As part of the Treaty on Open Skies, an international program aimed at transparency between allies, a Russian plane scanned much of Washington D.C., including the White House, Capitol, and Pentagon, yesterday, alongside American representatives.

The Treaty on Open Skies is an agreement signed in 1992 between 34 nations that allows them to go on unarmed flights in secure air territory with a representative from the nation they are observing. Countries party to the agreement include Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and many other smaller nations, according to the U.S. State Department. While Russia and the United States have a quota of 42 for observation flights, the smallest nations are only allowed a few opportunities.

The Capitol Police kept tabs on the Russian plane and U.S. military airmen were onboard with the Russians to make sure everything was okay, according to the Washington Post.

Earlier on Wednesday morning the Capitol Police released an alert that an “authorized low-altitude aircraft” would be flying in restricted airspace between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. and would potentially fly directly above government buildings. The airspace around Washington D.C. and its suburbs is the most restricted region in the country, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The plan for the Russian plane was to take a tour of various Trump properties including his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, according to CNN. Trump is currently on vacation at the course for 17 days and had been there for 11 days before this trip began on Monday, according to TrumpGolfCount.com.

While the ride was certainly legal, some felt that Russia may be taking advantage of the treaty. Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been voicing concerns for over a year now. Last year Stewart met with the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee and said he would “love” to potentially deny future Russian expeditions in American airspace, according to the Washington Post.

“The things that you can see, the amount of data you can collect, the things you can do with post-processing, allows Russia, in my opinion, to get incredible foundational intelligence on critical infrastructure, bases, ports, all of our facilities,” Stewart said in March 2016. “So from my perspective, it gives them a significant advantage.”

Despite those concerns, the Trump Administration has continued to be reluctant to be stern with Russia in either rhetoric or actions.

Navy Captain Jeff Davis spoke on behalf of the program in response to Stewart’s comments. Despite the increased American anxiety regarding diplomatic ties with Russia, Davis sees no legitimate reason to renege on a 25-year-old treaty.

“We have to remember that while we have pretty good intelligence on a lot of the world, a lot of other countries don’t necessarily have that great of intelligence on us,” Davis said. “So, in the interest of transparency and miscalculation on their part, sometimes it’s worthwhile to allow them to have a look at what you’re doing or what you’re not doing.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russian Plane Surveys Washington as Part of Open Skies Treaty appeared first on Law Street.

Since the United States first introduced the Selective Service System in 1940, only men in the U.S. have been required to register with the government agency in the case a draft needs to be implemented. However, with recent news that all combat jobs in the U.S. military are going to be opened up to women, some top U.S. military officials are now acknowledging that women should be registered for future military drafts as well.

General Mark A. Milley, chief of staff of the Army, and General Robert B. Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, both testified at a hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier today; they agreed that it’s time to register women for the draft. Senator Claire McCaskill, who also supports including women in the Selective Service registry sparked the conversation when she asked the two officials about it. However, other leaders, including Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Army Acting Secretary Patrick Murphy only said that the issue should be researched and discussed.

Currently, only men between the ages of 18-25 are required to register with Selective Service in the U.S.–although there are exceptions, such as men who are handicapped, or foreign nationals in the U.S. on student visas. There is also “conscientious objector status” which can be claimed by someone who objects to serving  in the military on moral or religious principles. According to the Selective Service website:

Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don’t have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man’s reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man’s lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.

The information maintained by the Selective Service System is to be used in the case of a draft. However, a draft hasn’t actually been implemented in the United States since 1973, during the Vietnam War.

There are obviously a lot of steps that would need to be put in place before young women would be required to sign up for the draft; even the integration of women in all combat roles is expected to take up to three years. But as that process gets started, it may be something that we hear about more and more.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Women Start Registering for the Draft? appeared first on Law Street.

If you have bought something from any store that does not sell products made in the United States, be it a local small business or a corporate giant like Walmart, the transportation of products that you bought was likely governed by a law known as the Jones Act. Find out what the Jones Act is and why people are fighting to repeal it.

What does the Jones Act do?

The Jones Act requires that all merchandise transported between two ports within the jurisdiction of the United States be carried by a U.S.-flagged vessel that was built in America, is owned by an American citizen, and crewed by American merchant mariners. This act not only encompasses inland bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes or the Mississippi River, but also extends to areas beyond the continent including the states of Alaska and Hawaii, as well as the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.

Also called the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, it was put into place in the same year and has been updated over the decades with its last update in 2006. The Jones Act supplies the United States with the following:

• $14 billion in annual economic output and 84,000 jobs in U.S. shipyards.
• 70,000 jobs working on or with Jones Act vessels, including shipyards and those who crew the ships.

The S.S. United States. Image courtesy of Stewart Clamen via Flickr.

A merchant marine is a civilian sailor whose ships can be used by the United States in the event of war. A historic example of a ship that was part of the merchant marine is the S.S. United States, pictured above. She was designed that in the event that the Cold War heated up, the United States could be quickly turned into a troopship; however, she never had to be called to serve in this function.

What is the debate over the Jones Act?

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced an amendment to the Keystone XL Pipeline bill on January 13, 2015 that would repeal the Jones Act.

The two camps that are involved are those that wish to see McCain’s amendment to scrap the Jones Act pass and those that wish to see it fail so that the Jones Act remains law. For those who do not support the Jones Act, they see it as an antiquated law that is hindering economic growth in territories that are under United States jurisdiction, as well as the two states that are not part of mainland America. They also state that the United States has too few ships that qualify under the Jones Act to make it cost effective. On the flip side, those who support the Jones Act state that the act promotes economic growth for the shipping industry and that scrapping the act would cost a lot of jobs. Furthermore they state that scrapping the act would allow foreign ships to sail up America’s waterways, which could pose a national security hazard.

Concerns if the Jones Act is Scrapped

There could be a loss of jobs due to the closing of ship building and maintenance. There are also worries that there could be a loss of transportation for armed forces, which would negatively impact future conflicts in which the United States becomes embroiled. To give an example from a previous conflict, during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 90 percent of all needed material was moved to the war zones via water transportation.

Supporters of the Jones Act also worry about the loss of border security, as ships from all nations, even those who are hostile against us, could have access to inland rivers such as the Mississippi.

Arguments for Eliminating the Jones Act

Opponents of the Jones Act highlight the possible decreases in the cost of living in the territories, Alaska, and Hawaii, though this benefit could be offset by increase in prices to foreign shipping companies. It is thought that repealing the Jones Act could benefit the American economy, as it may be cheaper to build ships elsewhere. It additionally will increase competition in the shipping industry, also thought to be a benefit to the economy.

Repealing the Jones Act

Prior Attempts to Repeal

McCain has attempted to repeal the act before. In 2010 with support from co-sponsor and fellow Republican Senator James Risch of Idaho, McCain put forward a bill similar to the current amendment; however, S3525, the Open America’s Waters Act, died in committee, meaning that it never got past a small group of senators who debated its merits. As a result, the 2010 version had no chance to make it to the Senate floor to be debated upon by the whole of the Senate.

Current Fight to Repeal

McCain is the leader of the current charge to repeal the Jones Act, stating when he filed the amendment that he has “long advocated for a full repeal of The Jones Act, an antiquated law that has for too long hindered free trade, made U.S. industry less competitive and raised prices for American consumers.”

Who Else is on Board to Repeal?

The main group in favor of repealing the Jones Act is the Heritage Foundation. Chief among the Heritage Foundation’s touted benefits from repeal is having better access to requisition foreign ships to fill in gaps that United States shipping cannot fill, and the cost savings and economic gain that small islands under United States control would experience. The group also cites a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which found that it costs an estimated $3,063 to ship a 20-foot container of household and commercial goods from the East Coast of the United States to Puerto Rico while the same shipment costs $1,504 to the nearby Dominican Republic city of Santo Domingo and $1,687 to Kingston, Jamaica. While the New York Fed does not go so far as to call for the removal of the Jones Act, it  does point out that the act is often cited as a factor that raises business costs.

Lawmakers from Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and Guam are also major proponents of the Jones Act’s repeal. Their main complaint with the amendment is that repealing it would help to make the cost of living cheaper for the affected states and territories. According to Hawaiian State Senator Sam Slom it costs about $790 to ship a 40-foot container from Los Angeles to Shanghai, but it costs $8,700 to ship the same container from Los Angeles to Honolulu. This means that it costs 11 times more money to ship something to some domestic locations than international ones. They feel that if the Jones Act is repealed, the cost of living would decrease as residents would not have to spend as much money to get goods, be they from mainland America or from a foreign nation.

Support for the Jones Act

While a single leader in support of the Jones Act has not fully been identified at this point–the amendment is still in committee–Representative Duncan Hunter (D-CA) and Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) were strong defenders of the act in the past when it was brought under question in 2014. Their actions helped to enact legislation last December that reaffirmed the Jones Act. The legislation also called a strong commercial shipbuilding industry particularly important as Federal budget cuts may reduce the number of newly constructed military vessels

The American Maritime Partnership (AMP) opposes the amendment on the grounds that it would gut America’s shipbuilding industry and outsource U.S. Naval shipbuilding to foreign builders, which would cost hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs across this country.

The United States Navy and United States Navy League also opposed the amendment on the grounds that:

For decades, U.S. merchant mariners have provided essential support for the U.S. Navy during times of war and national crisis.  Repealing the Jones Act would remove that support at a time when we are fighting two wars and facing a continuing threat from international terrorism.

The Navy League added that repealing the Jones Act would hinder the commercial maritime industry that is vital to the United States of America.

Finally, the Lexington Institute stated in an article that America has always had a special relationship with water. The institute goes on to state that adversaries of the United States recognize the advantage conferred on the United States by its military preeminence on the seas and are working assiduously to deny it access to that domain and that to prevent that the country needs a Navy that is second to none. In order to maintain it, the Lexington Institute asserts that American shipyards are vital.

Conclusion

The Jones Act has been a major part of America’s merchant marine infrastructure for decades. While there are currently many arguments about the efficacy of keeping the Jones Act in place, the fight certainly isn’t over. However, the benefits of keeping this document have been shown to be beneficial to the United States both in terms of economically and national security, and changing the law may be more harmful than good.

Resources

Primary

Department of Transportation Maritime Administration: Maritime Statistics

Additional

AP: Hawaii, Alaska, Territories Team Up on Jones Act 

Heritage Foundation: Sink the Jones Act

American Maritime Partnership: Congress Reaffirms Support for Jones Act

Maritime Executive: US Navy Opposes Congressional Efforts to Repeal Jones Act 

American Maritime Partnership: McCain Amendment to Eliminate U.S. Shipbuilding Would Outsource US Jobs and Security

Marine Link: AMP Opposes Amendment to Eliminate U.S. Shipbuilding

American Maritime Partnership: Jones Act Truth Squad

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Jones Act: Outdated or Vital? appeared first on Law Street.

Matthew Bissonnette, a former Navy SEAL who wrote the book “No Easy Day,” is suing his former lawyers for malpractice.

According to CBS New York, Bissonnette, whose pen name is Mark Owen, alleges that his former attorneys told him that the federal government did not need to perform a pre-publication review of his book, which describes the 2011 raid that killed Osama Bin Laden. He later relied on their advice that they told him they had performed pre-publication review themselves and removed all classified and sensitive government information. Bissonette alleges that his former attorneys’ guidance “prompted a Pentagon inquiry that evolved into a criminal probe by the Justice Department,” which “tarnished his reputation, cost him his security clearance and caused him to surrender much of the book’s income to the government,” as well as ruined his “‘exemplary military record’ by the false accusation that he sought to profit from disclosing military secrets.”

Bissonette claims he had to forfeit $4.5 million to the government for following his attorneys’ advice and publishing his book without the government’s permission.

The former Navy SEAL seeks unspecified compensatory damages, but claims his losses are at least $8 million, partly because he believes his tarnished reputation will cause him to lose consulting positions, speaking engagements, and other future employment opportunities.

Since book publishers are in the book business, they are not strangers to pre-publication reviews, which are reviews undertaken by attorneys to prevent defamation lawsuits. I have had the privilege of assisting in pre-publication during some of my internships, and it’s quite an interesting process, during which an editor will ask an attorney to read a manuscript for any libelous statements. The attorney looks for any false statements of facts or opinions that may be construed as false statements of fact.

Pre-publication review can be implemented for both fiction and non-fiction books; however, from my experience, I have noticed that editors request more non-fiction books for pre-publication review. This may be because non-fiction books are about real events and real people, and reported facts can sometimes also be false. A potentially defamed person can easily point to the words in the story and claim, “I’ve been defamed. It says so right there in this book.” This may be harder in fiction where the author can presumably make anything up, notwithstanding that fiction authors can still be sued for defamation (e.g., a person believes he or she is a particular character that portrays him or her in a false light). Nevertheless, pre-publication review is quite common in book publishing.

Moreover, when publishers attempt to publish books about the government, there is a second stage to pre-publication review in which the federal government routinely vets manuscripts in order to redact any classified or sensitive information that may harm national security.

Thus, I would like to know why Bissonnette’s attorneys supposedly advised him that the government did not need to perform a pre-publication review, especially considering that he participated in the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden and “decided to write the book after realizing that others who did not know the accurate facts were writing about and discussing the daring May 2011 raid by SEAL Team 6 in Pakistan that resulted in the killing of the head of al Qaeda and inspiration behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” They knew the government would want to make sure that Bissonnette’s version of the 2011 raid did not hamper national security, and they had nothing to gain from advising Bissonnette to forgo pre-publication review. Their alleged misstep could easily have been avoided.

I will be eagerly waiting to see what happens in this case.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Navy SEAL Author of Bin Laden Raid Book Sues Attorneys for Malpractice appeared first on Law Street.

The Blue Angels are regarded as some of the most highly talented and well-respected pilots in the Navy and the Marines.  As someone who has seen the Blue Angels fly overhead several times I can vouch for their skill–they literally take your breath away with their gracefully executed swoops and dives. But recently, their image has been tarnished as some former Angels are under investigation for sexual harassment, a hard blow to both the daredevils’ mission and public image.

The mission of the United States Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron is to showcase the pride and professionalism of the United States Navy and Marine Corps by inspiring a culture of excellence and service to country through flight demonstrations and community outreach.

Who are the Blue Angels?

The Blue Angels squadron is a team comprised of 16 volunteering officers, with six pilots who fly jets of varying capabilities. Blue Angels officers serve either two or three years (depending on their positions) with the squadron before returning to their fleets. The Blue Angels team is a unique military demonstration team and is highly respected in the military community.

The structure of the Blue Angels is what sets this unit apart. Unlike other military units, the commanding officer (CO) of the Blue Angels “is both the final authority and a wingman whose flying is critiqued by junior officers.” The Blue Angels lack an executive officer (XO), which is a typical chain-of-command arrangement. One former Angel explained that the unusual command structure in the Angels makes it difficult for the CO to act with authority while maintaining his peers as his equals. The atypical leadership structure paired with an inappropriate CO led to a toxic work environment in former CO Capt. Gregory McWherter’s second term.

The Controversy 

McWherter served as the CO for the Blue Angels from 2008 to 2010 and then again from May 2011 to November 2012. According to the Daily Mail, there were no reports of misconduct during his first term. But a service member has now filed an official complaint with the Navy about the inappropriate work environment.

The Department of the Navy made the investigation report public, and the contents were quite shocking. The most bizarre incident the report included was an unusual act of vandalism. Someone took it upon himself to draw a huge blue and gold penis “on the roof of the center point trailer at the Blue Angels’ winter training facilities in El Centro.” This inappropriate artwork was visible from space and even showed up on Google Maps for a while.

Other offenses that occurred under McWherter’s authority included members passing along pornographic images, pornographically carved pumpkins in the office, joking about their girlfriends’ nude photos, and making offensive jokes after Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed. The report specifically accuses McWherter of making sexist jokes about women.

McWherter lost his job as an XO of Naval Base Coronado in California due to the allegations of sexual harassment. He also resigned as the president of The Tailhook Association amid the scandal’s publicity. But McWherter’s removal is not the only change happening in the Navy.

A New Chain-of-Command

According to the Navy Times, the squadron will now be assigned an XO; this is the first time the Blue Angels organization will be overseen in such a way. The XO will be a designated aviator who oversees the squadron, but he will not fly along with the Blue Angels. The Navy Times explained, this change in command will serve as an attempt to restore the unit from the “hostile working environment rife with pornography, lewd behavior and other sexual harassment” fostered by McWherter.

To further uphold the prestigious reputation of the Blue Angels, the head of Naval Air Forces, Vice Admiral David Buss, incorporated additional changes in the selection process. He told The Navy Times the selection criteria was rewritten so as to provide opportunities for anyone to be considered regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race. Those who are considered will be reviewed by several new authorities and while Buss expects critics, he said these changes are necessary to improve the Blue Angels’ environment. These new checks and balances to be put in place after the 2015 selection round will help prevent future abuses of authority. Buss expressed his faith that restructuring the chain-of-command in the Blue Angels will only return the squadron to its esteemed origin.

Not a First-Time Offense

The Navy has dealt with similar scandals in the past–but the matter boils down to something much simpler than a scandal. What part of being a good pilot or fighter constitutes the need for lewd behavior and pornographic pinups in the office? These conditions are unprofessional and take away from the honor associated with the military. As silly as it may sound, the blue and gold penis scandal brings attention to the issue of sexual discrimination in the military.

An environment in which women are discussed as objects for aesthetic and sexual appeal is not professionally acceptable. Though the Blue Angels do not discriminate against female pilots on paper, no female pilot has ever been initiated into the squadron. That seems a bit strange, considering the Blue Angels have been around since the 1940s. Regardless, this scandal is a blessing in disguise for the Blue Angels. Though the public knowledge of the lewd work environment behind the dazzling air-show does not bode well in means of publicity, it made way for an improved future for the Angels.

With a more stringent selection process and restructured chain-of-command, the Blue Angels are sure to perform at their finest in the upcoming years. Applicants will be considered solely based on merit, career significance, and professionalism. The new chain-of-command will give way to a whole new professionalism to the Blue Angels, which is evidently much needed.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Official U.S. Navy Page via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Blue Angels: Harassment Investigation Sparks Changes appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, January 20, 2014, President Obama nominated Vice Admiral Michael S. Rogers to replace General Keith Alexander to be the new Chief of the National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA has been buffeted by controversy after controversy due to the documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Considering all of the new allegations coming to light on a continual basis, it is important to ask how Michael Rogers, if confirmed by the Senate, can change the NSA — and if he can change it for the better.

Vice Admiral Rogers is a decorated, longtime member of the armed forces, specializing in cryptology in the Navy shortly after graduating Auburn University in 1981. Beginning in 2003, Rogers served the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the Iraq War as part of the Joint Staff, the advisory team tasked with analyzing current and future strategies in warfare, including the network defense capabilities overseen by Rogers himself. The Vice Admiral has had a smooth career progression since that stint, shooting up to Director of Intelligence for Pacific Command in 2007, Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2009, and finally becoming the first-ever commander, U.S. Fleet Cyber Command.

Rogers’ Senate confirmation most likely will take another month, and citing a tradition barring any media interviews until after confirmation, it is unlikely that average Americans will get to know their future NSA Chief ahead of that. He is most likely going to be asked about his operations in Cyber Command, as that agencies, as well as the NSA, are pertinent to national cybersecurity. President Obama, ignoring recommendations from an NSA advisory panel and Director of Intelligence James Clapper, Jr., has decided to keep the NSA and Cyber Command leadership posts under the same roof.

Yet, now that we know Vice Admiral Rogers is an exemplary officer, the question arises whether he’ll be looking to safeguard Americans’ privacy in this new digital age. The Snowden documents have outlined numerous programs designed to collect bulk data from Americans every day, and there is a new public shift in opinion toward reigning in these programs. According to an Associated Press/GfK poll released January 27, 60 percent of respondents reported valuing privacy over terrorism concerns regarding NSA activities. In a statement following Rogers’ nomination, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said, “I am…confident that Adm. Rogers has the wisdom to help balance the demands of security, privacy, and liberty in our digital age.” Confidence in Rogers would be appropriate considering his admirable service to our country, but it remains to be seen how Rogers will deal with the politics that come along with the country’s concerns over domestic surveillance programs.

One issue to ponder during Rogers’ confirmation hearings include possible clemency for Edward Snowden, as interest in this topic has picked up in recent weeks. A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that the majority of Americans think Snowden should be charged with committing a crime, as opposed to allowing full clemency (52-38%). Reconciling this information with editorial boards, such as the New York Times, calling for forgiveness for the former systems administrator, will be tough, indeed. Rogers will have to work with the NSA’s new privacy advocate, Rebecca Richards, in order to properly safeguard Americans’ privacy rights. On top of these new responsibilities of the newest NSA leader, there are reports that privacy advocates aren’t too sure of the President’s nominee. This is natural, considering Rogers’ extensive experience within the nation’s armed forces.

President Obama introduced new reforms into the government’s phone metadata collection program, one of the first operations revealed by the Snowden leaks through the Guardian and the Washington Post. It is not clear as of now how Vice Admiral Rogers will handle changes such as acquiring a warrant before searching the metadata database; tracking individuals two steps removed from a suspected terrorist as opposed to the former three steps; and deciding where the metadata information will be stored. The pressure’s on for the experienced cryptologist, as there are conflicting court decisions over the legality of the phone surveillance program, as well as a federal commission voting 3-2 that the metadata practices are unconstitutional.

Whether one thinks that the National Security Agency programs are constitutional or illegal, it will take some time for there to be a consensus within the federal court system — most likely to be determined by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it’ll be important to see how Vice Admiral Rogers answers the questions at his upcoming Senate confirmation hearings. This will be the key to how America’s spy programs will be run for the time being.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Joshua J. Rogers via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Who Is Our Next NSA Chief? appeared first on Law Street.