Author: David Kailer

Clearly Hiding Something: President Obama’s chance to recommend changes to the NSA

/ David Kailer / Leave a comment

Clearly Hiding Something: President Obama’s chance to recommend changes to the NSA
By
David Kailer
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/14/obama-ahs-room-to-maneuver-on-nsa-reforms/

Amidst the ongoing controversy surrounding the National Security Agency and the arguable constitutionality of its domestic and international surveillance programs, CNN has reported that President Obama is compiling a list of recommendations to be put to the agency in order to restore confidence in the National Security Agency in light of the leaks by Edward Snowden last year.

After an independent review board looked into the NSA’s practices, their formal recommendation was “that government do a better job of protecting civil liberties”. Whether the Obama administration follows that recommendation, and to what extent they will tighten protections depends on the specific official recommendations the President makes in the coming days and weeks.

Much of the article focused on reminding readers of Obama’s continual claim to improving administrative transparency, capturing the importance of these recommendations for the second-term President’s legacy, and discussing the tension between the need for competent intelligence work and the need to protect the fundamental values of citizen privacy enshrined in the Constitution.

One recommendation the article deemed likely was that the President might order private companies to maintain the data and metadata which the NSA currently collects, and to yield that information only pursuant to a [constitutional] request. Interestingly, the article makes no mention of the significant costs creating such an infrastructure might impose on private companies. There is also no discussion of how disclosure requirements might change where private companies are keeping the records pursuant to a government regulation.

Another potential recommendation discussed included creating an entity or appointing an individual to act in an adversarial role when the government requests such documents, the opposing entity essentially playing devil’s advocate in keeping the records out of government hands. If this is a government-appointed position, that may bring up issues of collaboration by both sides or lip service in performing adversarial functions.

While it is reassuring to see the Obama administration taking the nation’s concerns seriously, it is too early to consider this issue addressed. Personally, I would like to see a vigorous, bona fide adversarial process put in place. This would have the added benefit of protecting civil liberties while not imposing any additional burdens on the intelligence community if they are already complying with the Constitution. Additionally, the President might benefit from making the National Security Agency regularly accountable for their actions, as there have been reports of the NSA refusing to answer inquiries from Congressmen about the scope of the NSA’s intelligence activities.

Do the recommendations listed above solve this issue? What other recommendations would you like to see put in place when the President submits his formal requests?

When is a Handshake More Than a Handshake?

/ David Kailer / Leave a comment

When is a Handshake More Than a Handshake?
By
David Kailer
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/10/a-brief-but-important-handshake-between-obama-castro/

This week saw the passing of revered statesman Nelson Mandela, the champion of the movement against apartheid. He laid in state earlier this week while leaders from around came to pay tribute.

During the tribute, President Obama was seen shaking hands with Cuban president Raul Castro. This gesture sparked controversy as news media covered the event, prompting reactions from respect for decorum at a state funeral to outrage that the President would shake the Cuban leader’s hand without making some sort of political statement about the status of human rights in Cuba.

The Obama administration has insisted the handshake was not a pre-planned event, but rather arose spontaneously during the memorial. Afterwards, the article indicates that many commentators looked for any meaning or symbolism behind the gesture, while others saw it as a political nicety. The article itself seems to come down on the side that Obama was respecting the scene and Mandala’s legacy by not making a scene of avoiding Castro.

Others have apparently suggested that the handshake, while good in and of itself, also represented a missed opportunity on Obama’s part. “If the President was going to shake his hand, he should have asked him about those basic freedoms Mandela was associated with that are denied in Cuba,” Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican whose parents emigrated from Cuba, said in a statement.”

Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, who was born in Cuba, made her feelings known to Secretary of State John Kerry in a congressional hearing.

“Mr. Secretary sometimes a handshake is just a handshake, but when the leader of the free world shakes the bloody hand of a ruthless dictator like Raul Castro, it becomes a propaganda coup for the tyrant,” she said. “Raul Castro uses that hand to sign the orders to repress and jail democracy advocates.”
Given the circumstances, the event being a celebration of Nelson Mandala’s legacy rather than an explicitly political event, how should President Obama have handled the situation? While it is perhaps unavoidable, is it even appropriate to scrutinize such a minute action by a world leader for wide-ranging political meaning? Is this distinguishable from the incident at the beginning of Obama’s first term wherein he bowed in the presence of the Japanese emperor on a diplomatic trip?

United States Refuses to Recognize China’s New No-Fly Zone

/ David Kailer / Leave a comment

China has announced that they are erecting an “air defense zone” or no-fly zone over the East China Sea. The alleged zone encompasses some uninhabited islands currently contested between China and Japan.

In a meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Vice President Biden, the Chinese president insisted on China’s right to maintain their air defense zone, regardless of America’s refusal to recognize it. Despite the breakdown, Vice President Biden focused on nurturing good relations between the two nations.
The article also highlights the meeting as a suggested turning point in the focus of American foreign policy from the Middle East to Asia.
“As we’ve discussed in the past, this new model of major-country cooperation ultimately has to be based on trust, and a positive notion about the motive of one another,” Biden said.
“The relationship that you and President Obama have established thus far is full of promise, and real opportunity for us,” Biden told Xi, according to a pool report.
Whether this spirit of cooperation between the two countries persist in the short and long-term remains to be seen. The meeting between Xi and Biden lasted more than two hours, according to reports, and allegedly covered every topic in U.S.-Chinese relations. Part of this discussion touched on the precedent iran’s new nuclear deal sets for international relations with North Korea going forward. Given that the P5+1 has shown willingness to encourage civilian nuclear development among countries with troubled relationships with the West, it is conceivable North Korea could pursue a similar path. A nuclear North Korea would further complicate the relationships between China, North Korea, and the United States.

Regarding the air defense zone itself, the article suggests that the United States is concerned that China’s implementation of the zone suggests an aggressive policy in pursuing its national interests in the region. “China is asking aircraft entering its air defense zone to identify themselves and submit flight plans.” While the actual implementation does not seem too drastic at this point, there are concerns that it is just a first step in China’s attempt to control the region.

China “says the zone is similar to others maintained by nations around the world, saying that it is not asserting territorial control over the airspace and that legitimate commercial traffic will continue to move through the region unhindered.” While Japan has instructed its commercial airline pilots to ignore the alleged zone, the United States is asking its commercial pilots to comply, even while its military pilots refuse to recognize the zone.
Should the United States recognize the air defense zone? Are there positive or negative implications if the U.S. does so? How should America pursue relations with China given these developments?

The Friendly Face of Terrorism

/ David Kailer / Leave a comment

The Friendly Face of Terrorism
By
David Kailer

Homeland Threats and the FBI’s Response

Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of American President John F. Kennedy. Putting aside the persistent conspiracy theories as to who ought to be blamed for the assassination, it is generally accepted that Lee Harvey Oswald shot the President as the President’s motorcade drove through Dallas.
While the assassination is of course a noteworthy event and deserving of coverage in its own right, I wanted to use it as a springing board to discuss a “new” type of terrorism that threatens our national security interests. Director James Comey of the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Among his remarks, Director Comey discussed the threats associated with a new type of terrorist, the Homegrown Violent Extremist, or HVE.
The recent Boston Marathon Bombings in April are indicative of just how dangerous and deadly HVEs can be. And unfortunately, Director Comey indicated they are much more difficult to identify before they can pose a threat than more “traditional” terrorists. Al Qaeda and its many branches consistently advocate acts of violence against America, its western allies, and the “American” way of life, if the diversity of the American people can be so oversimplified. When the people who would do us harm have formal, or even more tenuous, relationships with Al Qaeda, our national security personnel are skilled at tracking people down and vetting them to determine whether or not they pose a threat to the United States. But HVEs might have little or no interaction with formal terrorist organizations. The Boston Bombers are believed to have learned how to make the pressure-cooker bombs they used from an online magazine sponsored by Al Qaeda. Tracking visits to sites run by Al Qaeda or advocating terrorist views is not an efficient way to track potential threats, however, as many a wary political science student has been assigned to visit these same sites as part of lessons on other cultures, the use of propaganda, or as part of policy discussions.
With such dangerous threats coming from such low-profile individuals, how should the national security community go about using its limited resources to secure American interests at home and abroad? When terrorism and improvised explosive devices are available to people of all social and financial levels, what level of law enforcement scrutiny are we okay with as a nation in the effort to keep our towns and cities safe? These questions are certainly not new questions, and we have wrestled with the answers since before 9/11 or the U.S.S. Cole. But with homegrown terrorists recently playing a larger role in contributing to the threats our nation faces than previously believed, we can no longer be content with “protecting the borders” if some of the most dangerous wolves are growing up in the hen house.

The United States Gains a New Enemy in the War on Terror

/ David Kailer / Leave a comment

 

A recent CNN article describes a decision by Congress to list a Nigerian extremist group called Boko Haram on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list. Boko Haram, whose name means “Western Education is Sacrilege”, is attempting to control northeastern Nigeria and impose strict Islamic sharia law in the region.

The organization has existed for several years and has tangible ties to al Qaeda. They have been responsible for at least 3,000 deaths in western Africa since 2009, and have recently begun amplifying their extremist activities.

In deciding to officially name Boko Haram a terrorist organization, Congress has concluded a pointed debate on the issue. On one hand, the group is almost entirely regional. While they have declared a “war on Christians”, their reach and objectives are generally limited to the geography in and around Nigeria. Thus, while they are a danger in their region and could become a larger issue with increased support from al Qaeda, the group poses no real threat to domestic American interests at this time. As such, the appropriateness of declaring them a terrorist enemy is not necessarily obvious, and our conflicting interests are more remote than against al Qaeda itself.

On the other hand, naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization might induce them to become a threat in fact. While the article does not point out any attacks directed at Americans in Africa, Boko Haram could react to this latest news by making a point to do so.

The article does interestingly point out the tools which become available to America once Congress puts a group on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list. Regarding Boko Haram, Congress now has the power to “freeze assets, impose travel bans on known members and affiliates, and prohibit Americans from offering material support.” These tools could become pretty hefty deterrent forces if Boko Haram attempts to assert influence in a wider region than Nigeria itself.

While this determination is apparently a done deal, so to speak, consider the policy implications of allowing America to label foreign organizations as terrorists even when they pose no actual threat to American interests. Should Congress be able to do this? Should there be limits or guidelines restricting Congress’s discretion in so designating organizations? Are such designations even appropriately within the discretion of the United States, or should the United Nations be in charge of dealing with groups who have no known capability or desire to directly harm American citizens? What other issues might arise under this approach?