Pentagon Sets Rules for Terror Suspect Trials
The Dallas Morning News reported Thursday, January 18, 2007, that the Pentagon sets rules for terror suspect trials.
The Pentagon set rules Thursday for detainee trials that could allow terror suspects to be convicted and perhaps executed using hearsay testimony and coerced statements, setting up a new clash between President Bush and Congress.Thanks to Sabrina Pacifica of beSpacific for the following links:
- Preamble
Rules for Military Commissions
Military Commission Rules of Evidence
Crimes and Elements
Manual for Military Commissions — Executive Summary
Related postings on the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Military Expands Intelligence Role in U.S.
New York Times reporters Eric Lichtbaum and Maek Mazzetti report in the January 14, 2007 issue, about the expanding role of the U. S. military in domestic espionage, and deletions in a U.S. Army Manual that may indicate the executive branch is once again wiretapping without a warrant.
The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the U.S.(Military Expands Intelligence Role in U.S., by Eric Lichtbaum and Maek Mazzetti.)
Deep into an updated Army manual, the deletion of 10 words has left some national security experts wondering whether government lawyers are again asserting the executive branch’s right to wiretap Americans without a court warrant.(Deletions in Army Manual Raise Wiretapping Concerns, by Eric Lichtbaum and Maek Mazzetti) A subscription to the New York Times is required to read these articles. Continue reading
Wikileaks.org
According to their FAQ page Wikileaks expects to go live sometime in February or March 2007. Read more on their Media reports page. Continue readingWikileaks.org is an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. It combines the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies with the transparency and simplicity of a wiki interface." Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations.
What is Information Warfare?
Communications during war is vital to military operations, and information, or lack of it, can make or break a battle. Information Warfare (IW), also known as cyberwar, cyber attack, and cyberterrorism, is a form of modern warfare in which information and media become instruments of war. As of 13 Jan 06 JP 3-13, the Joint Doctrine for Information Operations removed the term information warfare and replaced it with the more civilized concept of Information Operations (IO). Likewise, the term has been removed from JP 1-02, the Deparment of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms The U.S. Air Force retains the idea of Information Warfare in AFDD 2-5, Information Operations, with this definition:
Information warfare is information operations conducted to defend one’s own information and information systems or attacking and affecting an adversary’s in-formation and information systems.Duane McCollum, FGI Blogger of the month for December, 2006, posted an interesting entry on December 1, 2006 about the Global Information Grid (GIG) and Net Centricity. The concepts of information warfare and information operations are closely tied to the GIG and to the ultimate goal of Information Assurance (IA). I have to ponder a moment while I contemplate the level of Information Assurance associated with publications that remove definitions...
- Should a reputable dictionary at the very least indicate that this term is archaic?
Are any other archaic definitions missing?
Could this very lack of information be construed as a form of Information Warfare itself?
As we like to say in library collection development, "let's keep a copy for historical research."
FirstGov.gov will soon become USA.gov
Update 1/18/2007 - Name change confirmed by GSA, new usa.gov site. See their reasons for the change.
Is there any truth to the rumor that FirstGov.gov will soon become USA.gov? Tamara Thompson of PI Buzz posted Jan 5 2007 about a name change to FirstGov.gov. In This Week in Public Records Tamara tells us that
The government Web portal for Georgia is announcing a name change for the federal government site Firstgov.gov, due January 11. The official Web portal of the U.S. government is changing its name — to USA.gov. FirstGov.gov will become USA.gov and FirstGov en español.gov will become GobiernoUSA.gov.The State of Georgia's e-government web site, georgia.gov confirms this story.
Why the name change? Even though FirstGov.gov gets more than 80 million visitors a year, its name recognition is very low. The name doesn’t intuitively tell you that this is the official U.S. Government site. It is cumbersome to say and difficult to remember. On the other hand, USA.gov clearly describes the site. USA is the term that most people around the world recognize for the United States – in fact, we already get about 600,000 visits a year from users who guess and type USA.gov into search engines. USA.gov is intuitive, simple and easy to remember.Several years ago the ICGI Web Content Standards Working Group recommended renaming the web site, and it looks like this is about to become official. While no announcements are posted on the FirstGov.gov web site, search results for USA.gov point directly to the FirstGov.gov web site, and it appears as if this rumor may be the real thing. Continue reading
Latest Comments