Is false speech free speech? – Los Angeles Times

Posted on by

To the editor: Although it is correct and important to say that hate speech is legally protected, this op-ed article is misleading. (Actually, hate speech is protected speech, Opinion, June 8)

For instance, in the famous Supreme Court decision in Schenck vs. United States in 1919, the constitutional principle about not shouting fire in a crowded theater is not actually bad law as suggested. Nor is it accurate to suggest that such speech is illegal or unethical only if it is false.

A better example is from the libertarian philosopher John Stuart Mill: It is still criminal to incite mob violence or carnage at the house of a corn dealer even if the speech there is true. Another reason not to make truth or falsity the test of protected speech is that what was once thought false might turn out to be true.

There should be no doubt, however, that so much of so-called hate speech is legally protected but is nevertheless currently suppressed especially on college or university campuses (I am a philosophy professor at Cal State San Luis Obispo). Hate speech has come to mean whatever political speech one hates or finds offensive.

Despite the articles shortcomings, it is to be applauded for prompting reflections on these points.

Stephen W. Ball, San Luis Obispo

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

Continued here:

Is false speech free speech? - Los Angeles Times

Killing Free Speech. Et Tu Delta? Et Tu Bank of America? – Newsweek

Posted on by

This article first appeared on the History News Network.

The recent furor in the right-wing press over the New Yorks Public Theatres current anti-Trumpian Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar would be funny if it wasnt so predictable.

Following on the heels of the public castigation of comedian Kathy Griffins inopportune tweet of two weeks ago (which in light of ShakesGate Im inclined to now charitably interpret as a promotional still for a contemporary staging of Euripides The Bacchae ), conservative sites have gone apoplectic over the insensitivity of director Oskar Eustiss decision to stage the play in Central Parks Delacorte Theater, a production which exemplifies the observation that Shakespeares political masterpiece has never felt more contemporary.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

The productions unsubtle message was not lost on the audience when the ancient Roman dictator appeared with a ridiculous blonde bouffant, a cheap, inexpertly knotted tie hanging below his crotch, and a wife who purrs in a Slovenian accent.

As could be guessed, the clanging chorus of the conservative news media was not amused. Fox News, who share Eustiss distrust of subtlety, disingenuously headlined one of their articles with NYC Play Appears to Depict Assassination of Trump, as if one of the great plays of one of our greatest playwright were simply only a NYC Play.

Its telling that after much deserved mockery, the editors at Fox amended the article to more prominently state that the mock assassination occurred in a production of Julius Caesar," as if the initial ambiguity in their title wasnt intentional.

Oh, the Bard, ahead of his time, a coastal elite liberal and dead for four hundred years! Of course that the character of Caesar is in many ways the hero of the play was lost on these pundits, as indeed was the fact that the text itself is vehemently against political violence.

Furthermore, in making Caesar Trumpian the director inadvertently complimented a man as consummately incompetent as our current, accidental, Head of State.

Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington D.C.; Julius Caesar. Sculpture by John Gregory (1932). Vysotsky, public domain

Despite that, both Bank of America and Delta Airlines pulled their financial support for the play, for an upstanding institution like Bank of America (which surely has never been responsible for any damage to the lives of actual people) could not be associated with such an intemperate play as Julius Caesar.

Shakespeare has never been politically neutral, and the right-wing anxiety over a New York production of a classic play belies how little of their defense of the canon and of great literature since the heyday of academes Culture Wars of a generation ago was actually just disingenuous posturing.

As a teacher of Renaissance literature Ive often been bemused by conservative hand-wringing over trigger warnings and snowflakes in need of safe spaces and yet anxiety over art often seems to be a particularly reactionary impulse.

There is a cottage industry of right-wing pundits with apocryphal stories about sensitive young undergraduates unable to read Macbeth because of violence, or The Merchant of Venice because of anti-Semitism. The phenomenon of overly-sensitive undergraduates clambering against free speech matches little of my or many of my colleagues experiences as regarding college education today.

Ill note that the petulant opprobrium at Shakespeare in this season of our discontent seems to exclusively be coming from the right side of the aisle, or as scholar Stephen Greenblatt remarked to the Guardian:

Whats kind of amusing, in a slightly grim way, about this is to have Julius Caesar of all things suddenly the point at which the right can no longer endure free expression, which theyve been hollering for .... Every time they send out a crazy provocateur on campus, they go bonkers if there are protests.

Bad faith conservative defenders of the humanities, from William Bennett in the 1980s to the more noxious western nationalists of today, conveniently try to obscure the historically subversive nature of so much of canonical literature. Elsewhere, I have written that the conservative defense of the canon is so often a celebration of mere wallpaper, a means of demonstrating ones education, pedigree, or wealth.

If there was any doubt about the conservative war on the humanities (their claim to be supporters of free speech being shown as totally empty), witness Trumps catastrophic proposal to defund the National Endowment for the Humanities, an act that is at least honest in its brazen philistinism (in contradistinction to the ravings of the William Bennetts and Lynn Cheneys of the world).

Lets remember whats implied with things like the Fox headline theirs is not only an attack on Eustis, or a New York theatrical production, but it is also an attack on Shakespeares play itself. If conservatives are made uncomfortable that an onstage tyrant reminds them of the president, maybe theyd do better to ask why that comparison is so easy to make in the first place.

Shakespeare scholar Marjorie Garber once provocatively wrote that Shakespeare makes modern culture and modern culture makes Shakespeare. She continues by saying that one of the fascinating effects of Shakespeares plays [are that].they have almost always seemed to coincide with the times in which they are read, published, produced, and discussed.

Julius Caesar has as its subject themes like authoritarianism, treachery, and violence, it serves to reason that in authoritarian, treacherous, violent times Julius Caesar will appropriately enough be on our minds. Julius Caesar, as befitting a Republic such as ours which always made great significance of our perceived Greco-Roman ideological origins, has been perennially reinvented over the years, from Orson Welless landmark anti-fascist version of the 1930s, to an anti-Obama production in Minneapolis five years ago (Ill add that Fox News was silent on that one).

Shakespeare, like all great art, is ours to invent and reinvent. Donald Trump Jr., when not accidentally confirming James Comeys account of his interactions with Trump Sr., took time to tweet Serious question, when does art become political speech & does that change things?

Well Mr. Trump Jr., its inadvertently a good question I would argue that art is always political speech, and that that changes nothing. Shakespeare has been enlisted in all variety of political causes, often wildly contradictory ones. The multi-vocal brilliance of the playwright is that he has come down to us as both monarchist and republican, democrat and authoritarian, elitist and populist. There are worlds within the plays of the folio, and that is precisely what can be so threatening about him.

ShakesGate puts me in mind of Shakespeares younger colleague (and sometimes collaborator) Thomas Middleton, whose 1624 Jacobean play A Game at Chess was "the greatest box-office hit of early modern London, in part because it contained thinly veiled representations of both King James I, and the Spanish King Phillip IV (in violation of a law which prohibited depictions of living monarchs).

After nine sold out performances, the play was shut down by authorities. One imagines that had they existed in 1624, Bank of America and Delta would also have pulled their support of that production.

It is inevitable that all literature is read and reread within the context of the present moment in which we find ourselves. Shakespeare himself said as much in Julius Caesar when Cicero remarks,

Indeed, it is a strange disposed time:/

But men may construe things after their fashion, /

Clean from the purpose of the things themselves.

We are in our own strange disposed time, and it is inevitable that well construe literature after our own experience, separate from the historical concerns which helped to produce said literature. Thats the same as it ever was.

But ironically, the rather immutable message of the play is provided in a playbill gloss by its director, who writes that Julius Caesar can be read as a warning parable to those who try to fight for democracy by undemocratic means. This, it would seem, is crucial, for in such context a production as this can be read as anti-trump without being pro-violence, with Eustis continuing by explaining that To fight the tyrant does not mean imitating him.

And this, I think, gets to the heart about what the right finds so dangerous about Shakespeare in this circumstance. It has nothing to do with taste or appropriateness, and everything to do with the fact that such a classic text is able to see a tyrant for precisely what he actually is.

Ed Simon is the associate editor of The Marginalia Review of Books, a channel of The Los Angeles Review of Books.

Go here to see the original:

Killing Free Speech. Et Tu Delta? Et Tu Bank of America? - Newsweek

Atheism TV – YouTube

Posted on by

CHANNEL INTRODUCTION: Atheism TV is an educational channel dedicated to promoting rational thinking, defend the separation of church and state, and providing support for atheists worldwide.

About the video: It's about time this channel gets a trailer video. Thanks a lot to Rictus Gate for his great acoustic interpretation of Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing". Thanks to BionicDance for 3D graphics that look pretty much exactly like the original music video, except with the Tom and Al characters featured in a few previous videos such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Lyrics can be seen by turning on the captions, as well as at the end of this description section.

No religious fucktards were hurt during the making of this video.

CREDITS Lyrics: AtheismTV Music: Rictus Gate http://www.youtube.com/user... Graphics: BionicDance http://www.youtube.com/user...

====== LYRICS

Many will watch it (x3) AtheismTV Many will watch it (x3) AtheismTV

Now look at'em Infidels, deconverting to it Watchin' the news and celebrities Well they ain't kiddin', deconverting to it Many will watch it: AtheismTV Now They ain't kiddin', deconverting to it Wacky World: worshipers are so dumb Maybe watch it in with a good beer, Maybe watch it with a little rum.

We gotta watch those annoying morons Get their ass pwned repeatedly We gotta watch religious fucktards We gotta watch AtheismTV

See that little muslim wants shariah thrusted upon us Yea little buddy, go fuck yourself

See that little muslim Exploding his own car Hear that little muslim scream "allahu akbar"

We gotta watch those annoying morons Get their ass pwned repeatedly We gotta watch religious fucktards We gotta watch AtheismTV

I shoulda learned about the bible I shoulda learned about the qur'an

Look at that mother, she got indoctrinated children And the father who's giving them the rod

And what's up there, What's that? Invisible sky daddy? Prayin' to the ceiling Like a schizo-crazy That ain't workin' That's no way to do it Nothing fails like prayer And wishful thinkin'

We gotta watch those annoying morons Get their ass pwned repeatedly We gotta watch religious fucktards We gotta watch AtheismTV

Look at 'em Infidels deconverting to it Many will watch it: AtheismTV That ain't workin' That's no way to do it Nothing fails like prayer And wishful thinkin'

Many will watch it (x2) AtheismTV

Many will watch it (x3) AtheismTV

Many will watch it Look at it, look at it Many will watch it AtheismTV

Many will watch it (x2) AtheismTV Look at it, look at it Show less

Link:

Atheism TV - YouTube

Two Representatives Offer A Look At How Congress Is Doing – WNIJ and WNIU

Posted on by

On A Friday Forum earlier this year, Illinois U.S. Representatives Bill Foster and Randy Hultgren talked about their hopes and concerns for the new Congress as it began its work. For this week's Friday Forum,WNIJ's Guy Stephens asked the two for an update on how things are going in Congress.

Randy Hultgren and Bill Foster have both served several terms in the U.S. House. Hultgren, a Republican considered one of the most conservative members of Congress, took the old 14th District from Foster in 2010. When new lines were drawn in 2012, Hultgren won election in the new 14th, while Foster, who calls himself a centrist Democrat, won the seat in the new 11th District. Both won re-election last year.

Its been a tumultuous several months in Washington, but Hultgren felt that Congress, at least, has earned a fairly good grade. He gave it a B. Why?

"Theres some really good things happening," he said, but it could be better -- with some help.

"We need to be doing our work, certainly, in the House, but also need the Senate to step up and do some of the important things. Theyve been very focused early on in this session on appointments and I know that took a lot of time.

Hultgren based his positive assessment, in part, on Congresss productivity. Just look at the numbers through this week, he said. Theres more going on than youd guess from the headlines. He finds that encouraging.

Weve passed 158 bills through the House, and thats the highest, really, in recent history," he said. "The average at this point would be right around a little over 91 bills, and 37 of them have actually gone on to become law, through the Senate and signed by the President. So in spite of all of the busy-ness and noise and challenges and bumps, were still getting our work done. Were still moving forward on some important issues.

But Hultgren said he thinks there is a limited window of opportunity to pursue those big issues, and the challenge is for the White House and Congress to stay focused. Otherwise, the people may give his party a much lower grade than his in the 2018 elections.

Foster had a very different view. He didnt disagree that a lot has been done. Whether thats a positive, he said, it depends.

Well," he said,"youd have different grades in different subjects. For instance, in health care, I would give Congress a D-.

Foster said thats because he thinks Republicans should have gone in another direction than they did with the GOP health care bill, which he said was often referred to during the debate by opponents as a "wealthcare bill."

"The starting point and the ending point of that was a tax cut for the wealthy of most of a trillion dollars," he said. "And when thats your starting point, you then have to balance the books. You have to take away most of a trillion dollars of healthcare from someone in the United States.

Foster said likewise, the effort to repeal and replace the financial reform legislation known as Dodd-Frank, which passed on a party-line vote, has provisions that could have dire consequences for both individuals and the economy.

Foster said those concerns also apply to proposals on tax reform and infrastructure spending, which he says have so far been disappointing, but where there remains the possibility of bipartisan action.

Hultgren emphasized that most of the issues and bills that he and his colleagues are working on arent the big polarizing ones like health care or tax reform. But theyre still important. He listed his service on the financial services committee, as co-chairman of the Tom LantosHuman Rights Commission that deals with problems such as religious persecution and human trafficking, work on improving access to Perkins Loans that provide individuals money for education, a bill to protect veterans whose credit has been adversely affected by reimbursement delays when using the Veterans Choice Program, and work to strengthen the Federal Home Loan Bank.

Hultgren said those efforts are often -- in fact, mostly -- bipartisan. Foster, too, said it has been possible to work across the aisle on some things. One he pointed to thats transcended party politics is the opioid crisis. He said the problem is widespread and has, on average, affected Republican districts harder than Democratic ones.

"Its something where, if youre going to do some good, you have to spend money," he said. "And so, even people who believe they were elected to cut the size of government are often willing to spend some amount of taxpayer money on things like dealing with the heroin epidemic.

Foster said that was evident in the bipartisan pushback that reversed proposed cuts to addiction programs in the administrations preliminary budget.

He said progress also can happen on things that dont seem so dire in fact, maybe just the opposite.

Ive often found its easier to get bipartisan agreement when youre talking about the long-distant future," he said."If youre talking about next years budget, it immediately gets very partisan."

He cites as an example human genetic engineering -- think designer babies --which seems the stuff of science fiction, but which Foster said is closer to being a reality than you think. He was able to get the chairman of his committee, a Republican with whom he says he rarely agrees, to arrange a hearing on the topic.

Although hes in the majority, Hultgren said he too realizes that getting a bill not just through the House but the Senate as well and signed into law means reaching out to the other side. He said he often strives to do so, even as he tries to move quickly on his own and his partys agenda.

But Foster remains concerned about how that process happens in the House these days. He said hed like to return to how things used to work in Congress -- whats known as regular order. He explained by giving as an example what used to happen to an appropriations bill.

It would come up under whats called an open rule, where any member of Congress would get to propose an amendment," he said. "We couldnt just arbitrarily add large amounts of money to a program, but we could, for example, move money from one bucket to another bucket within the same bill."

This, Foster said, was a very positive way for members of both parties to get involved in coming to a better place, and he thought it was a very healthy thing for the institution.

"But," he said, "it is not loved by those who are in charge of the U.S. House. They want -- them and their staff -- to write just write all the final deals.

As a result, he said, members of Congress often are asked only for an up-or-down vote on big omnibus bills put before them.

On top of that, Foster said the turmoil -- as well as the policies -- of the Trump Administration has him worried and complicates efforts in Congress to do something constructive for the country. But he said hell continue to do his bit to affect change for the better.

Hultgren doesnt necessarily disagree about the effects of the turmoil on the process. Still, he said, in spite of that, he reminds people once again that its not all partisan battling and stalemate in Washington.

I would say eighty percent of the things we work on or more are absolutely bipartisan things," he said. "So, well continue to get things done and continue to struggle and find ways to get things done on the other twenty percent or so that we absolutely do disagree on.

But he thinks that, for more of that to happen, both representatives including him -- and their constituents need to work harder at being well-informed, to recognize other points of view, and not take every bit of information that comes their way from a particular source as gospel truth.

To listen to not just Fox News, but to tune in to MSNBC once in a while, or CNN, or vice versa," he said. "Or to still get a newspaper and look through that, or if you can get some different websites where you can get some information."

He adds that public radio continues to be a great place to hear a range of perspectives and for going a little bit more in depth on issues than, say, the cable news shows.

If everyone did that, he said, then the system and Congress would have a better chance to work more like it should.

See the original post:

Two Representatives Offer A Look At How Congress Is Doing - WNIJ and WNIU

Elon Musk shares plan to colonize Mars – New York Post

Posted on by

New York Post
Elon Musk shares plan to colonize Mars
New York Post
The text, which is a more technical summary and explanation of the Mars colonization plans that Musk revealed during a lengthy talk at the Astronautical Congress in Mexico late last year, explores the benefits and considerable challenges of creating a ...

Continue reading here:

Elon Musk shares plan to colonize Mars - New York Post

NATO and New Zealand share genuine partnership and interest in enhanced mil-to-mil cooperation, says Chairman of … – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted on by

General Petr Pavel, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee visited Wellington and Auckland, New Zealand, on 14-17 June 2017. During his stay, the Chairman met with Secretary of Defence, Ms Helene Quilter; the Minister of Defence, the Honourable Mark Mitchell; Chief of Defence of the New Zealand Armed Forces, Lieutenant General Tim Keating; Commander of Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) Base Auckland, Air Commodore Darryn Webb; the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Deputy Chief of the Army, Brigadier Christopher Parsons; and Special Operations Component Commander, Colonel Rob Gillard. General Pavel also attended a Defence meeting chaired by Lieutenant General Keating and delivered a speech at the New Zealand Institute for International Affairs at Victoria University.

Arriving in Wellington, General Pavel was greeted with a traditional Welcome Ceremony, a Pwhiri, and Honour Guard at the Pukeahu National War Memorial. While at the War Memorial, the Chairman paid his respects and laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. It is a privilege to be able to pay my respects and honour those men and women who have lost their lives serving their country, said General Pavel.

Discussions with Ms Helene Quilter and the Hon. Mark Mitchell centered on New Zealand and NATOs increased dialogue and cooperation, the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan to train, advise and assist the Afghan Security Forces and institutions, as well as regional and global threats and challenges. The Chairman thanked New Zealand for its enduring engagement in Afghanistan and the need to continue to work together to counter terrorism. Geography and distance no longer protect us. By ensuring our regional security and working together on common threats and challenges we can increase global peace and security, remarked General Pavel.

Attending a Defence meeting with Lieutenant General Keating, General Pavel was briefed on the current Operations and Missions the New Zealand Armed Forces are undertaking and their view on national, regional and global security challenges. He thanked Lt Gen Keating for New Zealands continued commitment to NATO-led Operations, Missions and Activities as both Generals agreed to look for further ways to enhance military-to-military cooperation which is of benefit to both NATO and New Zealand. New Zealand may not have a large defence force but it consistently contributes what it can to defend our shared values of democracy and protect rule of law. Your contribution is always highly regarded and valued by the Alliance, stressed the Chairman.

Meeting with the Air Component Commander of the RNZAF Base, Group Captain Tim Walshe, the General was briefed on the the Air Bases' capabilities and activities and visited a P-3K2 Airbourne Surveillance Plane. Visiting the SAS base at Papakura, the Chairman met Colonel Rob Gillard, Special Operations Component Commander. He received a briefing on their training capabilities and activities, and toured the recently completed multi-purpose training camp. Commenting on these visits, the General noted, I am continually impressed with how the New Zealand Armed Forces are committed to ensuring their capabilities are of a high quality, make the best use of their resources, and maintain interoperability with all partners to provide real added value.

Speaking with academics and government representatives at the New Zealand Institute for International Affairs, the Chairman highlighted the main challenges facing the Alliance, its current adaptation and its continued unity and solidarity in the face of threats from both state and non-state actors. The representatives in turn shared with the General their perspectives on regional and world affairs.

View post:

NATO and New Zealand share genuine partnership and interest in enhanced mil-to-mil cooperation, says Chairman of ... - NATO HQ (press release)

Trump, NATO, and Establishment Hysteria – War on the Rocks

Posted on by

Now that the dust has settled on President Donald Trumps first foreign trip, we can assess the damage. The conventional hysteria notwithstanding, Trumps rudeness towards NATO allies did not reveal his intention to abandon them and end U.S. global leadership. Its actually worse than that, at least from our perspective. Trump is alienating allies without reducing U.S. defense commitments to them. He isnt surrendering U.S. leadership so much as defiling it.

You probably dont need us to remind you that the presidents trip last month began as a carnival of Arabian pomp, hostility towards Iran, praise for autocracy, geographic ignorance, and memeready awkwardness. Then things took a darker turn in Brussels. Attending a meeting of the heads of NATO states, Trump welcomed Montenegro to NATO by shoving aside its prime minister to get center stage for a photograph, hectored allies to spend more, and defied expectations even his advisors by refusing to endorse Article 5 of the alliances founding treaty, which calls for collective defense. It went worse behind the scenes, we now know. Trump again tried to go around the European Union to win trade concessions from Germany and mentioned getting back-pay from NATO allies. At the subsequent G-7 meeting, the president fended off requests to keep the United States in the Paris Climate Accord and pulled out shortly after returning home.

Besides global derision and U.S. embarrassment, Trumps actions produced immediate political results. For the allied leaders, already considerable domestic rewards for opposing Trump grew. The new French president, Emmanuel Macron, reveling in his lanti-Trump nickname, quickly took to tweaking his U.S. counterpart. Canadas foreign minister argued that given U.S. doubt about the worth of its mantle of global leadership, Canadians had to set their own course and spend more on defense.

In Germany, Angela Merkels main rival for the chancellorship, Social Democrat Martin Schulz, seemed to get a polling boost for his habit of criticizing Trump and bashed him for trying to inflict humiliation in Brussels and his unacceptable treatment of Merkel. The chancellor herself offered a reflection at a campaign rally:

The times when we could completely rely on others are, to an extent, over I experienced that in the last a few days, and therefore I can only say that we Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, tried damage control. The national security advisor and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors authored an op-ed insisting that the president had essentially backed Article 5. Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis assured allies that the United States was still there for them. Trump, presumably having succumbed to pressure from his aides, finally endorsed Article 5 last Friday.

These efforts failed to calm establishment foreign policy thinkers, who generally see Trumps alliance see-sawing as indicative of isolationist proclivities and his damage to global U.S. leadership as permanent. After Merkels comment, Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass tweeted that by provoking Europe to rely on itself for its defense, Trump had allowed what U.S. policy had labored to avoid since World War II. When Trump backed Article 5, Haass tweeted that even welcome policy reversals come at cost to U.S. credibility & reputation for reliability. Steve Pifer of Brookings wrote that Trump is undoing U.S. engagement in Europe that maintains peace and stability. The New York Times editorial board declared that the United States is no longer the reliable partner her country and the rest of Europe have long depended on. By last week it was obvious to Heather Hurlburt of New America that President Trump and his enablers are ushering us into a new, post-American stage of global relations.

Churlish as Trumps conduct in Europe was, these reactions are overwrought and unmoored from history. For better or worse, the Trump administration is not renouncing the U.S. defense commitment to Europe or leadership more generally. Should uncertainty about that nonetheless drive European states rely less on the United States, Washington will still have moved towards an old and sensible policy goal of letting an independent Europe lead its own defenses.

With all of the wailing and rending of garments among the Washington foreign policy establishment, it is easy to miss that neither the United States nor its NATO allies have made big defense policy changes since Trump took office. Merkels electorally-driven comment essentially repeated what she said in January in response to Trumps election and the Brexit. She seemed to endorse further integration of common E.U. defense policies an old objective. If theres new policy here, its more support for an E.U. defense procurement fund and something called Permanent Structured Cooperation, which vaguely promises to coordinate security cooperation among groups of E.U. states significant but hardly revolutionary developments in Europes fitful path towards a common defense.

U.S. military policy in Europe has changed even less. Trump is not removing any of the 80,000 troops on the continent or even curtailing recent rotations of U.S. forces to Eastern Europe. Even Trumps reluctance on Article 5 has a basis in the NATO treaty. At the behest of U.S. negotiators eager to preserve options, the signatories promise only such action as it deems necessary in the face of an attack on another NATO member.

Pressing European allies to spend more on defense is hardly new, even if Trumps boorish way of asking is. The Pentagon long ago published an annual report to scold allies on spending. U.S. leaders, including President Barack Obama, have regularly beseeched the allies to spend more, and the allies continually say they will. Non-U.S. NATO spending did increase mildly in real terms from 2015 to 2016, partly thanks to Russian aggression in Ukraine.

European anxiety about losing U.S. protection is also familiar. During the 1940s and 1950s, European NATO members worried that the United States would abandon them either because of the vicissitudes of American politics or the desire to avoid the costs of stopping a Soviet invasion. Later, U.S.-Soviet arms control and dtente stoked similar European worries.

These patterns reflect structural dilemmas of postwar U.S. policy in Europe. Reassuring allies tends to encourage them to spend less on defense while harming U.S.-Russian and, before that, Soviet relations. Repairing those relations alienates at least some allies, but can frighten them into heavier spending. The goal of reassuring allies competes with those of squeezing them to spend and reducing tension with Russia. Trumps Russia tilt rebalances concerns, but they reflect an old problem.

Even if it turns out Trump has set off a process leading to unprecedented European military independence, the United States will not have jettisoned a holy and continuous postwar goal. U.S. leaders did not craft a postwar order with the idea of forever serving as its center. Different leaders had different agendas, of course, but in general American strategy during and after World War II was expressly designed to allow the United States to come home from Europe. In the first two decades of the Cold War, the United States worked to rebuild Germany within Western Europe, so that allied states could stand against the Soviet Union without requiring the United States to man the front line. The Eisenhower administration supported the development of a European Army within the European Defense Community outside NATO, that is. This effort failed, but it was due more to the reluctance of the West Europeans to cooperate with each another than want of U.S. effort.

U.S. thinking on NATO shifted during and after the Cold War. Over time, a new consensus developed that U.S. domination of Europe was desirable. NATO served that purpose, and European military integration independent of the United States was no longer as desirable. Given allied sensibilities and the difficulty of selling the U.S. public on such a contestable rationale, this logic was rarely stated officially. Still this is what drives the broad consternation provoked by Merkels comment. But to the extent that Germany works within Europe to organize a defensive posture not reliant on U.S. forces, it reflects the success of Americas postwar vision for an independent European defense.

Our purpose here isnt to defend Trump, but rather policies he might sully. Were Trump diplomatically reducing U.S. defense commitments to Europe, hed deserve credit for allowing possible military cuts and even for aiding the European Unions development as a real power. Instead, hes not reducing U.S. commitments while trying to bully allies into boosting defense spending. By antagonizing allies without reducing U.S. commitments to them, hes just making U.S. leadership costlier.

There is plenty wrong with Trumps foreign policy, but abandoning European allies is not among his sins. Were his rudeness to allies to nonetheless produce heightened European military capability that might lessen the U.S. militarys burdens, well have realized a venerable, if neglected, U.S. foreign policy goal. It shouldnt be condemned by association with this president.

Benjamin H. Friedman is a Research Fellow in Defense Homeland Security Studies at the Cato Institute.

Joshua Shifrinson is an Assistant Professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service and Texas A&M University.

Image: NATO

View original post here:

Trump, NATO, and Establishment Hysteria - War on the Rocks

USAF Or NATO Should Snap Up The RAF’s Retiring R1 Sentinel Radar Planes – The Drive

Posted on by

Although the loss of the R1 fleet may be a sad pill to swallow for the Royal Air Force, and the MoD as a whole, it represents a real opportunity for the US that could be aggressively explored in the near term. Sadly, the powers that be within the Pentagon and in the US defense industry will likely fight any sort of second hand acquisition of the Sentinel fleet because it will, even if to a relatively small degree, put in jeopardy the scope of lucrative E-8 JSTARS replacement contract. With careers being bet on this procurement initiative both inside the DoD and in the ranks of its biggest vendors, the retired R1s, which are needed today and can fit right into the USAF's inventory and order of battle, will likely be passed over. We can only hope this won't be the case as America's warfighters can seriously benefit from having these aircraft overhead in hotspots around the globe.

Alternatively, NATO could acquire these aircraft for the alliance's collective use under a similar scheme as their E-3 AWACS fleet, but they are already receiving GMTI and SAR capability via their five aircraft, Global Hawk-based "Alliance Ground Surveillance" initiative. But NATO will likely want more capacity and in a more flexible manner than the unmanned Global Hawks can provide. Instead of buying more Global Hawk derivatives, they could diversify their capabilities and likely save large sums of money by taking on the R1 fleet.

Such a transfer of capability would also make losing the aircraft more palatable for the UK. But where exactly the funding for operating and maintaining the Sentinels will come from is unclear. The Trump Administration could tell the alliance pitch in to adopt the fleet, as making demands of NATO partners has been part of the White House's core foreign policy agenda, but it could take time for making such an arrangement a reality. Like any weapon system, the longer the R1s sit in limbo the more expensive it will be to return them to service.

Either way, these aircraft need a home. Hopefully the US will step ineither with money or leadershipand see that they find one that is beneficial to the US and its allies.

Contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com

Read more from the original source:

USAF Or NATO Should Snap Up The RAF's Retiring R1 Sentinel Radar Planes - The Drive

Until the 1970s, NATO Thought It Would Lose a Conventional War With Russia – The National Interest Online (blog)

Posted on by

The belief that NATO would lose a conventional conflict did nothing to contradict the notion that NATO could play a valuable role in deterring war. For one, NATO could certainly make things more difficult for the Soviet Union; overwhelming combined British-German-American forces would prove far more costly than defeating a West Germany that stood alone. Moreover, by triggering an expansion of the war NATO could create costs for the Soviets in other parts of the world. Overwhelming NATO superiority at sea and in long-rangeairpowerwould prove devastating for Soviet interests outside of Eurasia, even if the Soviets prevailed on the Central Front.

Arecent RANDwargameon a potential Russian offensive into theBalticsbrought talk of a new Cold War into sharp focus. The game made clear that NATO would struggle to prevent Russian forces from occupying theBalticsif it relied on the conventional forces now available.

Thesewargameshave great value in demonstrating tactical and operational reality, which then informs broader strategic thinking. In this case, however,the headlines generatedby the game have obscured more about the NATO-Russian relationship than they have revealed. In short, the NATO deterrent promise has never revolved around a commitment to defeat Soviet/Russian forces on NATOs borders. Instead, NATO has backed its political commitment with the threat to broaden any conflict beyond the war that the Soviets wanted to fight. Today, as in 1949, NATO offers deterrence through the promise of escalation.

The Early Years

Lets be utterly clear on this point; from the creation of NATO until the1970s, Western military planners expected the Warsaw Pact to easily win a conventional war in Europe. Conventionalwarfightingplans by the major NATO powers often amounted, almost literally, to efforts to reach the English Channel just ahead of the tanks of the Red Army. NATO expected to liberally use tactical nuclear weapons to slow the Soviet advance, an action which would inevitably invite Soviet response (the Soviets also prepared for this dynamic).

The belief that NATO would lose a conventional conflict did nothing to contradict the notion that NATO could play a valuable role in deterring war. For one, NATO could certainly make things more difficult for the Soviet Union; overwhelming combined British-German-American forces would prove far more costly than defeating a West Germany that stood alone. Moreover, by triggering an expansion of the war NATO could create costs for the Soviets in other parts of the world. Overwhelming NATO superiority at sea and in long-rangeairpowerwould prove devastating for Soviet interests outside of Eurasia, even if the Soviets prevailed on the Central Front.

Most importantly, the threat that France, Britain and the United States would launch strategic nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union in response to a successful conventional assault was supposed to give Moscow pause. Even if an American President refused to exchange Berlin for New York, the Soviets would have to worry about the rest of NATOs nuclear deterrent.

Active Defense/AirLandBattle

Theexpectation that NATO could defeatthe Warsaw Pact in battle only emerged after the Yom Kippur War. In that conflict, precision-guided conventional munitions exacted such a toll on advancing forces (both in theGolanand in Sinai) that American military planners began to believe that they could stop a Soviet attack. Drawn up in defensive positions that would channel oncoming Red Army armor into large kill zones, NATO forces could sufficiently blunt and disrupt a Soviet advance, and prevent the collapse of positions within Germany. The defense would buy time for NATO to transit additional forces and equipment from the United States to Europe, to carry out in depth attacks against Warsaw Pact logistical and communications centers in Eastern Europe, and to attack Soviet interests in the rest of the world.

After 1982,AirLandBattle would return maneuver to the battlefield, as American commanders grew more confident of their ability to defeat the Red Army in a fluid engagement. Cooperation between the Army and the Air Force would allow attacks all along the depth of the Soviet position, turning the formidable Red Army (and its Eastern European allies) into a chaotic mess. At the same time, the U.S. Navy prepared to attack directly into the Soviet periphery withairstrikesand amphibious assaults, as well as into the cherished bastions of the Soviet boomer fleet. None of this depended on the protection of any given piece of NATO territory; planners accepted that the Soviets could make at least some gains at the beginning of any plausible war scenario.

In this context, news that Russia could win a localized conventional conflict against small NATO nations on its border becomes rather less alarming than it sounds at first blush. Apart from (perhaps) a brief window of vulnerability in the1990s, Russia has always had the capacity to threaten NATO with conventional force. Indeed, NATO did not even begin to plan for the conventional defense of theBalticsuntil well after their accession, on the belief that the faith and credit of the alliance, and in particular its ability to retaliate against Soviet interests in the rest of Europe, would prove a sufficient deterrent.

Read the original here:

Until the 1970s, NATO Thought It Would Lose a Conventional War With Russia - The National Interest Online (blog)

NATO’s future helicopter: The alliance’s strategy to modernizing its rotorcraft capability – DefenseNews.com

Posted on by

BRUSSELSWhile the American military isforging ahead with a new helicopter replacement program, Europe islagging behind in exploiting the potential of its helicopter sector, according to the European Helicopter Association,the voice of the majority of helicopter operators in Europe.

The U.S. Army is working toward its Future Vertical Lift, and this initiative is well underway, with the first prototypes already built for the future helo.

In an effort to keep pace with the U.S., NATO set up a group of experts to run a two-year program meant to identify, analyze, assess and document advanced rotorcraft technologies.

The Industrial Advisory Group, or NIAGa high-level consultative and advisory body of senior industrialists from NATO member countriesis due to deliver its conclusions next year.

But what can be expected fromthis ambitiousplan?

A NATO official told Defense News: Many allies are due to refurbish or retire their current helicopter fleets in the 2025-2030 time frame. As the cost of technology rises, nations are consolidating the number of different aircraft types. Government- and industry-funded research shows that flight performance can be increased. Compound helicopter and tiltrotor systems show an increased range and speed compared to traditional helicopters.

"As new operational requirements are introduced, allies will need to ensure that new systems are interoperable with the legacy fleet.

This work is informed through direct interaction with the NATO Industrial Advisory Group, which has also initiated a study group, commissioned by the Conference of National Armaments Directors. Their recommendations are expected in the spring of 2018," the official added.

In supporting the next-generation rotorcraft road map, the advisory group will, according to NATO,examine configuration changes that provide a step change in range, speed, endurance and payload combined.

The aim is to ensureby the mid-2020s, when partner nations decide on their future platform requirements, thatthere has been sufficient knowledge sharing and capability awareness to develop optimal configuration across all platforms and missions.

As systems become more complex, consideration at the design stage becomes increasingly important. This requires an early identification of clear requirements with options set out that enable forces to choose the optimal solution for their mission requirements,"a source at NATO offered.The future operating environment requires the development of a new vertical lift platform unencumbered by the restrictions of traditionally designed rotorcraft, meaning the new platforms will need to perform unfettered by the limited physical perspectives of existing designs.

NIAG has reportedly concluded that a single main rotor is not the future. However, the future could be coaxial; or compounded with pusher props; or fans; or propellers; or advanced tilt rotorswhichever will deliver optimal configuration for future missions.

The recent use of rotary assets during operations has identified the need for each platform to provide a multitude of capabilities for each individual mission. Original platform requirements have often been disregarded in order to achieve mission success on the modern battlefield.

Jaime Arque, chair of theEuropean Helicopter Association, says he is concerned at the lack of interest at the European Union level regarding the exploitation of helicopter operations and their integration into the intra-EU connectivity.

The sole attention to commercial airline activity shows that the rotocraft industry has not been considered. Our sector employs over 100,000 people and helicopter operations have transformed many areas of our lives," Arque said.Current U.S. modes of operations highlight the need for strong connectivity between rotorcraft and other means of transport.

Dan Bailey, a NATO program director and chair of itsfuture rotorcraft capability team, is expected to provide an update on the alliance's next rotary fleet when he addresses "Combat Helicopter 2017," an international gathering for armed forces and industry, running from Oct. 17-19 in Krakow, Poland.

The rest is here:

NATO's future helicopter: The alliance's strategy to modernizing its rotorcraft capability - DefenseNews.com

Post-Snowden Efforts to Secure NSA Data Fell Short, Report Says – New York Times

Posted on by

New York Times
Post-Snowden Efforts to Secure NSA Data Fell Short, Report Says
New York Times
The N.S.A. failed to consistently lock racks of servers storing highly classified data and to secure data center machine rooms, according to the report, an investigation by the Defense Department's inspector general completed in 2016. The report was ...

Read the original post:

Post-Snowden Efforts to Secure NSA Data Fell Short, Report Says - New York Times

Posted in NSA

Senators seek answers about accused NSA leaker’s security clearance – Atlanta Journal Constitution

Posted on by

A pair of senior U.S. senators is pressing the Trump administration for information about how the Augusta woman at the center of the National Security Agency leak investigation was screened for her security clearance.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, and Ranking Member Clair McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, sent seven questions about Reality Leigh Winner and the governments vetting process to the Office of Personnel Management this week.

Among other things, the senators want to know which federal agency initially screened Winner and when, when her clearance was last reinvestigated and whether those screenings were done by federal employees or contractors? They also want to know the size of the governments current backlog of security clearance reinvestigations.

Winner worked as a federal contractor at a U.S. government agency in Georgia between February and June and had a top-secret security clearance. A federal grand jury has indicted her on a single count of "willful retention and transmission of national defense information for allegedly leaking to the news media a classified NSA report on Russias meddling in the U.S. election system. Before she was indicted, Winner spent months unleashing a tirade of social media posts calling President Donald Trump, among other things, an "orange fascist."

Winner faces up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines, plus up to three years of supervised release and a $100 special assessment. She has pleaded not guilty to the charge. Her next court hearing is set for June 27 in Augusta. TMZ recently publishedvideo of her exercising in an outdoor area of the Lincoln County Jail,wheresheisbeingdetained.

Ms. Winner allegedly chose to put Americans and our national security at risk when she leaked classified materials, Johnson said in a joint statement with McCaskill. It is my hope that OPM will do a thorough review of her security clearance, and determine if it was granted appropriately.

McCaskill said: The leaking of classified information jeopardizes our national security. We need to determine if Ms. Winners security clearance process was handled correctly or if we missed any red flags.

The Office of Personnel Management had no immediate comment Friday.

Gary Davis and Billie Winner-Davis, stepfather and mother of Reality Leigh Winner, spoke to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution about their daughter. Video by Hyosub Shin/AJC. Hyosub Shin/AJC

See the original post here:

Senators seek answers about accused NSA leaker's security clearance - Atlanta Journal Constitution

Posted in NSA

OPINION: Leaked NSA report rings alarm sounded by 2016 election recount – The Hill (blog)

Posted on by

Do we have a voting system we can trust, that is accurate, secure and just? This question, raised by the 2016 multi-state recount effort, is roaring back at us louder than ever after the Intercepts publication last week of a leaked National Security Agency report documenting with unprecedented detail a hacking scheme targeting components of the U.S. voting system.

The NSA report shows how the hack first used a spear phishing attack in August on the employees of a company producing voter registration software. Information from that hack was then used in a second phishing email about a week before the election targeting over 100 government employees, presumably local election officials, as the Intercept put it, to trick [them] into opening Microsoft Word documents invisibly tainted with potent malware that could give hackers full control over the infected computers.

Some cybersecurity experts presume the hack was exploratory rather than an actual attack, given the short time until the election. Still, this remains unproven, and the leaked NSA report raises disturbing questions. In particular, how far did this particular hack penetrate into the election system? Were there other successful hacks into the 2016 election? And can we trust our election results going forward?

Todays voting system is a sprawling network of hardware, software and local election officials that integrate voter registration, electronic voting, tabulating vote totals, and reporting these results to precinct, county, state and national centers that compile final vote results.

As voting-security expert Alex Halderman stated in the Intercept article, I would worry about whether an attacker who could compromise the poll book vendor might be able to use software updates ... to also infect the election management system that programs the voting machines themselves. Once you do that, you can cause the voting machine to create fraudulent counts.

The bottom line is this: The voting machines and software must be examined in order to conclude that the vote has not been hacked, and to protect our elections going forward. This was the demand made by the 2016 recount effort. The imperative to do so now is stronger than ever. In fact, the universe of investigation should be expanded, based on this report, to include hardware and software involved in vote tabulation and reporting, as well as voting machines themselves.

The integrity of our elections is paramount. The issue transcends partisan politics. We are all harmed by corruption of our elections and the cynicism it breeds, contributing to the loss of confidence in our political system expressed by 90 percent of Americans according to an AP/NORC poll last year. Hacking is just one part of the problem. Elections are likewise degraded by racially-biased voter suppression, the control of big money and big media over our elections, the suppression of independent and third party voices in debates and media and more. A vote we can believe in is the bedrock foundation of a functioning democracy, as Judge Mark Goldsmith noted in the initial ruling to proceed with the Michigan recount. That bedrock has gone missing.

The urgent need to respond to the NSA revelations of election hacking must not be lost beneath the outrage and political controversy over alleged Russian responsibility for the attack. Fortunately, we don't need to settle the debate over who hacked into our election system in order to proceed urgently to safeguard our elections. In fact, we must protect our elections from all potential interference, whether from foreign state actors, domestic political partisans, gangster networks, lone wolves or private corporations, including companies who control the voting software.

In any event, identifying and punishing the perpetrator/s will not make our future votes secure. Truly solving the problem of hacking may well require the resumption of a long-stalled effort to create an international treaty on cyberwarfare. Perhaps, as Microsoft President Brad Smith suggests, its time for a Geneva Convention on Cybersecurity.

In the meantime, future, and no doubt current, hacking into our election system can and must be stopped by adopting common sense safeguards long advocated by the election integrity movement and advanced by the recount effort. We must end the use of hack-friendly, error-prone electronic voting machines, and revert to hand-marked paper ballots, ideally counted by hand or by optical scanners carefully monitored by cross-checking against paper ballots (a process known as statistical audits). Hand recounts of the paper ballots should be readily available whenever elections are very close, or when legitimate concerns are raised about hacking, corruption or error at any level of the system. These safeguards must be in place in time to secure the 2018 elections.

A vote we can trust must not only be accurate and secure. It must also be just and true to the promise of democracy. That means we must guarantee the unimpeded right to vote and end racist voter suppression schemes that cost millions of Americans the right to vote, including voter ID laws, felon disenfranchisement, and Interstate Crosscheck. It means ending discrimination against alternative parties and independents in getting on the ballot, in the debates and in the media. It means getting big money out of our elections, and enacting improved voting systems like ranked choice voting and proportional representation that give voters the freedom to vote their values instead of their fears. Fixing our broken, unjust election system is no less urgent than fixing hackable electronic voting.

In this age of unprecedented converging crises of our economy, ecology, peace and democracy, we cannot wait to build the America we deserve. To do so, we need a voting system we can trust.

Dr. Stein was the 2016 Green Party Presidential candidate who initiated a multi-state recount effort backed by leading election integrity experts, largely due to concerns about the security of our voting system that are extremely topical in light of recent revelations.

View original post here:

OPINION: Leaked NSA report rings alarm sounded by 2016 election recount - The Hill (blog)

Posted in NSA

Foreign investigators join NSA in blaming North Korea for Wannacry: report – The Hill

Posted on by

The Hill
Foreign investigators join NSA in blaming North Korea for Wannacry: report
The Hill
The BBC is reporting that British-lead international investigation into the origins of Wanna Cry has come to the same conclusions as the NSA and a number of private firms: North Korea was behind the attacks. The Wanna Cry ransomware held hundreds of ...
NSA ties North Korea to WannaCry attacks: 5 things to knowBecker's Hospital Review
NSA points to North Korea as culprit in WannaCry ransomware ...The Hankyoreh
NHS cyber-attack was 'launched from North Korea'BBC News

all 46 news articles »

See the original post here:

Foreign investigators join NSA in blaming North Korea for Wannacry: report - The Hill

Posted in NSA

2008 FISA Transcript Shows NSA Already Knew It Might Have An Incidental Collection Problem – Techdirt

Posted on by

The ODNI has released several documents in response to FOIA lawsuits (EFF, ACLU). The EFF scored 18 of these (handy zip link here) and the ACLU seven. The ACLU's batch has proven more interesting (at least initially). One document it obtained shows a tech company challenged a Section 702 surveillance order in 2014. The challenge was shut down by the FISA court, but with the exception of Yahoo's short-lived defiance, we haven't seen any other evidence of ISP resistance to internet dragnet orders.

Included in the ACLU's batch is a 2008 FISA Court transcript [PDF] that's particularly relevant to the NSA's voluntary shutdown of its "about" collection. In it, the NSA discusses its filtering and oversight procedures, which were already problematic nearly a decade ago.

There are some really interesting tidbits to be gleaned from the often heavily-redacted proceedings, including this statement, which makes it clear the NSA engaged in wholly-domestic surveillance prior to the FISA Amendments Act.

THE COURT: All right. Well, what about the non-U.S. person status, which of course is new under the FISA Amendments Act? Are you going to be changing anything in terms of focusing on that?

[REDACTED GOV'T RESPONDENT]: We already sort of do with respect to the U.S. person status is so intertwined with the location of the target [REDACTED] to the extent that in the past NSA.would actually affirmatively identify targeted U.S. persons to us on the sheets, because one of the additional fields that they put in the sheets is basically a blurb, an explanation and a description of the target.

Clearly, we're not allowed to target US persons anymore, so I don't anticipate seeing any such descriptions on the sheets. But again, since the status of the person, the determination of how that is made is so intertwined with the same information upon which NSA relies to make a foreignness determination, that it would be hard for us not to identify such information as we're conducting the reviews.

Which, of course, means the NSA was allowed to target US persons and their communications previously, contradicting statements made by US officials, including President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

It's stated earlier in the transcript that the NSA does a few things to help minimize examination of US persons' communications. But they're not great. The NSA runs spot checks on analysts' transactions, deploys filters, and relies on self-reporting to guard against Fourth Amendment violations. It sounds like quite a bit, but the details show it's not nearly enough. To start with, the filters meant to filter out US persons' communications don't work.

COURT: The NSA minimization procedures, you're stating, 'contain a provision for allowing retention of information because of limitations on NSA's ability to filter communications.' My question I had was is the filter discussed in targeting the same filtering. I just wanted to understand that, and apparently it is. [The rest of the court's question is redacted.]

GOV'T: I think the inclusion of that provision in the minimization procedures was intended to be prophylactic in the event that the filters don't necessarily work, and NSA has represented that it's been their experience with the filters and [redacted] this provision basically captures instances where the filters may not work in every instance.

And there's a good reason why they won't work "in every instance." Further unredacted discussion reveals the NSA partially relies on an IP address blacklist to filter out US persons' communications. This is better than nothing, but still a long way from being a strong positive indicator of a target's (or incidental target's) location.

The court then asks about the limitations of the filters and we get several fully-redacted pages as an answer.

The court also asks about the "about" collection -- where targets are discussed but the communications do not directly involve NSA targets.The judge wants to know how often this is being used rather than the more-targeted "to/from" collection and how often it results in incidental collection. Unsurprisingly, the government can't say how often this happens. This is because the NSA saw no reason to track these searches.

GOV'T: As far as the percentage number, we don't have a number for that, because as I mentioned earlier, when we [redacted] we find to's and froms and [redacted] so we don't categorize those separately to be able to count those communications as abouts.

The court then asks why it's not possible to limit the collection to to's and froms. The government's response is that collecting it all just works better for the NSA, even though it apparently possesses the technical ability to keep these collections separate.

It is technically feasible. The problem with doing so is if you end up discarding a number of communications that are truly to-froms that you should be able to collect but [redacted]...

So by trying to limit us to no abouts, then we end up cutting out those kind of communications as well, truly to-froms. So it would be -- we're not surgical enough to take that out of the equation without impacting our ability to do to-froms effectively.

And later in the discussion, there's a bit of a bombshell about the "about" collection. The NSA shut it down because it couldn't find a way to prevent incidental collection of US persons' communications. In this transcript, the government points out incidental collection is just as likely with to-from targeting.

COURT: Is it more or less likely to pick up U.S.-person information in an about than a to or from?

MR. OLSEN: I don't know the answer in practice. At least from my perspective in theory, I wouldn't see why it would be more likely than a targeted to or from collection where the target's outside the United States where there's a similar possibility that that target would be in communication with someone in the United States, with a U.S. person in the United States.

If this is true, the elimination of the "about" collection doesn't do much to curtail incidental collection. And almost a decade ago, the NSA was already making it "impossible" to comply with Congressional requests for incidental collection numbers by refusing to separate its collections, even with the FISA Court raising questions about its Fourth Amendment implications.

Read more from the original source:

2008 FISA Transcript Shows NSA Already Knew It Might Have An Incidental Collection Problem - Techdirt

Posted in NSA

SCOTUS reviews 4th Amendment vs. surveillance case – OneNewsNow

Posted on by

A legal organization that advocates for constitutional freedom is watching a 4th Amendment case currently being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case is Carpenter v. The United States, which reached the court from the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals.

The case involves a gang of armed robbers who were tracked by authorities after one of the robbers confessed to the crime and gave up his cell phone number and the numbers of his accomplices.Using cell phone data, authorities analyzed the usage history to trace their movements for 127 days, a Washington Post story explained.

Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice says long before cell phones came into being, court rulings would suggest the police can monitor phone movements. That doesn't apply now, he insists.

I think that would be a very bad interpretation when applied to today's technology, says Levey, because the government might as well put a GPS device on your car and the Supreme Court has said the government can't do that without a warrant.

In the Washington Post story, criminal law professor Orin Kerr summarized the two questions presented to the high court:

I gather, then, that the case will consider two distinct questions. First, is the collection of the records a Fourth Amendment search? And second, if it is a search, is it a search that requires a warrant?

The government argues cell phone owners opt in to third-party police access when they sign a contract with the company. Most of the data came from provider MetroPCS while some "roaming" data came from Sprint.

But Levey doesn't agree.

You're really not consenting to anything when you use it, he says, and to say that by using a cell phone you have to give up all your Fourth Amendment rights, it would result in a government too powerful and too intrusive for my taste, and I think the taste of most Americans.

In taking up the case, he adds, the Supreme Court can update old rulings based on modern technology and determine whether police can have access to the information without a warrant or not.

Kerr described the SCOTUS review as a "momentous development" because the future of surveillance law hinges on the coming ruling.

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved.

Continue reading here:

SCOTUS reviews 4th Amendment vs. surveillance case - OneNewsNow

GOP rep defends Second Amendment in wake of shooting | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on by

Rep. Mo BrooksMo BrooksBaseball gunman had list of GOP lawmakers: reports Congressional aide: 'If I wanted to live I needed to make a run for it' Lawmakers recall the attack: 'I felt like I was back in Iraq' MORE (R-Ala.), who was one of about two dozen GOP lawmakers present when a gunman opened fire on their baseball practice early Wednesday, vigorously defended the Second Amendment after a reporter asked him if it changed his view on the gun situation in America.

"Not with respect to the Second Amendment, Brooks responded. The Second Amendment, the right to bear arms is to help ensure that we always have a republic. And as with any constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights, there are adverse aspects to each of those rights that we enjoy as people, and what we just saw here is one of the bad side effects of someone not exercising those rights properly.

"We are not going to get rid of freedom of speech because some people say ugly things and hurt some peoples feelings, and were not going to get rid of the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure rights because some criminals could go free who should be behind bars, Brooks said at the scene of the shooting in Alexandria, Va.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the House majority whip, is recovering from surgery after being shot in the hip, and four others were taken to hospitals after a gunman opened fire on Republican lawmakers practicing ahead of a charity congressional baseball game on Thursday.

At a press conference shortly after Brooks's comments, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) advocated for stricter gun laws in the wake of the shooting.

I think we need to do more to protect all of our citizens, McAuliffe said. I have long advocated this is not what today is about but there are too many guns on the streets. We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence. I have long talked about this. Background checks and shutting down gun show loopholes, and thats not for todays discussion, but its not just about politicians. We worry about this every day for all of our citizens.

McAuliffe later clarified that 93 Americans, not 93 million, die every day from gun violence.

Read this article:

GOP rep defends Second Amendment in wake of shooting | TheHill - The Hill

Profs mock Scalise support for Second Amendment after shooting – Campus Reform

Posted on by

Several college professors took advantage of Wednesdays shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise to mock his support for gun ownership and the Second Amendment.

Daniel Blair, a physics professor from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., tweeted that he hopes Scalise will rethink his A+ rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) following the shooting.

"My tweet was a gut reaction and pretty insensitive. I'm sorry I posted it."

I wonder if #SteveScalise will rethink his A+ NRA rating. #thoughtsandprayers do nothing, Blair tweeted.

Blair eventually expressed remorse for the tweet, telling Campus Reform in an email Friday that it was a gut reaction that he now regrets.

I think what happened to the Representative was a terrible and reprehensible act, he explained. My tweet was a gut reaction and pretty insensitive. I'm sorry I posted it.

Similarly, Merve Emre, an assistant professor at McGill University in Quebec, retweeted a post offering thoughts and prayers for the GOP lawmaker before snidely remarking that Scalise accepted $18,500 from the NRA and wants more guns on the streets.

Karl Qualls, a History professor at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania, contended that the incident was a direct result of easy access to guns and little regulation, even throwing the shooters race into the mix for good measure.

Another angry white man w easy access to guns (and state w almost no reg). Gabby Giffords, Steve Scalise. It isnt politics; Its guns, he wrote, referencing the shooting of former Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords.

In a follow-up tweet, Qualls said that although he doesnt condone the shooting, he is wondering whether it is too much to ask our legislators to AT LEAST work 9-5. Especially since no real legislation passed this term.

[RELATED: Anti-gun prof calls for shooting up NRA, ensuring no survivors]

When contacted by Campus Reform, Qualls said that he tweeted as a concerned citizen, not a professor.

I think all citizens can agree that we would like to see our elected officials do something (tax or healthcare reform, a budget, rational gun reform....anything), he told Campus Reform. Not a single piece of legislation has passed Congress and made it to the president's pen. Both parties need to do their jobs on a daily basis like the citizens they represent. That is why we send them to DC.

Meanwhile, Robin Morris, a professor from Agnes Scott College, tweeted that she wishes Steve Scalise a full recoveryexcept for the part of him that thinks a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.

In an email to Campus Reform, Morris explained that she hopes the Republican lawmaker will revisit his beliefs on gun control, adding that she was saddened, but not shocked by the shooting.

My tweet regarding Rep. Scalise meant to express that I hope he recovers fully, and that he will revisit his beliefs on gun control as so many of us who have been touched by gun violence have done, she explained, while noting that she herself has lost two friends to gun violence and even witnessed a shooting when she was a teenager.

[RELATED: College rejects gun club because NRA opposes gun control]

Morris went on to explain that while she is not anti-gun, she is pro-gun sense, saying she believes that people have a right to guns for hunting and for protectionwith proper background checks, licensing, and training.

Notably, Morris later deleted one of her tweets in which she claimed that the shooter was still alive because of his race.

Well we already knew it was a white guy who did the shooting. They got him into custody instead of killing him, the tweet read, with Morris telling Campus Reform that she made the mistake historians hate to doI tweeted without enough evidence.

I have deleted that tweet. It was also insensitive to the family of James Hodgkinson who are experiencing their own grief, I am sure on many levels, today. I pray for all the families, she added.

While several professors used Wednesdays shooting as an opportunity to advocate for gun legislation, there was one professor, Mike Plugh, who did not, instead tweeting that as a radical leftist college professor, I feel its important to hope that Steve Scalise gets a standing ovation if/when he returns for work.

Plugh explained to Campus Reform that while he is not necessarily "against" professors speaking out on issues "when the situation is hot," he would opt to discuss such issues with his students "in a closed classroom setting."

"I think some people feel strongly about gun violence and gun control and feel that it's important to discuss it when the situation is hot. I'm not against that at all. I think uncomfortable times are important times for discourse too," he stated. "I would probably talk to my own students, in a closed classroom setting, about the tragedy of the event and raise questions about policy priorities, political lobbying, and cultural values."

Campus Reform also reached out to Emre, but did not receive a responsein time for publication.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @spaduhhh

The rest is here:

Profs mock Scalise support for Second Amendment after shooting - Campus Reform

Texas: Governor Abbott Signs Remaining Pro-Second Amendment Bills from 2017 Regular Session – NRA ILA

Posted on by

Your NRA-ILApreviously reported that Governor Greg Abbott signed two important pro-Second Amendment measurespassed by the Texas Legislature during the recent 140-day session into law:Senate Bill 16, priority legislation of Lt. Governor Dan Patrickthat slashes the cost of an original License To Carry from $140 to $40 and reduces the price of a renewal LTC from $70 to $40 to bring fees down to among the lowest in the nation; andHouse Bill 1819which revises Texas statutes to track federal law regarding ownership and possession of firearm sound suppressors. [The Texas Penal Code currently requires these devices to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. If the Hearing Protection Act that eliminates this federal requirement were to pass Congress before the Texas Legislature meets again in 2019, suppressor owners would have no way of complying with state law and could be guilty of a felony offense without this important change.] An amendment was added to HB 1819 in the Senate to clarify that non-NFA, short-barreled firearms with a pistol grip -- such as the Mossberg 590 Shockwave -- are not unlawful to sell or own in Texas. The Lone Star State is one of just two states where this particular gun cannot currently besold lawfully. Bothlaws take effect on September 1, 2017.

Governor Abbott has nowalso signed the following bills into law, which also have an effective date of September 1:

Senate Bill 263repeals the minimum caliber requirement (.32) for demonstrating handgun proficiency during the range instruction portion of the License To Carry course. This unnecessary provision negatively impacts LTC applicants with hand injuries or arthritis who would benefit from being able to use a smaller caliber handgun.

Senate Bill 1566contains provisions fromHB 1692 andSB 1942 to allow employees of school districts, open-enrollment charter schools and private elementary or secondary schools who possess valid LTCs to transport and store firearms out of sight in their locked cars and trucks. These employees had been left out of the 2011 law banning employer policies restricting the lawful possession of firearms in private motor vehicles.

Senate Bill 2065includes language fromHB 421 andHB 981 to allow volunteers providing security at places of worship to be exempt from the requirements of the Private Security Act. This could include License To Carry holders approved by congregation leaders, since the prohibition on possession of firearms by LTCs at places of worship is only enforceable if the location is posted or verbal notice is given.

House Bill 1935repeals the prohibition on the possession or carrying of knives such as daggers, dirks, stilettos and Bowies, by eliminating them from the prohibited weapons section of the Texas Penal Code. Restrictions remain in place for possession or carrying of knives with a blade over 5 inches long in public places and penalties are enhanced for carrying those in the same locations where the possession of firearms is prohibited, generally.

House Bill 3784allowspersons approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety to offer an online course to cover the classroom portion of the required training for a License To Carry. The measure alsoexempts active military personnel and veterans who have received firearm instruction as part of their service within the last 10 years to be exempt from the range instruction portion of the LTC course.

See the original post:

Texas: Governor Abbott Signs Remaining Pro-Second Amendment Bills from 2017 Regular Session - NRA ILA

Travel Ban Case Could Harm First Amendment Law | National Review – National Review

Posted on by

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has sent a brief to the Supreme Court in the travel-ban casebut unlike most of the many briefs in that case, it takes no position on whether the Court should uphold or nullify the ban. Its goal, rather, is to make sure that the court refrains from distorting the meaning of the Constitutions prohibition on religious establishments in the process of deciding the case.

Beckets argument is that the Court should decide the case under the free-exercise clause rather than the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment. If the ban unconstitutionally targets Muslims, that is, it impinges on their right to practice their religion. It doesnt establish Christianity (or non-Islam) as the state religion.

It seems like a pretty obvious point, but since some courts have gotten the issue wrong Becket spells it out in some detail. The executive order doesnt create an establishment because it does not place the state in control of any churchs doctrine or personnel, doesnt compel attendance of any church, doesnt provide financial support of any kind to any church, and doesnt put any church in charge of important public functions.

The Becket lawyers are not just concerned that the Court might apply the establishment clause to the case; theyre also concerned that they will apply the clause using the Lemon test. Under that test, developed in a 1971 case striking down state aid to religious schools, judges must decide whether a governmental policy has a legitimate secular purpose and whether it involves excessive government entanglement with religionboth, conservative lawyers have usually contended, highly subjective judgments. The Court has moved away from Lemon but lower courts considering the case have applied it.

As long ago as 1993, Justice Antonin Scalia likened the Lemon test to some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being repeatedly killed and buried. Becket wants the ghoul killed and buried for good. But theres a chance that the passions this case has called forth will bring it back once more.

Excerpt from:

Travel Ban Case Could Harm First Amendment Law | National Review - National Review