40 Burst results for "National Security"
Fresh update on "national security" discussed on Mark Belling
"Elect Joe Biden is introducing the beginning of what he says will be a Cabinet that looks like America. National Security and foreign policy nominees were introduced today and Wilmington, Delaware, Biden says We cannot meet these challenges with old thinking and unchanged habits. We're gonna have the first woman lead the intelligence community. First Latino and immigrant to lead the Department of Homeland Security on a groundbreaking diplomat at the United Nations. Biden refers to have Real Haynes as Deanna Alejandro Mayorkas as Homeland Security head and Linda Thomas Greenfield at the U. N. It's a historic day on Wall Street as the Dow Jones industrial average across the 30,000 mark today for the first time ever, President Trump took a moment at the White House to celebrate the achievement never been broken. That number It's a sacred number 30,000. Nobody thought that ever see it. The Del finished with a gain of 455 points today, the country is on track to distribute 40 million doses of a covert 19 vaccine by the end of the year. Operation Warp Speed General Gustav Purna said An initial shipment of 6.8 million doses could be delivered to states as early as two separate 12th. However, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Cesar says most Americans won't have access to a vaccine until sometime next spring. President elect Joe Biden is officially the winner in Pennsylvania. Reporter Yasmin of a surgeon says Biden will receive the state's 20 electoral votes. After the results of the election were certified. Pennsylvania's governor, Tom Wolfe, announced on Twitter that he signed off on the certificate of Ascertainment for the slate of electors for president elect Joe Biden. Biden's victory in Nevada was also certified today. A North Carolina certified that President Trump won their the manufacture of the drug OxyContin, submitting to playing a role in the country's opioid crisis produce. Farmer Chairman Steve Miller played guilty on behalf of his company today to three criminal charges. You're listening to the latest from NBC News radio I heart radio Did, you know Presented by I Heart radio. You know what you're listening to right now. Did you know that it I heart radio. One of our biggest pet peeve is dead Air. That you know that pause. You get between the songs when you're listening to a ball or playlist or the gaps in your soundtrack. When you're trying to set the mood, it kills the energy destroys the vibe. See at I, Her radio. We believe it's not just the music curation in your playlist that matters but also the music.
Hong Kong jails pro-democracy activists
"Court in Hong Kong has denied bail to media mogul and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai. He's been charged with fraud. NPR's John Rule, which reports that means the 73 year old publisher may spend the next four months in detention. The court decision to deny lie bail comes a day after three other prominent Hong Kong democracy activists were sentenced to prison for their roles in a protest last year. Local media and the Associated Press report that his case is adjourned until April 16th Lies. One of the highest profile figures in Hong Kong is democracy movement. He was arrested in August, and police raided the offices of his newspaper Apple Daily. At the time, police said he was suspected of violating a controversial new national security law. So far, though no charges have been made. The Chinese leadership imposed the national security law in Hong Kong this summer. Officials say it was necessary after sometimes violent protests shook the territory. Critics say it's designed to silence
Fresh update on "national security" discussed on On The Edge With Thayrone
"Unusual And extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States, after which he unequivocally concluded, I hereby declare a national emergency. To deal with this threat. I repeat. Donald Trump by way of executive Order, said, I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with this threat. How is this threat to be dealt with? Well within 40 days Sorry, 45 days after the quote conclusion of the United States election and assessment will be conducted to determine whether a person or entity acted on behalf of a foreign government for the purpose of interfering in that election. That assessment shall be delivered by and I quote the director of national intelligence to the president, as well as quote the secretary of state, the secretary of Treasury, the secretary of defense, the attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security. They're after this report report will be sent identifying the extent to which any foreign interference.
Hong Kong jails 3 prominent young pro-democracy activists
"In hong kong. The government's now under the thumb of beijing is locking up pro democracy activists for speaking out. That as china continues. Its crackdown on liberties in what used to be a semi independent territory. World's kristen flavin has more activist joshua wong. We'll spend the next thirteen months in a prison cell after protesting police brutality. Last year outside a police station the government also sentenced activist ivan. Lamb to seven months behind bars and another agnes chow received a ten month sentence. Authorities arrested the three activists last month. A magistrate said the trio called on protesters to besiege the police headquarters and undermined law enforcement during the rally which drew thousands of people the activists to the defunct demo sisto political party and helped to draw global economy to hong kong's crackdown on dissent. Hong kong officials have arrested at least thirty one people under china's new so-called national security law which beijing imposed on the territory in june
Fresh update on "national security" discussed on America First with Sebastian Gorka
"Um k a h dot com is in our first guest of the day. I think it is. It's been far too long, Acting Deputy secretary at the Department of Homeland Security can cute really welcome back to America first. God be with you said How you doing? Good. Good. Good. Good. Can we get you off the speaker? Phone? It sounds like you're talking to us from the halls of justice somewhere. I hope it's the halls of justice. But this is a speaker phone. I don't have a handset. The other phone. Was that going too much, Okay, We're going to stick with it. Then we have no choice. Explain to me this if you will. Can, by the way, follow him on Twitter. It's a great handle homeland Can homeland Can What on earth? Has cotton to do with human rights and national security. Can you explain that? Sure. So yesterday, Customs border protection in the Department of Homeland Security issued another order blocking the access to the United States market. Cotton produced by a Chinese company called We refer to his ex PCC. It is the Xinjiang production.
Can Donald Trump pre-pardon his own children?
"White House press secretary Kayleigh Mcenany says the only name she's heard when it comes to pardons is former national security adviser Michael Flynn. She was asked today about that New York Times report. The President Trump has been discussing the possibility of preemptive pardons for his adult Children, Donald Jr. Ivanka and Eric, as well as Ivanka's husband and senior White House adviser Jared Kushner. Mr Trump's personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, says the Times piece is false.
Fresh update on "national security" discussed on Fresh Air
"Back to my interview with Eric Schmidt, a senior writer covering terrorism and national security for the Times. We're talking about actions President Trump has taken in the days since the election. And how those actions may affect our national security and the incoming Biden administration's plans. Attorney General William Bar this week promoted John Durham to the position of special counsel. That's the title Robert Mueller had, so Duram is going to continue his investigation into the origins of the investigation. Into ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign. But now he's going to be doing it as special counsel. So what are the implications of that for the incoming Biden administration? Well, it means that with this new position that Durham has it Zaveri difficult politically for president buying to remove Durham, The special counsel now has powers that he can Remain after the Trump administration leaves and continues investigation so dependent on so far. He hasn't produced anything publicly about this from his investigation, which is greatly disappointed the president who I think had hoped for something before before the election, much less before he left office. But this now again, leaves behind, you know legacy that certainly the bite administration is hoping to put in the rear view mirror on if you have this prominent investigator still kind of hammering away on the Russia investigation, that's not That's not something that the Biden camp is wanting to be focused on in their initial weeks and months as they try and deal with other top priorities, like dealing with the pandemic and the economic crisis caused by it, and Any other calamities that will come up in the first few months as often happens in administration, So there seems to be a pattern in some of these promotions and title of changes. That Trump is, um, empowering people who have worked to discredit the investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016. It's as if his, you know one of his, you know, partying. You know, parting gestures is too Continue to discredit That investigation and to try to say I did nothing wrong. That's certainly the that certainly is the appearance here. And obviously somebody like Mr Durham would be in a position to carry that out with this investigation is gonna be more difficult to follow through. It's a little hard to see how the loyalists the Pentagon necessarily pursues some of these objectives. In the last days. Yes, they come with this, this legacy behind them trying to undermine the administration. It's but it's it's more of in doing so. They cement There. There ties their loyalists credentials to the trump camp, and so then you have to ask yourself well, what else is it that they're trying to do in these last several weeks that they can There are other things that you have to wonder about. Could there be contracts that could be letting these last several weeks contracts that normally take months if not years to negotiate, But are there things that air Heat up their things that we're just about ready to do that they these loyalists could then push through in the last weeks. That's what we're kind of digging around to see what what may be in store. What kind of contracts Is one of them to that. In addition to contracts that would lead or cement in policies, there could be contracts that Trump would want to sign us favors to friends and loyalists. Well again, That's that's again something that we're looking into whether it's with rushing through arms sales to various countries. There was just a big arms sales to the Saudis announced this week, for instance, but that has been in the works for months, so it's unclear. It's probably not likely that head and you do with this, and that's more in the State Department's from But could there be some contracts that could go to big trump donors or other kind of loyalists? Those of the kind of things were looking at to see if it's even possible whether the people in these positions now would be able to have the influence over the over the bureaucracy to pull something off like this right now, I think most experts were skeptical. Could happen, but but that's what we're watching closely about. Since there are concerns Within the military. And within the Defense Department that Trump might try to Attack Iran, which could lead to a war with Iran. On Do you know? Trump also And start a nuclear war if he wanted to. I'm not saying that that's on his agenda, but he has the capability of it. Are there concerns within the military in the Pentagon about what would happen if they get in order that they think is incredibly misguided and very dangerous. Well, we've been told there have been these kind of internal discussions among the joint chiefs about what to do. They, of course, are obligated to Carry out lawful orders, not unlawful orders, so it may be something that would end up going to lawyers themselves if they were faced with such a choice. I know we were looking at these kind of possibilities in the run up to the election and maybe the period in just a few days afterward. So there have been concerns on the part of the joint Chiefs and the senior military leaders. They are obligated to follow lawful orders but not unlawful orders. And so it could be that if something they considered unlawful. Came from the White House. They would have to go to their lawyers quickly and decide how to do this. I think some of these concerns were particularly pointed in the run up to the elections, and during that Several days during the count that the president might actually try and use the military in such a way, Deploy the military to polling sites or perhaps use them. To put down the unrest protest developed after the count. That unfortunately did not happen. And so some of the worst case scenario is that I think military leaders envisioned did not come to fruition. And I think there's There is a some sense of relief now that those those kind of threats made maybe behind us. I mean, it's always possible. Of course, President could try to do something again. We've talked about Terms of a strike against Iran or something like that. But there is there is a sense now least among some of the military officials that some of them you know, really dramatic type moves, they might be forced to make. Do not seem to be coming to fruition now, But they also warned me that there's seven weeks to go. This is a very unpredictable president. Brian predictable commander in chief. And so they're watching things very closely. Eric Schmidt. Thank you so much for talking with us. Thank you, Terry. Eric Schmidt is a senior writer at The New York Times covering terrorism and National security. Our interview was recorded yesterday. If you'd like to catch up on fresh air interviews you missed like our interview with you. Grant, who stars with.
Trump threatens to veto defense bill over social media shield law
"Is angry at both Facebook and Twitter for flagging many of his post is inaccurate. He and other Republicans have also accused social media sites of censoring conservative stuff on social media. That feud could now delay the annual must pass defense spending Bill Stephen Portnoy explain a late night tweet. The president said he'd veto the defense authorization bill in this Congress caves to his demand and removes the liability protections in 1996 law grants to social media companies. Mr Trump calls the lawsuit shield serious threat to our national security and election integrity. He didn't mention it previously vowed to veto the defense bill because it includes a provision requiring new names for base is named in honor of Confederate, The Washington Post says some Republicans have suggested trading one for the other reforming section, 2 30 in exchange for the base of name changes the Democrats want. They also say Democrats are not interested. Wins news time
Fresh update on "national security" discussed on WTOP 24 Hour News
"Of 12 $3000 are targeting the smallest businesses, the businesses that are 1 to 10 employees that have less than 250,000 in annual revenue. Prince George's County Council member Mel Franklin. Many of these businesses are ones that have been overlooked by many of the existing relief programs. The fund is starting off with the least $20,000 available, but organizers want the program toe last, so they're hoping for Donations. It's all being put together by the PFC Black Chamber and advocacy group focused on black owned businesses in Prince George's County. Nick I. Nelly w. T. O P News NBA star John Wall is no longer our Washington wizard. But in a tweet today, he offered heartfelt thanks to the team's fans following his trade to the Houston Rockets will have Maura on what he had to say coming up in sports to 15 after traffic and weather will talk with NBC News correspondent Carol Lee. About her investigative reporting into the briefing. Some would say bizarre tenure of President Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. 207 benefits that's a fact have.
Justice Department investigating possible bribery-for-pardon scheme
"Fake news President Trump is dismissing reports that the Justice Department is investigating claims of a bribery scheme involving a possible presidential pardon. Court documents, however, revealed there is indeed a DOJ probe in which some unnamed person allegedly offered a major political contribution in exchange for a pardon. Meanwhile, correspondent Cecilia Vega tells us after pardoning former national security adviser Michael Flynn last week, the president is weighing other possibility, talking about pardons being issued before the president leaves office for people. You've not even been charged with the crime. Legal experts say that is allowed. What is unprecedented here is this potential for a conflict of interest of preemptive get out of jail free card before crime has even been committed, possibly for friends, family, even the president himself. New York Times says That's because Donald Trump is worried the Biden administration will seek retribution against him and his family. They also say that Rudy Giuliani had discussions with the president about pardoning him. Giuliani yesterday tweeted calling that lies and fake news.
Trump Vows To Veto Defense Bill Unless Shield For Big Tech Is Scrapped
"Section two thirty now to catch you guys up. Section to thirty is It's what protects free speech on the internet. That was its original design but what has happened. Since the creation of social media companies it has basically shielded them from any kind of lawsuits at all for censoring content removing content. This and that there. There's a loophole in section two. Thirty right so this. Donald trump's President trump's post section. Two thirty which is a liability shielding gift from the us too big tech the only companies in america that have it. Corporate welfare is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity. Our country can never be safe insecure if we allow it to stand therefore if the very dangerous and unfair section to thirty goodness skews me is not completely terminated as part of the national defense authorization act. I will be forced to unequivocally veto the bill when sent to the very beautiful resolute desk. Take back america. Now thank you.
Trump threatens to veto defense bill over social media shield law
"President Trump is angry at both Facebook and Twitter for flagging many of his post is inaccurate. He and other Republicans have also accused the social media sites of century censoring conservative stuff on social media. That feud could now delay the annual must pass defense spending, Bill Stephen Portnoy explained. In a late night tweet. The president said he'd veto the defense authorization bill in this Congress caves to his demand and removes the liability protections in 1996 law grants to social media companies. Mr Trump calls the lawsuit shield serious threat to our national security and election integrity. He didn't mention it previously vowed to veto the defense bill because it includes a provision requiring new names for base is named in honor of Confederates. The Washington Post is reporting that in recent days some Republicans have suggested trading one for the other reforming section, 2 30 in exchange for the bass name changes the Democrats want They also say Democrats have largely booked at that idea
Hong Kong jails 3 prominent young pro-democracy activists
"Hong Kong pro democracy activists have been sentenced to jail for a protest outside police headquarters. This is authorities stepped up a crackdown on opposition to tighten Beijing's control over the territory. The popular activists very well known Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Even lamb are among more than 10,000, who have been arrested since June of 2019 on charges related to protest against proposed extradition laws that expanded to include demands for greater democracy. Beijing, responding to those protests by imposing a sweeping national security law to crackdown on dissent, which prompted more public opposition. Meanwhile,
Trump threatens to veto defense bill over social media shield law
"The federal law that protects social media sites from liability over their content. Trump made the declaration on Twitter calling section 2 30 a serious threat to our national security and election integrity section. 2 30 is part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that shields websites from being held responsible over the content they allow. Trump has taken issue with the measures and social media sites started taking action against some claims in his post. Former Trump campaign manager in San Antonio businessman Brad Par
Trump threatens to veto defense bill over social media shield law
"Protects social media sites from liability over their content. Here's D mutually. Oh, Trump made the declaration on Twitter calling section 2 30 a serious threat to our national security and election integrity section. 2 30 is part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that shields websites from being held responsible over the content they allow. Trump has taken issue with the measures and social media sites. Started taking action against some claims in his posts. I, Dean, you tell Prom news radio 1000
Trump Vows To Veto Defense Bill Unless Shield For Big Tech Is Scrapped
"Yesterday that he will veto The National Defense Authorization Act, unless Congress repeals section 2 30 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which critics say unfairly shield social media platforms from liability over items posted on their platforms. These opponents have been vocal that the big tech like Twitter and Facebook should no longer be shielded. As a neutral platform when they operate like a publisher. Yep. Do it. I was I was I was against this for a long time. But then you know, as it got more and more you saw day Tech, Actually, you know, you wielding that influence and suppressing important and legitimate and honest news stories for clearly electoral purposes. You can't e don't know if repealing section 2 30 is the right answer, But it's the best answer. We got in front of us at the moment section 2 30, which is a liability shielding gift from the U. S too. Big tech. The onus is what Trump tweeted the only companies in America that have it. Corporate welfare is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity. Our country can never be safe and secure. If we allow it to stand Trump tweeted, therefore If the very dangerous and unfair section 2 30 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, I will be forced to unequivocally veto the bill when scented to the very beautiful, Resolute desk. It's beautiful Desk is the most beautiful death. It really is the Department of Justice and a letter to Congress in October that advocated for the changes of the 25 year old law that essentially protects these companies from being sued. By content posted on their sites. Zucker Here's the problem that when Moon you talk about tech at all, I mean, you're dealing with the antiquated laws and you're dealing with it with with laws that you know, even by the time a law goes from, you know formation in some committee to ending up on the president's desk, it's probably already obsolete. Yeah, Tech is
Hong Kong activists Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow jailed
"In Hong Kong have been jailed for participating in a pro democracy protests last year. There was not authorized by the police, Joshua Wong will serve more than 13 months in prison. Agnes, Child, 10 Months and Ivan Lamb, seven months. All three pleaded guilty last week, two charges related to a siege of the police headquarters. Approachable because the activist Nathan Law, who fled Hong Kong said the sentence was ridiculous and disproportionate. This is actually a bit more serious than we had expected. They have click UT That would be a major factors of Ah, deducting the sentence. They're not involved in their expections of violence. So I guess on the the circumstance that still being sentenced for more than a year, especially for Joshua. It is still quiet of the sentence for lots of people. The charges were launched before China imposed his national security law in Hong Kong, under which the activist could have been jailed for life. The U. N
Prosecutors investigating potential White House 'bribery-for-pardon' scheme.
"Crime related to funneling money to the white house in exchange for a presidential pardon according to court documents unsealed in federal court u s district judge beryl. How released a heavily. Redacted order on tuesday that described what she called a bribery for pardon investigation about half of the eighteen page document was blacked out with the publicly available version. Providing few details of the alleged scheme and naming none of the people potentially involved it said federal prosecutors in washington said they had obtained evidence of a bribery scheme in which someone would offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence. The order said prosecutors. Were also investigating a secret. Lobbying scheme in which two unidentified individuals acted as lobbyists to senior white house officials without complying with the registration requirement of the lobbying disclosure. Act the justice department had to ask house permission to view cetin emails between and clients who were not identified. How granted the requested. August saying the attorney client privilege did not apply in that instance prosecutors had said they planned to confront three unnamed individuals with the communications and finish their investigation according to howls order government. Investigators said they had seized over fifty digital media devices including iphones ipads laptops thumb. Drives and computer and external hard drives presidents enjoy wide latitude under the. Us constitution in pardoning people convicted of federal crimes and miscarriages of justice. Donald trump last week pardoned his former national security adviser. Michael flynn who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi during the investigation into russian meddling in the two thousand sixteen presidential election. That was the first of what is expected to be a string of pardons in trump's final weeks in the white house. According to howls order the justice department had recently told her he wanted to keep the investigation from becoming public because it detailed individuals and conduct. That had not yet been charged just
Trump hints he will veto defense bill unless controversial Section 230 terminated
"President Trump is threatening to veto a major defense policy bill unless lawmakers eliminate a federal law that shields tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter. Trump tweeted Tuesday night, saying that section 2 30 of the Communications Decency Act Is a threat to national security and election integrity Section 2 30 shields Internet companies from being held liable for material posted by users.
Top nuclear scientist killed by remote-controlled gun, Iran says
"We were talking about the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientists, probably by Israel and how they assassins escaped. Jack. Positive. It was jet packs. Well, I haven't heard anything about it. Well, there are maybe you've got the details of this email. More details have emerged on the attack that are different than what happened were heard over the weekend, but couple of different sets of details. You have to choose which one to believe. But David Rice. Hey, guys, after the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientists now we know who was testing jetpacks near l A X It was the Massad. Good call David. You know what? When I get elected, you're my director of national security. That astute point. The original story over the weekend that I saw was gunman jumped out of a ditch and riddled his limousine with machine guns and killed the dude. In a very nice country town outside of Tehran. That was the word from the Iranian authorities. The latest story is that a robot machine gun popped up out of the ditch and riddled the vehicle with both. So that's different now. You know human beings needed to be there. I heard it was a robotically controlled machine gun in a drone pickup truck, Really? Okay. Totally unmanned. Merry go. Course, The Iranians are desperately trying to cover their own high knees for allowing this to happen to their top guy. Yeah, Like I said, there's interest on both sides of not getting the full story out because whoever did it if they're sending remote controlled machine gun trucks at you. I'm not sure what they could have done to stop it. We'll probably nothing if the Israelis want you dead. You're going to end up dead. That's just a fact. What I said yesterday. I'm walking into the Masada office. I'm saying, Hey, let's get this over with. All right, Let's just do it, You know, paint painless way. Exactly, Fi. Ronald. Just die Tired, so it is done.
Top nuclear scientist killed by remote-controlled gun, Iran says
"Security official is accusing Israel of using electronic devices that's a quote to remotely kill. A top military nuclear scientist. Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council made the comment to state television at the funeral for that scientist. Iranian leaders initially said that on Friday a truck exploded and then gunman opened fire. Israel, which has been suspected of killing numerous Iranian nuclear scientists over the past decade, has repeatedly declined comment about Friday's attack. The
UK bans installation of Huawei 5G equipment from September
"The uk previously announced the purchase of five g Equipment from weiwei was banned after twenty twenty with carries having until two thousand twenty seven to actually install the equipment however under a proposed telecommunications security bill scheduled to be introduced to parliament telco's would have until september twenty twenty one to install equipment of the existing equipment can be maintained through twenty twenty seven the proposed law would also give the government power to identify network equipment as a national security risk and ban its use in domestic networks and power to issue fines of up to ten percent of annual turnover for noncompliance. The government will also invest two hundred fifty million pounds behind five g diversification. Plan to grow the telco supply chain and increase competition
Iran holds funeral for slain military nuclear scientist
"A top Iranian security official says Israel used electronic devices to remotely kill a minute treat nuclear scientists last week the remark from the sixty three of the country's supreme National Security Council drastically changes the story of the Friday slaying of the nuclear scientist authorities initially said the truck exploded and then gunman opened fire a state TV Arabic language channel claims the weapons used were controlled by satellite a claim also made Sunday by the semi official Fars news agency none of the outlets immediately offered any evidence supporting the claims Israel has declined to comment on the attack I'm Charles de Ledesma
"national security" Discussed on PRI's The World
"He undergoes a medical treatment requiring anesthesia, one of the oddities is actually vice presidents are typically even in formed about US intelligence than presidents because they have more time to spend receiving intelligence briefings. So it wall to reader possibly soon at the White House who is breathing Amazon Robert O'Brien, and are they socially distanced the president's intelligence briefing generally takes place now on an IPAD and so it would be relatively. Easy to continue that briefing in a socially distanced way I mean there's a much larger issue that throughout this administration, the president has actually not paid that much attention to his briefings that they have been sort of dumbed down and had to be rewritten with more graphics and less information because of how boring the President finds most of the routine intelligence briefings that he receives. Yeah. I was going to ask you about that and whether because of what you just pointed out much actually changes right now. Yeah. It's hard to say how much is really Changing in this moment except this is just a massive distraction, it's easy to forget how fraught and challenging this year has already been. As you have seen China use. The pandemic has cover to move against the freedom and independence of Hong Kong's Azerbaijan and Armenia are engaged in a outright war right now heavily influenced by regional powers, Russia and Turkey India and China two billion person nuclear armed countries are continuing to have border clashes that have erupted in fighting and casualties for the first time. Since the nineteen seventies, there's a lot of stuff going. On in the world right now and having the West Wing having the National Security Council focused hour by hour on how healthy there are themselves. That's a problem for national security and stability around the world. I got to ask you about the nuclear football the briefcase with the information for a president to launch a nuclear attack it was suggested on Fridays, I watched the President Take Marine One to Walter Reed that one of his aides was carrying nuclear football is that correct and does it remain with him in quarantine in that room at Walter Reed? Perhaps not physically in the room but the nuclear football which is carried by a rotating set of five military aides is never far from him. Physically, it rides with him in an elevator. If he's in an elevator, it is in the third golf cart behind the president's golf cart. On the course, it is always close by if the president's health improves I mean he's still in taking medications that have known side effects including making your brain kind of Hazy Methadone and there's also the long term impact of Covid Nineteen It be determined if the president was not cognitively up to the task of being commander in chief, we don't have a good mechanism. Khalil. Mack. Early legally constitutionally to deal with a president who is not mentally fit to be president, and in fact, the twenty Fifth Amendment, which does lay out a procedure for removing the president with the assent of the vice president and a majority of cabinet. That's a pretty blunt instrument and a politically fraught one to deal with mental instability and not physical disability. Little surprise lately, a lot of us find ourselves with bouts of insomnia. Garett what's crossing your mind on these recent nights you can't sleep. For me, it is all about this month election security, not just in terms of the president and his health but also the questions that he has been trying to inject into the process over recent weeks about the legitimacy of the election itself and putting out the message that if he loses it is because the election has been stolen from him. You know that basic premise of a peaceful transition of power has long been a bedrock of American democracy and this president openly questioning at as recently as this weekend is very troubling for the groundwork that it is laying for what might happen in the hours after the polls close on November third. Gary Graff is a writer analyst is the author of the only plane in the sky, an oral history of nine eleven, Garrett thanks as always my pleasure. Some, sad news out of Ireland. One of the country's most beloved poets Derek Man has died man was born in Belfast Northern Ireland. He passed away at his home in can sail last Thursday at the age of seventy eight after a short illness, his poems dealt with themes of loneliness in isolation. But also hope that made his work especially apt for. These times in the early days of the pandemic in March man's poem, everything is going to be alright. Took on new meaning and relevance. It was played by Irish broadcaster RTA at the end of its evening news program here's actor Andrew Scott The star fleabag reading man's poem. Everything is GONNA be. Alright hush let up you gloves to come play the close. The door. There will be fine. Will time. Presumably into the. The poems flow from the handed unbidden. Hidden source. Is the watchful hard. The sunrises. Far Cities Beautiful. Brian. Is. Day. Everything.
"national security" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Of all the machinations in the mcgann case and so in some ways, it shows this just utter inability of the Committee to vindicate it's just through the courts and so. My answer is it's not that that Congress has been at least House Democrats they've not been twiddling their thumbs but they have been looking to the courts to try to get this information. I will just say also one of the interesting parts of the of the near ten article is discussion about the audit which alluded to earlier and here we have a different sort of strange. Little Committee in in Congress called the Joint Committee on taxation, which is is unusual committee a nonpartisan committee. It's made up of House and Senate members, which is very unusual i? Just full disclosure I did work with the on taxation when I was up on the hill on a totally different kind of matter international double taxation treaties, but the the role that they are. Playing here it's actually quite interesting on it's interesting from a separation of powers perspective as well. In particular this committee has statutory power to review any refunds going to Americans that are over two million dollars and they're you know various staff members on this committee that that review these things in what is what this New York Times article really pointed out which was new to me. was that trump has been in the middle of this dispute with the irs over a twenty ten claim of about seventy three million dollars, which was money that he he claimed or a requested a refund for. Because he had paid some taxes and due to some changes in the law, he was able to sort of okay. Well, I paid those taxes before now I have losses. Now I'm going to request this tax refund and what it was was something that they call quickey refund, which means that actually the the refund was paid out within about ninety days back in two thousand, ten on attentive basis and it sort of pending an adult an audit by the IRS but then unless the money was paid out to. Trump something like seventy, three, million dollars but the the audit then happened and then as part of that process, the audit ended up going to the strength committee on Taxation which took a look and there was some sort of a discussion and agreement on it But then the audit back at the IRS expanded, and there was never any resolution of whether that payment Donald Trump of something like seventy, three, million dollars actually allowable it was there's never been any final sort of decision from the IRS. which is a big question mark for me about. So what is the status? Why haven't they made a decision? What are they waiting for? What has the joint committee on Taxation said about it? Is it a? Is it a disagreement between the drank me now taxation and the irs that's what he's big mysteries that we don't know about and very, very interesting role I think played. By this committee, which by the way was set up back in nineteen twenty seven for the very purpose of making sure that the executive branch wasn't sort of processing corrupt payments to to some cronies and the government. So it's it's interesting to see this. This role that the committee has been playing and that it's it's seems to be completely unresolved and big question marks around it. So Adam. We waved a magic one invested the New Yorker with subpoena power. What? What are the documents that you would ask for? Right whenever you talk whenever you talk about the unanswered questions like what are the missing pieces? Do you have documents in mind that you think you know if I was the chair of the committee I would want X. Y. and Z., and you have a laundry list and and journalists and journalists were focused on these financial questions are just waiting kind of ticking off boxes of well. Once we get form B twelve. Then we'll know this answer in this answer or is it is it something? You know sort of you don't expect to find in these documents because you don't think that they will accurately represent sort of the underlying reality right? What are you looking to get your hands on most? So the thing I would want. The most is Alan Weisselberg trump's longtime chief financial guy and some truth serum and just. To be honest in the trump foundation case he really through trump under the bus pretty quickly. So it might not take a lot. I mean. Alan Weisselberg. May Be more interested in. Ten in protecting trump's so. Unusual is a trump. Yes. No. I can't tell you how many people. Fit. Their loyalty there I've just I'm blown away I'm sorry I've never dealt with a group that is quicker to. Say whatever I want. But anything imprint has to be how I supported the boss. Michael by the way is someone I would have zero interest in talking to I don't think he knew any of the inside stuff I think he was kept at distance he you know he he did the kind of embarrassing stuff. The truth is though there's an interesting story that someone very high up in the trump organization told me that there was some big. This is pre two thousand eleven when they were still free through thousand eight they were still getting bank loans and some big bank was going to give him some big loan. I can't remember the details and probably couldn't tell you if I could. But so the bank said we need. An independent law firm to look at all of trump's obligations so that we know all of his outstanding obligations. And the firm spent, it was a big project. They spent a lot of time and they couldn't figure it out because trump gets an idea in his head. He'll call to a lawyer down the hall. As I've heard, help call a lawyer who is hired to handle lawsuits and tell that guy do a deal and a lawyer who is hired to do deals who is a real estate lawyer and tell them to do some lawsuit or he'll just. Pick up the phone, call a law firm or call an accountant, and so the conclusion was that it is literally unknowable. The obligations of the of Donald Trump. He doesn't remember and there is no person including Alan Weissenbach nosy extent of it. So that is an important thing to keep in mind but Alan, Weiss. Will probably knows more than anyone else including Donald Trump almost certainly knows more than trump himself. No. So that would be the single biggest piece. The next piece would be my assumption is that there's a good chance that some of the kind of Delaware LLC's have bank accounts that are set up. To take in money fairly easily, and that's a very hard veal to pierce even with subpoena power because it's hard to know exactly what you're asking foreign exactly where to look for it that that you I understand it, I've never been a federal investigator, but you really do need I the source and then you know what accounts look for Cetera I didn't want to just quickly backtrack one step on another major national security issue, which is trump's friends. The president of the United States we know is on the phone for hours every day with a group of People Sean Hannity, and maybe Tom Barrack, and Howard Lorber Lefrak. These are sharks and sharks, many of whom are known to have fun engagements. Irrational for the Mossad and Saudi intelligence an Emirati intelligence Chinese intelligence not to spend millions of dollars trying to figure out how to influence these people either overtly or covertly, and and I just don't want to forget that as as far as I think we believe right that that a lot of trump's major decisions come down to whatever it is the five or a dozen cronies that he calls every day and. Them could be just such a coup for foreign intelligence service. So Dan. Where do you see after trump reforms going right. So whenever we think about sort of the president in foreign policy, right the president is the sole organ of international relations in sort of as the legal matter as a constitutional matter like the guy gets to do almost whatever he wants. Almost the Trumpian vision of how he thinks the rest of the presidency should operate. Do you think that? Let's let's imagine that Donald Trump is defeated in. November do we all look at each other and say, well, that was weird and just kind of go back to business as usual or do you think that actually sort of the aberrations of this moment prompt real reformer even hemming in of sort of the president's Foreign Policy Powers State Department oversight or do you see this being a catalyst for fractional change? Yeah I kind of do I mean I would say that I talked about this in the in the toddler chief, which is what you need to do is childproof. The presidency what trump is revealed is it turns out the guard rails checking the president power were worn down over decades in some cases voluntarily by Congress, which is so ribbon bipartisanship that it's very difficult for them to execute effective oversight. By, the courts have demonstrated a remarkable due deference to the executive branch, particularly in foreign affairs and the.
"national security" Discussed on CFR On the Record
"To maintain Hong Kong's capitalism without preserving his freedom. inky Victoria and Jerry. Let's talk now about the National Security Law June thirtieth peercy NBC imposes partial equivalent Security Law so covering secession and subversion. Terrorism collusion with foreign or external forces. But leave Allen treason sedition theft of state secrets to be implemented article twenty three. What does this mean for Hong? Kong. On a daily basis, I think the evidence of what Lord Patent shared with Jimmy. Lai. And what has happened to him is that just a signal from pr see that this is something that they're going to enforce. No a few weeks before the law came out. A former deputy police commissioner in Hong. Kong, who favored the new laws said what they need in Hong Kong is Operation Tornado. operation that would go instantly into effect that would maximize the fear. That would. Deter. People into compliance with the new regime. And of course, a we've seen visible evidence of this as Lord Patten pointed out in Jimmy Lai's detention. But that's just the beginning and we don't know what's really taking place underneath. Because from the beginning what I feared the most. Was the emplacement of central's secret police authority. In? Hong. Kong where they could no longer hide behind secrecy usually kidnap people quietly but now they openly operate. People the way they've been doing for seventy years on the mainland. And Miss. Means Surveillance this means people are being watched all the time they are being interviewed they're invited not or neil very politely or maybe their families visited. Maybe their children's school is visited. All kinds of intimidation are brought to bear through their employer. what we have seen a repeatedly is fear quiet intimidation and it's reinforced spivey occasional public prosecution. That we've cows. Writing in Hong Kong. So, this is johnny the most senators, your thing, and we're waiting for the shoot a drought now based on what is GonNa Happen to Jimmy Lyon Company wrote what happens to the four youngsters twenty-one under? Who've been picked up because of their Internet indications. Will they be sent? From Hong Kong, to the mainland for trial. The security. People have the power to do that. And if so the detention, there will not be equivalent to the Hong Kong prison detention and the treatment the interogations. Will Not Be as mild as what people in Hong Kong even though they've been abused occasionally have been accustomed to. So we're seeing a gradual public enforcement. Of this whole system. Of intimidation to back up the much more widespread secrecy. Surveillance Systems that has been imposed on Hong Kong mises. Intimidating. It's paralyzing it will lead to many people giving up in despair trying to leave and other simply accommodating to make the best of life way people in the mainland had long had to make the best life. Jerry and more patent I. Think some of us are very curious that yesterday. The NPC issued such a terse and relatively vague eighty two word resolution to basically extend the current LegCo term by a minimum of one year had as proposed by Chief Executive Carrie Lam a but I think they left it vague in the sense that it was really responsive to any definitive thoughts around the four incumbent opposition leaders who were barred from seeking reelection. Alvin Young Kualakai Kia. Tennis. Kwok in Kansas. Do you think China is trying to signal something. Now, this global tension has really focused on on on what is happening in. Hong Kong is trying to trying to signal anyway because they could have been much more heavy handed with that resolution..
"national security" Discussed on The Journal.
"Welcome valuer for nine. Out of ten Americans meet is something that they eat every day but considering how central meat is Americans Diets? The industry's Supply. Chain is surprisingly fragile. That's because meat companies have been consolidating for years. A single plant can process as much as four or five percent of the entire country's pork production. These plants are so big they'll handle upwards a ten thousand dollars a day twenty thousand hogs day thousands of people work at these plants produce millions of pounds of food individually. When you start to see these operations go down. It takes a real significant chunk out of production. Meat Industry analysts. Say That around twenty percent of pork production and ten percent of beef production is shut down this week because of plant closures and when that much production goes off line. There's no hiding it. From consumers some cases you're seeing in the grocery stores already more minimally processed meat by that I mean me products with bones in them for example. That's a direct reflection of the fact that the meat plants are trying to maximize production of the stuff that is the easiest for them to make in other cases. You're just seeing less meat. In general and for farmers this whole thing has been catastrophic because me planner shutdown farmers have had no place to send the animals that are ready for slaughter. The real problem is in pig production for pork. If you don't get a pig off the market they keep gaining weight. It costs money to feed them. Take space to house them. You run into the risk of overcrowding these barns can get dangerous both for the pigs and for the people trying to handle them and for the farmers they get penalized by the meatpackers when their hogs get too big. And that's because the meat plants equipment is set up the handle extra large carcasses attack to farm in southern Minnesota who is searching around for all these sorts of feed alternatives that he described like a salad for pigs. It'll fill them up but it won't put too much extra weight on them. Going to work. Doing these types of things will by the farmers time but a lot of them still have deliveries a small pigs that they're going to take and just a matter of weeks and it's a race against the clock for them to either get these full grown hogs out of their barns are figure out something to do with him with plants shut down. Farmers are desperate to find other customers for their hogs. Jacob talked to farmers who are calling plants that are hundreds of miles away to try and find a place to send them or who are selling them to mom and pop butchers but farmers raise way too many pigs to solve this problem by sending a few local butchers and putting the rest on a diet some farmers will be left with thousands of pigs and no one to take them which means some farmers will have to kill their animal's farmers raise each and every one of these hogs for the most part with the thought in mind that it's going to eventually go to slaughter but that's for the process of producing food for people and that's what they're farmers for to spend all that time. Raise these animals feed them house them make sure they're healthy. And then after take that animal and kill it and bury the carcass somewhere just depresses these people. But it's not just farmers who are upset losing money. The mead companies are too and so in recent weeks executives have been raising the alarm with lawmakers and the public saying that. These plants need to stay open. They say they need to stay open. Because closed meat plants our food security problem and by extension a National Security Problem Jacob talked to smithfield foods. Ceo Kenzo Oven after the company had shut down at Sioux falls plant. Smithfield is the biggest pork producer in the country. And the point can Sullivan was trying to make was that. These plants need to operate to feed the country and to ensure the security of the nation. I think about that for a second. The security the nation Ternan on the ability of a port plan to kill hogs and produce sausage and Bacon. This is Ken Sullivan. That said is essential to life and his view to run these plants. We're going to as he said. Let this atmosphere of fear that he described the corona virus cut into the food supply. Cut INTO FOOD SECURITY FOR AMERICANS. Said this is GonNa be something that we have to make the choice and to him as he said. There's only one right choice here. The choice being. We have to stay open. Yeah we have the choice. He said to continue to run these plants or shut them down in response to concern over the virus spreading as he said there's only one option there we have to accept this as a society other executives started making the same point. The chairman of the country's biggest meat company Tyson foods took out a full page ad national newspapers. He warned Americans coming meet shortage at grocery stores and said quote. The food supply chain is breaking these mute company executives had a message for the government. We need you to do something. And the government that Fox News alert on President Trump taking executive action now signing an order mandating that knee processing plants remain open during the pandemic. It's Tuesday night. President trump signed an executive order that invoked a Korean War era law called the defense production. Act The law gives the government the power to order businesses to make things. The country needs for national security purposes his declaring that the me plants need to continue to operate making the same sort of point about national security. The order means that states and local health departments. Can't shut the plant down. The order was a big relief to me. Companies they're saying gives a measure of certainty here that they'll be able to continue to operate and it's important support that they can point to when they're dealing with local health departments are state officials that are concerned for the health employees or the community in general and be able to say that there is a reason that they got to continue to operate. And there isn't authority here. That allowed to do. So how did you react when you saw that? President trump signed this order to use the defense production. Act TO KEEP meat processing plants. Open all say well somebody just kissed the Baby Air but light. Unbelievable are you serious. Lakisha doesn't agree. That meat processing is so important that it has to stay open after all. She says there's other types of food people can eat. There's a lot of plant based products being put out here. Tyson out plant based BEEF PLANT BASED SHRIMP I. I've seen it on our website. I can live off a fish squirrel rabbit and deer any day of the week. I'm in a country whether or not this executive order actually prevents meat. Shortages will really depend on whether workers show up even with more safety procedures at these plants. Workers still face the difficult choice. Go to work and potentially risk infection or stay home probably without a paycheck surreal economic choice. That people are faced with and a lot of them will go back to work. A lot of them say they want to go back to work for that matter. I talked to Employee OF KANSAS MEAT plants a couple of weeks ago he was recovering from covert nineteen. Knocked him out. He was sick for seventeen days at that point. Figured he was on the way to recovery. We asked him if he was going to go back to work at the plant which is where he believes he got it. There's no way to know for sure. He said he wanted to get back as soon as he could because he needed to make money and they needed to pay his bills and support his family. So you'll see people come back but how many of them come back is going to be something that Executive Order and the companies themselves can't entirely control as LAKISHA. She's not sure she'll go back to the ties implant. I'm really started looking into finding another job to be honest with you. I would not be able to live if I bought this home and gave it to my mom because all we have is each other right now and she can't fight this lung disease alone. My kids in my family matters more than that place. That's what it's coming down to you. I look at like this. Money is always going to be here. But I'M NOT GONNA get spared another life.
"national security" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet
"Episode of stay tuned in the crazy impeachment. News cycle many important national security stories. Seem to have gotten lost so I asked two of my good friends. Lisa Monaco and Ken Weinstein. No more about this stuff than just about anyone to get together kind of like and I do every week and make sense of what's happening. Kalisa encounter both longtime public servants and interestingly they've held the same set of hugely important jobs in law enforcement and national security they were both federal prosecutors in. DC both served as chief of staff to FBI Director. Bob Muller both went on to lead the National Security Division of the Justice Department in fact Ken was the first person to have that job and it was created after nine eleven and then both served his homeland and counter-terrorism advisors to the President Ken to President George W Bush and Lisa to President Barack Obama during which time one of her many any responsibilities was to coordinate the response to the Abullah outbreak. Lisa of course has been a guest on stay tuned before. So I'm excited. They have agreed to debrief us. On several important issues is making the headlines including the corona virus encryption and the controversy over the Carter Page size awards members of Kathy insider can hear Lisa and cans full conversation and and access other exclusive content including my weekly podcast with an milligram at cafe dot com slash. Insider that's cafe dot com slash insider. Or help you enjoy the special edition. Initiative stay tuned and be sure to catch this Thursday's regular episode with my guest John Dickerson. Who Help US break down the latest shade of crazy in the world of politics Good to be with. You can good to be here talking to you about something. That is not impeachment related Amen. I think I'm up to the eyeballs and the impeachment and radio back to national security. Exactly right we do actually have diverse backgrounds and that we spent a good bit of Time Justice Department seeing the world from a law enforcement spend perspective largely and then post nine eleven sort of moving more into the national security world as the priorities of the day dictated and the focus and the Justice Department the move toward counterterrorism and the threats from nation states and the like and so both of us sort of moved more into that area and then ended up in the White House doing an interagency process. Not Together though because that office wouldn't have fit. Both of US probably closet. You know we're sitting here having been asked by pre to Get together other and Spend a little time on issues that frankly I think this and I don't know what you can but there's a bunch of issues I think aren't getting enough attention these these days absolutely and it's too easy to get focused or remain focused all the time on the the most politically controversial matters that are going on and playing out in the front pages and forget about out some of the really important national security issues that are often lurking behind those headlines. So as we sit here today. The number number of cases of the corona virus are exploding exponentially. Actually we've got lots going on when it comes to the intelligence community and and questions of whether or not they should be giving their annual worldwide threat assessment actually in public there some indications that some of the intelligence community leaders. You don't WanNa do that for fear. Potentially of angering the president lots of controversy around the Pfizer process and the encryption issue is back in the news so lots of stuff to cover. If I could start and actually I look to you on the Krona Virus Lisa. You handled Ebola when you're at the White House so I think you uh up close and personal with these issues involving outbreaks. Luckily not that personal with a bullet but Now look the news about the corona virus. I I guess we should talk a little bit about what is it and should people be worried about this and you know one of the things that I think we we see particularly now coming out on a lot of these stories about Corona virus and we saw happen In two thousand fourteen when the Abullah scare happened in the Ebola pandemic happened is it's really hard to separate out fact act from hysteria quite frankly and that was a big problem with Ebola. So you know. The Corona virus ever now is was probably heard about this and seen a lot of On news reports. It's a new strain of virus coming out of China and it is basically a flu like illness. It has spread spread really exponentially. It looks like it was started. Came from a from a bat actually and then ultimately has now shown that it is spreading reading from human to human. which is what's really really scary? The now the focus in the last couple of days has turned to what is the US government doing about it. And I know from my experience that a lot of attention got paid at the beginning of the Abullah scare in two thousand fourteen with house. The government organized. That's right. WHO's in charge right? I mean you know from your own experience whenever there is a big security crisis whether it's a terrorist attack whether it's a natural natural disaster or a pandemic event the question very quickly turns to. WHO's in charge? You were President Bush's Homeland Security Adviser. Liser I think you all handle that. In a similar way as President Obama did which they said the Homeland Security Adviser the job you had for President Bush and the job I had under President Obama. This issue fell squarely in my responsibilities. Same with me. Same with my predecessors in the Bush White House and maybe you just step back for a second helmet visor still exists that position still exists. It's been reconfigured Under the trump administration but for both the Obama and Bush administrations and we had a portfolio that covered counter-terrorism general nature of the threat being any threat to the homeland but that covered terrorism pandemics pandemic planning continuity of government county operations in the event of a crisis port security and then as you mentioned dealing with natural disasters so it was quite a range of issues. You know people listening to this discussion might understand why President Obama had a nickname for me. What was that? He called me Doctor. Doom Yeah Kinda surprising doesn't doesn't make you feel welcome you walk in the Oval Office and the President Calls you Dr tended to say it with a smile you know exit. Yeah but the but it turns out you know Every time I talked to him every day right every morning I would meet with him. I know you met with President Bush every morning as part the President's Daily briefing right that morning meeting where we would talk about the issues of the day the biggest crises facing the country From a national security in Homeland Security Perspective and unsurprisingly. I never had good news to tell them right. Yeah that's not. Our job was never my job so he he took to calling me doctor doom because I came in talking to him about a Bolo or terrorist attacks were cybersecurity threats nickname for President Obama. Pray tell that's classified pacified. The leak we want a tribute to just between your mate thousand podcast listeners. You and I come from from a similar background as a law enforcement person in a national security person focusing mostly on on counter-terrorism about you but it was it was a steep learning curve when I walked in the White House and suddenly had to learn about the statutes governing federal assistance natural disasters or how to deal with the public health issues presented by an outbreak in. You got to be doing a bunch of things now to make sure that you do contain and minimize the impact here. So how prepared are we today. I guess I'd answer. Answer that in a few ways organizationally at the federal government level the secretary if health and human services oversees the Public Health Service right now. That's secretary as czar. That's a that's a big job for the secretary of Health and Human Services so you would think okay. That job falls to that person that Cabinet department but the reality is something like a bowl of something like this response. This needs to be government wide. It's not just a question of where the the medical facts. There's lots of questions about travel right. How do you deal with screening? Incoming passengers a lot of people listening to this probably have. I've seen pictures on the news about incoming passengers travelers from China or other places being checked having their temperature taken as they get off the plane to see if they might have fever and my show signs of infection all of that has got to be coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security with the folks who deal with customs who deal with the border they have to be coordinated with the local officials wherever that airport is so it is a big big undertaking and isn't confined to just one department or one agency. It really takes what we call a whole of government response. And that's why in my experience during when when Bulla was really escalating. There was a big controversy over whether or not the president should appoint a quote unquote. Czar seemed like every every problem at some point. Whether it's people in Congress or on the news starts saying well who's the czar who's the person in charge and you know frankly some of that that I think is political posturing sometimes but there's actually some a bit of wisdom around the question whatever you call it whether you call it a czar. You're or not at a certain point problem becomes so complex and so wide ranging that you need one person who can focus his or her attention twenty four seven right. And that's what we decided in a bola and so President Obama appointed a ron clean. Someone you and I both know Oh to be the Ebola response coordinator so that he could focus one hundred percent of his time on coordinating from the White House across the interagency originally across the different departments agencies thus far there has been no one who's been assigned to be a corona virus twenty nineteen czar I think the latest news we've got coming out of the White House is that there has been a task. Force appointed led by Secretary as are the secretary of Health and Human Services assist with a number of other cabinet secretaries who are on that task force and that the National Security Council in the White House is coordinating needing the work of this task force. But that's being done by the Deputy National Security Advisor the question of whether you rely on a CD do it or appoint point. Czar can have very real life implications in terms of how well Crisis Response is rolled out so one one question you hear about people being quarantined which sounds to me like you're taking oftentimes US citizens or citizens foreign lands who have rights who Presumably can be mobile and go wherever they want and they're being told by force or threat of coercion that they have to stay in one place. Is there a legal construct in our laws laws state and federal laws for that action in his out. Something that's happening here. Yeah so people will be surprised to learn that actually in a public health emergency local officials initials and federal public. Health officials. Have a significant amount of authority so in fact right now in the last couple of days people may have seen a story about route. There's over one hundred people. Now who are being quarantined for lack of a better word in Riverside California right where a a number of people who've traveled back who've who've come out of China where the where the virus started have returned to the United States but there's concern among public health officials and local officials that they could still be within the incubation period the period about to to fourteen days during With this virus that they could still be contagious. So the local officials have the authority to keep them in one place. So it doesn't compound the spread of the disease the sobering and even more sobering if you sort of extrapolate that out and think about human human contact here in the United States in this these are just the people who came in from China now. What happens when people get exposed here? Her and that population grows here. Could you see Corentin being done at a much more mass scale than one hundred whatever it is now so so bring in and Shows you the links that the government is to go to try to protect the society from these kind of bugs. Another issue can that I noticed in the news of late is I. Guess yes you might say an Oldie but a goodie or A not so goodie and a not so only but Is the issue of encryption. You and I both dealt with this in multiple incarnations I think when we were Chief of staff at the FBI when we were in the Justice Department heading the National Security Division at different times and then of course in the White House and it's a perennial Daniel issue that only seems to be getting more complicated and a harder one to solve and it just got into the news again in the last week or so with with attorney. General Bar really sticking out a pretty hardcore position we think our tech sector has the ingenuity to develop effective ways to provide secure encryption. Well also providing secure legal access and. It's well past time for some in the tech community to abandon the indefensible posture. That a technical article solution is not worth exploring and instead turn their considerable talent and ingenuity to developing products that will reconcile good cybersecurity. Hyper security to the imperative of public safety and national security. This was in the aftermath of the shooting down in Pensacola the FBI has determined was a terrorist attack in the fact that The government was not able to get into the phone or phones that were owned by the shooter charter. find out whom he was in touch with his dad bad. He's killed on the scene. But of course you WanNa know who's confederates. Were who might have been providing them support might might have been casing the location L.. All the kind of questions you would have not only as viscous or not only to prove the crime but also in this case to find out if there's anybody else out there who is looking to do for their crimes further further terrorist attacks but this issue is you said is a perennial issue and it goes back and various forums decades but in modern times it's gotten the terms terms the term Ford has been coined as going dark and the idea. Is that for one reason. Another in this case. Encryption the government's ability to surveillance in other words to intercept over here wiretap communications by phone or by email or chat electronic medications their ability. You do that gets narrowed for one. Reason or other and some parts of the spectrum of communication becomes unavailable to the government and our old friend..
"national security" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"Yeah and I think focusing on this question of regular channels and really explaining why that is such a concern i. It's important to understanding understanding how we safeguard national security interests. So why does that matter whether or not the United States. The president of the United States is going through the State Department or going through his private attorney. Rudy Giuliani Parnis or others. It's because government employees who work in the national security space adhere to a series of ethics rules. They have engage in conflicts disclosures financial disclosures a thorough interrogation of whether or not there are any areas in which there might be influence over their decisions or choices that are not in the national interest. That is very very carefully. Vetted and one thing. We're seeing play out in real time with respect to Mr Giuliani. Mr Parnasse and others is that these individuals appear to have at the same time as having been carrying out. Donald Trump's political private political agenda also also appear to have potentially been carrying out their own financial engine. Does we're working for other individuals including other foreign interests and so it really does allow some insight insight into why there should be such concerned for this process irregularity. Now the president of the United States is entitled to go outside the ordinary reprocess. He is the head of a unitary executive branch and the job of the executive branch and and the State Department is in essence to do what the president wants. The reason why the president felt compelled or the likely reason why the president felt compelled to go outside of this channel is not because he couldn't direct them for example to freeze as aid as he did but because those channels are designed to facilitate congressional oversight to ask questions on behalf of the nation and and to comply with laws that are designed to ensure that the policies being carried on behalf of the United States are being done in a lawful full and transparent manner so that we the American public and limited circumstances. Congress on our behalf can make a full assessment and decide whether whether or not we want to hold the president the executive branch accountable either through congressional oversight in extreme cases things like impeachment but also just whenever we go to the polls and we decide whether or not to re elect someone as president. This is all crucial critical information. I think is a really vivid Sort of illustration of Waya these processes Mandarin really go to our core national security interest. Slow so Susan. Is that one of the fundamental things that's at stake here is The possibility as we finish up This impeachment trial of the affirming of the legality of irregularity in the office of the presidency. Yeah I I think one of the risks is that what had long been believed to be the fundamental check on. This is that if the president did something like this if if in fact he used and abused at the discretion in this flexibility. That's inherent in the office in order to pursue his own political gains and goals. That he he would pay a price for that right or he or she would pay a price either in the form of impeachment Orrin not being reelected and so. I do think that what we're seeing right now. Is Trump is proposing post. The this is a legitimate way to use the powers of this office. He's not apologizing he sang. This was a perfect phone call. This is a valid use of presidential power. And and so what. We're at risk of right now. Is I the United States. Senate acquitting the president along partisan lines and thus ratifying behavior as acceptable able to the United States Senate and and I do think that really tees up the question for the twenty twenty election of do we want to ratify this use of power or not because because the way the American people decide if something is acceptable is when they cast their votes and if Donald Trump is reelected that will be a significant expression by the American people that we are okay with this and that's something that not just Donald Trump for the second term but future presidents will learn from it and something. We should take very seriously Ashley. Well Susan. Hennessy is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. She's executive editor of Law. Fair previously served as an attorney in the office of General Counsel of of the National Security Agency and author of unmaking the Presidency Donald Trump's war on the world's most powerful office. Susan thank you so much for being with us today. Thanks for having me and Barbara mcquade law professor at the University of Michigan former. US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and also served as assistant US Attorney in Detroit.
"national security" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"States. Well we are talking this hour about looking through the National Security Lens at the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump and this bigger question about how these impeachment proceedings might redefine reshape our concept of national security in the power of the presidency. So we WANNA know what your question is about that long term impact this is on point. And what's it take to start something from nothing. And what does it take to actually build old. If I'm guy rise every week on how I built this speak with founders behind some of the most inspiring companies in the world. NPR's how I built this. Listen now this point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarti. We're talking about the long term national security implications of the impeachment of President President Donald Trump really that bigger question about presidential power and national security. I'm joined today by season Hennessy. She's he's a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and executive editor at Law Fair and she previously served as an attorney in the office of General Counsel at the National Security Agency. Barbara mcquaid also joins us. She's a law professor at the University of Michigan Formerly Assistant. US Attorney in Detroit for twelve years serving his deputy chief of the National Security Unit. Now Barbara and Susan you both very meticulously laid out As you see it the threats that were posed by president. Trump's behavior vis-a-vis Ukraine. But of course his defense team has a very strong response to each one of those. Those allegations I just want to play a little bit From what one of President Trump's lawyers told the Senate so here's Eric Hirschman responding to the house managers case. He spoke before the Senate during the trial on Monday. The house managers would have the American people believe that there is a threat and imminent threat to the national security of our country for which the president must be removed immediately from the highest office in the land because what because he had a phone call with a foreign leader disgusts corruption because he paused for short period of time giving away our tax dollars to a foreign country. That is their theory. It is absurd on its face not one American life was in jeopardy or lost by the short delay and they know it. That's one of the president's legal team. Eric Hirschman speaking to the Senate on Monday. So Susan Hennessy. Several things within their. You've heard it before. I mean th the president and his supporters have repeatedly said that his actions were completely normal in the context of the presidency. A phone phone call to a foreign leader. A temporary pause In in foreign aid and that looked at it from that way it's absurd as as as Eric's as Hirshman said it's absurd to consider this a threat to national security. Your Response I. I'm not sure that the president's attorneys we can even credit them. I'm with with truly believing the argument that they're making because of course nobody here is suggesting that the president of the United States wasn't allowed to have a conversation with a foreign leader No one was suggesting that he didn't have the limited power to freeze foreign aid. And a number of circumstances. The issue here is why he did it and the motivations and whether or not he was being motivated in the actual national interest or not and so for example you know prior presidents have a have held up aid They do so After and with the consent of Congress right they informed Congress about what they're doing and why the openly take that position and recognize a CO equal branches role in defining. US National Security Policy. Whenever we we talk about the imminence of this threat in first of all I think many Americans would take issue with the notion that The only thing that matters to our national security is American lives rather the lives of our lives of our allies. I'm additionally whenever we think about as Barbara mentioned earlier in the broadcast I'm the integrity of US elections. You know one. I'm saying that is really astonishing about the the allegations. A card of the impeachment inquiry is how close the president came to getting away with it. It had the Ukrainians actually announced this investigation into Joe Biden into Hunter Biden. I'm at this point. We would all be having a conversation about those investigations. The media would have been often running would have been almost impossible to disentangle. How exactly this all got started in the first place and so the core of the allegation here is is not that? The president froze military aid. It's that the president frozen military aid in order to extort a foreign leader into becoming coming an opposition researcher for his upcoming political campaign that the president of the United States used the foreign policy powers of his office to request a foreign foreign country undertake an investigation of a US citizen absolute valid criminal predicate. These are core Ah these really are going to the very heart of how we think about a potential abuses of office and so the idea that this would be absurd on its face you know. I think that really just doesn't pass the smell test. This is this is what impeachment was designed for an an and frankly I don't think I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this. These allegations allegations are among the most serious presidential misconduct. That has ever been alleged in the history of the American presidency and and it's foolish to minimize. That will well him also. We should note that the General Accounting Office of fairly recently found that the office of Management and Budget did violate U. S. law in withholding that aid from or delaying the aid to to Ukraine. So there's sort of an official imprimatur on on part of your argument Susan but but Barbara. I think the thing that I keep coming back to that I struggle with is is a hero. Both of you are saying and yet there are still many Americans out there who who who look at the president's actions and and see seed his actions as normal within the context of a presidency and the threat that they see is the threat of Congress preventing a president from being able to do his job. I mean what would you say to to those listeners. Were listening right now. What Eric Hirschman did in that segment that you played played in what Members of the public are hearing is a common defense tactic which is isolated certain aspects of the president's conduct and say look at that. That's not a crime. Your is your defense attorneys. Do this all the time. In a trial and of course isolated acts are not it is the totality of the circumstances and jurors are instructed to use their common commonsense to draw reasonable inferences from the totality of the circumstances. But two things they're trying to isolate one is the call that the call is the whole thing. That's all the president did. The call itself is problematic where he asks for a favor but certainly that is not the totality of the case. You have to look at a months of negotiations that occurred heard with Gordon. Sandland with Rudy Giuliani with Kurt. Volker in fact that very morning before the call Kurt Volker has a text message exchange with an aide. The president is Alinsky and Ukraine. where he says you gotta get trump to you got to promise president trump? You're going to do with the investigations. That should be his goal in this call and so we we know that there's far more than just this call so by isolating focus on the call. Eric Hirschman and the defense team is trying to isolate one single piece of evidence To try yeah to say that there's nothing wrong with it. The other is this brief pause on the aid and that it automatically flowed so no no harm no foul but it is the demand and that was the harm bribery extortion or what is referred to in the law is an inchoate crime that means it is complete upon the demand even if the condition. She's never satisfied. It's the demand that does the harm. When president trump demanded a corrupt favor? He did some very damaging things to our country he harmed. I'm to our reliability as an ally around the world that we fulfill our promises. When we say we're GONNA give you aid? We give you that aid and so it harms our credibility on the national stage age the other thing it does is harms our credibility as a corruption fighter. The Department of Justice has programs all around the world to promote the rule of law in emerging democracies. We teach prosecutors how to fight corruption if we ourselves are engaged in corruption. We've completely shut ourselves in the foot in our ability to be successful there so I would suggest suggests look at the big picture not isolated incidents and when you see defense attorneys doing that. Call them out. We're trying to understand the long term implications for US US national security within the context of the impeachment trial of president. Donald Trump again. We're at eight hundred four. Two three eight two five five. Let's go to Eric. WHO's calling early from Kettering Ohio Eric? You're on the air. Hi Thank you for having me Speaking of the big picture you know somebody had said something that earlier about like That was a tough. That congress is having a tough time showing this I it's comically clear. What happened with the call all but showing it through national security lands but they in the big picture is is that Congress has given so much power to the president for a hundred plus years? Now and they're they're really going to have to work at it to get that power back and it might not happen under under a Democratic Congress with Republican president could be vice versa And so they'll be political Things going on there but it just going to be tough like I like everybody knows to show this sort of election interference type of thing with national security security. Because I mean one could say like going back I mean even to the nineteen thirties where presidents would say. I don't know if I want to do this this or that. As it pertains national security and the potential election because I want to be able to do this or that and that impacts live whereas whereas you know so some people might be more responsive to that in twenty twenty and say oh I see that national security but with an election they just don't don't and then you know And then to my knowledge there you know things were hacked. And they're right. It's harder it's harder to it's harder to see either to connect the dots to see the Constellation for what it is. Eric thank you so much for your call Susan. NFC Do you want to respond to that. I mean Eric seems to be heading heading in the direction of saying that we have been had we been. The United States has consolidated power in the executive so much over the past many decades that it's the perhaps it was inevitable that we got to this point. Yes I think. Erica's certainly being descriptively accurate. On both terms of the the migration Gratien of of presidential power and the migration of power from Congress to the president over time and it's also true that our founders understood they were creating honest donald empowered executive they debated it and they understood the risks of abuse And so they they set a counterbalance and the counterbalance to having an executive that was empowered and thus was able to act decisively in a manner that could preserve national interests was when the president used those authorities to harm the national no interest or to not act in the national interest. The remedy was to impeach him and remove him from office and so the system that we're seeing playing out right now. Is the system of Congress Setting Bounds. And so there's a lot of focus on whether or not the president is ultimately going to be convicted or acquitted on but I think people should keep in mind that the in the history of the United States a quote unquote failed. Impeachment is the history of impeachment impeachment without removal and that prior impeachment have served to set really important boundaries stories around executive power by having Congress. Make this very very strong statement. This is unacceptable conduct. This is impeachable conduct. That's that's not just a message to this president also message to future president. Yes but Susan if I may ask you said a little earlier that yes perhaps other presidents had paraphrasing. Correct me if I'm wrong but perhaps other presidents had You know had done things before that might have seemed on the surface of them not in the interests of the United States. I'm I'm just I'm trying to think about. Maybe we should sort of more thoroughly interrogate what we mean when we say the national security of the United States because is was president Reagan's ends involvement in Iran Contra operating against the national security interests in the united of the United States was President George W Bush starting a war invading Iraq. which were we're still? We're still bogged down there. Almost twenty years later was that in opposition to the national security interest of the United States. And if so Howard those two who actions just random examples. I'm sure we could come up with one in the Obama administration concretely different than what president trump has done. Yes I think. Those are actually pretty good good examples because they are examples of presidents Pursuing policy goals that large numbers of people disagree with..
"national security" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"The thrust of the first article of impeachment charge of abuse of power quote. President trump used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and quote. So is that what's really at stake here. A redefinition of presidential power and US national security this hour on point will explore that impeachment teach mint and the security of the United States. And we're joined by a terrific panel today. First of all Barbara mcquade. She is a law professor at the University of Michigan again she previously served as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and she also served as deputy chief of the National Security Unit in the US Attorney's Office in Detroit for more than a dozen years ears. She joins us today from Ann. Arbor Michigan Barbara mcquade. Welcome back to on point. Thanks magna delighted to be with you also with today's Susan Hennessy. She's the executive editor. You're of law fair and previously served as an attorney in the office of General Counsel at the National Security Agency. She's also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. And that's where she. He joins us from today. Susan Hennessy welcome to you. Thanks for having me so let me just start with. You is the question of of a threat to national security One of the things that make this impeachment different from the other two in. US history. I think it does. I think clearly this sort of this national security concern turn goes to the core of White House felt compelled to pursue impeachment over this and not over past sort of misconduct in the trump administration. Ministration We actually saw sort of turning point of support for impeachment was whenever a number of new members of the House of Representatives who were from sort of purple districts six coming out and saying we have national security backgrounds and we feel that the president has now compromise the security of the United States We should be clear that whatever we're talking about. What is that issue in the impeachment being a national security threat that's distinct from disagreeing about policy? So it's one thing to say we don't believe You know we don't believe that the president has You know the the the appropriate policy regarding the extent to which the United States should be supporting Ukraine in its conflict against wants Russia That's one thing and that's something that we ordinarily don't think of with insert of the rubric of impeachment but really just sort of policy disagreements and differences. But what we're talking I came out. Here is actually the subversion by President of a stated. US policy of a policy Endorsed by his own administration and appearing to use the powers of his office not for not actually to achieve any policy goal at all certainly not a policy related to the national interests of the united and it states but instead personal political favors and I think that really is why were here right now so barbara do you think that in the Impeachment trial trial proceedings. We've heard so far both in the case laid out by the house managers and now the president's defence counsel is this question of national security actually being lost a little bit. I don't know that Um we have focused enough on it. I think if I have one complaint about the presentations by both the house managers and the defense is that they're opening arguments have been far too long. I think that you risk distracting the fact finder the Senate and the the the public that they serve the more you talk because then there are a lot of things that people can point to and say you know. This is all about Joe Biden. This is all about Hunter Biden and I think in a more succinct presentation there would be the focus an emphasis on national security. But as Susan says that is the thing and that likely convinced Those who were reluctant to wade into impeachment initially with regard to the Mueller investigation to convince them that this was worthy of impeachment because You know just as prosecutors use discretion and don't charge a defendant every time A crime is committed. You know you don't charge every case of Jaywalking or littering. You use your resources I in their scare percents you use them. Judiciously and removal from office is an extraordinary remedy. That shot should come into play only for very egregious misconduct and hear hear that national security Betrayal is what makes it a worthy of removal from office. I do think that the more you talk about other do things and other factors the more that message can get diluted well so as as you both know of course the that alleged betrayal is laid out very clearly in the first article of impeachment. But I want to hear a little bit about how The house managers talked about this question of national security as they laid out their case. So here's Adam Schiff Talking about The withholding of US aid from Ukraine and the National Security Trudy implications of that and he also asserted that the president bought into Russian propaganda and that that had serious consequences appliances. So here's what Adam Schiff said. Last Thursday I mean when we we ask about okay. What's the national security implication of what the president did? How much more clear can it be that he's not only pushing? Russian propaganda is not only misleading Americans about who interfered in the last election. And he's not only doing the Kremlin of favor but that he's he's withholding aid from a nation at war the Russians not only got him to deflect blame from their interference in our democracy but they got him to withhold military aid house manager. Adam Schiff last week Susan. Hennessy deconstruct the that. That comment from from Adam shift a little bit I somehow I hear that. He's bringing Russia into this which might be sort of a an definitely a an umbrella issue here but the Democrats make a mistake here by by pulling Russia into what would otherwise be very easily definable set of actions at the president's the made regarding Ukraine. I would imagine that Congressman Schiff is is mentioning Russia part in sort of an allusion to. Do you know the the Mueller investigation and of course longstanding concerns about this president and the motivations of this particular presidency. I'm I don't know I know that it particularly muddies the water. This is already a rather complex story. So what the president was seeking investigations. woods conditioning. Essentially according to the testimony and documents in those far was conditioning its military aid on a number of investigations. So one of these investigations whereas was into his political opponent Joe Biden and his family. That's relatively easy to understand another one of these investigations with into essentially debunked conspiracy theory that boil down onto the idea that it was Ukraine not Russia that had been responsible for the twenty sixteen election interference again. That's contrary to the position of the. US intelligence intelligence community all of trump all of trump's own administration officials have come forward and said no they agree with the intelligence community. Russia did in fact interfere in the twentieth me sixteen election and of course this has been a sore spot for the president Who who perceives this as a sort of a knock on his legitimacy and so A this sort of this conspiracy theory. This debunked theory that I'm reportedly has origins in in Russia in Russian propaganda That this company crowd strike had somehow become involved in the hacking Not was that is what the president wanted the Ukrainians actually investigate. And so it's yet another example sample of the president pursuing his own personal political interests but it also as a demonstration of the extent to which sort of conspiracy theory and in and foreign influence appears to lead the United States president to take concrete actions. And and that that is something that we should be extremely alarmed about okay so so Barbara Than Lemme just PIGG P. Piggybacking. On what Susan said. Let me just turn the question. A little more directly. Okay for people listening. What should they understand Dan? I mean how would you define in your mind what the national security threat is posed by the actions of the president of the United States. I think there are a number of national security threats that arise from his conduct I looking at the request for Activity and announcement kind of investigations. That would interfere with our elections. We have statutes on the books that make it a crime for anyone to solicit a thing of value in in connection with an election from foreign national or foreign government. And that's because we want Americans deciding American elections when foreign actors and formed governments get involved in elections. They're not acting in our best interests. They're acting in their best interest. So that's one foreign involvement in our election upsets the democratic process. The other is when a president asks for a favor from a foreign government and keeps that a secret that is grounds for blackmail when you apply apply for a security clearance in the intelligence community. One of the things they ask you and one of the things they ask everyone you know all of your friends and their friends is. Is there anything it could be used to blackmail this person. If they're in a position of holding the nation's secrets and if president trump has done something untoward and the government of Ukraine. He knows about that. He has no compromised his ability to lead this country as president that is also significant and then with regard to the military aid. Ukraine is an L. I.. Fighting a war with Russia and by withholding that aid for several months People no doubt lost their lives in Ukraine and I know that Mike Pompeo peyot allegedly said the other day that Do you think any Americans care about Ukraine. Well if they don't they should and ultimately Carrying about Ukraine crane comes to the doorstep of all of us in the United States as representative Jason Pro said during his argument. We are helping Ukraine fight. Russia Russia there so that we don't have to fight Russia here. Ukraine is the gateway to Europe from Russia and allowing that Russian aggression to continue. NEW UNCHECKED MAKES OUR allies in Europe and safe as well as US here in the United.
"national security" Discussed on The CSIS Podcast
"I've got hand so people who wanNA use Oko as a weapon in the budget debate that's entirely exterior bright national security and they feel that either eliminating Oko or putting Oko under threat will strengthen their hand in the broader budget fights in Washington over the Budget Control Act and what follows it and ultimately their critique of Oko isn't even a critique of Oko. It's just a a weapon that they can news to bring people to their point of view and that ultimately okay. Maybe fine if you're only care about the budget but if you care about national security that's wrong so we will now forever ever associate George Costanza not only with the New York Yankees but with the overseas contingency operations. He can be proud. Yeah Oh this is big time. I mean you've really added a new dimension to Seinfeld into George. This is great all right todd. In addition to being the chief editor ideas you're also an author. What did you write about this time? So what I wrote about my bad idea. This year stemmed from report released earlier on the future of the Air Force. My bad idea is continuing to keep small fleets pizza Aircraft the problem with this is that the air force overtime has make cutbacks in its air force inventory and so that they have a lot of different types of aircraft aft- but many of them are in very small numbers. There's a huge cost to this. That if you look at the data what the data shows is that your cost per aircraft operating operating sustain it scales inversely with the number of aircraft you have in that fleet so when you have small fleets each aircraft costs a lot more to to operate and maintain you'd be better off consolidating unto you know fewer number of types of aircraft but your numbers of each type so to put in perspective in the past twenty years. The Air Force's budget has grown by sixty percent above inflation. The number of aircraft in the inventory has gone down by thirteen percent Over the same period money for well good question so a lot of it's going to higher personnel costs and higher operation and sustainment cost why they're starting to call a chair force well. They've always called it. The Air Force the army that calls it that now but you know you look at the Air Force's budget today. It's the second highest in the history of the Air Force second highest budget budget ever and it's gotten nearly the smallest inventory of aircraft it's ever had so this is a trend that cannot continue indefinitely ultimately we're GONNA price ourselves ourselves out of the ability to feel the force of sufficient size to execute the strategy and so you know what the Air Force needs to be focusing on doing is eliminating some of the small fleets of aircraft aircraft that they maintain in very small numbers. You know five or ten or fifteen of a particular type of aircraft there are some exceptional cases. Where you're not going to be able to do that? I'll give you a good example. You know the B. Two stealth bomber willing have twenty of those planes. But you know what it's our only long range stealthy aircraft. It's the the only one we have in the inventory. would not make sense to eliminate it it is expensive operate though Because we have in such small numbers but that gives us a major strategic advantage in some cases. This is exactly so you have to do it selectively but you know you look across the fleet like the eight is the j-stars aircraft that we use for ground surveillance We only we have sixteen of those planes. We do that mission with other aircraft and Air Force is planning to transition it to other platforms in the future but the sooner we can eliminate these small fleets the better from a cost perspective because ultimately this is limiting the air force's ability to sustain the aircraft. It has today and to potentially grow grow in the future so you have a list of all the recommendations for planes that can be eliminated right. I mean you know I think the Air Force has got to sit down and do a hard hard look at where our aircraft where they can offload the mission to other aircraft. Where can they do it? Through other systems entirely through space and where their aircraft draft maybe just they have to accept some risk because what those aircraft are designed to do is not a priority anymore. So I don't get too specific aircraft recommendations I leave that to the planners is in the air force but I think this should be an overarching factor. In their planning is that they've got to be looking at the small fleets and trying to eliminate them combine them as much as possible. Okay now the final articles in the series of bad ideas in national security are coming out in just a few days days and then as our annual custom you vote on what is the absolute worst idea and national security. Are there any front runners out the right now for each one of US each one of you WanNa like. Give a little preview of your worst idea. Kathy you WANNA go first. Yeah I mean sticking with the strategy theme there are quite a few really excellent and trees beyond my show is of course excellent worst worst ideas and the one that I think is just really well. Articulated is by two non. CSI Scholars Alexandra Evans and Alexandra Starr Alexandra's will refer to them. As Soon Sandra Evans was from rand in America grew and there are are bad. IDEA is assuming the small wars era is over and I love when people point to the nuance and complexity of strategy. Because I think there is such a yearning for clarity analogies to the Cold War. Great Power Competition China. None of that is untrue. If you will on some level but it's so lacking in nuance and what the Alexandra's do so well. In their piece is point to the potential title to lose a lot of knowledge and to forget that countries like China and Russia to the extent that they are challenges in the future are going she we still use and rely on the skills and knowledge of small wars so the US ought to have that in its kitbag alongside a larger conventional conventional and strategic tools in the toolkit so I thought it was a great piece grew look forward to that one Andrew. What's your worst bad idea and national security? I don't think it's going to be the overall winner because it's too arcane but the arcane one's really appeal to me yeah and it was a piece Justin Joe Frans full disclosure. He's a longtime friend of mine from Middle School and suggestions also with the air force correct. He is he's a PhD economist in the Air Force. Now well this is. Why appeal to me because I also have training economists sort of a non practicing economists now al but so he makes what I think is deceptively simple but very insightful argument which he says that we should be careful about paying military service members more to do the same amount of work and so he's not arguing against pay raises per se but he's making the point that ultimately increases in pay should be tied to increases in productivity vity? Yeah and we see this usually not always but usually in the private sector that workers earn more when there are more productive and so yes we talk about cost of living increases. But the idea is. You're actually going to get more out of your workers. Otherwise you get into this loop as todd was talking about earlier on the aircraft side. We're GONNA one employee because you don't have enough money you to pay them all if you're not increasing their productivity and earn more revenue but of course the government doesn't earn revenue right. So you don't have that same market signal to measure productivity about and so. His argument is if the military is also getting more productive over time. Then these pay increases ultimately will price out of being able to do critical national security missions. And so what. I think he's getting at is. There's a tendency in the military to measure capability in terms of force structure and ultimately. That takes you down a path to obsolescence LECI- so tied up in his argument about pay is really an argument. About how do we measure military capability and understand. That's because we lack some of the typical typical market signals for doing this. We're GONNA have to come up with other means to ensure that we are increasing productivity over time fascinating. Todd what I really like one of the bad ideas. I really like this this year. is one by Chris. Prebble Patrick Eddington Cato Institute. And they wrote a piece about how over-classification is a bad idea. This comes up repeatedly in different working groups around here on around town what it basically boils down to is. We have a tendency in the national security. The community particularly on the Intel side to just overclassify classify the highest possible level. And what that ends up doing is restricting information. MM from getting to the people who really need it and also from getting to the public when it needs to get to the public now. Of course you know. Kristen and Patrick agree with this. That there are things that need to be kept secret of course right but too often we default to the super high level of secrecy and it basically cuts the public out of the loop and in the process cuts a lot of policy makers out of the loop as well you know and this is something that actually came up Reagan National Defense Forum on the panel that cat spoke on an regards to space systems systems. And for too long we classified virtually everything to do with space the threats we were seeing in space our space capabilities our own operations in space operations of others in space to the point that in the public catalogue of objects that are in space. There are a lot of things that are classified and therefore aren't reported in this public catalogue but you can see them. You can literally take a telescope out at night and pointed in the sky and see these objects six that we are refusing to report that exists there and so it creates all kinds of problems because number one it exposes the fact that we're hiding stuff in space and makes us look bad language to talk about and we can't talk about it and then also when there is a potential conjunction to objects in space are about to hit each other. If one of them is a classified object that we haven't reported. How do we then tell the other object? Watch out we're coming through. Let's negotiate on how we're going to maneuver to avoid a collision. It's in everyone's everyone's best interest if that object is secret then we can't have that back and forth communication to avoid a problem. There's a lot of examples of where we overclassify classified but I thought this was a really good one given that this is something that has persisted through multiple administrations and that at some point Congress. I think is going to have to step in and tackle the whole classification system and how thanks get reviewed so I think we can all agree what we learned from these bad ideas is. There's a lot of things we can do policy wise for the good. I think I think so. Yeah I mean that is the point to point out the bad and you know point out what we could do better great. I thank you all for coming on today and for all of our our listeners. Who WanNa read all the bad ideas national scary and find out what the absolute worst idea was? Go to the defense three sixty site you can find it from Our website csis dot org where you can just go to defense three sixty and you'll see it there so thanks for everybody for coming on today and more to come thank.
"national security" Discussed on The CSIS Podcast
"I'm Bob Schieffer and I'm Andrew Schwartz of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and this is the truth of the matter. This is the podcast where where we break down the policy issues the days since the politicians are having their say we will excuse them with respect and bring in the experts many of them from on the CSIS people who have been working these issues for years no spin no bombast. No finger-pointing just informed discussion. Today's episode of the truth of the matter I'm flying solo as Bob. Shieffer is out of town each year around this time. CSIS defense policy experts experts published their bad ideas national security series the series features short articles on recently considered not too obvious bad ideas in the defense and foreign in policy space by CSI experts and their colleagues from other think tanks. Today I'm joined by three authors of this year's edition Dr Kathleen Hicks Senior Vice President President Henry Kissinger chair director of the International Security Program at CSI ask Andrew Hunter. WHO's director of the Defense Industrial Initiatives Group at and a senior in your fellow in the international security program and by Todd Harrison Director of the defense budget analysis and aerospace security project? CSI ASS and the leading voice an editor editor behind the bad ideas series. Welcome everybody. Let's talk about ideas. We've got the Dream Team of CSIS's international no security program here and I have to ask you guys every year. We come up with bad ideas in national security. That's our signature series. Why don't we you do good ideas and national security? Why are we doing bad ideas and national security? You know it's Kinda like my kids complain that you know there's a mother's Day father's Day. Why isn't there a kids day? Hi Response is every day is kids. So that's kind of what what it is you know at a think-tank like what we normally do. Is We research we analyze. We look AH good policy solutions. What are the good ideas? And that's what we normally write about. So who are we decided to do in this series is we're gonNA take one month with this limited series stories of articles and focus on. What are the bad ideas that are out there because there are a lot of different bad ideas out there and sometimes you just need to call him out? You Know Al Right Todd. So let's start with you. This is the third year of the bad idea series. What was the thing that actually inspired you to launch it back in two thousand seventeen? I I mean you know I it was. Let's call out some of these bad ideas that are out there that keep lingering but also as China getting into the spirit of festivus from seinfeld talking talking about you know how I got a lot of problems with the use people. And now you're going to hear about it to Frank Costanza. We have a lot of grievances. WanNa grow I'm GonNa now now I'm going to be like Hello Dr Hicks to think of it as their Seinfeld. The podcast here. They just just wait two hundred coming. Okay here we go all right so todd back to you I. I'm sorry I digress. It's kind of A. You know a therapeutic thing to kind of release yes you know. What are the things that have been bugging us all year long and we decided to do it in December in the month of December as a series of short articles? So you know each person could air something something. That's been bugging them that year and since then this is our third year of doing it. We've expanded we've actually started asking scholars from other. Think tanks to write for us as well to air their grievances so it's Kinda turned into an annual tradition. That's fun I love how we've opened it up and you have other experts from other think tanks to bring their ideas into to to have they really dove into it as well you think they get into the spirit of it. Oh absolutely so todd. From the first year reached out. This is todd brainchild and he. We reached out beginning in the first year. This is now third year and every year. We have great participation from left right and center and all in between and we thought that was really important in terms of getting. You know that's part of our mission. Here is right so bad ideas. Come from all quarters and community right. Yeah so doctor Hicks let me ask you in your piece. You argue that strategy the quote explicitly says what we will not do is a bad idea. Yeah tell us about that. Yeah this this is. This is my favorite. Oh I I'll pay later I'M GONNA pick you know and this is my favorite of the bad ideas so I'm just GonNa lay it out there. Yeah so sometimes you'll hear around Washington or elsewhere military in particular in the Defense Department needs to just say what it's not GonNa do just needs to get it out there and say it's not going to do and it's very a simple it resonates with people. Yeah we'll just say what we're not GONNA do. The problem is that we point to in our piece and I did my piece with Joe. Federal Ritchie. WHO works works in the international student programs? Well shut out to Joe Shot. Joe So joe and I argue is that that may feel very satisfying but it puts you into traps. The first and biggest gift trap is when because we are inside of democracy that's driven by political officials elected by the people choices around use of force in particular dealer are driven by that dynamic and dod gets a say but it doesn't get the final say and so sometimes when dod tries to go out or even when you have officials at higher levels Try to go out and say we're not going to do this. Then you don't prepare for it and in point of fact what happens is sometimes you do it. So the classic example sample is the statement by Natch Isten that we would not get involved in Korea. Korea was outside our perimeter of interest. This in fact on the verge of of the Korean War some have argued. It's historically debatable. Whether or not that was seen as a green light by the Chinese to help along the Korean War and then the United States reversed positions immediately decided that Korea was in fact inside. It's strategic interest. A much more. Recent set of cases is around for example Syria. Where you had Obama's red line you high Obama's red line and then you had in two thousand seventeen even more recently? A statement by Nikki. Haley when she was the UN ambassador saying that. We're not sure sure that we're so worried about the Assad regime and the Assad regime turnaround used chemical weapons in that context in two thousand seventeen and then the US actually did respond so it can be very strategically not generally confusing and it can also as I said really the bigger challenge is not just the confusion but that it can lead you to be unprepared for the things that ultimately the people who elect act senior officials. Actually expect you to be ready for and then the second area we point to is the mission set piece and this is really popular one of the ones I like to point to is counter-narcotics Arcata There's almost no constituency inside. Dod that really wants to do counter-narcotics wise It's just on a mission that they see. Inside the strategic culture mission set of the Department Hartman Homeland Security Homeland Security oriented and at the time particularly in the late seventies through the eighties into the early nineties. There was a very strong push during the war on drugs associated. Mostly with the Reagan. And then I Bush administration's four judy to take a bigger role and interdiction particularly at the borders over air and sea and dod really resisted that because it seed in their mission space but again the politicians elected by the people vote. Congress cares a lot about the warranty. Europe took over from border states. And they've been very insistent on DVD having a role so there was a other examples like this but areas were D.. And people who think about defenses invest huge amounts of energy and time in pen writing about how duty shouldn't be involved in these areas when the political realities. Frankly are very clear that they're going to to be involved so what we argue instead is not. Don't have any priorities right. This is the false narrative is not the alternatives. Don't have priorities don't strategy. It's no no no think carefully. Awfully about how you articulate what you do think your priorities are very clear about those priorities. And focus on Jilay of the force to deal with the uncertainty certainty that exists in living in an uncertain world. That democracy predicts will happen for our military so we argue. It's the best focus of strategy is being clear about what you think. The priorities are and making sure that you're aligning and being clear to that political leadership and the public about what it takes to be realistic about what it takes in terms of ways and means to execute those objectives and then be ready to flex semper Gumby as the marines. Like to say okay so this is especially important now in in the strategic environment wherein I would assume the world's a little uncertain I don't know if you and your podcast little theme of the podcast so yeah Andrew. You written a piece that it might be a little bit controversial in the defense budget space by arguing that eliminating the overseas contingency operations funding which is also known as OKO WPRO or war. Funding is a bad idea. Can you explain that. Yeah well and this is where we get. I think back into the true spirit of Seinfeld and this debate because there's the variety. I'm GonNa believe me. The payoff Costanza at his fullest. Oh good because I think there's two George Constanza articulated arguments against Oko. That I think perfectly encapsulate why it's a bad idea to eliminate Oko. Okay let me just say I there are. There are lots of critics of Oko and critics and Okoh has been abused in prior prior year so there are legitimate critics of calm sitting next to one of them here at the table but there are those who take that critique to stop of sang. We'd be better off without Oko if if we just abolished it entirely. And I think that's where you step over the line into insanity the argument against Oko or critique of Oko is that there have been things included in Okoh that don't belong from there things that are enduring requirements that belong in the base budget and or things that should simply not be done at all whether they're enduring or transitory and from time to time that's happened but my argument is it's not the fault of Oko it's us so the first Costanza argument that I think you have to grasp is it's not you. It's me right. This is his famous line home. It's not you it's me. The problem the problem with Oko is the abuse of Oko was not the fault of Oko. It's the people who set the policy. It's Congress it's the people the Department who set the budget and the comptroller's office and leadership who have put things in Okoh that probably legitimately don't belong there. Yeah but we need the Oil Co. mechanism so we do. We need funding. That is not fully preplanned that can be responsive and reactive to emerging requirements. We saw this with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where we had to rapidly piddly spin up funding for variety of activities countering the ID threat where we needed the funding. That hadn't been fully planned out. Because we couldn't just go. You know canceled. Three aircraft craft carriers to fund the war. That would not have been smart. So we needed that flexible funding and this is evidenced by the fact that we've had some form of Oko whether it's called Oko or emerging simple title for over twenty five years right so it's going to happen right. We're going to need this money. We're going to do it in some way and the reality is the Oakland mechanism is a pretty good way. I think of doing it so you've got this. It's not you it's not argument. The second argument you get is..
"national security" Discussed on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
"Of course of action or the president was going to capitulate which seemed highly unlikely so something was going to come acropper at some stage it seemed but it it's hard to think of anyone who in Republican politics and foreign policy or any of of our politics and foreign policy who agrees with Donald Trump on North Korea has approached North Korea on this idea of let's fight the Taliban to Camp David or on the the trump tariffs which are a national security issue and I it's hard to think of who would fit well. I think there are degrees degrees of fitting. I mean let's break this down. There's there's two levels of challenge. One is finding a national security advisor who can serve the president effectively from the vantage point of being a good national security adviser. I think Bolton failed in that regard to the extent that he refused to run a proper national national security decision making process that involved all of the cabinet level principals sitting around the table wrestling with the analysis and the facts and the intelligence. It's in the very difficult options that surround any tough national security decision. He didn't run that process and he arrogated a lot out of a thirty to himself and I was wrong on a number of important issues having said that we could have the second coming of as national security adviser the greatest one in history running a perfect process and still we'd have a president who could care less and wasn't as an interested in facts history analysis or the national interest and that's what we have so we have two problems of process a national security decision making process assists that is badly broken and a president who is not interested in rational decision making that serves the national interest. What should people be so yes it? It would be a hard job for anybody what should be will be hoping for in the next National Security Adviser on. I include opponents of the president. What should they be hoping oh before and the next national security adviser somebody with integrity somebody with judgment somebody who recognizes uses that being national security adviser is not a solo endeavor? I liken it to being a point guard leading basketball team and I write about that in my book it is a team sport and we don't seem to have had that of late. I also would like to see National Security Advisor. Who's prepared to tell the president isn't the truth and differ with the president when necessary in that regard I get Bolton credit because the national security adviser is supposed post to keep his council his or her counsel private but is supposed to give their honest and best judgment and in this instance? We have a president who seems I'm sitting not want to hear anything other than yes yeah I mean. This seems to be an illustration of many things but one of the might be. This is what happens to you if you do tell president trump of what you honestly think about something in this case John Bolton is reported to have been the maybe the key player in stopping the Taliban visit to Camp David and that frustrated the president and now John Bolton's gone that maybe the lesson of this. This is what happens if you tell the president the truth well then we're GONNA have probably seven or eight national security advisers if we have decent ones by the time this administration gets through four years because the last thing we need whether you know as the head of no or National Security Advisor is leadership that lives or leadership that Abu Skates or leadership that isn't interested in the national interest and that that's even more dangerous than than anything that I can think of President Obama had Missouri Call a grand total of three national security the advisers over the eight years with you serving the longest in in that office president trump has now gone through three he'll be starting his fourth he promises next week and so they could be on track to getting close to eight even in the first term what does that do to the national security processes within the administration. It's extraordinarily disruptive and it's irresponsible responsible quite frankly to illustrate the point when I was named National Security Advisor in early June of two thousand thirteen and I had more than a month of about a month of overlap with my predecessor Tom Donilon that was time in which even though I was still serving as United Nations ambassador. I spent most of my time in Washington meeting with Tom Going in great depth through the issues that we're on on our plate and the processes that I needed to understand I spent time in national security meetings one the president's daily briefing with the present in the United States. I got a sense of how President Obama wanted that role to be played very very important role at the right hand of the president and when I came to back to Washington to take on the job Joe I I am not only well prepared by Tom in that process but obviously I had the experience of having sat at the principal's decision making table for the prior four and a half years it is not at all clear who who president trump is going to get to sit in the National Security Adviser's office who will have the experience the judgment as well as the preparation nation to hit the ground running and with all that's going on in the world that is exactly what we need you at this story that has broken in our news over the last twenty four hours a major news organizations including NBC News reporting on the extraction of a spy working for the United States dates within the Russian government. this occurred during your watch as national security adviser according to the stories that's when the harvest of the information was coming in from the spy in the first consideration of extracting him during your time in office. What can you share with us about that and what elements of the reporting could you confirm for US Lawrence? I can't discuss classified information and I've never done it. My career and I'm not going to start now now. Is there anything that you would caution the public about in in what they're reading about this story now. No I don't want to get into parsing the story and what may be accurate or interact inaccurate it just not appropriate ambassador Susan Rice. That's where I think we understand that completely. Thank you very much for joining us. We really appreciate it great to be with Lawrence. Thank you coming up. Charlie Cook has a major prediction for the twenty twenty presidential election and it is not good for Donald Trump will also get Charlie Kurtz reaction to these special election in North Carolina tonight. Charlie Cooke joins US next. We're we're back with tonight's breaking election news North Carolina. NBC News Projects that Republican Dan Bishop will win the special election in North Carolina's ninth congressional district joining us now is Charlie cookies the editor and publisher of the Cook Political Report he's NBC News Political Analyst and Calmest for the National Journal and just who we want to be talking talking to tonight on a special election night Charlie reaction to what we've seen in North Carolina tonight you know the old line that there's nothing more exhilarating than having been shot at and missed well. Well Republicans have to be really exhilerated because you know they've come this as a district that not only did Donald Trump win by twelve points but Mitt Romney won by twelve points so so they should be coasting instead they win by two points which is more than we expected really as of last few days five thousand but the thing is this would have been an apocalyptic story for Republicans had a law so they've got to be really really really relieved but the signal is still there they underperformed by ten points last November number across the board Republicans underperform by six percentage points so repugnant to really really really worry about what's going on in the suburbs because Democrats Kratz when they picked up forty seats last year in suburbs of Atlanta and Dallas and Houston Kansas City and Oklahoma City and Richmond. They're still more out there so republicans he'd very very nervous that can be relieved about North Carolina not so how many seats to Republicans have where their their margin of comfort is lower than the one they had going into tonight's election. What is that thirty one? I want to say that there are still plenty of districts out there that president trump won by fewer than say six seven. Well certainly ten points there. There's a whole slew of them now. Democrats have have decent candidates in all of them but we're we're looking you know republic. The Chances of Republicans picking up the house are just really really really really small and that's you know given that the margin isn't that why that's really bad news for them but they've got to be relieved because is this would have been a disaster had you had two points. Go the other direction Charlie. Please stay with us. We got to squeeze it in one final commercial break here when we come back. I WANNA get your big prediction that you you issue this week about the twenty twenty presidential election. We're GONNA be right back with Charlie. Cook Charlie Cook the editor intern publisher. The Cook Political Report is back with US Charlie. I read a major prediction of yours in John Harwood's column yesterday about the twenty two thousand election and it's all about if the election is a referendum on president trump that go ahead go ahead okay. I'm sorry I was. I thought it was going to be that's the thing is if it's so referendum that's not a race where he can win I mean whether you had the two thirty nine the Gallup and CNN polls that had him at thirty nine percent today eh or the ABC Washington Post at forty three these aren't alone you've had three hundred and forty eight major national polls ask his approve disapprove move in exactly one out of three hundred and forty eight was his approval higher than his disapproval one Fox back in February of two thousand seventeen and when you look at look at that CNN number about thirty percent say he deserves reelection and sixty percent that thirty six that he deserves reelection in sixty that he doesn't you sort of combine this. If it's up or down on him he can't win that. He's gotTa make this a choice in a choice between him and something less desirable and that's where it's like. The old story about the woman was asked by a friend house her husband she replied compared to what and a how president trump's GonNa do compared to what because if it's up or down on him he can't win this but aren't incumbents usually what the issue is isn't when you haven't come into race. Isn't it usually a referendum on the incumbent. Yes it is but we've never seen one quite like this. This where the remarkable thing about president trump's numbers are it's the lack of elasticity that you know take Gallup his best. The job proved reprove writing yet forty six his worst thirty five for Fox's forty eight and thirty eight ten Levin Point Ranges so that there's not much much give their so seventy five percent of Americans strongly approve or strongly disapproved. There's no ambiguity here so there's not not his numbers I mean all presidents numbers they start big. They go down they come up and down his have been in a very tight trading range and it shows that people's People's minds about him is made up or made up but their minds about whoever the fill in the blank Democrat now that's up in the air and he's got to make a choice one of the most important aspects of it being a referendum on Donald Trump. If that's what it turns out to be is the end of the vote for third party candidates could evaporate evaporate because that that voter in Wisconsin who cast a vote for Jill Stein probably won't be doing that this time if that voter is much more concerned and with stopping Donald Trump no that's absolutely true and it fits into his store pattern when you've had elections where a third party candidate arguably made the difference in the next election very few people vote for third party candidates. I mean the desire to well. I'm not gonNA throw away my vote and that was true. After Ninety two with Ross Perot it was true in two thousand with Ralph Nader you know these things and I think it will be true after three two thousand sixteen so I think you're going to have a third party vote so it's going to be up or down Charlie Cook. Thank you very much for joining us tonight really appreciate hey it's Chris Hayes from MSNBC. Every day I come to the office and we make television show and every day I think to myself there's so much more I want to talk about and so this is our podcast. It's called. Why is this happening and the whole idea behind it is to get to the root of the things that we see Lee out every day? They're driven by big ideas each week. I sit down with a person uniquely suited to explain why this is happening new episodes of why is this happening every Tuesday. Listen for free.
"national security" Discussed on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
"There's already poll showing Mark Kelly ahead of Sally Sally in Arizona. We'll be watching that Jennifer Rubin Jason Johnson thank you both for joining us really appreciate Florence and when we come back Donald Trump has appointed three three national security advisers in his less than three years as President President Obama appointed three national security advisers in his eight years as President Susan Rice was the longest serving national security adviser for President Obama Susan Rice will will join US next President Obama had three national security security advisers over eight years in office. President trump has had three national security advisers over at less than three years in office. President Trump's first national security adviser Michael Flynn served only twenty one days in the job. The shortest tenure of any National Security Advisor in History Michael Flynn was in court today for a pre sentencing hearing for the crimes. He has pleaded guilty to crimes. He committed in the White House while serving as national security adviser when he lied to the FBI Michael Flynn was replaced by HR McMaster. HR McMaster was then replaced by John Bolton and John Bolton will be replaced next week. According to the present the position of National Security Advisor does not require Senate confirmation so the only possible struggle for the president and appointing a new national security adviser is finding someone who will accept the job it was an honor for Susan Rice to accept the offer from President Obama to servants his third national security advisor she she served in that position for the entire second term of the Obama presidency in the first term of the Obama Presidency. Susan Rice served as the ambassador. The United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice will join US next joining discussion. Now is someone who can give us an invaluable perspective on the job of National Security Advisor. Susan Rice is the last person to serve in the job of national security adviser before Donald Trump started appointing national security adviser. Susan Rice served as President Obama's national security advisor from two thousand thirteen to January of two thousand seventeen and before that she service President Obama's ambassador to the United Nations from two thousand nine to twenty thirteen her new book tough love my story of things worth fighting for comes out next month ambassador rice. Thank you very much for joining US tonight. I just wanted to get what was your first reaction today when you heard the news that John Bolton was either fired according to Donald Trump or resigned according to John Bolton Lawrence is good to be with you I confess when when I heard the news I was working out and I was a bit surprised to see it flash across the screen I had to plug in the headphones to find out what was actually going on. I was surprised more by the timing of the announcement it was unexpected in that regard but not the actual outcome because for quite a while Al it's been apparent that John Bolton and Donald trump were on very different sheets of music when it comes to almost every national security issue of import and either Boulton was going to continue to be publicly humiliated and failed to persuade trade the president.
"national security" Discussed on WSJ What's News
"And now a wall street journal exclusive our reporters found that national security concerns could jeopardize a massive undersea z. cable project that would link los angeles and hong kong google facebook and a chinese partner have already sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into it for more for details. Our charlie turner spoke with reporter kate o. keith in washington kate. This project is called the pacific light cable network. What company is building it. There's a hong kong company. That similarly named called pacific late data communication company. That's building this cable and the project is majority owned by a beijing aging based telecom operator which is called dr poem telecom and media group and google and facebook are major investors in the project who is raising concerns about the project you describe it as an opaquely run group of american agencies that provides national security recommendations to the f._c._c. rate <hes>. That's a definition shen for team telekom so the concerns about this. This project are coming from that team. Which is an ad hoc inter agency group that advises the f._c._c. The federal communications commission unlicensed applications involving telecommunications matters for background. The f._c._c. has always deferred to this team telekom in group so when they make a recommendation it's a really extremely important part of the process and in this case the department of justice which is actually the lead agency for team. Telekom is the agency that's raised the staunchest objections to this particular cable project so far and some other key players on the team include the the pentagon and also the department of homeland security but we're a little bit less clear on what their views are of this project at this time. What exactly are they worried about. Is it the cables else chinese investor well. That's part of it. I mean there's basically two main concerns that we're aware of one is the chinese government links that this company called dr peng has and the other is just the fact that this cable would provide a direct link to hong kong which is a chinese territory so in terms of dr peng the the majority owner of this cable project not a household name here but it's actually china's fourth biggest telecom operator and although it's a private telecommunications company it does have many many links to china's government which is the case with many chinese companies frankly so dr punks chairman is a former shenzhen government official and its subsidiaries have worked worked on a bunch of projects with chinese government entities. One of them was building a fiber optics surveillance network for beijing's police. The other aspect of the concern here you're from team. Telekom is decreasing autonomy of the chinese territory of hong kong. Which is where the cable land so hong kong is a special administrative have region of china which has always enjoyed many more freedoms than the rest of china and pro democracy protesters there have been having huge rallies for months protesting beijing's effort to efforts to integrate hong kong more closely with the mainland so in the past linked to hong kong would have actually been viewed as more secure potentially than a link to mainland china but that distinction is actually becoming less relevant by the day in the view of these u._s. Security regulators and i would think that the backdrop for this is the trade battles that are going on between the u._s. and china including all the tariffs that have been going back and forth. I mean yeah. There's there's just such an array of interlinked conflicts going on between the u._s. And china. I mean trade and economics is one part of it. I mean there's also interlinked concerns with economics and national security where you see you know arguments over i._p..
"national security" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"As far as it goes. It's hard to see the military or the intelligence community as a useful tool in blunting, the direct threat of climate change. So I I definitely agree that there is a mismatch there. And I think I have two responses on the one hand, I think that that is true as far as it goes. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a threat and that threat is exacerbated by climate change threat to readiness military installations in threat to global stability, which outlined earlier, those threats are real, and we shouldn't necessarily think only of climate change national security paradigm. Now, that's not to say that climate change doesn't fit into a national security paradigm. But I think that it's a totally fair critique to say their limitations to thinking of climate change within this national security, paradigm and connected to this. Daniel do need the political science professor referring to make another. That I think is really useful for people who speak about climate change and national security contact such as myself to keep in mind, which is that efforts to harness the motive power of nationalism to help mobilize environmental awareness or environmental action. Could actually be counterproductive so people and environmentalists and national security people who say that the linkage may not be descriptive, right? Climate change is not descriptively analytically conceptually national security problem for the reasons that you outlined we don't really care because it has political utility. So we think that it's a way of stimulating action by cloaking environmental problem in the urgency of national security and do news response. And I think that he's right about this is that this is likely to fail or it's as likely to fail as it is to succeed politically because a national security paradigm is gonna resulted in us versus them mentality which fits poorly with environmental. Because as you said paraphrasing here the enemy is us. The enemy is not China or India. It's it's everybody. It's us. It's you driving your car. It's me throwing out extra food that I have. So the reason that this may fail politically for two reasons the first is if we think of climate change as an actual security problem as you suggested we might focus on the pollution of other countries rather than looking at what we have done any really see this quite clearly in the US with regards to developing countries like China and India, we blame them look at how much China is polluting. We can't do anything unless they do. So we sort of have already started leaving them as if that's exculpatory for own actions and second when we think about climate change in a national security context, we may tend to retrench into nationalism when we really do need an international solution to this problem and third. This is me speaking again, not duty using. National security community to actually address climate change may be harmful to those institutions as likely requires them to undertake unfamiliar missions, including domestic missions, which may erode sort of the the wall that we have built up in many places between especially the intelligence community and civil society domestically in the US. Right. So in other words, descriptively there is a deep seated relationship or set of relationships between national security on climate change. That relationship is an uncomfortable fit. Both descriptively a normative Lee with what we traditionally think of as national security challenges, and there are substantial reasons why you might wanna be careful about over framing this in the national security vocabulary. Is that is that a reasonable summary? That's exactly right. All right. And yet one of the. Interesting components of the work that you've done recently on law. Fair is this relentless cataloging of the degree to which the national security community has unlike the current political leadership of the country not been in denial about this subject. And how there is this pretty long and pretty consistent history of intelligence and military components identifying the various national security threats emanating from human induced climate change. So give us a sense of that history. And you know, to what extent is this a situation where you know, with all the caveats that we've just discussed the national security community actually has its is pretty wide open on the subject. Yeah. So the history goes back actually much farther than most people realize. Climate scientists heavily indebted to the national security establishment and the Cold War, more broadly..
"national security" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"It is a great question, and I think that the examples you give underscore the fundamental conundrum of people working within they mistrial, which is how do you ethically serve deeply unethical man? And there's simply no good answer for that. A lot of people have debated about whether anonymous, this writer of the op-ed should have written it at all, or should have resigned or whatnot. It's all struggle to figure out how you ethically serve both the country and none. The less serve the president. I don't have a clear answer to it. I don't know that there's a way to legislate that particular norm. I would have to magin that in the example that you gave that our intelligence agencies would give the present all the information. He needs to make the decision with outsourcing it without unless the president demanded to know risking those sources by gratuitously telling the president what they are. And that's obviously far from either. But then the situations far from ideal, I, I have been saying for some time that. The flaw that emanates from this deeply immoral man is affecting the whole of government and it is, but I have to say, I hate to leave on this bleak note as I watched the rally last night where the present denigrated Dr Ford and the crowd applauded. It occurred to me that that the flaw of that character is of infecting the country and just what a vital role. The president, a president traditionally has in making us a more perfect union and you don't have a president who views that as a part of his job, how deeply destabilizing destructive as for the country, Mary. I think he also is a really important question. I think it's very difficult for a lot of people working in government right now, particularly in the department, I will tell you, you know, as a career person myself, I had intended to stay until my successor was appointed, and that became increasingly difficult. Really not only from the time. This wasn't took office, but certainly from the time Senator sessions came into the department is the attorney general. Some of that was for policy reasons and some of it. So I think ultimately I came to the conclusion that because I didn't feel that I could actively undermine policy decisions and other things that were being done. I needed to leave others have chosen a different course. I have felt badly about leaving many times because I feel like we can't. Everybody can't leave if everybody leaves what you know, we're we're in a real problem. But for me in the role I was in interfacing with the attorney. Every single day and seeing some of the things that were happening, how national security was being used as justification of for policy actions that weren't justified by national security. For me, the decision was delayed, but I think it's a difficult one, and I don't really condone herp Asli trying to undermine the president, but I also understand why people would feel the need to do that. Truck is up, I will. And by the way I had the pleasure of seeing David every morning when I was on Bob Muller staff and two thousand two and two thousand three at, I think seven AM on a good day, which was she's essentially four hours after Bob Muller to the office. I have a rather simplistic and binary view this David, which is that you either you serve faithfully and any in present is entitled to faithful service or you resign. And I've been thinking about that for a long while not along time, but since that anonymous article came out, whether I'm taking too simplistic view, whether there should be a middle ground, I'm still of the belief that there is not that it is a binary choice and you do one of the two you serve faithfully or you resign? Because I think that middle ground can be dangerous because then you have people picking their own path and that is in a sense what we're talking about here today, I believe in a sense that undermines the rule of law. So like Mary, I resigned. I could not stay in a job where I was uncomfortable doing. The things I was being asked to do. And that only gave me one option and I decided, but I'm not sure. I'm right David. Something that I Russell with, please join me in thanking..
"national security" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"What the Russians did in Meli with our democracy is nothing compared with what this administration is doing to meddle with our democracy. The Russians couldn't cause us to distrust our own free press that couldn't cause us to undermine the independent Justice department couldn't cause us to denigrate and belittle judiciary only we can do that to ourselves, but the big picture, I think the big untold story here and something that I would like to have us have open hearings on and private examination oversight of is Russian attack on our democracy was not in isolation, the Russian seven going after democracies in Europe and elsewhere. But more broadly than that is the fact that the whole idea of liberal democracy right now is under assault. We see a rise with autism around the world. This poses, I think among the most significant national security threats to our country. I'm Michaela Fogel and this is the law air, Comcast, October sixteen, two thousand on October third, Benjamin witnessed co hosted event. His Birkin's colleague norm is it on the state of law, the US then witnessed moderated a panel on national security, law enforcement, law enforcement, contributor and longtime department of Justice, official Mary McCord former head of the g Chuck Rosenberg and Representative. Adam Schiff ranking democrat on the house to tell committing. They spoke about the impact of stays political environment on national security investigations in the executive branch, congresses conduct in this recent spate of investigations and how normal circumstances these two branches are supposed to interact. Stay tuned until the end when a law fair, special guest makes an appearance during the QA. It's.
"national security" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"The issue then is the United States will raise a defense that has not before been litigated or adjudicated, which is the national security exception to the WTO. And I, I say, exception very importantly because this national security provisions does not give the United States and affirmative right? To assert these duties, all it gives you as an excuse. Yes, I agree that I violated all the rules, but here's my defense. The problem with the defense is the rules on what, how. We described national security in two thirty, two that blend over economic and national security are not the rules in the WTO. The rules in the WTO very clear that that what falls under this national security exception is trade in fissionable material. So nuclear materials trade in arms and amunitions, or measures taken in time of war or international emergency. And I don't believe that these steel or Lumina Taras fit into any of those boxes. So there is coming very real clash between how we, at least or at least the Trump administration seems to be characterizing this notion of national security versus what international law and the WTO rules would characterize as national security. Yeah, I, I agree with that. I think there's been a really interesting academic debate on this idea of whether or not article twenty one is quote, unquote self judging. You have taken a position professor. Hillman has taken a position that it's not. And there are some legal scholars offered wrote an Notre Dame law review article that basically even if it's not in the text, he argues that practically speaking a WTO jurist is not going to tell a country that this is not in your national security interests. I hope that you are right, and I pray that you are right and that that the Trump administration would abide by a negative ruling. But I fear that the United States is going to argue, as you mentioned in your your New York Times article or head a month or so ago in which you said, you know, the United States basically has been consistent about article twenty one throughout its history, but it just recently sided with Russia after rush imposed all kinds of trade restrictions. On Ukraine, Russia came back and said, well, look, you can't the WTO. You can't do anything about this article, twenty one self judging and the only support got was from the United States. So there's this inherent shrub icy, and I think there is a range of us on this and because there is this Russia Ukraine debate going on right now, there's a dispute right now in Geneva. I think we'll at least here one panel's take on this before the end of this year. And the range is this this notion where the United States and Russia are, which is not just that it you can't judge is that it's not just dish -able. I mean that the moment anyone says, I intend to invoke article twenty one that there's nothing a panel can do. They can't rule on any piece of the case in any way. That's the US Russia position. If you look at it, then there's a range where, for example, Canada says, will it a bare minimum you can ask the question is your measure because of fissionable materials or is it because it's trafficking and arms? Or is it because there's a. Time of War. I mean at least have to say which box you're in and to the extent that you're then saying, do you have evidence that this actually was fissionable materials or this actually was arms or amunition or if it was taken time award, you have evidence that there actually was a war between Russia and Ukraine, or in some way, a war or other international emergency that caused you to need to put on these restraints that sort of if you will, the medium ground or whatever. And then you go all the way over, for example, to the opinions of countries like the European Union that are indicating that it should be a very fulsome analysis by the panel of focusing very much on this word necessary which is part of the text. Is it necessary that you impose these restrictions in order to protect your national security? I think if a panel is that invasive where you have to prove that it was necessary to do this..