Controversy Over the National Defense Authorization Act

“When war is thrust upon the nation, the President had not only the authority but the responsibility to ‘resist force by force.’” –U.S. Supreme Court ruling of the Prize Cases, 1862 (67 U.S. 6335).

Counterintelligence is one of the most vital areas of the United States intelligence system, and is heavily intertwined with our history, laws and ethics. According to the National Security Act of 1947, counterintelligence (CI) is defined as “information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.” It consists of five activities and functions: operations, investigations, collection, analysis and production, and functional services. In this aspect, CI is unique in that it is both an activity and its product. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) collect and analyze both CI information and foreign intelligence. There are many counterintelligence activities that the United States is involved in, as both CI and foreign intelligence play an important role in countering threats to our country’s national security. Among these most controversial and misunderstood activities are counterespionage and disinformation.

In response to a rapidly increasing national debt, President Barack Obama signed into law in August of 2011 the Budget Control Act (BCA) which mandated $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts, known as sequestration, over a 10-year period (Matthews, 2013). The BCA of 2011 was intended to serve as motivation for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to come up with a deal for achieving equivalent spending cuts and avoid a mandatory sequestration (Matthews, 2013). The committee

Today, electronic surveillance remains one of the most effective tools the United States has to protect against foreign powers and groups seeking to inflict harm on the nation, but it does not go without a few possessing a few negative aspects either. Electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence has likely saved the lives of many innocent people through prevention of potential acts of aggression towards the United States. There are many pros to the actions authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pertaining to electronic surveillance, but there are also cons. Looking at both the pros and cons of electronic surveillance is important in understanding the overall effectiveness of FISA. [1]

In 1917 during WW1, the Canadian government justified in enacting the Military Services Act to register and conscript men for war. Almost all French Canadians opposed conscription because they felt they had no loyalty to France and Britain. Other Canadians were at ease with the conscription as they supported the British Empire. The farmers, union heads, and pacifists were all opposed of the conscription like the French Canadians. I believe the Military Services Act was not the best choice because it ripped up the relations between the English and the French Canadians, it eliminated the freedom of the people by forcing them to go to war, and caused a riot in Quebec City leading to a few deaths. The

What the NEA set out to do and what it does are two different things. The NEA is first and foremost set up as a nonpartisan branch of the government; however, throughout the past decade, the NEA has been found in the pockets of many partisan politicians. An independent agency of the government is supposedly not controlled by Democratic or Republic parties. In the past decade proof of political control and gain has been proven to regulate the NEA. The parties use the NEA to gain political standing in the races, and “[t]hey have been eager to promote government involvement in setting the arts agenda—especially in creating art that promotes the… administration” (Keane 2). Grants were given to the artist that made their art pieces focus on the issues the Obama administration was promoting. Prior to the Obama administration, there were

The War Powers Act limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The War Powers Act is also known as The War Powers Resolution. The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the United States involved in hostilities. It prohibits the President from waging war beyond 60 days without the Congressional approval (MILNET: The War Powers Act of 1973). Authorization can be made in many forms such as a temporary waiver of the Act or via a Declaration of War (MILNET: The War Powers Act of 1973).

Congress passed the War Powers Act that acknowledges the presidential right to take limited military action before receiving congressional approval, but requires him to file a formal report with Congress within forty-eight hours of initiating hostilities. The use of military action is limited to sixty days without congressional approval. An additional thirty days can be granted if it is necessary to withdraw the troops.

On March 9, 2006, Congress passed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. The act modified the way interim U.S. attorney appointments were managed. Prior to this law, attorney generals could make interim appointments for no more than one hundred and twenty days. Once appointment terms expired, district courts could appoint a U.S. attorney until the president and Senate filled the vacancy. The Patriot Act eliminated the time limit which gave the attorney general authority to fill the vacancy indefinitely. Dr. Kyle Sampson argued the benefit of the reauthorization of the Patriot Act was that it can give for less deference to home state Senators and thereby get our preferred person appointed and will do it far faster and more efficiently

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down and that will help lower the defense spending by almost $1 trillion over the next decade. The congress is realizing that they need to do some restructuring and have already begun rearranging the military budget in response to austerity. Congress conjured up a $630 billion defense appropriations bill that made plans to reduce civilian and contractor personnel by 5 percent over the next five years and in return ramp up advanced weapons programs, including drones, bombers and missiles says The Washington Post. The American Conservative

In 2004 launched a campaign ad entitled “Patriot Act”, this was part of Bush’s Strategies, that points out Kerry is soft on support against terrorism. The ad points out the Patriot Act is an important tool used to win the War on Terror, it highlights that John Kerry’s continues to play flip flop politics with important matters regarding national security. Then intended thesis was centered on Kerry’s inability to make decisions, without turning around and voting for reforms and that would negate the Patriot Act. With a history of flip flop decisions it was an important part of the strategy to target John Kerry’s character, his indecisive decisions making and wavering loyalty to stick with commitments.

The negotiation for the release of Bowe Bergdahl in 2014 is the subject of my review. Bergdahl was the last United States (U.S) prisoner-of-war from the war in Afghanistan captured in 2009 by the Haqqani network, an ally of the Taliban terrorist group (Wallbank and Ratnam 2014). Bergdahl was taken after leaving his Army post and held by his captives in Pakistan for five years (CBS NEWS). According to reports, Bergdahl left his post as a result of becoming disillusioned with the war effort following the death of a fellow soldier; leaving many, including some members of congress, to consider him as a deserter (Capehart 2014).

The Department of Defense (DOD) was recently approved a budget of $582.7 billion for 2017. $112.1 billion of this budget was specifically to “develop and procure equipment, technology, and capabilities…” [1].

The No Fly List is possibly one of the most contested and tumultuous topics among top officials and heads of states in the executive and judicial branch, in addition, to the public's budding interest in the topic. It might be surprising, but the debates surrounding the No Fly List are not new to politicians or judicial officials. The No Fly list was created to protect national security interests, and the debates surrounding the list represent the constant struggle to find balance between national security interests and protection of civil rights. This debate has been on going since the formation of the United States with punctuated periods of sparked interest and periods of subdued interest (coupled with periods of casual indifference.

There are a few key political issues brought up in the program that were important to the political system. One of them being the issue of closing down/releasing more inmates at Gitmo as President Obama wanted, or keeping it open and even expanding it as President Trump wants. Basically, the issue being if Gitmo is actually an affective place or even necessary for these prisoners. It