Why has U.S. security policy scarcely changed from the Bush to the Obama administration? National Security and Double Government offers a disquieting answer. Michael J. Glennon challenges the myth that U.S. security policy is still forged by America's visible, "Madisonian institutions" - the President, Congress, and the courts. Their roles, he argues, have become largely illusory. Presidential control is now nominal, congressional oversight is dysfunctional, and judicial review is negligible. The book details the dramatic shift in power that has occurred from the Madisonian institutions to a concealed "Trumanite network" - the several hundred managers of the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies who are responsible for protecting the nation and who have come to operate largely immune from constitutional and electoral restraints. Reform efforts face daunting obstacles. Remedies within this new system of "double government" require the hollowed-out Madisonian institutions to exercise the very power that they lack. Meanwhile, reform initiatives from without confront the same pervasive political ignorance within the polity that has given rise to this duality. The book sounds a powerful warning about the need to resolve this dilemma-and the mortal threat posed to accountability, democracy, and personal freedom if double government persists. This paperback version features an Afterword that addresses the emerging danger posed by populist authoritarianism rejecting the notion that the security bureaucracy can or should be relied upon to block it.
Reimagining the National Security State provides the first comprehensive picture of the toll that US government policies took on civil liberties, human rights, and the rule of law in the name of the war on terror. Looking through the lenses of theory, history, law, and policy, the essays in this volume illuminate the ways in which liberal democracy suffered at the hands of policymakers in the name of national security. The contributors, who are leading experts and practitioners in fields ranging from political theory to evolutionary biology, discuss the vast expansion of executive powers, the excessive reliance secrecy, and the exploration of questionable legal territory in matters of detention, criminal justice, targeted killings, and warfare. This book gives the reader an eye-opening window onto the historical precedents and lasting impact the security state has had on civil liberties, human rights and, the rule of law in the name of the war on terror.
Building on Goldman’s Words of Intelligence and Maret’s On Their Own Terms this is a one-stop reference tool for anyone studying and working in intelligence, security, and information policy. This comprehensive resource defines key terms of the theoretical, conceptual, and organizational aspects of intelligence and national security information policy. It explains security classifications, surveillance, risk, technology, as well as intelligence operations, strategies, boards and organizations, and methodologies. It also defines terms created by the U.S. legislative, regulatory, and policy process, and routinized by various branches of the U.S. government. These terms pertain to federal procedures, policies, and practices involving the information life cycle, national security controls over information, and collection and analysis of intelligence information. This work is intended for intelligence students and professionals at all levels, as well as information science students dealing with such issues as the Freedom of Information Act.
Challenging the myth that the federal government exercises exclusive control over U.S. foreign-policymaking, Michael J. Glennon and Robert D. Sloane propose that we recognize the prominent role that states and cities now play in that realm. Foreign Affairs Federalism provides the first comprehensive study of the constitutional law and practice of federalism in the conduct of U.S. foreign relations. It could hardly be timelier. States and cities recently have limited greenhouse gas emissions, declared nuclear free zones and sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, established thousands of sister-city relationships, set up informal diplomatic offices abroad, and sanctioned oppressive foreign governments. Exploring the implications of these and other initiatives, this book argues that the national interest cannot be advanced internationally by Washington alone. Glennon and Sloane examine in detail the considerable foreign affairs powers retained by the states under the Constitution and question the need for Congress or the president to step in to provide "one voice" in foreign affairs. They present concrete, realistic ways that the courts can update antiquated federalism precepts and untangle interwoven strands of international law, federal law, and state law. The result is a lucid, incisive, and up-to-date analysis of the rules that empower-and limit-states and cities abroad.
In the name of fighting terrorism, countries have been invaded; wars have been waged; people have been detained, rendered and tortured; and campaigns for "hearts and minds" have been unleashed. Human rights analyses of the counter-terrorism measures implemented in the aftermath of 11 September 2001 have assumed that men suffer the most—both numerically and in terms of the nature of rights violations endured. This assumption has obscured the ways that women, men, and sexual minorities experience counter-terrorism. By integrating gender into a human rights analysis of counter-terrorism—and human rights into a gendered analysis of counter-terrorism—this volume aims to reverse this trend. Through this variegated human rights lens, the authors in this volume identify the spectrum and nature of rights violations arising in the context of gendered counter-terrorism and national security practices. Introduced with a foreword by Martin Scheinin, former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, the volume examines a wide range of gendered impacts of counter-terrorism measures that have not been theorized in the leading texts on terrorism, counter-terrorism, national security, and human rights. Gender, National Security and Counter-Terrorism will be of particular interest to scholars and students in the disciplines of Law, Security Studies and Gender Studies.
Bringing a dose of reality to the stuff of literary thrillers, this masterful study is the first closely detailed, comparative analysis of the evolution of the modern British and American intelligence communities. • U.S. and U.K. case studies that draw on archival and published sources and on interviews with practitioners • Parallel timelines for principal national intelligence coordinating bodies in the United States and United Kingdom • Organization charts for the United States Intelligence Board and the U.K. Joint Intelligence Organisation, both from the early 1960s • An extensive glossary of terms and abbreviations used in the British and American intelligence communities • An extensive bibliography
In seeking to evaluate the efficacy of post-9/11 homeland security expenses--which have risen by more than a trillion dollars, not including war costs--the common query has been, "Are we safer?" This, however, is the wrong question. Of course we are "safer"--the posting of a single security guard at one building's entrance enhances safety. The correct question is, "Are any gains in security worth the funds expended?" In this engaging, readable book, John Mueller and Mark Stewart apply risk and cost-benefit evaluation techniques to answer this very question. This analytical approach has been used throughout the world for decades by regulators, academics, and businesses--but, as a recent National Academy of Science study suggests, it has never been capably applied by the people administering homeland security funds. Given the limited risk terrorism presents, expenses meant to lower it have for the most part simply not been worth it. For example, to be considered cost-effective, increased American homeland security expenditures would have had each year to have foiled up to 1,667 attacks roughly like the one intended on Times Square in 2010--more than four a day. Cataloging the mistakes that the US has made--and continues to make--in managing homeland security programs, Terror, Security, and Money has the potential to redirect our efforts toward a more productive and far more cost-effective course.
Why do states sometimes treat the public's response to threats as itself a threat to national security? Even as the external threats facing the United States have changed over time – from the Soviet Union to "terrorists of global reach" – the threat to national security posed by a fearful public has remained a recurring worry occupying the attention of policymakers at the highest levels of government. While the literature in IR and security – realist, liberal, and constructivist – generally assumes the public's fear of a threat to be essential for state survival, fear is a double edged sword. Drawing on Hobbesian state theory, I argue that public fear will be treated by the state as a threat when the object and intensity of the public's fears does not align with the state's understanding of the threat environment. This enables a challenge from below to the state's national security priorities and policies, prompting state intervention. When the public does not sufficiently fear a threat the state intends to mobilize against, the state will counteract "complacency" with fearmongering. Conversely, when the public fears a threat that the state is either unwilling or unable to address directly, the state seeks to counteract "panic" through reassurance. Because both public complacency and panic undermine state autonomy, the state has a compelling interest in managing whether and how existential emergencies rise to the top of the public agenda. The dissertation investigates the role of public fear in the shaping of national security priorities and policies in two case studies, the Eisenhower administration's response to Sputnik and the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The cases show that managing public fear – the public relations of security – is central to how state's conduct national security and a core logic of government.
Two key long-term energy trends are shifting the strategic balance between the United States and China, the world's superpower rivals in the 21st century: first, a domestic boom in U.S. shale oil and gas is dramatically boosting America's energy security; second, the frenetic and successful search for hydrocarbons in Africa is making it an increasingly crucial element in China's energy diversification strategy. America's increasing energy security and China's increased dependence on energy imports from Africa and the Middle East until well past 2040 despite its own shale discoveries will make Beijing's own increasing energy insecurity be felt even more acutely, pushing the People's Liberation Army to accelerate adoption of a "two ocean" military strategy that includes an enduring presence in the Indian Ocean as well as the Pacific Ocean.
The book offers such significantly in-depth evidence of the tremendous complexities involved in PRC-ROC relations that scholars and policymakers alike will greatly appreciate its broader applicability to current comparative research on contemporary East Asia. Lisa Fischler, East Asia Integration Studies Professor Chow has put together an excellent collection of papers analyzing some of the most important political and economic issues in East Asia. The focus is on Taiwan, but several chapters deal separately with the United States, China, North Korea, Japan, and the EU. This is a very useful publication for those interested in contemporary East Asia. Thomas J. Bellows, The University of Texas at San Antonio, US and Editor, American Journal of Chinese Studies The US policy of supporting a democratic Taiwan while simultaneously engaging China is a delicate and complex balance, with outcomes critical to economic, security and strategic interests in Asia. At the same time, rising Taiwanese identity amid the emerging power of China continues to change the paradigm. The contributors to this volume explore the political and economic dimensions of this complicated and pressing issue. Whether the US China relationship evolves as one of strategic partners or strategic competitors will significantly affect power relations between Washington, Beijing and Taipei. More generally, it will set the tone for peace, stability and prosperity in the Asia Pacific. Peter Chow examines the potential crisis, as well as mitigating influences, by investigating political, economic and security considerations affecting cross-Taiwan Strait relations. He presents broad coverage of recent changes of policy in Taiwan, China and the US, with special emphasis on the adjustments of American policy on Taiwanese identity amid its democratization. An overall evaluation of current US policies toward China based on realism and idealism illustrates the shifting US China Taiwan relations. This insightful treatment will be of great interest to students and scholars of international relations, political economy, foreign relations, Asian studies, political science and economics. Civic leaders and representatives of interest groups involved with US China Taiwan relations will find the volume of great value in their work.