Outsourcing intelligence, while not a recent phenomenon, has become more commonplace in the face of increased operations and fiscal pressure since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. While outsourcing has many benefits, it also brings certain general difficulties. As outsourcing decisions continue, it is critical that lawmakers understand the policy and legal implications of such choices.
The United States government’s 1793 prosecution of Gideon Henfield represents the first instance of the lawfare engaged in by the fledgling government. Over the course of the decades that followed, criminal prosecution became a default selection for addressing national security threats. This article examines how the Washington Administration utilized law as a weapon to defend itself from the British and French and set the precedent for using prosecutions to achieve national security objectives.
Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT) provides legal value in presenting historical and existing facts to judicial bodies in their efforts to achieve the peaceful use of the seas, consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The 2016 South China Sea Arbitration highlighted the value of GEOINT and demonstrates how GEOINT will be important in promoting a rules-based order in the maritime domain.
In the United States, the discussion about immigration is dominated by a narrow focus on the security of the borders, particularly the southern border, and the potential threats posed by people who seek enter the country. However, the national security implications of the refugee crisis go way beyond the borders. Protecting refugees, rather than keeping them out, is a national security imperative.
Joel Brenner presents his critique of Professor Laura Donohue’s The Future of Foreign Intelligence, and its “full-throated denunciation of the entire legal framework regulating the government’s collection of data about American citizens and permanent residents.” He discusses her findings in detail, and in the end, finds that they both agree on a number of specific proposals, and “disagree profoundly on FISA’s rationale and constitutional limitations.”