Death Gratuities for Defense Intel Officers Killed in Action
Family members of U.S. military intelligence personnel who are killed while engaged in clandestine intelligence operations may be eligible for special monetary gratuities, according to a recently updated Defense Department Instruction (pdf).
“A gratuity shall be paid to the dependents of any member of the Armed Forces or of any employee of the Department of Defense assigned to duty with a DoD intelligence component, whose identity is disguised or concealed; or who is within a category of individuals determined by the Secretary of Defense to be engaged in clandestine intelligence activities; and who, after October 14, 1980, dies because of injuries (excluding disease) sustained outside the United States and whose death resulted from hostile or terrorist activities, or occurred in connection with an intelligence activity having a substantial element of risk.”
The new policy was issued by Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen A. Cambone.
See “Payment of Death Gratuity to Survivors of Certain DoD Personnel Assigned to Intelligence Duties,” DoD Instruction 1341.08, 25 August 2006.
The emerging federal metascience community is asking fascinating questions that are equally vital for democratic legitimacy: beyond “did this program work” to “how does the federal R&D enterprise itself work, and how could it work better?”
If you’re new to the climate intervention space, welcome! The TL;DR: if we can’t stop the most catastrophic impacts of climate change with current tools quickly enough, then we need a bigger toolbox.
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.
FAS and FLI partnered to build a series of convenings and reports across the intersections of artificial intelligence (AI) with biosecurity, cybersecurity, nuclear command and control, military integration, and frontier AI governance. This project brought together leaders across these areas and created a space that was rigorous, transpartisan, and solutions-oriented to approach how we should think about how AI is rapidly changing global risks.