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?

Mission Accomplished ? The Fall of Fallujah

/ Christopher Moritt / Leave a comment

For the last 12 years America’s military had been fighting terrorism and other forces around the globe, namely in Iraq and Afghanistan. I write today to discuss the recent events where Al-Qaeda has taken control of the city of Fallujah. Now, any readers may wonder why I bring this up in a policy blog regarding veterans issue. Well, the reason is that many veterans fought hard and bravely to take that city from the grasp of the enemy. The reaction in the veteran community that the city has been lost is devastating to some. (See link here.) I personally know several people who fought there, house-to-house, street-to-street with many loosing their lives.
What makes this important is the decisions that are made both on and off the battlefield affect the lives of veterans long after they have finished serving. From a policy standpoint we can argue all day about what the US should and should not be doing. However, from a military standpoint you don’t pack your bags until the job is done and I can assure it wasn’t. I was there; I have worked fairly closely with the Iraqi Army and Security Forces and it did not appear to me they were ready to take over without our help. As I write this I would be willing to bet there is a Marine somewhere in a bar telling his friends that if he could he would sign up and take the city back. These feelings stemmed from the notion that veterans do not want to feel as if their sacrifices were made in vain. Many combat veterans already suffer with problems assessing there worth and their value to society, which is a factor in PTSD. However, for many the ability to hang your hat on the battles you won in combat is something, at least for me, is always a point of pride.
It would be foolish for me to sit here and say I think we should go back, or that we should have stayed there forever. The truth of the matter is I am not really sure what the answer is or why certain decisions are made. What I will say is that policy decisions, especially those that concern combat operations should not be made for internal political reasons. It can affect the whole purpose of fighting in the first place (whatever the reason may be). As I write this Charles Krauthammer is being interviewed on the O’rielly Factor on Fox News. (Generally, interviews are available the day after they air on foxnews.com) Personal feelings people have about Fox News aside the interview was pretty good and suggest the removal of troops from Iraq was entirely motivated by politics, regardless of the consequences. This topic is worth giving some thought, considering what is going on over there today.
The longer I write about this the harder it becomes to keep my personal feelings out of it, so I will attempt to leave you with a few thoughts. The first is that regardless of how one might feel about the various wars being fought or the troops, it is important to realize that veterans had a job to do and they did it; this should not be considered senseless or without merit. Second, is it right for military leaders or those in charge of our armed forces to make decisions based on their political beliefs or ideals? It sounds foolish to think that decisions could be made in another way other than political, but sometimes it just might be necessary. Finally, maybe all the media and anger from the veteran community about the loss of Fallujah to terrorist is pointless. That is to say, maybe the Iraqi’s will step up to the plate and show the world that they are in fact ready to deal with these issues without the help of the Americans.

60 Minutes: A-Rod, PEDs and Suspension

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

60 Minutes: A-Rod, PEDs and Suspension

It is incredible to think that one person could embody all that is wrong with baseball, yet Alex Rodriguez manages to pull it off.  A-Rod is the epitome of the overpaid, doped up player who cares more about his ego than the fans.  Sunday, on 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley discussed Major League Baseball’s case against A-Rod, including an interview with his chief accuser, Anthony Bosch. 

Here is how the story began: 

Yesterday, Alex Rodriguez, considered one of the best baseball players of all time, was hit with the longest doping suspension in history. After a contentious private hearing, Major League Baseball’s arbitration judge took the Yankee third baseman out of the game all of next season. This, despite the fact that there is no positive drug test for Rodriguez. After the decision, Rodriguez repeated that he has never taken performance-enhancing drugs in the years that he’s played for New York.

Tonight, you are going to hear details of the evidence for the first time — much of it from Anthony Bosch, who ran a secret doping practice for pro athletes. It was last summer, after Bosch was exposed, that Rodriguez and 13 others, all Bosch’s clients, were suspended. All accepted their penalties except Rodriguez who appealed. In Rodriguez’s appeal hearing, Tony Bosch testified for five days, behind closed doors. Tonight, he speaks publicly for the first time.

Same-Sex Marriage in Utah: Your Holiday Re-Cap

/ Matthew McKeon / Leave a comment

For a little over two weeks, same-sex couples in one of America’s most conservative states could legally wed.  Now, two weeks after a federal district court judge ruled that Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States granted Utah’s request for a stay on same-sex marriages.  As supporters and opponent of the state ban gear up for an appeal to the 10th Circuit, perhaps an overview of some of this story’s more bizarre aspects is needed.

 

One of the most interesting aspects of these events is the judge who issued the initial ruling or, more specifically, how those who once touted him are treating him now.  Judge Robert J. Shelby is a Utah native who was praised by Utah conservatives – including Tea Party member Sen. Mike Lee – when President Obama nominated him for his present post.  In fact, it was Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch who recommended Shelby for nomination.  Unlike so many of the Obama’s judicial nominees, Shelby faced no serious Republican opposition and was confirmed in September 2012.  But that was 2012.  After Shelby’s December 20 ruling finding Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert claimed that Shelby was an “activist judge” who was using his power to override the will of the people.

 

Another unique part of this story is that same-sex couples were able to immediately marry when the decision was handed down.  Unlike most other states that have legalized same-sex marriages by either judicial decision or legislative act, same-sex marriages in Utah were permitted to commence immediately when Shelby – and subsequently the 10th Circuit – denied the state’s request for a stay.  The result: an estimated 1,000 same-sex weddings were performed during the 17 days between Shelby’s decision and the Supreme Court’s stay.

 

This leads us to the current showdown between state and federal government.  On January 12, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the marriages performed during the 17 day window were valid for purposes of federal law.  Governor Herbert responded that while the state would comply in providing the newly-married same-sex couples with federal services through state agencies, it would not extend state benefits until the 10th circuit has ruled on the issue.  Both supporters and opponents of Utah’s now-uncertain same-sex marriage ban would likely agree that this state-national discrepancy is awkward in the extreme.  While the political posturing continues, same-sex newlyweds in Utah are caught in the middle.

 

Finally, we come to the state’s arguments to the Supreme Court; they must be read to be believed.  In its request for a stay, the state ditched the “responsible procreation” argument that it tried out when requesting a stay from the 10th Circuit; instead, Utah argued that its ban on same-sex marriage promotes “optimal parenting.” While surely this phrase will turn out to be as vague as it is euphemistic, I hurry on so that I may address the state’s second, slightly more insane argument: that the ban is beneficial because it promotes “gender diversity” in marriages and parenting.  This is quite possibly the most disingenuous invocation of gender diversity on record, as evidenced by the notion of diversity being forcibly applied to families in any other context.  Just as no one would agree that marriage should limited to interracial couples in the name of racial diversity, no one honestly believes that diversity is the real reason anyone wants to see this ban upheld.

 

(Citations for this article can be found at the hyperlinked text within)

The most recent episode of the Planet Money podcast discusses a new book by Yale historian Paul Sabin entitled The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth’s Future. In 1980, economist Julian Simon challenged biologist Paul Ehrlich to a bet. Ehrlich came to fame by writing The Population Bomb, which argued that unchecked population growth would led to the end of mankind. Economist Simon believed Ehrlich’s assertions were unfounded. The two devised a debate to test the proposition.

Here is a description of the podcast from the Planet Money website:
A famous biologist predicts overpopulation will lead to global catastrophe. He writes a bestselling book and goes on the Tonight Show to make his case.

An economist disagrees. He thinks the biologist isn’t accounting for how clever people can be, and how shortages can lead to new, more efficient ways of doing things.

So the economist, Julian Simon, challenges the biologist, Paul Ehrlich, to a very public, very acrimonious, decade-long bet. On today’s show: The story of that bet, and the ugly precedent it set.

Betting on the End of the World

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment