Subscribe on PodcastOne or Apple Podcasts. Listen Live Schedule Sports. Artificial Intelligence. Ask the CIO. Big Data. CIO News. Cloud Computing. IT Modernization. On DoD. Defense Industry. Agency Oversight. Open Season. Mike Causey. Tom Temin. Accelerating Government. Ask the CIO Podcasts. Business of Government Hour. Every Side of Cyber. Federal Drive. Federal Executive Forum.
Federal Newscast. Federal Tech Talk. For Your Benefit. Innovation in Government. Modern Government. In essence, build upon common practices to create more and more aggressive laws. However, it also leaves room for the possibility of the indefinite arrest of American citizens, just not by the military.
While I could make a larger point about the inevitability of such laws being used more liberally as time moves on, there is a larger theme to be made known here: the legal model of the United States was never meant for indefinite detention. The laws that allow this kind of behavior were meant for wartime You know, for the wars that actually end.
The fact is, the War on Terror is just like the War on Drugs — never ending, with a hunger for more and more aggressive techniques in an attempt to win an unwinnable battle.
There will always be terrorists, and the United States will always be under some kind of terrorist threat, as vague and minimal as it could someday become.
The implications of this are vast. With security at such a high premium, we can forget that by protecting our freedoms, we may be sacrificing the very things that make us free. They were not meant to last 10 years, and they were not meant to be institutionalized. If the War on Terror is a never-ending one, our personal freedoms cannot be indefinitely detained. It can be found here.
Sign in. Both times they have settled for levels that were roughly consistent with current law. The FY budget was adopted in January and was geared towards repealing the Affordable Care Act, while last week Congress adopted a budget for FY that was aimed at facilitating tax reform. In both cases, Republicans could not agree on significant increases in defense spending.
Some of this may have been due to issues around parliamentary procedure in the Senate, but fundamentally Republicans have trouble reconciling the goals of deficit hawks, moderates, and defense hawks. Democrats, as always, will have a say in what happens.
While Democratic leadership has not yet announced its goals for the end of the year, the question of how the party will choose to use its limited leverage is important to understanding any potential funding deal. Since appropriations require 60 votes to avoid a filibuster, Democrats in the Senate will need to agree to an eventual appropriations deal.
Additionally, many conservatives in the House will not vote for any appropriations legislation that does not contain major cuts to federal spending. This means that Democrats in both chambers will have a say in any year-end funding deal.
This puts more pressure on defense spending, as Democrats will want something in exchange for their support. The current continuing resolution ends on Dec. Increased defense spending will be only one goal among many for congressional leaders. For a Congress that has barely been able to move any noncontroversial legislation at all, this is a daunting set of requirements. While any tax cut will almost certainly pass as separate legislation, it still will require the time and attention of congressional leadership to the detriment of everything else.
This is a lot for Congress to try to manage in the 12 legislative days before the government shuts down. In a vacuum, Congress almost certainly has the votes for a funding bill that lifts the defense and non-defense caps while avoiding controversial changes to any existing policies. However, when you combine a raft of complicated and controversial issues, as well as political jockeying heading in to the midterm elections, things become much murkier. These obstacles to a significant increase in defense spending have broader implications for the Department of Defense and the defense industrial base.
0コメント