This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
In the absence of "the other side of the story" they make a pretty strong case. It seems to me that the whole case will turn on Doyle's ability to prove that the article was cleared before he had it published. I hope he has good evidence to that effect....but the fact that all of his various appeals have been denied indicates that he probably doesn't.
It's hard to understand what in the article might be classified, unless it's some obscure reference to an old event that happens to still be classified. If he went through review and release and followed all other rules, he's in the clear, which suggests there's something else to the story.
It's hard to understand what in the article might be classified, unless it's some obscure reference to an old event that happens to still be classified. If he went through review and release and followed all other rules, he's in the clear, which suggests there's something else to the story.
It's hard to understand what in the article might be classified, unless its some obscure reference to an old event that happens to still be classified. If he went through R&R and followed other rules, he's in the clear, which suggests there is something else to the story.
"A long-time employee at Los Alamos National Laboratory was fired after portions of an article he wrote for a British nonprofit journal were later determined to be classified material, even after national security officials had reviewed the article and deemed it unclassified, according to a news report published Thursday by the Center for Public Integrity.
James E. Doyle, 55, a nuclear safeguards and security specialist at LANL’s nonproliferation division, wrote an article titled “Why Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?” that was a critique of nuclear proliferation policies since the Cold War."
***
Sounds like a revenge firing to me. It had been reviewed and deemed unclassified. What's the larger story here? Who on the LANS executive management team did Doyle tick-off to get himself fired in this manner?
In the absence of NNSA Field Office resistance or effective monitoring, the for profit lab contractors are becoming increasingly bold in their actions.
13 comments:
I'm unable to reach the article. Can it be posted somewhere accessible? I'd like to read it
http://krqe.com/2014/08/01/lab-worker-says-he-was-fired-for-anti-nuke-paper/
http://m.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/lanl-worker-says-firing-tied-to-anti-nuke-article/article_7dfc32da-869a-5504-9b31-8b6688249d68.html?mode=jqm
Sorry, wrong cut & paste info. Here's the link to the PDF of the referred article:
http://nukewatch.org/importantdocs/resources/Doyle.pdf
Thanks for posting those links.
In the absence of "the other side of the story" they make a pretty strong case. It seems to me that the whole case will turn on Doyle's ability to prove that the article was cleared before he had it published. I hope he has good evidence to that effect....but the fact that all of his various appeals have been denied indicates that he probably doesn't.
It's hard to understand what in the article might be classified, unless it's some obscure reference to an old event that happens to still be classified. If he went through review and release and followed all other rules, he's in the clear, which suggests there's something else to the story.
It's hard to understand what in the article might be classified, unless it's some obscure reference to an old event that happens to still be classified. If he went through review and release and followed all other rules, he's in the clear, which suggests there's something else to the story.
It's hard to understand what in the article might be classified, unless its some obscure reference to an old event that happens to still be classified. If he went through R&R and followed other rules, he's in the clear, which suggests there is something else to the story.
The problem is that much of the US strategic community continues to
perceive Russia as a potential adversary,...
Wonder why that would be.
Requested link
http://www.iiss.org/en/publications/survival/sections/2013-94b0/survival--global-politics-and-strategy-february-march-2013-3db7/55-1-02-doyle-a88b
From the news article:
"A long-time employee at Los Alamos National Laboratory was fired after portions of an article he wrote for a British nonprofit journal were later determined to be classified material, even after national security officials had reviewed the article and deemed it unclassified, according to a news report published Thursday by the Center for Public Integrity.
James E. Doyle, 55, a nuclear safeguards and security specialist at LANL’s nonproliferation division, wrote an article titled “Why Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?” that was a critique of nuclear proliferation policies since the Cold War."
***
Sounds like a revenge firing to me. It had been reviewed and deemed unclassified. What's the larger story here? Who on the LANS executive management team did Doyle tick-off to get himself fired in this manner?
In the absence of NNSA Field Office resistance or effective monitoring, the for profit lab contractors are becoming increasingly bold in their actions.
I think this is a great story! The guy is doing wonderful things in his spare time to help the greater community.
This is in stark contrast to the horrible LBGT complaints about Sandia on this website and on glassdoor.com:
http://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2014/07/lbgt-at-sandia.html
Post a Comment