Interesting post this week. In your opinion was there a great need for a separate need to have control over intelligence oversight? Historically, how could have civil liberties and questionable intelligence activities been protected and detected? “The impact of Gang of Eight notifications on the effectiveness of congressional intelligence oversight continues to be debated” (Erwin, 2013, 6). Over the years has Congressional Oversight provided the required influence to make the Intelligence Community (IC) effective? Protecting civil liberties and preventing questionable intelligence activities is of importance to the Congressional Oversight (Gill 2009, 83, 91). In your opinion, is Congressional Oversight providing the necessary protection to
Less than one week after the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S.A. Patriot Act was introduced to Congress. One month later, the act passed in the Senate with a vote of 98-1. A frightened nation had cried for protection against further attacks, but certainly got more than they had asked for. Russell Feingold, the only Senator to vote down the act, referred to it as, “legislation on the fly, unlike anything [he] had ever seen.” In their haste to protect our great nation, Congress suspended, “normal procedural processes, such as interagency review and committee hearings,” and, “many provisions were not checked for their constitutionality, lack of judicial oversight, and potential for abuse.” Ninety-eight senators were willing to overlook key civil liberty issues contained within the 342 page act. The lone dissenting vote, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, felt that our battle against terrorism would be lost “without firing a shot” if we were to “sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” Feingold duly defended American civil liberties at the risk of his career, truly exemplifying political courage as defined by John F. Kennedy.
The case State v. Snowden is an appeal by the defendant were the defendant pleaded guilty to an evidence charging Raymond Alien Snowden with the crime of murder of first degree. The trial of the defendant was represented by the district Court, 3rd Judicial District, Ada County, were Snowden entered judgment and sentenced of death but he appealed. Snowed was at a bar in the evening drinking and playing pool in a Boise pool room, he and other person visited another club near the one where they were playing pool, nearby Garden city. That same day Snowden and his friend visited several bars also drinking, at the end they stop at HiHo club. That same bar he met and starts having a conversation to this lady Cora Lucyle Dean, they start dancing and having a time together and they left together, while they were walking they start arguing in the street, because she wanted him to find her a cab and take her to back to Boise, but he said that he shouldn’t be paying her fare.
As the oversight literature covers a broad expanse of topics in regards to it, it is best to start with one of the earliest articles on congressional oversight written in 1966. John Bibby in his observational study of Congress tries to find when a committee will engage in oversight and when they will shirk those duties and why? Bibby lays the groundwork for an analysis of congressional oversight specifically the features and degree of oversight activity. Bibby finds that these factors will determine Congresses engagement in oversight. The methods that Bibby uses are different than those that come later in the study of congressional oversight in that he does not use any type of model but uses observations
McCraw, David, and Stephen Gikow. “The End to a Unspoken Bargain? National Security and Leaks in a Post-Pentagon Papers World.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 48.2 (2013): 473-509. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
In times of great terror and panic, the citizens of a nation must decide what they value most: their right to privacy or the lives of the innocent. Government surveillance is criticized, however there are times in a nation’s history where, in order to ensure the safety of their citizens, they must surveill the country for potential hazards that might exist in the world. The government-issued program, COINTELPRO--a series of illegal projects during the twentieth century organized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation--while heavily criticized for its unconstitutional grounds--was justified because it benefitted the nation during a period of upheaval. COINTELPRO is popularly condemned by historians and professors such as Brandeis University Professor of Sociology, David Cunningham, who asserts that the FBI counterintelligence program was only a form of repression that allowed for the government to suppress matters that they consider bothersome (234) This however was not the case. COINTELPRO was necessary because of the great social unrest, individuals posed threats to society, and creating operations that were beneficial to the United States.
...f the covert operations at the time, created friction among policymakers and agency representatives that transpire into inefficient oversight mechanisms from the U.S. government specifically the Congress.
After the NSA and CIA leaks last year surfaced, many questions arose. Who is the man behind the leaks and what does his future hold with the United States government? What are the surveillance programs and their purpose? What are some of the ethical concerns? What are the pros and cons of secret surveillance programs? Does this violate our rights? Are these programs legal? How do these programs and the subsequent leaks affect foreign relations?
...e community have had conflicting views and opposing agendas. Lack of cooperation and communication between intelligence agencies; such as the FBI and the CIA refusing to share information prior to the terrorist attacks of 2001, resulted in limited information and failure on the part of the intelligence community and policy decisions regarding US safeguards against terrorist.
In 2001, the United States fell victim to a multitude of tragedies. The most unforgettable, of course, being the terrorist attack on September 11th. Following the threat, Congress knew something had to be done to strengthen security controls. On October 23, 2001, Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican Representative, introduced provisions to a previously sponsored House bill. By the next day, the act passed in the House with a vote ratio of three hundred and fifty-seven to sixty-six. The following day, the Senate took a vote on the bill, passing it by ninety-eight to one. Finally, on October 26, 2001, the USA Patriot Act was signed into law. The bill was intended to strengthen federal anti-terrorism investigations. But is the USA Patriot Act working to the full potential that it was originally intended? This is something that we are now going to explore. We will look deeper into, not only what the bill is, but also it’s journey to getting to the final draft and how it got passed. We will also explore the proponents and opponents of the act, and what they have to say about it. Finally, I will shed some light on who exactly is being effected now that this act is in place, and if they have been given a little too much power.
The National Security Act of 1947 created the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). President Truman’s vision of the CIA was a peacetime intelligence agency that provided early warnings in the event of an attack. After President Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947, a loophole was found. The National Security Act “instructed the CIA to correlate, evaluate, and disseminate intelligence and to perform ‘other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security’ ” (Weiner 2007). The CIA used this wording of ‘other functions’ to conduct secret operations overseas and to practice cloak and dagger methods in obtaining intelligence. Since its establishment over sixty years ago, the CIA’s implementation of cloak and dagger intelligence gathering has evolved to developing a componen...
One of the major unintended impacts of the Dodd-Frank Act has been on credit unions and community banks. These banks weathered the credit crisis and lost only 6% of their share of banking assets between 2006 and mid-2010. A recent Harvard study indicates that this decline accelerated to 12% since the passage of the Dodd-Frank in July 2010. [a] While the community banks’ earnings increased by 12% to $5.3 billion by mid 2015 the number of these banks had declined according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The number of banks with assets under $1 billion has declined from around 7500 in 2010 to less than 6000 since Dodd-Frank came into effect. [b] Increased compliance costs due hiring of new personnel to interpret the new regulations compelled these banks to cut down on customer service amongst other things. The law hurt them disproportionately and forced them to consolidate. Regulatory economies of scale drive the process of consolidation. A larger bank is often more equipped at handling increased regulatory burdens
Edward Snowden, the famous “whistleblower”, shocked the world with his revelations about the NSA’s database and the programs which allow the organization to access personal information not only of citizens of other nations, but also of citizens of the U.S. The most shocking revelation of all was not the existence of these programs, but the fact that the Obama administration allowed those programs to exist in direct violation of every U.S. citizen’s right to privacy.
In order to fulfill its duty of ensuring the safety of its law-abiding citizens, and apprehending those who would cause them harm, the government does need to access certain information. In fact, many blame suppressed intelligence operations for allowing the terrorist attacks in 2001 to slip through (Cooper). It would be foolish not to tighten security after suc...
Like you, I am deeply concerned by a number of events that have taken place under the watch of the Obama Administration -- from the attacks in Benghazi to the targeted audits by the IRS on conservative groups. It is Congress' obligation to fully investigate these incidents and to hold those responsible accountable for any potential wrongdoing.
These two articles, one, an address by Attorney General John Ashcroft to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and the other, an article written by David Cole that appeared on the Amnesty International web site, deal with the ethics and Constitutionality of the United Stated Patriot Act. David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, argues that the Patriot Act violates citizen’s civil rights and unfairly imprisons innocent individuals. Attorney General John Ashcroft counters that the Patriot Act is justified as a preventive measure to aid in the war on terrorism.