Brian Lehrer Show--the Iran NIE
My initial take on the Iran NIE.
My initial take on the Iran NIE.
Labels: Director of National Intelligence, Iran, Media Notes and Appearances
The American Forum: The Freedom of Press in a Post 9-11 Era
On the eve of the seventh anniversary of 9/11, I was privileged to join a panel of journalists and national security experts to discuss freedom of the press. The event was held at American University and broadcast on Washington's local NPR station, WAMU.
On the eve of the seventh anniversary of 9/11, I was privileged to join a panel of journalists and national security experts to discuss freedom of the press. The event was held at American University and broadcast on Washington's local NPR station, WAMU.
Labels: Homeland Security, Media Notes and Appearances, Terrorism
Fixing FISA
Just when you thought it was safe to go on vacation...
Congress and the administration have been busy bees the past week, haggling over modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The new law effectively legalizes much of what the National Security Agency has been doing since 9/11 under the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program. Intelligence agencies now can intercept communications from individuals outside the United States--including American citizens--without warrants. The significant element here is that now, the NSA and others don't have to stop surveillance and obtain a warrant when the target who is outisde the United States communicates with someone inside the United States. That's the big change. And while it's important to emphasize that the government cannot target someone inside the country without a warrant--the target has to be overseas--the new law significantly broadens intelligence-gathering powers in a number of important ways.
Perhaps the most significant, and so far least-reported aspect, is that the new law doesn't narrow these powers to collecting intelligence about terrorism. In fact, the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" never appear in the law at all. The operative term here is "foreign intelligence." This new law should be read not just in the context of counterterrorism, but as a broader modification of the government's eavesdropping and surveillance powers.
The story is still developing, and we'll likely have to wait a while to understand the new law's effects fully. But here are some quick pointers.
First, NPR's Talk of the Nation addressed the issue yesterday in a half-hour segment. I joined a panel of guests including Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.), who voted for the new surveillance law, and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who voted against it. Diane Rehm is also devoting her show this morning to the topic.
James Risen also had a piece in yesterday's New York Times that looks at how the law broadens the intelligence agencies' powers. This really got under the White House's skin--recall that Risen was one of two reporters who revealed the NSA's warrantless surveillance in December 2005--and yesterday the press office issued a rebuttal. Note that the White House doesn't say Risen's story is wrong, and that he does point out that the new law doesn't allow warrantless surveillance of a target inside the United States.
One larger story here is how and why the Democrats acceded to much of what the administration was asking for with regards to "updating" FISA. Part of the explanation is pure math--Nancy Pelosi knew that the Dems didn't have to votes to defeat the bill. But there is much to learn here about how the Democrats view themselves as a majority party on national security issues.
It's also important to note that many credible experts are arguing this new law does not significantly enhance the government's surveillance powers. We will hear a lot of debate on that point in the coming weeks, and it will frame the discussion when this new law comes up for reauthorization in six months.
Just when you thought it was safe to go on vacation...
Congress and the administration have been busy bees the past week, haggling over modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The new law effectively legalizes much of what the National Security Agency has been doing since 9/11 under the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program. Intelligence agencies now can intercept communications from individuals outside the United States--including American citizens--without warrants. The significant element here is that now, the NSA and others don't have to stop surveillance and obtain a warrant when the target who is outisde the United States communicates with someone inside the United States. That's the big change. And while it's important to emphasize that the government cannot target someone inside the country without a warrant--the target has to be overseas--the new law significantly broadens intelligence-gathering powers in a number of important ways.
Perhaps the most significant, and so far least-reported aspect, is that the new law doesn't narrow these powers to collecting intelligence about terrorism. In fact, the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" never appear in the law at all. The operative term here is "foreign intelligence." This new law should be read not just in the context of counterterrorism, but as a broader modification of the government's eavesdropping and surveillance powers.
The story is still developing, and we'll likely have to wait a while to understand the new law's effects fully. But here are some quick pointers.
First, NPR's Talk of the Nation addressed the issue yesterday in a half-hour segment. I joined a panel of guests including Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.), who voted for the new surveillance law, and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who voted against it. Diane Rehm is also devoting her show this morning to the topic.
James Risen also had a piece in yesterday's New York Times that looks at how the law broadens the intelligence agencies' powers. This really got under the White House's skin--recall that Risen was one of two reporters who revealed the NSA's warrantless surveillance in December 2005--and yesterday the press office issued a rebuttal. Note that the White House doesn't say Risen's story is wrong, and that he does point out that the new law doesn't allow warrantless surveillance of a target inside the United States.
One larger story here is how and why the Democrats acceded to much of what the administration was asking for with regards to "updating" FISA. Part of the explanation is pure math--Nancy Pelosi knew that the Dems didn't have to votes to defeat the bill. But there is much to learn here about how the Democrats view themselves as a majority party on national security issues.
It's also important to note that many credible experts are arguing this new law does not significantly enhance the government's surveillance powers. We will hear a lot of debate on that point in the coming weeks, and it will frame the discussion when this new law comes up for reauthorization in six months.
Labels: Director of National Intelligence, Media Notes and Appearances, National Security Agency, NSA surveillance, Terrorism
Talk of the Nation--assessing the latest FISA fix
I joined two members of Congress today to discuss the latest change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
I joined two members of Congress today to discuss the latest change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Labels: Media Notes and Appearances, NSA surveillance, Politics
Trouble in DHS' Upper Ranks
A congressional report out this morning leads off with a story I wrote about the Homeland Security Department's reliance on politically appointed leaders.
Spencer Hsu has a good piece in this morning's Washington Post about that report and the administration's failure to fill about a quarter of the top leadership posts at DHS, "creating a 'gaping hole' in the nation's preparedness for a terrorist attack or other threat, according to a congressional report to be released today." Spencer references my previous story, as well.
A congressional report out this morning leads off with a story I wrote about the Homeland Security Department's reliance on politically appointed leaders.
Spencer Hsu has a good piece in this morning's Washington Post about that report and the administration's failure to fill about a quarter of the top leadership posts at DHS, "creating a 'gaping hole' in the nation's preparedness for a terrorist attack or other threat, according to a congressional report to be released today." Spencer references my previous story, as well.
"The DHS has one of the largest rosters of senior political appointees in the federal government, in part because of how it was created. The DHS says it has never had more than 220 senior political appointees, although the Office of Personnel Management told Congress of more than 360 in 2004, National Journal reported last month."The Wall Street Journal's Informed Reader picked up on my story, too, last month. You can also listen to an interview I did with Federal News radio about DHS' political appointees.
Labels: Homeland Security, Management, Media Notes and Appearances, Politics