new posts in all blogs
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: national security, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 6 of 6
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: national security in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
By: Yasmin Coonjah,
on 9/17/2016
Blog:
OUPblog
(
Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:
Politics,
Hillary Clinton,
nuclear war,
Donald Trump,
nuclear weapons,
Social Sciences,
*Featured,
national security,
Louis René Beres,
international law,
nuclear crisis,
nuclear proliferation,
2016 presidential election,
anti-proliferation,
July 2015 Vienna Pact,
WMD terrorism,
Add a tag
Plainly, whoever is elected president in November, his or her most urgent obligations will center on American national security. In turn, this will mean an utterly primary emphasis on nuclear strategy. Moreover, concerning such specific primacy, there can be no plausible or compelling counter-arguments. In world politics, some truths are clearly unassailable. For one, nuclear strategy is a "game" that pertinent world leaders must play, whether they like it, or not.
The post America’s nuclear strategy: core obligations for our next president appeared first on OUPblog.
By: Shelf-employed,
on 2/22/2016
Blog:
Shelf-employed
(
Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:
YA,
adult,
nonfiction,
Vietnam War,
privacy,
J,
newspapers,
national security,
Daniel Ellsberg,
Add a tag
Most Dangerous: Daniel Ellsberg and the Secret History of the Vietnam War by Steve Sheinkin (2015) Roaring Brook Press
As he did with the spy, Harry Gold, in Bomb: The Race to Build—and Steal—the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon, Steven Sheinkin uses one man to tell a much larger story in Most Dangerous: Daniel Ellsberg and the Secret History of the Vietnam War. That man is the infamous leaker of the so-called Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg. A veteran himself, and a former Pentagon employee, Ellsberg initially believed that the war in Vietnam was a noble cause. However, the more he learned, the less he believed so. Eventually, based on the information to which he was privy and the US populace was not, he changed his mind completely.
Whether you believe Edward Snowden to be a patriotic whistleblower or a traitorous leaker, and whether you believe that Apple's refusal to hack into the phone of the San Bernardino murderers is reprehensible or ethical, it cannot be denied that these are weighty matters worthy of national discussion. In the time of Daniel Ellsberg, people read newspapers and watched a generally unbiased nightly newscast. In contrast, many people today derive their news from "sound bites," political analysts, and partisan news stations. These issues deserve more thoughtful consideration.
While
Most Dangerous is an excellently researched biographical and historical account, and can be appreciated for that aspect alone, Steve Sheinkin's book also will also promote reflection on the nature of national security, personal privacy, democracy, freedom of the press, and foreign intervention. We have been on very similar ground before.
Selected quotes:
page 149
"They all drove to the Capitol for the traditional outdoor inauguration ceremony. Johnson watched Nixon take the oath of office, wondering what lay ahead. "I reflected on how inadequate any man is for the office of the American Presidency," he later recalled. "The magnitude of the job dwarfs every man who aspires to it.""
page 160
"He had often heard antiwar protesters shouting that Americans were fighting on the wrong side of the Vietnam War. They were missing the point. "It wasn't that we were on the wrong side," Ellsberg concluded, "We were the wrong side.""
FBI agents began questioning the Ellsbergs friends and relatives. They even attempted to obtain Patricia Ellsberg's dental records, but her dentist refused to cooperate. Nixon's operatives broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's doctor in a failed attempt to steal his medical records. They were searching for anything to use in a campaign to discredit Ellsberg.
page 263
"Psychologically, it's not so bothersome, because we believe in what we're doing," Patricia Ellsberg said about the feeling of being watched by one's own government. "But I think it's troublesome for the country that there is surveillance of citizens, and that the right of privacy is being threatened."
Read an excerpt from Most Dangerous here.Awards and accolades:
Other Steve Sheinkin books reviewed on Shelf-employed
By: Alice,
on 12/9/2015
Blog:
OUPblog
(
Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:
Books,
Law,
America,
human rights,
US Constitution,
*Featured,
national security,
World Human Rights Day,
federal defense support,
Insurrection Act 1807,
Kevin Govern,
Posse Comitatus Act 1878,
US interagency cooperation,
Add a tag
This Human Rights Day, commemorating the 10 December 1948 proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we embark on a year-long observance of the 50th anniversary of the two International Covenants on Human Rights: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966.
The post Human rights and security in US history appeared first on OUPblog.
By: Kirsty,
on 9/8/2011
Blog:
OUPblog
(
Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:
9/11 commission,
andrew staniforth,
counter-terrorism,
US,
UK,
Current Affairs,
9/11,
terrorism,
usa,
foreign policy,
Al-Qaeda,
twin towers,
world trade center,
Editor's Picks,
*Featured,
national security,
Law & Politics,
Add a tag
By Andrew Staniforth
For Americans, no act of terrorism compares to the attacks and from that moment the history of the United States has been divided into ‘Before 9/11’ and ‘After 9/11’. In lower Manhattan, on a field in Pennsylvania, and along the banks of the Potomac, the United States suffered its largest loss of life from an enemy attack on its own soil. Within just 102 minutes, four commercial jets would be simultaneously hijacked and used as weapons of mass destruction to kill ordinary citizens as part of a coordinated attack that would shape the first decade of a new century.
By: Lauren,
on 4/27/2011
Blog:
OUPblog
(
Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags:
US,
Media,
iraq war,
homeland security,
Military,
foreign policy,
Thought Leaders,
gitmo,
Guantanamo,
*Featured,
Law & Politics,
documents,
terrorists,
WikiLeaks,
vacuum,
greenberg,
classified,
insufficient,
pow,
national security,
karen greenberg,
the least worst place,
guantánamo,
detainees,
hearsay,
Add a tag
By Karen Greenberg
The most amazing fact about the more than 700 previously unseen classified Guantánamo documents released by WikiLeaks and several unaffiliated news organizations the night of Sunday, April 24, is how little in them is new. The information in these documents — admittedly not classified “top secret” but merely “secret” — spells out details that buttress what we already knew, which is this: From day one at Guantánamo, the U.S. national security apparatus has known very little about the detainees in custody. The United States does not know who they are, how to assess what they say, and what threat they ultimately pose.
Given this vacuum of ignorance, U.S. officials decided at the outset that it was better to be safe than sorry. Therefore, any imaginable way in which behavior or statements could be deemed dangerous led to individual detainees being classified as “high risk.” The result was the policy we have seen since 2002 — a policy of assessing potential danger based on details like what kind of watches the detainees wore, the way they drew on the dirt floors of their cages, and whether they had travel documents on them. In addition, the just-released documents reaffirm the fact that much of the material on the detainees apparently came from hearsay derived from what seems to have been a limited number of interrogations, some performed under circumstances amounting to torture.
It is not just the conclusions of Guantánamo critics like myself that are being verified by these newly found documents. The conclusions of the judges who have sifted through available information to determine just who deserves to be at Guantánamo and who is being held on the basis of insufficient evidence have also been reinforced. In 58 habeas cases spanning both George W. Bush’s and Barack Obama’s administrations, federal judges have determined that in 36 of the cases there is insufficient evidence to hold these individuals and that often the detention was based on information obtained through hearsay, frequently the result of torture. In other words, the little evidence that existed was largely unreliable.
The sad fact is that these documents tell us more about ourselves than about the detainees. They tell us that U.S. officials to this day know very little based on hard evidence about the majority of those who have been held at Guantánamo, that assessments of risk have all too often been based on flights of imagination that tend to enhance the sense of power and capability of al Qaeda, and that the criteria for determining risk are at best murky. Those deemed to pose a risk ranged from individual detainees who proclaimed angry threats against their guards to those who were believed to have been actively involved in terrorism.
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once pointed out, in reference to the failure to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Although the quip may seem facile, it is actually a candid assessment of what has gone wrong at Guantánamo from the time it opened in January 2002. It continues to go wrong to this day. The proper, lawful, most security-minded restatement of Rumsfeld’s maxim would be this: Absence of evidence requires better intelligence, more careful judgments, and more savvy realism. Without facts, it is not only the just treatment of detainees that is at issue — it is the security of the United States itself.
Karen Greenberg is executive director of the Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law and author of
0 Comments on Inside the vacuum of ignorance as of 1/1/1900
By Elvin Lim
The Transportation and Security Administration’s new video screening and pat-down procedures has given new fuel to advocates of racial profiling at airports around the nation. Opponents of racial profiling argue that treating an individual differently simply because of his or her race is wrong because discrimination, even for noble intentions, is just plain wrong. Let’s call this the principle of formal equality.
Oddly enough, this is exactly what opponents of affirmative action say. They typically argue that some other signifier, for example class, can be a more efficient, and less discriminatory way of achieving similar outcomes if affirmative action policies were in place.
This argument is analogous to the one offered by those who are against racial profiling. They suggest that some other signifier, for example behavior, can be a more efficient, and less discriminatory way of achieving similar outcomes if racial profiling policies were in place.
It seems, then, that one can either be for race-based profiling and affirmative action, or against both. What is problematic is if one is for one but not the other. My guess is that most liberals are for race-based affirmative action but against racial profiling, and most conservatives are against race-based affirmative action but for racial profiling. Inconsistency?
The problem is harder to resolve for the conservative who is anti-affirmative action but for racial profiling than it is for the liberal who is pro-affirmative action and anti-racial profiling. Here is why. The liberal can restate his or her philosophy as such: discrimination is wrong only when a historically disadvantaged group bears the brunt of a particular policy (as in racial profiling); discrimination is permissible when historically advantaged groups bear the brunt of a particular policy (as in affirmative action). By moving away from formal equality toward a more substantive conception of equality that incorporates the principle of historical remedy, a liberal can remain consistently pro-affirmative action, and still be anti-racial-profiling.
For the conservative who is against race-based affirmative action but for profiling, the problem is stickier. Almost every anti-affirmative action argument I have come across turns on the principle of formal equality: that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong, no matter what the policy intentions may be.
Suppose, in an effort to reconcile an anti-affirmative action and a pro-profiling position, one argued that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong, unless it was done in the name of some higher good, such as national security.
Well, then in protest, the pro-affirmative action liberal will simply substitute “some higher good” with “diversity,” and the anti-affirmative action conservative would be forced to accept the plausibility of the liberal’s position on affirmative action — or at least the fact that they share similar argumentative forms with no way to adjudicate between one higher good and another (while retaining his or her pro-profiling stance.) The problem is that to admit of any higher principle other than formal equality (the claim that discrimination on the basis of race for any reason is just flat out wrong) to help distinguish the cases decimates the case against affirmative action that was itself built on formal equality.
Profiling on the basis of race, among other characteristics, such as behavior, is likely to become a de facto, if not a de jure, policy in our nation’s airports in the years to come. It is going to inconvenience some innocent people simply because, among other factors, their skin was colored a particular way just as, and the hope is, it will save a lot mor
