Ready?
Incoming rant, but serious ЁЯШР.
https://t.co/dPsJILZkgP
It really and truly was high-intensity, aimed, microwave radiation that caused тАЬHavana SyndromeтАЭ (permanent brain damage) in US and Canadian diplomats while they were stationed in Cuba and China in recent years.
Because it *does not matter* what the official intention was. The facts are:
1. Advanced technology was aimed at official US & CA diplomats.
2. Those diplomats were legally permitted, and expected, to be in those known locations while stationed in Cuba and China.
...
3. The devices aimed at our diplomats in Cuba and China were then deliberately and intentionally fired high-energy microwave payloads into the bodies of US and Canadian government officials who were not violating any agreement or law by merely being at these places.
In order to even begin claiming justification here, the theoretical crimes would have to have been so heinous and obvious as to require skipping all of those foundational steps of legitimate proceedings...
The bottom line is that commentary trying to brush aside these assaults on our diplomats and which attempts to sweep the well documented harm of this new form of attack under the rug, provides aid and cover for the enemy.
This scenario w/new tech now tries to achieve same goal w/out the unwanted parts.
There is no way to justify this harm to diplomats.
It is an abhorrent & unacceptable use of technology.
The answer here to this one should be unambiguous: That we reject the use of invisible, covertly deployed, unannounced, and unexpected weapons to inflict brain damage in the a target. Full stop.
Implementing defense, detection, and countermeasures against this new type of attack must be done...
The report IтАЩve attached (linked in first tweet at top) helps in getting past that first hurdle....
More from Health
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".