Ghost of BiB

Revoking EO's Not current, but still interesting. Even if cumbersome, there are still checks and balances in the system.

Which CAN be a good thing. You run across any reference as to how Congress can "go around" or revoke an EO? I deal much more with NSPD's, which as far as I can tell are used to direct and implement policies that aren't already there. I don't think it's Congresses lane to direct policy, anyway.

Not that I can find. Ours reference me back to the same guidelines that don't mention it. When pressed, I usually NOFORN it, and say fugg everybody. I still don't know if that's the right thing to do, but it covers me. Maybe someone else perusing this can point out a reference. Since, like I said a lot of our stuff becomes the basis for someone elses, we very, very rarely in my office have to deal with SCI or SAPs, as far as what we actually produce. You deal a lot more with collections. I deal a lot more with ops - so you'll see a lot more of that secret squirrel stuff than I do.

We don't have that luxury, as a lot of what we produce becomes the reference for other documents somewhere else. So - everything HAS to be apportioned so it can get lifted piece by piece for whatever someone else is writing. As we both know, 99% of most "TS" documents are not TS. Nor are secret all secret. I'm working on something right now that is 99% nothing, but 2 or 3 sentences screw up the works. Curiosity question. What do you do when working with something "class" \\rel\\"x" and something else "class"\\rel\\ "y" as references to produce something else, when the original x stuff is not releasable to y and vice versa? I've never figured it out, so I generally blow off those taskers.

Yeah, but we recommend. I'm certain you do too, in the case of original material. Does your boss do the homework part himself? If so - I'm impressed. I am also referring to original documents, not derivative decisions based on other documents. Where I'm at, it's not an unusual situation. I didn't mean to imply that I had any authority. It's just been my experience that one can get scolded for submitting something higher (and I'm speaking to original documents as well as derivatives) without every paragraph and sub appropriately marked. It's just how things work. If it didn't, directors would have no time to do anything BUT review documents. That's also why we have classification guidelines. Also, I think it's within some directors charters in some agencies that they can delegate a lot of this, depending on the classification level to lower division directors and stuff. I do catch what you're saying, though about underlying material. When quoting a reference - the classification of the reference becomes the classification of the document. I run into situations though where a compilation of unclassified stuff put together collectively can become classified because it fits certain guidelines. By the same token, referencing a small part of the compilation can reduce or eliminate the classification - and it's best to make the recommendation accordingly. I wouldn't WANT the actual authority.

When a new administration takes office, they can and will shidtcan policy documents of the previous, or keep them - depending on whether they fit their system of doing things. I regularly use Clinton PDD-56 as a reference for some of my work, as it was never rescinded. And, the easiest way to get something done quick, IS to issue a presidential order. It's good to be the King. And FWIW, even I (and about 20 million other people) regularly make classification/declassification decisions on stuff. That's what agency directors approve. I even have to keep statistics on how many classified documents I generate and at what level the classification is, because somebody somewhere keeps track of that, for some reason never explained to me.

And, a lot of what you are cranked about has already been fixed. I'm not saying that wasn't the way it was at the time. Folks within this community have to operate within the laws and regulations that govern their functions and actions. And, referring to the article and it's intent- I still say it's about internal issues with certain peoples and probably personalities. What one doesn't hear about, are those people who discover stuff wrong - get it pointed out to the right people - and get stuff fixed WITHOUT going outside the system. There is actually a lot of that, but it doesn't make for what some people here consider "good, righteous news". I also notice you choosing not to address the part about going outside the system because it can create bigger problems. I guess my point is, and continues to be that there is often more than one aspect to things receiving media attention - but the media will always portray it in a light to suit their purpose, either intentionally or unintentionally. Probably as much or even more significance to the things that don't reach the media, for whatever reason.

KFC, Pizza Hut and Baskin-Robbins...all from the same take-out window...

What difference does it make at this point? They are already shouting "Death to America" over cartoons published in a European newspaper.

What's to talk about? And what does any of it have to do with "ball washing"? Anything mentioned in the article looks to be internal issues with different organizations. Were people wronged for doing the right thing? Probably. Sure looks like it. Is this a problem that just invented itself during the current administration? I doubt it. Chances are very good that many of the principles involved have been around through several administrations and have done bad things to people in an effort to protect their own ass. I'm all for people whistle blowing re: fraud, waste and abuse. I take exception with announcing aspects of classified national security issues to the world. The very mention of certain things can have ramifications that go way beyond the particular issue being discussed. For those particular "whistle blowers", it's not their right to make that particular call in a public forum. They have an obligation NOT to. There are other venues for them to raise questions without involving and informing the rest of the world. IMO, the NY Times is not a proper venue.

Lyndie who? Sucks being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Shouldn't this be on PPP?

Three years is a lifetime for modern press. You know why.

Certainly. That was very neo-con blame someone else of me. (I still question why the poster wants to think people here are that stupid...) All restaraunts are now Taco Bell.

Halliburton.

No way. The NSA will know what I Google, and I'll be shot by Dick Cheney. Those are real important concerns to the average American.

OK, thanks. That does sound pretty boring, though.

Isn't that a fetish site?

Man, I used to hate filling sandbags. Mostly at the end of the day when you're already tired. Glad they found another way to do it.

You know, I'm getting really tired of us Poles being drug into this. We have had a bad rap undeserved for a long time now, and I thought things were getting better. Just when it seems it has - we're thrust to the forefront of another conversation about stupidity.

I have targeting coordinates. And flexible deterent options. Scissors cut paper.

I'm pretty certain that there are people here who understand what an executive summary in a government issued document is intended to do, and also that there are some who have probably written them. This is maybe not despicable, but it is certainly self serving.

Yup. Sure is, isn't it? BTW, here's a link to the report. Katrina If nothing else, read the executive summary. It's enough to make me puke. Not because of whatever failures were there, but because of the tones and intentions. I'm not surprised at all that this was a Republican based event. God, I hate politics.

What a cheap set up for a Lana post. Oh..and what's this "American Idol" thing?

You should see their phone book.