Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Covert Action: a Useful Tool for United States Foreign Policy?
Covert Action: A Useful Tool for United States Foreign Policy? Derek Andrew Uram M.Ed., University of Toronto, 2002 B.Ed.,University of Toronto, 2000 B.U.R.Pl., Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, 1989 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION in the School of Public Administration 0 Derek Andrew Uram, 2005 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or by other means, without the permission of the author. Supervisor: Dr. Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly ABSTRACT Covert action is a policy tool used by the United States government. It is secretive and highly controversial in that it attempts to actively change the course of events in other nations. Much covert action undertaken by the US government has taken place within the developing world - governments have been overthrown, elections influenced, media distorted, and the lives of millions of individuals affected by covert activities secretly organized and executed by US officials in Washington, DC and Langley, Virginia - headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency. The question must be asked: Is covert action a useful tool for US foreign policy? Evidence from two important case studies - Iran and Chile - reveals that covert action has very limited genuine value as a policy tool. It does not always produce desired results. Even "successful" covert undertakings can create additional problems, the type of which may not appear until many years after the fact. Supervisor: Dr. E. Brunet-Jailly (School of Public Administration) Table of Contents Title Page . -
Civil Society, Congress, and the Movement to Democratize the National Security State, 1970-1978
REINING IN THE STATE: CIVIL SOCIETY, CONGRESS, AND THE MOVEMENT TO DEMOCRATIZE THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE, 1970-1978 A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by Katherine A. Scott May, 2009 i © by Katherine Anne Scott 2009 All Rights Reserved ii ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the battle to democratize the national security state, 1970-1978. It examines the neo-progressive movement to institutionalize a new domestic policy regime, in an attempt to force government transparency, protect individual privacy from state intrusion, and create new judicial and legislative checks on domestic security operations. It proceeds chronologically, first outlining the state’s overwhelming response to the domestic unrest of the 1960s. During this period, the Department of Justice developed new capacities to better predict urban unrest, growing a computerized databank that contained millions of dossiers on dissenting Americans and the Department of Defense greatly expanded existing capacities, applying cold war counterinsurgency and counterintelligence techniques developed abroad to the problems of protests and riots at home. The remainder of the dissertation examines how the state’s secret response to unrest and disorder became public in the early 1970s. It traces the development of a loose coalition of reformers who challenged domestic security policy and coordinated legislative and litigative strategies to check executive power. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Graduate students depend upon the goodwill of others. My parents, Mike and LeOla, started me on this intellectual journey when I was a little kid. My dad made sure that I had plenty of books to read. -
Exhibit 10 Case M:06-Cv-01791-VRW Document 441-11 Filed 04/07/2008 Page 2 of 56 Page 1
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 441-11 Filed 04/07/2008 Page 1 of 56 Exhibit 10 Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 441-11 Filed 04/07/2008 Page 2 of 56 Page 1 LEXSEE 72 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1306 Copyright (c) 2004 The George Washington Law Review The George Washington Law Review August, 2004 72 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1306 LENGTH: 38229 words THE FUTURE OF INTERNET SURVEILLANCE LAW: A SYMPOSIUM TO DISCUSS INTERNET SURVEILLANCE, PRIVACY & THE USA PATRIOT ACT: SURVEILLANCE LAW: RESHAPING THE FRAMEWORK: The System of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law NAME: Peter P. Swire* BIO: * Professor, Moritz College of Law of the Ohio State University and John Glenn Scholar in Public Policy Re- search. I thank the people with experience in foreign intelligence law who helped me in this project, many of whom prefer not to be identified. Stewart Baker, Jerry Berman, Jim Dempsey, John Podesta, and Ruth Wedgwood are among those who have helped teach me this topic. I am grateful for comments on earlier drafts from Susan Freiwald, Beryl Howell, Kim Lane Scheppele, Peter Raven-Hansen, Coleen Rowley, Stephen Saltzburg, Michael Vatis, and those who attended my presentations at the Association of American Law Schools annual conference, The George Washington University Law School, the Moritz College of Law, and the University of Toledo School of Law. My thanks to Najah Allen, Katy Delaney, Heather Hostetler, and Scott Zimmerman for research assistance, and to the Moritz College of Law and the John Glenn Institute for research support. SUMMARY: ... The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") was enacted in 1978 to solve a long-simmering problem. -
The System of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law
The System of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law Peter P. Swire* Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................. 1307 I. National Security Surveillance Before 1978 ......................... 1310 A. The Fourth Amendment and Law Enforcement Wiretaps ....... 1310 B. The Law and Logic of National Security Wiretaps .............. 1312 C. National Security Wiretaps and "The Lawless State"........... 1315 1. Routine Violations of Law ................................ 1317 2. Expansion of Surveillance for Prevention and Other Purposes ................................................. 1317 3. Secrecy .................................................. 1318 4. Use Against Political Opponents ........................ 1318 5. Targeting and Disruption of Unpopular Groups, Including the Civil Rights M ovement ................................ 1318 6. Chilling of First Amendment Rights ....................... 1319 7. Harm to Individuals ......................... ............ 1319 8. Distortion of Data to Influence Government Policy and Public Perceptions ........................................ 1319 9. Cost and Ineffectiveness .................................. 1320 II. The 1978 Compromise: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ... 1320 III. FISA from 1978 to 2001 .......................................... 1325 IV. The Patriot Act, the New Guidelines, and New Court Decisions .... 1330 A . The Patriot A ct .............................................. 1330 1. From "Primary Purpose" to "A Significant Purpose".......