It’d have more of a ring if his name were “Tinneur,” but nothing to be done about that.
Anyway, I recently ran across “this link”:http://www.parlament.ch/e/organe-mitglieder/delegationen/geschaeftspruefungsdelegation/fall-tinner/Pages/default.aspx which includes all of the public Swiss government documents related to the Tinner matter. Take a look.
On a related note, I’ve occasionally imagined that AQK’s haggling might have gone something like this:
The Wonk was “kind enough”:http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4383/libyas-scud-b-force to cite “a piece”:http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1549 I wrote way back when regarding Libya’s Scud-B missiles, so I was inspired to blog this small item.
As you likely know, Libya has destroyed its CW munitions, but not all of its agent. Yet there are still OPCW reports and “documents”:http://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-expresses-concerns-over-chemical-weapons-stockpiles-in-libya/ which refer to Libya’s “chemical weapons.”
My understanding is that the OPCW uses the terms “chemical “weapons” and “chemical agents” interchangeably. That makes sense, given the definitions in “Article II”:http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria/ of the CWC:
bq.. 1. “Chemical Weapons” means the following, together or separately:
a. Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
b. Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
c. Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
p. Stay dry.
The IAEA recently posted “a letter”:http://iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2011/infcirc823.pdf from Iran’s Mission to the IAEA which criticized IAEA DG Amano’s May “report”:http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-29.pdf to the BoG.
Para 9 of the letter includes this line:
bq. …the DG’s report which marked [sic] as “Restricted Distribution” is disseminated on the ISIS website upon its distribution exactly on the date of its issuance.
Making friends, ISIS is…
A reader (yes, that one) points out that, in the interview I blogged about “here,”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/2111/how-was-i-supposed-to-know Musharraf made a good point about deterrence with a low number (for us, anyway) of nuclear weapons:
bq. MUSHARRAF: What difference does it make if we are 94 or whether it’s
54 or 94 or 150 or — what does that mean?
Former President of Pakistan, “Pervez Musharraf,”:http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/index.php?lang=en&opc=2&sel=4&pId=10 on “CNN last month:”:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/21/sitroom.02.html
bq.. BLITZER: How many nuclear bombs does Pakistan have?
MUSHARRAF: I don’t know.
BLITZER: About?
MUSHARRAF: No idea.
BLITZER: A hundred?
MUSHARRAF: Well, I don’t know. I don’t know.
BLITZER: But you knew when you were the president.
MUSHARRAF: Oh, no…
BLITZER: You wouldn’t even know that as president of Pakistan?
MUSHARRAF: No, not at all. They don’t give me that figure. I mean, why am I concerned whether it is 98 or 89 or something? I am not concerned about the figures.
BLITZER: Let me…
MUSHARRAF: What difference does it make if we are 94 or whether it’s
54 or 94 or 150 or — what does that mean?
p. To be fair, I’m not sure there are that many leaders of states with nuclear weapons who know exactly how many they have.