decided that it is legal for the government to order US citizens to be killed by drones. And the US government has also clearly stated that they will kill anyone, anywhere, in the world they want. However, not each and every person in the world that the US government wants to kill is easily targeted by a drone. So the US government may need the assistance of a US company with a presence in a foreign country to get at their target.
Let's say Obama wants to kill German Chancellor Angela Merkel. A drone strike would be messy, but maybe she will be having lunch with an executive of Hewlett-Packard. What must Hewlett-Packard do, when they are delivered one of these National Security Letter court decisions, and a small vial of Polonium, and the letter contains clear instructions on what their executive is supposed to do with the vial at the lunch?
It seems like this combination of National Security Letters and requiring US companies to follow US court decisions anywhere in the world . . . has turned a lot of ordinary folks into potential assassins.
They are ordering their corporations (people under USA law) to obey an order of a USA court and possibly disobey the orders of a foreign government . . . But ultimately yes: the USA government has the right to tell a USA corporation to violate the laws of another country.
So . . . ultimately . . . a secret USA government court could order Exxon to release a cloud of poison gas over its refinery in Rotterdam, because the secret court thinks that their are terrorists there, and has decided for a death penalty? And Exxon would need to comply, as long as the court said so?
So, if a US citizen is ordered by a secret court to kill someone, and they don't do it, then they will be held in contempt of court . . . ? (And held secretly, to boot!)
We used to think that the US government didn't just wander haphazardly around ordering people to be killed . . . but nowadays . . . it seems like anything goes.
And all those American tourists wandering around outside . . . they could all be potential killers! Getting killed is a very terrifying experience, to that would make them terrorists!
Maybe we should think about putting American tourists on the no-fly list . . . ?