“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the number of insiders alleging wrongdoing in government – either through whistle-blower channels or directly to the press – has surged, as have reprisals against them.”
See “A surge in whistle-blowing … and reprisals” by Gail Russell Chaddock, Christian Science Monitor, February 16, 2006.
“If the Bush administration’s interpretation of espionage law is upheld, then everyone is breaking the law, all the time.” That’s the conclusion that emerges from the Bush Administration’s unprecedented use of the Espionage Act to prosecute non-government employees for mishandling classified information.
See “You’re a Spy” by Fred Kaplan, Slate, February 15, 2006.
Jack Shafer sorts out what appeared to be an early post-9/11 disclosure of warrantless domestic surveillance, and takes a poke at DCIA Porter Goss for flogging discredited leak allegations.
See “NSA Scoop or Just Bad Writing?” by Jack Shafer, Slate, February 15, 2006.
There is no question this is a Big Deal. If you are a university or research lab, or aspire to work in one, or are simply an enthusiast of federally-funded research, what’s next will matter.
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.