Just some final reminders on what Dr Nebel said.

[ladajo]

Cherrypick said:

Germans actually thought that nuclear explosions are not doable in practice and did not use billions to fund the research.

That is because they were actively deceived by their own scientists.

Talldave:

ladajo wrote:

"Missive" holds several contexts. I will not bore you with cut and pastes.

What? No, really, I just meant "letters." You did say they sent you letters, right? I wasn't attaching any "contexts" to it, I was just saying you're reading too much into their letters.

I would not normally associate the term "missive" with a formal business letter. A misunderstanding between us.

Maybe NAVAIR FOIA coordinators do not know what the funding approval authority thinks, however, they sure seemed ready to release the reports regardless. One would think that they talked to the contracting POC's and approvers, most likely when they requested copies of the reports for release. But probably you are correct, they were operating in a vacuum. Lawyers like to do that. 235 pages of vacuum.

Heh, no. I just think you're missing the difference between "don't want released" and "have legal grounds for refusing a FOIA." They aren't the same thing, and yes, one might as well be vacuum from a legal perspective. If you accept the premise that the Navy funders are sensitive to data release, then EMC2 can either (stupidly) take the risk of ticking them off or claim competitive advantage.

One way to look at it, however, as I have said several times, if ONR and/or NAVAIR do not want it released, they have plenty of mechanisms to initiate, vice putting it on EMC2 to block it for them. It still makes no sense no matter how you spin it. Possible yes, sensible no.

[KitemanSA]

Scientists do not avoid success. At worst, they can be indifferent to it.

I have yet to meet ANYONE who is indifferent to success. I have met many people with wildly different definitions of success. What is sauce for the goose is aardvarks for the pomegranate.

[TallDave]

One way to look at it, however, as I have said several times, if ONR and/or NAVAIR do not want it released, they have plenty of mechanisms to initiate, vice putting it on EMC2 to block it for them. It

These are the exemptions from FOIA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... ed_States)

However, it is in the exemptions to solicitation of information under these acts that problems and discrepancies arise. The nine exemptions to the FOIA address issues of sensitivity and personal rights. They are (as listed in Title 5 of the United States Code, section 552):[4]

(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;[5]
related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;[5]
specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;[5]
trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;[5]
inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;[5]
personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;[5]
records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;[5]
contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;[5] or
geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.[5]

The only one I can see Polywell fitting under is trade secrets, which is what they claimed.

[ladajo]

It has been obvious from the start that EMC2 picked the only exemption available to claim. The reason for EMC2 choosing to claim exemption remains a point of debate.
However, you are still missing that outside of FOIA exemptions, there are numerous mechanisms available to block release, or significantly delay release of info if NAVAIR and/or ONR choose to do so. NAVAIR as the contracting vehicle, and ONR as the project driver, asking EMC2 to claim exemption still makes no sense. Nor does EMC2 claiming exemption based on what they "think" ONR wants them to do.
In the end, data will be released, the real question is when.

[TallDave]

there are numerous mechanisms available to block release

Huh? If you could block FOIAs for no particular reason they would be useless.

Those are the exemptions. If you can't claim any of those it has to be released. If the funders didn't want data released this is the only way that could have been accomplished, and fortunately for them clearly coincided with EMC's business interests anyway. I'm not sure what this vague talk of "mechanisms" is supposed to refer to, but if it doesn't create a new exemption I don't see how it matters, as "trade secrets" is open-and-shut and therefore eminently preferable as a means to block data release.

Nor does EMC2 claiming exemption based on what they "think" ONR wants them to do.

Yes, because no one ever thinks about what the people paying them might prefer, especially when they've been told what they prefer, and made repeated public mention of being told that preference. Really? That doesn't make sense to you? Sigh.

The notion that EMC2 was going to greet a FOIA with open arms was always pretty ridiculous anyway. I don't know why so you're so determined to drag some intent to mislead from Rick out of this, but it's gotten pretty silly.

[KitemanSA]

there are numerous mechanisms available to block release

Huh? If you could block FOIAs for no particular reason they would be useless.

Those are the exemptions. If you can't claim any of those it has to be released.

True, but the "specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense" covers a WHOLE lot of territory. It kind of surprises me that they haven't attached a "Arms Export" label on this. That would make it almost impossible to get!

[TallDave]

True, but the "specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense" covers a WHOLE lot of territory.

That tends to be weapons tech rather than dual-use. Rick's on record saying ONR does not consider the tech a national secret, they just don't want the data released in an uncontrolled way.

Anyways, that would make life rough for EMC. They could only license it to the Navy.

[ladajo]

there are numerous mechanisms available to block release

Huh? If you could block FOIAs for no particular reason they would be useless.
Those are the exemptions. If you can't claim any of those it has to be released. If the funders didn't want data released this appears to be the only way that could have been accomplished, and fortunately for them clearly coincides with EMC2s business interests anyway. I'm not sure what this vague talk of "mechanisms" is supposed to refer to, but if it doesn't create a new exemption I don't see how it matters.

Nor does EMC2 claiming exemption based on what they "think" ONR wants them to do.

Yes, because no one ever thinks about what the people paying them might prefer, especially when they've been told what they prefer, and made repeated public mention of being told that preference. Really? That doesn't make sense to you? Sigh.

You need to study up more on FOIA in general, as well as how the DOD and other government agencies manage sensitive contracts.

ONR may or may not have told EMC2 they do not want them to talk about the project. They may or may not have specified to what level of detail if any. Only they and EMC2 really know what was said.
All we have is that Rick stated he was told not to talk about it.
We also have several contracts with a government control of release policy embedded. Which is different from an embedded no release policy. Or even a classified project.
We also know (whether you choose to accept it or not) that I was told by the release control authority, that the only thing left to be done for release was to give EMC2 an opportunity to claim exemption for proprietary. All other hurdles had been jumped. Releasing authority could have invoked one of several paths claiming to sensitive research and ended the process sooner. They did not.

It still makes no sense for them to tell EMC2 to claim proprietary as you have claimed, especially in order to protect release because ONR and NAVAIR could not inititate protection in thier own right or defense (which is patently not true). This is the part YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

You do not seem to understand the larger context of military and related contracting and the multitude of agency rules governing such, as well as the multitude of comittee findings and even executive guidance that has been issued. Yes, congress makes laws, but the executive branch executes them, and the courts get to take a look at if they got it right as long as someone bitches about it. You seem to be struggling with the executive branch part of the process.

Cut up your drivers license, go out, drive up to a cop, and tell him you don't need one and see what happens. You may be right, but you get to execute the event ON HIS TERMS as he represents the Executive Branch.

Get educated in Government Contracting, specifically Navy Aquisitions for Sensitive or Special Projects and then come back and talk to me.
If the navy wanted to block release, EMC2's claim for exemption would have been but a minor footnote in a long list of goverment generated blocks for releasability.
I am tired of feeding you.
"sigh"

[TallDave]

You need to study up more on FOIA in general, as well as how the DOD and other government agencies manage sensitive contracts.
...
All other hurdles had been jumped. Releasing authority could have invoked one of several paths claiming to sensitive research and ended the process sooner. They did not.

Oh for God's sake. You're missing the whole point of posting the FOIA exemptions-- no one ever said the data was sensitive. They have in fact specifically said it would NOT be classified. If it was sensitive they could have claimed that FOIA exemption, but the only reason given for nonrelease was they didn't want to embarass themselves with loose data floating around out there, which isn't exactly a national security concern. That's why they may have wanted EMC to refuse -- because it is NOT sensitive data and thus it is subject to FOIA. (And if they already know EMC2 is going to claim trade secret, why even bother trying to make the claim it is sensiitive, even assuming there's any validity to such a claim? That sounds like more work for them,)

Or you can assume Rick lied, for some reason. And so did Bussard. The ONR is actually happy as clams to have the data released, but the lead scientists lied to us. That's your argument, based on nothing more than EMC2 claiming competitive advantage on a FOIA refusal, which they probably would have done in the interest of EMC2 stakeholders regardless of ONR's wishes anyway. It's ridiculous.

If you're going to impugn Rick's integrity you really need to do better than "tear up your license" and vague claims of multitudes of unspecified mechanisms to ignore the FOIA law for reasons having nothing to do with national security. It all comes off as little more than sour grapes, frankly.

[KitemanSA]

Are we still arguing about why EMC2 declined the FoI Request?

[TallDave]

Sad, isn't it? I keep promising myself I'm just going to ignore this. I doubt Rick cares if I'm defending him.

Oh well, maybe we'll get something on appeal and it won't be a total waste of time.

[BenTC]

Are we still arguing about why EMC2 declined the FoI Request?

The easiest way to finish debate is to NOT have the last word.
/ironic

[IntLibber]

Cherrypick said:

Germans actually thought that nuclear explosions are not doable in practice and did not use billions to fund the research.

That is because they were actively deceived by their own scientists.

Unfortunately, Cherrypick is wrong. Goering fully believed in the explosive potential of atomic weapons, he told the Horten brothers, who were working on the Amerikabomber in late 1944, that they needed to have the airplane in the field by the spring of 1946, which was when he expected to test the first nazi atom bomb.

Heisenberg actively lied about a lot of things wrt the progress of the program he managed, however the Germans had active spies in the Stalin government, who had access to Stalin's intelligence about the Manhattan project, so they were fully aware of what the enemy thought about abomb potential. Furthermore, Stalin seized most German atom bomb work, as it was done in the east. The picture presented in the west about limited german work is a false picture because the democratic government in the US didn't want to take heat from the public if it got out how much we let Stalin have. The uproar over Stalin getting the bomb years and years earlier than expected was immense. It was far easier to blame it all on a few communist spies in our own program (which, it turns out, according to the Venona intercepts, the Roosevelt administration was fully aware of during the war and allowed to remain operative).

[MSimon]

I always hate that BS logic.

If you, or your lab, worked out the useful, net power form of fusion, you would be rich and successful for the rest of your life. Even without patent protection. Every physicist knows this. Moreover, if you went for what's "safe", knowing that better routes were available, you'd know that your competition would investigate the better route and destroy your safe job.

Scientists do not avoid success. At worst, they can be indifferent to it.

How about scientists with political power.

[CherryPick]

Cherrypick said:

Germans actually thought that nuclear explosions are not doable in practice and did not use billions to fund the research.

That is because they were actively deceived by their own scientists.

Unfortunately, Cherrypick is wrong. Goering fully believed in the explosive potential of atomic weapons, he told the Horten brothers, who were working on the Amerikabomber in late 1944, that they needed to have the airplane in the field by the spring of 1946, which was when he expected to test the first nazi atom bomb.

Heisenberg actively lied about a lot of things wrt the progress of the program he managed, however the Germans had active spies in the Stalin government, who had access to Stalin's intelligence about the Manhattan project, so they were fully aware of what the enemy thought about abomb potential. Furthermore, Stalin seized most German atom bomb work, as it was done in the east. The picture presented in the west about limited german work is a false picture because the democratic government in the US didn't want to take heat from the public if it got out how much we let Stalin have. The uproar over Stalin getting the bomb years and years earlier than expected was immense. It was far easier to blame it all on a few communist spies in our own program (which, it turns out, according to the Venona intercepts, the Roosevelt administration was fully aware of during the war and allowed to remain operative).

I have two books about this subject at home:
Jim Bagott: Atomic, Icon Books Ltd. London, 2009 and
Robert Junk: Brighter than a Thousand Suns, Harcourt Brace & Company, 1958.

Bagott's view of Heisenberg is not the same as yours.