New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(2127 previous messages)
- 06:01pm May 9, 2002 EST (#2128
Regarding Bush Jr., my problem is that he is being played and
sqeezed by a foreign power and their domestic constituents like a
rubber ducky in a child's pool. And it really hurts to see the
president of USA being so denigrated and screwed in his own house.
For starters, Sharon is demanding $10 billion payment from US in the
ocurse of next several years to build the wall of seperation for
Israelis (it would be another nice subsidy for Isarelies at the
expense of US tax payors). He has no desire to trade land for peace,
wants to expand settlements and wants to destroy PLO. Maybe that is
not such a bad idea (personally I do believe Judea and Samaria
belongs to Jews, period). But the point is US policy and its
national interests in that part of the world is so invested in the
"land-for-peace" deal that Sharon's game is dragging US into a
lose-lose situation. And Bush is letting that happen with his eyes
wide open while most of so-called US Congressmen, Senators, even
soem of Bush's own aids are more loyal to Sharon than their own
president. That just boggles my mind...
- 06:08pm May 9, 2002 EST (#2129
5/9/02 12:56pm said something I appreciate . . . "Rest of your
story is indeed fascinating and intriguing."
Could that statement be a step toward getting me completely
unshackled ? MD2087 manjumicha2001
Or at least a step toward getting my situation defined enough so
I could function?
It surely would if I could get some follow up.
- 06:21pm May 9, 2002 EST (#2130
What specific follow-ups do you need? It seems you took some step
by meeting people who you think might be helpful in getting the
dialogue going with the relevant government people....after all,
that seems to be an only option. Now as someone with much simpler
background, I tend to think that you should just live your life as
you please without worrying about what some spooks might or might
not think of your work.....but it is just my humble opinion.
For example, I remember a few years ago, there was an ex-CIA guy
who wrote a book about the dirty laundry of CIA and the US
government. CIA lawyers crawled all over him and the book but it
ended up being published anyway, albeit with a bunch of sections
& paragraphs blackended over. T
- 08:41pm May 9, 2002 EST (#2131
5/9/02 6:21pm ... I feel that progress is being made.
At this stage, if I could get an official response on the
classification status of information known to me, that would be
So far as I can see now, it would be progress, to get the
official situation clarified , whatever the official position
Whatever the restrictions were, if I knew them, and could
communicate them to others on a basis that made those other people
feel safe relying on them, I could deal with them.
I do not personally believe that there is a single thing that
I have ever written on this thread, or any guardian thread, that
ought to be considered classified or restricted in any way.
Perhaps someone disagrees.
If so, I believe, they should say so now.
It seems to me that if the government wishes to restrict any
product of my mind in any way based on national security law - they
should talk to me about what the restrictions are -- and in doing
so, give some consideration of circumstantial evidence, and evidence
that they may have, of what Bill Casey did or did not say to me, and
did or did not promise me. Or some consideration to any other
records they may have.
(I say again, as I have on this thread a number of
times, that in the early 1970's I was told that all records
pertaining to me had been destroyed, and Bill Casey was my only
I believe that if government people won't talk to me - on a basis
that can be documented - -I should be, as manjumicha2001 suggests,
Sometimes, things need to be clear . The current situation
is one where there are enough ambiguities that closure can't be
forced. I'm looking for situations where, within the law, it
is possible to check matters that ought, by rights, to be in
the open literature -- and check them to closure.
How to get to that level of clarification?
5/9/02 6:21pm .. asks --
"What specific follow-ups do you need?"
Any of a number that would get the clarification. It would be
wonderful if a NYT reporter with a name would talk to me. It would
be nice, but not entirely necessary, for them to tell me her-his
name. It would be important for him or her to make a contact
or two (not necessarily high ranking) with their real name set out,
on a verifiable basis.
Isn't it interesting how HARD such a request is, within the
welter of restraints of our "free society?"
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE
See the quick-edit
help for more information.