Computers, Privacy & the Constitution

View   r3  >  r2  >  r1
ArielBensonFirstPaper 3 - 16 May 2025 - Main.ArielBenson
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"

The Interplay of Modern U.S. National Security and Constitutional Rights

-- ArielBenson - 07 Apr 2025
Changed:
<
<

A Disregard for Domestic Security in Exchange for… Chaotic International Relationships

>
>

A Disregard for Domestic Security in Exchange for… Chaotic International Acts

The past two American administrations have taken strong, international positions to push national security agendas forward. The actualities of this global interfacing has resulted in a growing export controls regime, increased tariffs, and furthered strategic military posturing in the Middle East and Asia. But with a sleeping China, a pre-occupied Russia, and a wounded Houthi regime, it seems that the presidents are just loud, crying wolves. It is arguable that the American national security is nonetheless strengthened, however at what cost? Our allies are weary of us, our adversaries are confused by us, and our domestic policies are overwhelmingly unstable. Ultimately, the cost of probing a global landscape that is simply incapable of causing more-than-typical threats to the United States’ is too high, as the isolationism has disrupted the inherent national security objectives on home soil.
 
Changed:
<
<
The previous and current administrations have taken strong stances to push national security agendas forward. The actualities of global interfacing have been top of mind, from export controls to data privacy, to even trade and ridiculously enforced tariffs. Both Biden and Trump have created enforcement regimes that have required the outside world to frequently adjust and listen to Washington’s version of the boy who cried wolf. The increase in these enforcements would make one think that the United States is currently pro-national security. That the moves of today and yesterday have, while complicated our relationships with our allies and adversaries, have created a safer America. Of course, this might be true if other current policies didn’t counteract the security of the Nation’s individuals and the constitutional demands that govern them.
>
>
Dissent, honest expression, and freedom of movement have all been attacked over the past months. The disregard for such rights is anti-American and therefore anti-security. Ironically, the private sector has gone quiet vis-à-vis political and social commentary. The regimes it once supported in the fall are directly hurting its domestic and international business. Close to home, Columbia has denied its students the opportunity for protection in exchange for potential tax-reductions and already stripped research funds. At a further distance from university life, the neutrality of the Googles and Targets of the world initially created favor between them and the Trump Administration. Now, they’re stuck with redesigning supply chains (e.g. de minimis stripped), determining organizational planning for risks not there in the past (e.g. migrant status), and self-governing to ensure that they do not endanger government-contracting responsibilities. The climate has become so tedious and chaotic that the rule of law has either been disregarded or weaponized to cause instability. It is fair to call all of the uncertainty a national-security risk.
 
Deleted:
<
<
Too circuitous a way to begin. Say it straight from the top: complex national security policy has been self-defeating. Here's why....

The national security of the United States has been weaponized to implement policies that posture the Nation in very isolationist and adversarial way, while completely disregarding the need to utilize its powers to safeguard the values the country has held for centuries. Dissent, honest expression, and freedom of movement have all been attacked over the past months. The disregard for such rights is anti-American and therefore anti-security. However, instead of the private sector utilizing its wealth to challenge such attacks in the courts, the powerful and wealthy have decided to attempt to safeguard its pockets. Ironically, the regimes it once supported in the fall is directly hurting its international business and efforts.

 

A Rethinking of Security Priorities

Added:
>
>
National security analysts, lawyers, policy writers, and thinkers alike should take a step back and remember their desires and purpose. Partisanship has snuck its way into important constitutional questions that represent the Nation and its wishful identity. It might be time for security professionals to not only rebut the current issues, but to also require that attention be paid to such concerns.
 
Changed:
<
<
National security analysts, lawyers, policy writers, and thinkers alike should take a step back and remember their desires and purposes. Partisanship has snuck its way into important constitutional questions that represent the Nation and its presenting/wishful identity. It might be time for security professionals to not only rebut the current occurrences, but to also require that attention be focused on such issues.
>
>
Freedom of speech and the right to privacy and becoming more and more qualified rights. From the Trump Administration restricting the rights of citizens/visa holders/non-citizens to protest the government and war, to Customs and Border Patrol increasing their searches on returning travelers, the surveillance of individuals is pushing the boundaries of executive power and eradicating due process.
 
Changed:
<
<
But by now you should have introduced specifics.....
>
>
This idea of looking within to protect the Nation’s security is however not new. With the exception of terrorizing foreigners (granted, too many times to count) and a front to decrease drugs on city streets, it’s simply been forgotten. Reaching back to 1871, a grand jury found the KKK to be a terrorist organization a grand jury found the KKK to be a terrorist organization. The finding was substantially earlier than the League of Nations and WW2, where the US ultimately turned its security efforts outwards looking. However, the purposivist desire to label the KKK organization a risk to society remains pertinent.
 
Deleted:
<
<
Freedom of speech and the right to privacy and becoming more and more narrow. From the Trump Administration restricting the rights of citizens, visa holders, and non-citizens to protest the government and war, to Customs and Border Patrol increasing their searches on returning travelers, the surveillance of individuals is pushing the boundaries of executive power and limiting due process.
 
Deleted:
<
<
However, the idea of looking within to protect the Nation’s security is not new. With the exception of terrorizing foreigners and a front to decrease the drugs on streets, it’s simply been forgotten. Reaching back to 1871, legislation was utilized to break up the KKK's efforts to terrorize Black people. The finding was substantially earlier than the League of Nations and WW2, where the US ultimately turned its security efforts outwards looking, but the sentiment and desire to label the organization a risk to society remains pertinent. We are experiencing a moment where redirection and protections does not necessarily require innovation. The executive powers currently being utilized are not innovative in the sense that they require creation opposition. The answers found yesterday are indeed the answers of today. Thought leaders, specifically its legal and national security experts, need to grow backbones. Once they are lined up, prepared to demonstrate and create a hostile environment, it is up to the private sector to back them and ensure sustainability.
 

A Job for Reagan Republicans

Changed:
<
<
Ironically, this framework is brought forth by a liberal law student obsessed with rational security. However, this concept of protecting individual rights as a national security right would likely fall under the old guard of the Republican Party. Limiting government to ensure individual protections is a current flavor of the liberal caucus attempting to push back against the Trump era. Seemingly, we are both little and big government, everywhere, all at once. It is important for grassroots organizers to pull from whichever framework will suit them best. However, it is even more important for individuals to stand by what they actually deem as rights versus policy priorities. If the McConnells? and Cruzs of the world review their own values, they might find an honest issue with how the current administration is utilizing its powers to achieve the right’s agendas. This is not to say that they would disregard currency policy wishes (I do not have faith in this), but they might reconsider how to achieve such goals.

And if those with the most political pressures and most questionable incentives can articulate the protections that they should constitutionally seek, it can be foreseen that the national security experts across the nation, hidden and not, will consider to do the same.

>
>
The answers found yesterday are indeed the answers needed for today’s issues. Thought leaders, specifically legal and national security experts, need to grow backbones. Once they are lined up, prepared to demonstrate and create a hostile environment, it is then up to the private sector to back them and ensure sustainability.
 
Changed:
<
<
You do too much editorializing around and not enough shooting straight through. The main idea here is that adherence to constitutional civil liberty is national security policy, that this is (even more than Reagan-) Eisenhower-Republicanism, and that it should not have been abandoned in the Imperial Presidency,
>
>
This framework is identified by me, a law student obsessed with rational security. However, this concept of protecting individual rights as a national security principle would likely fall under the old guard of the Republican Party. Limiting government to ensure individual protections is a current flavor of the liberal caucus attempting to push back against the Trump era. Seemingly, we are both little and big government, everywhere, all at once. It is important for grassroot organizers to pull from whichever framework will suit them best. Indeed, WWJD? What would Justices do? If the McConnells? and Cruzs of the world review their own values, they might find an honest issue with how the current administration is utilizing its powers to achieve agendas. This is not to say that they would disregard currency policy goals (I do not have faith in this), but they might reconsider how the Party should achieve such aims. And if those who have substantive incentives to do the opposite, can articulate the protections that they should constitutionally seek, it can be foreseen that the national security experts across the nation, hidden and not, may consider doing the same.
 
Deleted:
<
<
This will have no actual clout with Trumpism, I think we can agree, But it is certainly a tenable point of view to argue, and if you were a little more persistent in laying out its premises and drawing on the obvious sources, you would have a very strong essay.
 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->

ArielBensonFirstPaper 2 - 05 May 2025 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"

The Interplay of Modern U.S. National Security and Constitutional Rights

-- ArielBenson - 07 Apr 2025
Line: 6 to 6
 The previous and current administrations have taken strong stances to push national security agendas forward. The actualities of global interfacing have been top of mind, from export controls to data privacy, to even trade and ridiculously enforced tariffs. Both Biden and Trump have created enforcement regimes that have required the outside world to frequently adjust and listen to Washington’s version of the boy who cried wolf. The increase in these enforcements would make one think that the United States is currently pro-national security. That the moves of today and yesterday have, while complicated our relationships with our allies and adversaries, have created a safer America. Of course, this might be true if other current policies didn’t counteract the security of the Nation’s individuals and the constitutional demands that govern them.
Added:
>
>
Too circuitous a way to begin. Say it straight from the top: complex national security policy has been self-defeating. Here's why....

 The national security of the United States has been weaponized to implement policies that posture the Nation in very isolationist and adversarial way, while completely disregarding the need to utilize its powers to safeguard the values the country has held for centuries. Dissent, honest expression, and freedom of movement have all been attacked over the past months. The disregard for such rights is anti-American and therefore anti-security. However, instead of the private sector utilizing its wealth to challenge such attacks in the courts, the powerful and wealthy have decided to attempt to safeguard its pockets. Ironically, the regimes it once supported in the fall is directly hurting its international business and efforts.

A Rethinking of Security Priorities

National security analysts, lawyers, policy writers, and thinkers alike should take a step back and remember their desires and purposes. Partisanship has snuck its way into important constitutional questions that represent the Nation and its presenting/wishful identity. It might be time for security professionals to not only rebut the current occurrences, but to also require that attention be focused on such issues.

Added:
>
>
But by now you should have introduced specifics.....

 Freedom of speech and the right to privacy and becoming more and more narrow. From the Trump Administration restricting the rights of citizens, visa holders, and non-citizens to protest the government and war, to Customs and Border Patrol increasing their searches on returning travelers, the surveillance of individuals is pushing the boundaries of executive power and limiting due process.

However, the idea of looking within to protect the Nation’s security is not new. With the exception of terrorizing foreigners and a front to decrease the drugs on streets, it’s simply been forgotten. Reaching back to 1871, legislation was utilized to break up the KKK's efforts to terrorize Black people. The finding was substantially earlier than the League of Nations and WW2, where the US ultimately turned its security efforts outwards looking, but the sentiment and desire to label the organization a risk to society remains pertinent. We are experiencing a moment where redirection and protections does not necessarily require innovation. The executive powers currently being utilized are not innovative in the sense that they require creation opposition. The answers found yesterday are indeed the answers of today. Thought leaders, specifically its legal and national security experts, need to grow backbones. Once they are lined up, prepared to demonstrate and create a hostile environment, it is up to the private sector to back them and ensure sustainability.

Line: 22 to 30
 And if those with the most political pressures and most questionable incentives can articulate the protections that they should constitutionally seek, it can be foreseen that the national security experts across the nation, hidden and not, will consider to do the same.
Added:
>
>
You do too much editorializing around and not enough shooting straight through. The main idea here is that adherence to constitutional civil liberty is national security policy, that this is (even more than Reagan-) Eisenhower-Republicanism, and that it should not have been abandoned in the Imperial Presidency,

This will have no actual clout with Trumpism, I think we can agree, But it is certainly a tenable point of view to argue, and if you were a little more persistent in laying out its premises and drawing on the obvious sources, you would have a very strong essay.

 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->

ArielBensonFirstPaper 1 - 07 Apr 2025 - Main.ArielBenson
Line: 1 to 1
Added:
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"

The Interplay of Modern U.S. National Security and Constitutional Rights

-- ArielBenson - 07 Apr 2025

A Disregard for Domestic Security in Exchange for… Chaotic International Relationships

The previous and current administrations have taken strong stances to push national security agendas forward. The actualities of global interfacing have been top of mind, from export controls to data privacy, to even trade and ridiculously enforced tariffs. Both Biden and Trump have created enforcement regimes that have required the outside world to frequently adjust and listen to Washington’s version of the boy who cried wolf. The increase in these enforcements would make one think that the United States is currently pro-national security. That the moves of today and yesterday have, while complicated our relationships with our allies and adversaries, have created a safer America. Of course, this might be true if other current policies didn’t counteract the security of the Nation’s individuals and the constitutional demands that govern them.

The national security of the United States has been weaponized to implement policies that posture the Nation in very isolationist and adversarial way, while completely disregarding the need to utilize its powers to safeguard the values the country has held for centuries. Dissent, honest expression, and freedom of movement have all been attacked over the past months. The disregard for such rights is anti-American and therefore anti-security. However, instead of the private sector utilizing its wealth to challenge such attacks in the courts, the powerful and wealthy have decided to attempt to safeguard its pockets. Ironically, the regimes it once supported in the fall is directly hurting its international business and efforts.

A Rethinking of Security Priorities

National security analysts, lawyers, policy writers, and thinkers alike should take a step back and remember their desires and purposes. Partisanship has snuck its way into important constitutional questions that represent the Nation and its presenting/wishful identity. It might be time for security professionals to not only rebut the current occurrences, but to also require that attention be focused on such issues.

Freedom of speech and the right to privacy and becoming more and more narrow. From the Trump Administration restricting the rights of citizens, visa holders, and non-citizens to protest the government and war, to Customs and Border Patrol increasing their searches on returning travelers, the surveillance of individuals is pushing the boundaries of executive power and limiting due process.

However, the idea of looking within to protect the Nation’s security is not new. With the exception of terrorizing foreigners and a front to decrease the drugs on streets, it’s simply been forgotten. Reaching back to 1871, legislation was utilized to break up the KKK's efforts to terrorize Black people. The finding was substantially earlier than the League of Nations and WW2, where the US ultimately turned its security efforts outwards looking, but the sentiment and desire to label the organization a risk to society remains pertinent. We are experiencing a moment where redirection and protections does not necessarily require innovation. The executive powers currently being utilized are not innovative in the sense that they require creation opposition. The answers found yesterday are indeed the answers of today. Thought leaders, specifically its legal and national security experts, need to grow backbones. Once they are lined up, prepared to demonstrate and create a hostile environment, it is up to the private sector to back them and ensure sustainability.

A Job for Reagan Republicans

Ironically, this framework is brought forth by a liberal law student obsessed with rational security. However, this concept of protecting individual rights as a national security right would likely fall under the old guard of the Republican Party. Limiting government to ensure individual protections is a current flavor of the liberal caucus attempting to push back against the Trump era. Seemingly, we are both little and big government, everywhere, all at once. It is important for grassroots organizers to pull from whichever framework will suit them best. However, it is even more important for individuals to stand by what they actually deem as rights versus policy priorities. If the McConnells? and Cruzs of the world review their own values, they might find an honest issue with how the current administration is utilizing its powers to achieve the right’s agendas. This is not to say that they would disregard currency policy wishes (I do not have faith in this), but they might reconsider how to achieve such goals.

And if those with the most political pressures and most questionable incentives can articulate the protections that they should constitutionally seek, it can be foreseen that the national security experts across the nation, hidden and not, will consider to do the same.

 
<--/commentPlugin-->

Revision 3r3 - 16 May 2025 - 04:10:51 - ArielBenson
Revision 2r2 - 05 May 2025 - 20:53:43 - EbenMoglen
Revision 1r1 - 07 Apr 2025 - 18:30:41 - ArielBenson
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM