Over the past few weeks and months, President Donald Trump’s military policy has begun to coalesce around a somewhat coherent idea: defer decision-making to the Pentagon. In contrast to its predecessor, the Trump Administration has taken a more hands-off approach to the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. The U.S. has had a footprint in all three battlefields for years. But the day-to-day operations since Trump took office have seemingly shifted from the White House to the Pentagon.

Afghanistan

Last week, the administration quietly announced it would increase the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by 3,000 to 5,000 troops. The precise number of troops, the White House said, would be determined by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The U.S. currently maintains a force of about 8,800 troops in Afghanistan, where they train and advise Afghan government forces in the 16-year battle against the Taliban.

Deferring such a decision to the Pentagon could reflect the inner conflict taking place within the White House. Steven Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, favors an isolationist approach, and would like to see the U.S. stay out of global conflicts. Others, like Mattis and National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, favor a strong U.S. presence in places like Syria and Afghanistan.

Still, some see the Pentagon’s longer leash as a reflection of the administration’s lack of a coherent longterm strategy. In a statement released Monday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said “six months into the new administration, it still has not delivered a strategy” in Afghanistan. According to the White House, a comprehensive strategy will be in place by mid-July.

Yemen

The first indication that Trump would afford the military greater command in overseas conflicts came in January. U.S. special forces raided a compound in Yemen that belonged to al-Qaeda leaders, a mission that the Obama Administration had not approved. The raid resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL and a number of civilians, including children. Months later, in April, Trump said he was giving the military “total authorization”

“Frankly, that’s why they’ve been so successful lately,” he added. “If you look at what’s happened over the last eight weeks and compare that really to what has happened over the last eight years, you’ll see there is a tremendous difference.”

Syria

In Syria, a number of incidents over the past month has demonstrated the differences in approach between Trump and former President Barack Obama, who many critics say micromanaged the military to its detriment.

On Sunday, a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet downed a Syrian jet after it dropped bombs near the Syrian Democratic Forces, a coalition of U.S.-backed rebel groups. The Pentagon said the action was taken “in collective self-defense of coalition-partnered forces.”

“The coalition’s mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend coalition or partner forces from any threat. “

The episode marked the first time the U.S. directly took down a Syrian government jet. Earlier this year, after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime unleashed a chemical agent on its own citizens, the Trump Administration responded with an airstrike against a Syrian airstrip. The strike was the first direct U.S. attack against the Syrian government during the six-year-old civil war. 

Four direct engagements w Syria/Iran/Russia in 45 days. Trump is quietly starting a new war that Congress has not declared. Red alert. https://t.co/D4MKPLXFTS

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 19, 2017

During Obama’s tenure, airstrikes and other combat actions in Syria were often meticulously reviewed by the White House. Critics, including people within the Obama Administration, argued that approach was too timid, perhaps contributing to the deteriorating situation in the war-torn country.

But critics of Trump’s approach say the lack of a diplomatic strategy to go along with a weightier military component can be dangerous. It can potentially escalate tensions between the U.S. and other powerful actors in the region, like Iran and Russia, some observers say.

Within the administration, there have been lobbying efforts to broaden the war against Iran and its proxies in Syria, according to Foreign Policy. But Mattis and other generals with decades of battlefield experience have snuffed that idea. The ultimate goal in Syria remains the destruction of Islamic State. The push toward Raqqa, the group’s de facto capital, is well underway.

Regardless of the Trump Administration’s tactics, the outcome in Syria remains the same as it was under Obama. The Pentagon recently wrote in a statement: “The coalition calls on all parties in southern Syria to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Doctrine: Let the Pentagon Handle It appeared first on Law Street.

While President Barack Obama’s time in office has now come to a close, his environmental legacy has the potential to last far beyond his eight years as president. The Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to protect and defend the environment, championing several initiatives. Some key accomplishments, however, include the establishment of more national monuments than any other president, signing the historic Paris Climate Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, banning drilling in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean, and unveiling the Clean Power Plan. Additionally, Obama raised fuel-efficiency standards, invested in green energy, and created the Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators. Whether these policies stand the test of time, however, may depend heavily on the actions of future administrations.

National Monuments

While Obama’s time in office was winding down, he was still designating sites as national monuments. On January 12, 2017, Obama named five new national monuments. That brought his total number during his presidency to 34—more than any other president. Moreover, in December 2016, he created two national monument sites in Utah and Nevada. The Bears Ears National Monument, which protects 1.35 million acres of land in southwest Utah and two geological formations, was particularly controversial; five Native nations had petitioned Obama to grant federal monument protections to the area.

“Bears Ears” Courtesy of Bureau of Land Management : License: (CC BY 2.0)

Over the course of his time in office, Obama utilized the Antiquities Act–a law signed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906–multiple times to create the monuments. The Act gives the President of the United States the authority to set aside land to protect important historic, cultural, and ecological sites without approval from Congress. In total, Obama protected more than 550 million acres. That is more than double the amount that Roosevelt, a well-known conservationist, conserved himself.

A large portion of the land Obama protected is covered by water. He created and expanded several large national marine monuments. One notable monument is the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Monument, a large collection of coral reefs, underwater preserves, and tiny islands roughly 1,000 miles off the coast of Hawaii. Bush had originally established the monument in 2009 at 55.6 million acres; Obama then expanded it by 261.3 million acres in 2014. Obama also quadrupled the size of Hawaii’s Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, which is home to more than 7,000 species of wildlife, many of which are endangered.

Ban on Arctic and Atlantic Drilling

In addition to the significant acreage of water Obama protected as national monuments, his administration also banned arctic drilling. Using the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Obama withdrew hundreds of millions of acres of federally-owned land in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean from new offshore and gas drilling in December 2016. The Act allowed for Obama to act unilaterally, but no president has ever utilized the law to permanently protect land. In particular, large portions of the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic and canyons in the Atlantic from Massachusetts to Virginia are now off-limits to oil exploration.

“Sea Ice in the Chukchi Sea” Courtesy of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center : License: (CC BY 2.0)

The Atlantic Ocean already had a five-year moratorium in place, and the protection of the canyons means that most of the eastern seaboard will not be drilled for oil. The seas in the Arctic are a habitat for several endangered species, including species that are candidates for an endangered species listing, and the canyons protected are largely recognized as biodiversity hotspots. If the ban is upheld by the courts, about 98 percent of the waters in the Arctic would be protected from oil exploration and drilling. In a presidential memorandum, Obama stated that these areas are extremely vulnerable to oil spills and have irreplaceable value for marine animals, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and scientific research–making the Arctic Waters a prime area for protection

Paris Climate Agreement

The Paris Climate Agreement was the first of its kind–a global consensus to combat the effects of climate change. Its central aim is to strengthen the response to threats of climate change and keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. The agreement also aims to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by limiting the burning of fossil fuels and assist in preventing further floods, droughts, catastrophic storms, and rising sea levels.

In a rare moment of consensus, both the U.S. and China ratified the agreement, formally committing the world’s two biggest economies to curb climate change. The terms allow countries to determine independently which strategies will be most successful in attaining climate goals. While some of the aspects are binding and some are not, Obama’s ratification of the deal demonstrated a bold move by his administration to make protecting the planet a priority in years to come.

Clean Power Plan

President Obama’s most historic environmental initiative, perhaps, is the Clean Power Plan, which is designed to aggressively shrink America’s carbon footprint. The plan outlined the first national standards to specifically address pollution from power plants. In particular, the plan cuts significant amounts of carbon pollution and other pollutants from power plants that are responsible for soot and smog that have an adverse effect on human health. The plan is long-term, allowing companies to remain in business while making the changes needed to comply with the new standards.

The Supreme Court issued a “stay” in February 2016,  temporarily halting the plan from moving forward. However, it is set to be fully in place by 2030, with carbon pollution 32 percent below 2005 levels, sulfur dioxide pollution 90 percent lower, and nitrogen oxides 72 percent lower. This reduction in greenhouse gases is specifically aimed at combating the dangerous effects of such pollution on the climate. Additionally, the entire plan itself is expected to contribute a variety of positive economic effects–climate benefits of roughly $20 billion, health benefits in the $14-$34 billion range, and total net benefits of approximately $26-$45 billion.

“Power plant” Courtesy of Spiros Vathis : License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

What’s Next?

Despite the great measures Obama undertook to protect the environment, it is quite possible that some of his environmental policies will be overturned by a new administration. The ban on drilling may or may not be able to be overturned by President Trump, but a Republican-controlled Congress could move to rescind the withdrawal of federal lands from oil and gas exploration. However, such a move might not be successful, given a close reading of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

National monuments have never been removed by a subsequent president, but President Trump has reportedly stated that he is open to the idea of doing so. As for the Paris Climate Agreement, Trump has made it clear that he wants to withdraw America’s participation in the historic deal. Arguments that the agreement will be disastrous for the economy and American industry are at the forefront of opponents’ minds. While Trump considers withdrawing the U.S. from the agreement, China, India, Germany, the EU, and the UK have all reaffirmed their commitments to curb emissions. China’s President, Xi Jinping, even stated that removing the U.S. from the agreement will endanger future generations. Furthermore, if other countries continue to invest heavily in clean energy, then money, jobs, and technology are sure to stream into those industries, perhaps leaving the U.S. behind.

The fate of the Clean Power Plan also hangs in the balance under the new administration. Many opposed to the plan have already urged President Trump to sign an executive order that rescinds the rule and tell the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to enforce it. However, attorneys general from a variety of states have noted that “history and legal precedent strongly suggest that such an action would not stand up in court.” The plan is also vulnerable to the Congressional Review Act, which would allow Congress to nullify the regulations. For now, the Clean Power Plan remains in limbo.

Overall, most of Obama’s environmental legacy will be decided by the courts, not by a particular administration. With more than 100 judicial vacancies across the country as Trump takes office, along with a vacant Supreme Court seat, the courtroom is going to be the arena in which environmental policies could be dismantled. In particular circuits with more than one vacant seat, specific areas of environmental regulation may be rolled back immensely; for example, the Second Circuit has become a critical arena for determining water regulation under the Clean Water Act and the Ninth Circuit has a profound impact on endangered specifies. Environmental groups are already preparing to take any anti-climate policies or actions to court, along with attorneys general from multiple states.

Conclusion

Obama’s presidency was clearly focused on environmental protection and combating catastrophic effects of climate change in the coming years. As commander-in-chief, Obama did an extensive amount of work to ensure the environment is viable and sustainable far into the future. Whether his efforts will be unraveled in the new Trump Administration and Republican-controlled legislative branch, however, is yet to be seen. Overall, Obama’s actions certainly elevated the environment and climate change to a much higher level of importance, and his environmental legacy may have him remembered as one of the top environmental presidents in history.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Look Back at the Obama Administration’s Environmental Legacy appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama continued his flurry of 11th-hour moves on Thursday, submitting a final rule to formally end a registry that has not been in use since 2011. It’s the latest in a string of preemptive actions meant to prevent his successor, President-elect Donald Trump, from making good on campaign promises Obama and other Democrats oppose.

The Justice Department under George W. Bush called for the database, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State and member of Trump’s transition team, assisted with the creation of the database. The program registered visitors to the U.S. from certain African and Middle Eastern countries: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, and 20 others. Deemed ineffective and out of date by many Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, the program has not been in use since 2011.

Obama’s rule change will effectively erase the regulations for one tool that Trump might have used to make good on his campaign promise of registering all Muslims in the country. DHS’s final ruling said the database is “redundant, captured data manually that was already captured through automated systems, and no longer provided an increase in security in light of DHS’s evolving assessment of the threat posed to the United States by international terrorism.”

Although the program has been dormant since 2011, a 2012 report from the DHS inspector general indicated senior officials had been trying to discontinue the database since 2006. “Information obtained from fingerprints, flight manifests, travel and identification documents and intelligence sources is more valuable in determining who poses a potential national security risk,” the report said, adding that the database has “no discernible public benefit.”

Trump’s latest indication of what he might do to fulfill his immigration promises came Wednesday in Florida. He was asked if he would temporarily ban Muslim immigrants, or create a registry for Muslims, Trump replied: “You know my plans.” A spokesman clarified that the president-elect was referring to his plans to block visitors from countries with histories of Islamic extremism from entering the country.

President Obama’s final ruling is set to take effect immediately after it’s published in the Federal Registry on Friday.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Moves to Prevent Trump from Enacting Muslim Registry appeared first on Law Street.

In a lot of ways, 2016 was the year in which the fight over transgender individuals’ access to the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity came to the forefront. From North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” that was passed in March, to the directive issued by the Obama Administration in August that instructed all public schools to allow students to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity, it’s been a newsworthy topic for the year. Now, to kick off 2017, SCOTUS will be weighing in on a Virginia case that could provide more clarity on the issue.

Gavin Grimm, who attends high school in Virginia’s Gloucester County, is transgender. He began to take hormones and grow facial hair, and started to use the men’s bathroom early in his high school career. But some parents complained, and the school board decried that students would have to use the bathroom that corresponded to their “biological gender.” So, Grimm sued the school board over the decision. The case has now made it all the way to the Supreme Court, after a federal appeals court ruled earlier this year in favor of Grimm. While the court is deciding, Grimm will still have to abide by the school board’s decision.

Right now, the Supreme Court still only has eight members, as no one has filled the void left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. Hopefully a new member will be confirmed by the time the case is actually heard, although in the case of a 4-4 split the lower court’s decision in favor of Grimm would remain.

Grimm wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he explained the humiliating and inhumane experiences he has had at the hands of the school’s policies. He describes how he has had to go off school grounds to use the restroom at some points and how it has been suggested that he use the single stall unisex restroom “so that no one else would have their privacy invaded by using the same restroom as me.” But Grimm also addresses the issue with a sense of hope, saying:

I did not choose to announce to the news media that I am transgender. My school board made that decision for me. But now that I am visible, I want to use my position to help the country see transgender people like me as real people just living our lives. We are not perverse. We are not broken. We are not sick. We are not freaks. We cannot change who we are. Our gender identities are as innate as anyone else’s.

I hope the justices of the Supreme Court can see me and the rest of the transgender community for who we are — just people — and rule accordingly.

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 SCOTUS to Weigh in on Transgender Bathroom Access appeared first on Law Street.

A hostage exchange with Iran in January depended on a U.S. payment of $400 million, State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Thursday. While “we don’t pay ransom,” Kirby said, the U.S. sought “maximum leverage” because “Iran has not proved completely trustworthy in the past.” He added: “There were opportunities we took advantage of, and as a result we got American citizens back home.”

When the cash element of the exchange was reported a few weeks ago, President Obama and the State Department denied any link between securing the hostages–a Washington Post reporter, a marine, and a pastor–and the payment. Thursday represents the first time the administration addressed the hostages’ return as being contingent on the $400 million. But while Republicans in Congress who oppose the softened stance the U.S. has taken with Iran viewed Kirby’s admission as proof the payment was a ransom, Kirby stopped short of labeling it as such, referring to it only as “leverage.”

Reporter to John Kirby: “It seems like such a ridiculous explanation it shocks me that you’re actually providing it”https://t.co/typHndIq1Q

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 18, 2016

“If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If a cash payment is contingent on a hostage release, it’s a ransom. The truth matters and the president owes the American people an explanation,” said Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) on Thursday.

Kirby maintains the cash payment–which was part of a $1.3 billion sum the U.S. owed Iran from a botched arms deal in the 1970s–was negotiated separately from the hostage negotiations. The day the exchange took place at an airport in Tehran, January 17, was also the same day the Iran nuclear deal was officially implemented. All three negotiations–the $400 million, the nuclear deal, the prisoner return–were separate, according to Kirby, but it was convenient to carry them all out on the same day.

Obama and the State Department issued statements after the Wall Street Journal first reported the cash element in early August that seem to contradict what Kirby said on Thursday. “This wasn’t some nefarious deal,” Obama said on August 4, the day after the report came to light. “We do not pay ransom for hostages,” he added. And Kirby sent out a tweet the same day that said: “Reports of link between prisoner release & payment to Iran are completely false.”

But the way things shook out that day in January, there seemed to be a link between the hostages being released and the payment being made, a point Kirby made on Thursday. The $400 million–denominated in foreign bills like Swiss Francs and Euros–sat on a plane in Geneva as the American hostages boarded a plane in Tehran. State Department officials did not green light the plane with the cash to takeoff for Tehran until the prisoners were confirmed to have departed. Kirby, in front of a group of prodding, aghast reporters, refused to label the transaction as a ransom while admitting the payment was “contingent” upon the prisoner release.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post $400 Million Payment to Iran Connected to Hostage Release, State Dept. Says appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of last July, the Obama Administration selected 67 colleges to participate in an experimental pilot program through the Department of Education (DOE) to extend Pell Grants to certain incarcerated individuals. The experimental program will impact up to 12,000 inmates working to earn a post-secondary degree. 141 correctional institutions will take part in the Second Chance Pell Grant program. 

This monumental move in criminal justice policy marks the first time inmates will be eligible for Pell Grants in over 20 years, when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 explicitly banned grants to any incarcerated individuals. Though that bill is still in place, the new pilot program is granted through experimentation under the Higher Education Act.

As for the grants, they function in the same way as grants for non-incarcerated students. Federal Pell Grants are available to students seeking a college degree with demonstrated financial need. The grant is proportional to the student’s income with a maximum amount of $5,815 for the 2016-2017 academic year.

The initiative follows a slew of research in recent years showing that educational rehabilitation for inmates sharply decreases recidivism, increases social capital, and aids re-entry into society. One such 2013 study found that individuals who participated in correctional education were 43 percent less likely to recidivate in the three years after release than individuals who didn’t participate in education. Further, the program serves individuals marked for release within the next five years, the demographic educational programming will benefit most.

But the program has been met with some public disapproval, largely because some believe that confronting the student debt epidemic in the U.S. and extending grant programs for traditional students should receive higher priority than funding education for incarcerated students.

Nevertheless, the DOE has made their priorities and intentions clear with regards to the intersection of criminal justice and education. In a report released this month, the DOE pointed out that in the last 25 years average spending on PK-12 education has increased around 100 percent, whereas correctional spending has increased around 300 percent. That figure is even higher in states like Texas, where correctional spending has increased by 850 percent during the same time period. 

Investing in education is a cost effective method for reducing crime. The DOE report points to a study which found that a 10 percent increase in high school graduation rates could result in an approximately nine percent decrease in arrest rates leading to drastically fewer inmates and prison costs.

As a snapshot example, it cost the city of New York an average $167,731 for each inmate held in a correctional institution in 2013. By reducing arrests and thus incarceration, correctional institutions can re-allocate greater funds towards rehabilitative services like vocational training and higher education aided by Pell Grants.

For now, the Pell Grant extension to inmates is experimental, but marks an important shift away toward rehabilitative approach to inmates within the U.S. criminal justice system. A grant program that was created to allow students to go to college who otherwise could not has a clear purpose in correctional institutions where inmates may have their only chance to pursue a college degree.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Administration to Extend Pell Grants to 12,000 Inmates appeared first on Law Street.

Jordanian intelligence operatives have been skimming weapons meant to combat Syria’s tyrannical President Bashar al-Assad to sell on the black market. A co-investigation by the New York Times and Al Jazeera this week uncovered that the weapons were initially funneled into the country as arms for C.I.A-trained Syrian rebel groups, and subsequently stolen from shipments of weapon caches. The weapons include: Kalashnikov assault rifles, mortars, and grenades.

Since 2013, the U.S. has been supplying a collection of Syrian groups that oppose Assad, the murderous tyrant whose government has killed thousands of its own citizens. The program, known as Timber Sycamore, was a cooperative effort between a number of actors including the C.I.A., a host of Arab Countries, and the Jordanian intelligence service G.I.D.

Initially, the C.I.A. armed and trained thousands of rebels, while a host of Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia, helped fund the program. Jordan, a long and trusted ally of the U.S.,  then helped move the American-bought arms from Europe to training sites across the country.

The path of the stolen weapons is as follows: The U.S. supplied the weapons, many of which were bought in the Balkans, or elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Jordanian intelligence officers then moved the weapons to training points throughout the country. Officials involved in the theft would route a chunk of the weapons to black markets, especially in Ma’an, Sahab, and the Jordan Valley. According to the report, officers involved in the weapons scheme have used the money to buy SUVs and iPhones.

In an ironic and sinister twist, U.S. officials believe the weapons used in a November shooting in Jordan’s capital of Amman that killed five people (including two Americans), can be traced to the U.S. arm shipments.

Several dozen Jordanian officers have been arrested for their involvement in the weapons coup, and there is suspicion that there was a cover-up involving the highest positions of the G.I.D.

While the revelations are surprising, and perhaps undermine the Obama administration’s rebel arming strategy, they will not damage the U.S.-Jordan partnership, which is as important as ever in a roiling region being torn apart by state-less terror.

“The United States deeply values the long history of cooperation and friendship with Jordan,” John Kirby, the State Department’s spokesman told the New York Times. “We are committed to the security of Jordan and to partnering closely with Jordan to meet common security challenges.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jordan Officials Sold U.S. Supplied Weapons on Black Market appeared first on Law Street.

As climate change continues to wreak havoc on the world’s weather patterns, individuals around the globe are taking their respective countries to task for their roles in contributing to the problem. The New York Times reports that several attempts to take governments to court have taken place in countries such as Pakistan, New Zealand, Peru, and even the United States.

Whether or not these lawsuits could have any effect on actually holding these countries accountable is debatable, but it is giving clout to people who traditionally would have little power in such a fight. Children, farmers, and students  have brought cases in various countries, all citing a need for countries to take action to protect current and future generations from a host of devastating effects.

In the U.S., a group of kids in the state of Washington won a lawsuit last month to force the state to be held to a deadline for taking action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The kids were represented by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit that works to help young people fight for their right to a healthy atmosphere. While this particular case was fought at a state level, the organization has been fighting another case at the federal level–it has also filed a suit against the Obama administration on behalf of a group of kids from various states across the country. The suit claims that the Obama administration has “continued their policies and practices of allowing the exploitation of fossil fuels,” targeting in particular the approval of a CO2-emitting export terminal in Oregon.

Pakistan, a country particularly vulnerable to climate change, has recently seen two such cases come to its courts. Last month, a seven-year-old girl filed a lawsuit against the government, saying that the promotion of fossil fuels violates “the Public Trust Doctrine and the youngest generation’s fundamental constitutional rights.” Last year, farmer and law student Asghar Leghari took his case to the Lahore High Court after his crops were threatened by the unpredictable weather. Leghari’s case prompted a judge to order the formation of a “Climate Change Commission” to ensure that the government is implementing policies to combat the problem.

The Times piece highlights other cases that are popping up worldwide. Regardless of whether or not these suits will actually be successful in forcing governments to change their policies, they are bringing attention to the media and the public of the role that governments have played in the climate crisis.

In the end, these lawsuits might be the most effective way that individuals can truly make their voice heard to the entities that truly have the power to create change. While these methods will still be difficult for those without legal resources at their disposal, it may be the best way to force governments to take action.

Editors Note: A previous version of this story stated that the kids represented in the federal case against the Obama administration were from Oregon. This story has been corrected to clarify that many of the youth plaintiffs in this case live in other states apart from Oregon. 

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post People Are Suing Their Governments for Contributing to Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

The newest massive dump of confidential American military information came this week, and it focused on one much-criticized aspect of American foreign policy: our use of drones in conflict. The information, which was released via an eight-part report entitled “The Drone Papers” by the Intercept, doesn’t look good for the U.S. It contains many shocking revelations, including the fact that nearly 90 percent of the people killed in recent drone attacks in a five-month period in Afghanistan “were not the intended targets.”

The papers, which were released by an anonymous whistleblower only identified as “a source” are secret, classified documents. They encompass the United States’ use of drones from 2011-2013 in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Iraq, and outline the chain of command and process through which the United States government approves an attack. They also go through in detail the evolution of the United States’ drone program.

The Intercept–which was founded in the wake of Edward Snowden’s release of NSA documents that clued Americans into the spying being conducted by the U.S. government–has been hinting that it has a new source of information for a while now. So, while this drone report release doesn’t necessarily come as a surprise, it’s hard to deny that the revelations are anything other than grim, and echo the concerns that human rights activists have been uttering since we began using drones as tools for warfare. As the Intercept puts it, what should be understood as a result of the release of these documents is clear:

Taken together, the secret documents lead to the conclusion that Washington’s14-year high-value targeting campaign suffers from an overreliance on signals intelligence, an apparently incalculable civilian toll, and — due to a preference for assassination rather than capture — an inability to extract potentially valuable intelligence from terror suspects. They also highlight the futility of the war in Afghanistan by showing how the U.S. has poured vast resources into killing local insurgents, in the process exacerbating the very threat the U.S. is seeking to confront.

The source also explained his motivations for releasing the information to the Intercept, explaining that the public deserves to know the truth about the American drone program, and stating:

This outrageous explosion of watchlisting — of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield — it was, from the very first instance, wrong,

The Obama Administration has long assured the American people that the use of drone strikes attempted to mitigate civilian deaths–this information seems to indicate that those assurances are simply not accurate. So far the various American government agencies involved, including the Pentagon, the White House, and the Defense Department have all avoided public comment. While mum may be the word for now, Americans will almost certainly start demanding answers, similar to the controversy over the NSA and the Patriot Act after Snowden’s papers were released. That leak fundamentally changed the conversation about privacy in this country–this newest release threatens to do the same when it comes to the use of American military force via drone.

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 The Drone Papers: The Intercept Releases Massive Report on America’s Use of Drones appeared first on Law Street.

America is dealing with a hacking crisis. It seems that every other day we are bombarded with the latest hacking stories from both the private and public sectors. We are told to be cautious with all of our online activity and to remember all uploaded material remains in cyberspace forever. Almost all of us personally know someone who has dealt with identity theft and all the hassles that ensue. Some of the biggest companies in the world with the means to access the most anti-hacking software available aren’t immune to the problem. Even the national government recently made headlines concerning Chinese cyber attacks. So what can be done? In his 2015 State of the Union, President Obama addressed cybercrime. The Obama administration proposed new legislation and amendments to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Will these proposals better protect Americans from hackers?

Case Study: Ashley Madison

Just last week, a new team of hackers were at it again. People are already discreet about dating websites and apps. A level of anonymity is essential for a high volume of users. This is even truer when a dating website revolves around married men and women cheating. Ashley Madison’s slogan is “Life is short. Have an affair.” Some may chalk it up to karma, but the invasion of privacy for these members is real.

The hackers call themselves “The Impact Team.” According to Brian Krebs, the blogger who initially reported the hack, they threatened to release stolen information unless the website shut down entirely. Apparently, the team gathered users’ nude photos, sexual fantasies, names, and credit card information. It also claims to have addresses from credit card transactions.

Members of the website can post basic information and use limited features without charge. The company rakes in money when members exchange messages, photographs, and gifts. The website even offers a feature to “collect gifts” for women to send and men to pay for later. The website also has a $19 deactivation fee. This happens to be one of the major qualms of the hacker team, who claim that information is never truly deleted from the website. The hackers’ manifesto published by Krebs stated, “Full Delete netted $1.7 million in revenue in 2014. It’s also a complete lie…Users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real names and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed.”

Ashley Madison boasts over 37 million members, making it the second largest dating website in the world, second to Match.com. Ashley Madison’s parent company, Avid Life Media, values itself at $1 billion and was looking to go public on the London market this year. Ashley Madison has done away with the deactivation fee, but has yet to comment on whether or not it will shut down.

Although the majority of people aren’t online dating in order to have an affair, the hack embodies everything scary about online interactions. Personal information and discreet activities on websites or social media applications can be made public in the blink of an eye. Just this past March, 3.5 million AdultFriendFinder users were hacked. The hackers exposed email addresses, usernames and passwords, birthdays, zip codes, and sexual preferences. Overall, the trend doesn’t look good.

Hacking Statistics

Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report

Verizon conducts an annual Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR). The latest report shows that 96 percent of online security incidents fall into nine patterns: “miscellaneous errors, such as sending an email to the wrong person; crimeware (various malware aimed at gaining control of systems); insider/privilege misuse; physical theft/loss; web app attacks; denial-of-service attacks; cyberespionage; point-of-sale intrusions; and payment card skimmers.” The 2015 report investigates more than 2,100 data breaches and roughly 80,000 reported security incidents. Over 70 organizations around the world help contribute to the report.

The 2015 DBIA reports a $400 million loss from approximately 700 million compromised records in 61 countries. The report shows that in 70 percent of the cases where the hacker’s motivation is known, there is a secondary victim. This is exemplified in the Ashley Madison case. Although the hackers are targeting the owners of the company, the users are violated as well. And in 60 percent of cases, hackers are able to infiltrate a company in a matter of minutes. The time of discovery falls significantly below that level.

The method of tricking people into divulging their information, like credit card numbers, is still around but is a much less effective method. Now, phishing campaigns are a primary source of attacks. A hacker usually phishes by sending an email with malware, usually included as an attachment. Today 23 percent of recipients open these types of email and 11 percent open the attachments. For over two years, more than two-thirds of cyber-espionage included phishing.

In more uplifting news, malware on cellphones doesn’t even account for 1 percent of the problem. Mobile devices are not the preferred medium for data breaches. Only about 0.03 percent of cell phones contained malicious materials.

U.S. Companies Hacked

According to a study conducted by the Ponemon Institute, the financial loss by cybercrime doubled from 2013 to 2014. Retailers lost approximately $8.6 billion in 2014 due to cyber crime. Furthermore, successful cyber attacks resulted in a $20.8 million loss in financial services, $14.5 million loss in the technology sector, and $12.7 million loss in the communications industries.

Last year was plagued by cyber attacks. In January, Target announced 70 million customers had contact information compromised, while 40 million customers had credit and debit card information compromised. In the same month, Neiman Marcus announced that 350,000 customers had credit card information stolen, resulting in fraudulent charges on 9,000 customers’ credits cards. In April, an AT&T worker hacked the system for two weeks and accessed personal information including social security numbers. In May, EBay asked all its customers to switch their passwords after a cyber attack accessed over 233 million EBay customers’ personal information. In August, over 60 UPS stores around the country were hacked, compromising financial data. The list continues…

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

In order to combat these cyber attacks, Congress passed the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The act made accessing a protected computer a federal crime. Although it was initially established to protect government organizations and a few financial institutions, over the course of time, it eventually broadened. It was first amended in 1994 to allow private citizens to file civil suits against cyber attacks that resulted in loss or damages. It was again broadened in 1996 to encompass any computer used in interstate commerce. After 9/11, the Patriot Act amended the CFAA to permit the search and seizure of records from any Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Later in 2008, the CFAA was again amended to allow companies to file suits when the loss and/or damages did not surpass $5,000.

The CFAA has been subject to its fair share of criticism. Many believe the act to be too broad in scope. Opponents argue that computer policies are often “vague, confusing and arbitrary,” and breaking these policies shouldn’t be a federal violation. Institutions, like the Center for Democracy & Technology, Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the American Civil Liberties Union all have advocate against the CFFA.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. In a 2012 case, United States vs. Nosal, the court ruled that “a person who violates an employer’s computer use policy is not criminally liable for federal penalties under the Act.” The court argued that the law was not enacted to federally punish smaller crimes. However, a strong dissent left the issue controversial, if not unresolved. The definition of “exceeds authorized access” left ample room for a Supreme Court review. The crime only becomes a felony if it is executed for profit, the gained information is worth over $5,000, and/or the act is committed to further a state or federal crime.

The White House’s New Proposals

The Cyber Security Legislative Proposals aim to enhance cybersecurity information sharing between the private sector and government, modernize law enforcement authorities to combat cyber crime with the appropriate tools and training, and streamline national data breach reporting requirements. Last December President Obama announced,

In this interconnected, digital world, there are going to be opportunities for hackers to engage in cyber assaults both in the private sector and the public sector. Now, our first order of business is making sure that we do everything to harden sites and prevent those kinds of attacks from taking place…But even as we get better, the hackers are going to get better, too. Some of them are going to be state actors; some of them are going to be non-state actors. All of them are going to be sophisticated and many of them can do some damage.

A main target of the proposal is a number of amendments to the already-controversial CFAA. First, the proposal would increase the penalty for “circumventing technical access barriers,” i.e. hacking into a computer by sidestepping security or guessing another’s password. Violators under the current law risk a misdemeanor to a three-year felony. The proposal advocates punishment to start as a three-year felony and maximize as a ten-year felony.

Second, for contract-based crimes, the proposal would officially end the aforementioned circuit split. It states that breaking written policies would be a federal crime and officially defines “exceeds authorized access.” A person would exceed authorized access if he or she accesses information “for a purpose that the accesser knows is not authorized by the computer owner.” Technically, this would include using a work computer for personal activities like Facebook; however, the government would limit criminal liability by requiring the violation fall under one of three conditions: the breach happened on a government computer, the breach results in over $5,000 worth of information, or “if the user violated the written condition in furtherance of a state or federal felony crime.” These changes, along with a variety of others, make up the administration’s proposal.

Conclusion

Whether these proposals will pass through Congress remains to be seen. Broadening the scope of hacking to allow more crimes to fall under federal jurisdiction has traditionally lacked support from the body. The proposals are controversial, with a lot of personal information and accessibility at stake. It will be interesting to see the reaction from the public if these proposals are enacted. Cyber crime is an ongoing problem that affects all citizens, regardless of demographics, and only seems to be exploding. If this isn’t the answer, then what is?

Resources

Primary

White House: Updated Administration Proposal

Additional

Verizon: The 2015 DBIR

CNN Money: Hackers threaten to release names from adultery website

The Heritage Foundation: Cyber Attacks on U.S. Companies in 2014

Jolt Digest: United States vs. Nosal

Tech Target: What is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

The Washington Post: Obama’s proposed changes to the computer hacking statute

The White House: Securing Cyberspace

Verizon: Verizon 2015 Data Breach Investigations Report Finds Cyberthreats Are Increasing in Sophistication

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Combatting Cyber Attacks: Will Congress Adopt Obama’s Plans? appeared first on Law Street.

Long-term healthcare institutions for the elderly are now more common than ever in America. There are thousands of nursing homes and residential-care facilities dispersed across the country. As a society, we rely on and trust these establishments to medically treat and handle with care our aging loved ones. Even though these places are instrumental to our healthcare system, nursing home regulations haven’t been widely updated in more than 30 years. That is until this month. The Obama Administration has set out to reform the rules required of nursing homes to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid. As they stand today, the rules aren’t up to speed with the innovative scientific advances and administration of health care. There are also alarming reports of abuse and neglect inside the system. But with promising new laws on the horizon, nursing home healthcare may be getting a makeover.

History of Nursing Homes in the United States

The normalization of nursing homes is a relatively recent development. Demographic and political shifts have created a standard use of these facilities. For many years, elderly citizens turned to almshouses, charitable housing for the sick, impoverished, inebriated, mentally ill, and homeless. The elderly lived in almshouses for a variety of reasons including poverty, disability, sickness, and/or separation from families. The Industrial Revolution started to bring more people into the cities and spread families apart. Many singles no longer had extended families to rely on for support.

At the turn of the nineteenth century, women’s and religious groups started to create specific housing for the elderly. Boston’s Home for Aged Women was created in 1850. Institutions like this generally required substantial entrance fees and certificates of good character. They were a marked upgrade and alternative to the almshouses. Many of these women were widowed or single, and had lived their lived as upstanding citizens. These requirements limited shelter to a small population; the impoverished still mostly resided in almshouses.

As time continued, almshouses started to exclusively aid the elderly. Younger people were removed and sent to specific-needs organizations like orphanages, hospitals, or insane asylums. In 1880, 33 percent of almshouse residents were elderly. By 1923, that number soared to 67 percent.

The almshouses were not places of luxury, but rather were found in extremely poor conditions. In 1992, Abraham Epstein, advocating for pensions, wrote that the almshouse “stands as a threatening symbol of the deepest humiliation and degradation before all wage-earners after the prime of life.” The enactment of the 1935 Social Security Act was in large a movement to remove almshouses altogether; however, elderly residents weren’t solely there due to poverty. Others required daily nursing and medical attention. The money received through pensions was often used to gain access to independent facilities that could provide medical care; however, conditions were not necessarily improved.

In 1955, the Medical Facilities Survey and Construction Act allowed federal support to those in public facilities. Both private and public nursing home residents received federal support. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid was established, furthering the growth of nursing home facilities. Between 1960 and 1976, nursing homes grew by 140 percent, with 79 percent still private institutions. Through investigations conducted through the 1970s, it was concluded that the conditions were still subpar and not far enough removed from the stigma of historic almshouses.

The 1970s saw the first real regulations for nursing homes. The Office of Nursing Homes Affairs was established in 1971 and authorized to administer nursing home standards. Social Security reforms in 1972 “established a single set of requirements for facilities supported by Medicare and for skilled-nursing homes that received Medicaid.” A plethora of amendments to older acts were enacted as well.

By 2000, nursing home care became a $100 billion industry. Although the standard of care has dramatically increased since the days of the almshouse, it is time for a new round of regulations. The video below, created by the Common Wealth Fund, joins in the effort to improve nursing home quality care.

Nursing Home Care Today

Statistics

There are five, main long-term healthcare services: home health agencies, nursing homes, hospices, residential care communities, and adult day service centers. Approximately 8,357,100 people receive support from these services annually. Nursing homes alone account for 1,383, 700  people in the group, and 63 percent of those are age 65 and older. In 2000, 15 million people required long-term care. Due to Baby Boomers, that number is projected to rise to 27 million in 2050.

For those that reach the age of 65, 69 percent will acquire a disability before they die. And 35 percent will enter a nursing home at some point. One in every eight people over the age of 85 resides in an institution.

Financial Stats

A 2013 report estimates that between $210 and $306 billion is spent on long-term care per year. Most pay a majority out of pocket for assisted living, while Medicaid pays a majority for long-term nursing care and Medicaid pays for a majority of hospice care and short-term skilled nursing facilities. Almost one-fifth of the elderly community will pay more than $25,000 in out-of-pocket costs before they die. And in 2012, 14.8 percent of those over 65 were reported below the poverty line. This is even more significant as the private-pay prices for a private or semiprivate room in a nursing home grew by four percent in 2002. It grew another 4.5 percent in 2012. Lastly, Medicaid spent $83.8 billion on long-term care services in 2003, amounting to approximately one third of all Medicaid expenditures.

Proposed Regulation

There are a host of reasons why the Obama Administration has decided to tackle nursing home care regulations. First and foremost, current regulations don’t consider the advances in science and health care for the elderly. As previously stated, long-term care regulations haven’t been updated in nearly 30 years–consolidated Medicare and Medicaid requirements for long-term care facilities were set in 1989, and haven’t been updated since 1991. Science has seen invaluable progress since then. New proposals are also significant in light of reports over the last decade finding varying degrees of neglect and abuse among nursing care facilities. At the core of it all, current regulations aren’t up to par.

Highlights

The proposal bans facilities from hiring any personnel with a record of abuse and/or neglect, and develops policies that target abuse and/or neglect. Nurses would be trained in preventing elder abuse. Although there isn’t an assigned patient-to-nurse ratio, facilities will have to report staffing levels to Medicare officials for review. Low staffing is a common reason stated by those in the field why patients with dementia are given inappropriate and potentially dangerous antipsychotic drugs. The regulations would also limit the amount of antibiotic and antipsychotic drugs administered, toughen infection control, and reduce hospital readmissions.

It also suggests a baseline care program: a comprehensive plan for each resident created within 48 hours of a patient’s arrival. In addition, a nurse aide, a member of the food and nutrition services staff, and a social worker would be added to those involved in the development of the care plan. The proposal also covers “electronic health records and measures to better ensure that patients or their families are involved in care planning and in the discharge process.”

There are a number of revisions directed toward the personal happiness of the residents. The proposal includes open visitation (similar to hospital regulations) and the ability for residents to choose roommates as these facilities often double as homes. It also mandates the availability of “suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks” for residents who would like to eat outside the scheduled meal times. These types of policies create a more comfortable and home-like atmosphere.

A major concern in the long-term care community is enforcement. Toby Edelman, a senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy, states that “the biggest problem is that the rules we have now are not enforced. We have a very weak and timid enforcement system that does everything it can to cajole facilities into compliance instead of imposing penalties for noncompliance.” The proposed rules should allow violations to be more easily detected.

Conclusion

As the proposal states, “many of the revisions are aimed at aligning requirements with current clinical practice standards to improve resident safety along with the quality and effectiveness of care and services delivered to residents.” This is a way to ensure that every facility across the nation is legally required to provide equal quality of care to every patient. It is alarming that a comprehensive update to modernize the nursing home care system hasn’t been done in so many years. Residents want to feel safe and happy in their environment, and their families want to feel that their aging elders are healthy and receiving the best care possible.

Resources

Primary

Federal Register: Medicare and Medicaid Programs

Additional

CDC: Long-Term Care Services in the United States

Family Caregiver Alliance: Selected Long-Term Care Statistics

Kaiser Health News: New Regulations Would Require Modernizing Nursing Home Care

Net Industries: Nursing Homes

U.S. Legal: The History of Nursing Homes

White House: Administration Announces New Executive Actions to Improve Quality of Care for Medicare Beneficiaries

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Proposes New Nursing Home Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama announced on Wednesday the development of a pilot program to expand broadband access for people who live in public housing. This is the latest effort to bridge the “digital divide” between the rich and the poor.

The plan, called ConnectHome, will launch in 27 cities nationwide. With assistance from mayors, internet service providers, and other companies and nonprofits, the Department of Housing and Urban Development will make it cheaper and easier for more than 275,000 low-income households with almost 200,000 children to get internet at home, the White House said in a statement Wednesday.

The plan is consistent with a broader White House goal to upgrade the nation’s technology infrastructure, bringing high speed internet to every corner of the country.

There are already a few internet service providers that have committed to ConnectHome. Google in Atlanta, Durham, Kansas City, and Nashville will provide free internet internet connections in some public housing. Sprint Corp will offer free wireless broadband access to families with kids in public housing. In Seattle, CenturyLink will provide broadband service for pubic housing residents for $9.95 a month for the first year. Cox Communications is offering home internet for $9.95 a month to families with children in school in four cities in Georgia, Louisiana, and Connecticut. President Obama spoke about the program in Durant, Oklahoma where the Choctaw Tribal Nation is working with four local providers to bring internet to 425 homes.

The program is an extension of the president’s ConnectED initiative, which was announced in 2013 and aims to link 99 percent of students from kindergarten through 12th grade to high-speed internet in classrooms and libraries over the next five years. 

The announcement was timed to coincide with the release of a report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which highlights how low-income families in America do not benefit from high-speed broadband, despite the recent increase in internet usage in the past few years. Nearly two-thirds of the lowest income households own a computer, but less than half have a home internet connection. A news release about the report said:

While many middle-class U.S. students go home to Internet access, allowing them to do research, write papers and communicate digitally with their teachers and other students, too many lower-income children go unplugged every afternoon when school ends. This ‘homework gap’ runs the risk of widening the achievement gap, denying hardworking students the benefit of a technology-enriched education.

At the peak of the digital age, those who cannot access the internet are unintentionally falling behind. They are falling victim to the “digital divide” that occurs when lower income families aren’t able to utilize the same resources as families in higher income brackets. The internet is used for everything these days–it is used to stay in contact with family and friends, complete homework assignments, play games, go shopping, apply for jobs, read books, play music, and expand our worlds. Low income families who don’t have access to these tools will hopefully soon be able to close that gap as a result of ConnectHome and similar programs.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Internet Access in Public Housing Bridge the Digital Divide? appeared first on Law Street.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leads the United States environmental community’s fight against power plant emissions. Its main priority? To reduce carbon pollution, which, among other greenhouse gas pollutants, is detrimental to the Earth’s climate and the health of every global citizen. In recent years, the EPA has taken strides like never before to combat unchecked power plants across the country that produce harmful gases into the atmosphere. With the backing of the Obama Administration, environmental efforts are at the forefront of America’s priorities.

 The EPA and Carbon Pollution

What is the EPA?

The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing U.S. regulations based on environmental laws passed by Congress. Nearly half of the EPA budget is directed to grants for state environmental programs, non-profits, educational institutions, and other entities that align with its mission. The EPA also conducts and shares its own scientific studies, sponsors partnerships within the environmental community, and educates the public.

What are carbon pollutants?

According to environmental scientists, carbon pollution is the primary contributor to long-lasting climate disruption. Carbon pollutants and other greenhouse gas pollutants (gases that trap heat in the atmosphere) exacerbate natural weather conditions like floods, wildfires, and droughts and negatively impact human health. Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) makes up nearly three quarters of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and accounts for 84 percent in the United States. Other greenhouse gases include Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and synthetic fluorinated gases. The severity of damage these pollutants cause to climate depends on the abundance and strength of the gas and duration its duration in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is by far the most abundant and therefore the most dangerous.

CO₂ passes into the atmosphere through “burning fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees, and wood products, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g. manufacture of cement.)” In the natural carbon cycle, CO₂ is removed from the atmosphere through plant absorption. Carbon pollutants alter the natural balance; carbon dioxide is entering the atmosphere at a higher rate than it is leaving.

CO₂ emissions have been on the rise since the Industrial Revolution, but between 1990 and 2013, CO₂ emission increased by seven percent due to energy use and transportation emissions. NASA’s video below shows a visual simulation of CO₂ emissions.

Main Source of Carbon Pollution

Human reliance on electricity is to blame for an estimated 37 percent of CO₂ emissions. Transportation and industry account for most of the rest. The combustion of fossil fuel to create energy is the primary source of carbon emissions. The burning of coal, in particular, emits the most CO₂ compared to oil and gas. Therefore, coal-burning power plants are the leading cause of carbon emissions in the United States.

Coal-fired power plants first burn coal to create extremely fine talcum powder, which is blown into the firebox of the boiler with hot air. The burning coal and air combination creates “the most complete combustion and maximum heat possible.” Water, pumped through the pipes inside the boiler, turns into steam, which can reach 1,000 degrees F and has a pressure of up to 3,500 pounds per square inch. At this point, the steam is piped to the turbine generator where the pressure turns the turbine blades, therefore turning the turbine shaft connected to the generator. Inside the generator, “magnets spin within coils to produce electricity.” Lastly, steam turns back into water inside a condenser.

In a given year, an average 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity plant emits 3.7 million tons of CO₂, 220 tons of hydrocarbons (which creates smog), and 720 tons of poisonous carbon monoxide. This results from burning 1,430,000 tons of coal a year. Aside from carbon emissions, the plant will also release 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide, 125,000 tons of ash, and 225 pounds of arsenic.

Negative Impacts of Carbon Pollutants

According to the EPA, carbon pollution causes rising global temperatures, rising sea level, changes in weather and precipitation patterns, and changes in ecosystems, habitats, and species diversity. High levels of CO₂ can cause an increase or decrease in rainfall depending on location. Rainfall influences agriculture crop yields, water supplies, energy resources, and forest and other ecosystems across the globe.

Carbon pollution causes an increase in heat waves, drought, and smog (ground-level ozone pollution). It can lead to increasing intensity of extreme events, i.e. hurricanes, precipitation, and flooding. It can also increase the “range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread disease such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus.” Younger children, those with heart or lung diseases, and people living in poverty could be at risk the most for feeling the effects of climate change.

Laws and Proposed Regulations

The Clean Air Act

One of the first pieces of hard-hitting environmental legislation was the Clean Air Act of 1970, which was most recently revised in 1990. The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to establish and enforce National Ambient Quality Standards. The 1990 amendments, led by the Bush Administration, specifically aimed to fight acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. It defines major sources of air pollutants “as a stationary source or group of stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of a hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants,” and requires technology-based standards. These standards are referred to as “maximum achievable control technology.

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced a plan through executive orders to reduce carbon emissions. The President created a list of carbon-reduction targets on the path of decreasing U.S. carbon emissions, preparing and adapting for climate change, and leading the global effort to address the issue. On the domestic front, Obama ordered the EPA to finalize its standards for greenhouse emissions from new and old coal-burning power plants. Although, industry heads have threatened suits if old plants are required to limit emissions.

The executive orders also called for strict standards in fuel efficiency for heavy-duty vehicles after 2018 to minimize greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. In order to prepare for climate change, Obama’s plan involves federal, state, and local governments working together in order to “increase investments in protective infrastructure.” Weather disasters accumulated $100 billion worth of damages in 2012. Internationally, Obama’s plan includes promoting “the development of a global market for natural gas and continued use of nuclear power.” The plan also calls for the Obama Administration to work with U.S. trading partners to discuss negotiations at the World Trade Organization to advocate free trade in environmental goods/services and cleaner energy technologies.

Clean Power Plan

The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, released in June 2014, sets state-by-state carbon emissions rate-reduction targets. The plan calls for a 30 percent reduction of 2005 carbon emission levels by 2030. The plan provides alternative plans called “building blocks” to cut carbon emissions. Some of these building blocks include: renewable energy sources, nuclear power, efficiency improvements at individual fossil fuel plants, shifting generation from coal to natural gas, and greater energy efficiency in buildings and industries. Targets per state range due to individual states’ “mix of electricity-generation resources…technological feasibilities, costs, and emissions reduction potentials of each building block.”

After comments and revisions, the plan is expected to be finalized in August 2015. The EPA anticipates a long run of legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan from coal-producing industry heads. The Obama Administration and EPA saw its first legal win last week on June 9. The suit was brought by some of the nation’s largest coal companies and 14 coal-producing states claiming the plan would jeopardize future construction of coal plants and slow U.S. coal demand. One of the lawyers leading the suit is Lawrence H. Tribe, a Harvard University constitutional law scholar and former law school mentor to President Obama. The courts, for now, have dismissed the case as premature. As Judge Brett Kavanaugh explained in the opinion, “They want us to do something that they candidly acknowledge we have never done before: review the legality of a proposed rule.” Although delayed, opposition will fight another day.

Conclusion

The future holds the final decisions from the courts regarding the Clean Power Plan. Some challenges will more than likely make their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be a tough battle for the environmental community, but it is one for the health of our Earth and everyone on it. The negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, especially Carbon Dioxide, aren’t theories. They are facts and we have to face reality. Although no plan can reverse the damage that has already been done, we can prevent future damage from taking place. It is truly an international issue that needs international cooperation, but it starts domestically, and hopefully the United States will be the leader it needs to be in environmental conservation.

Resources

Primary

EPA: Carbon Dioxide Emissions

EPA: 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary 

EPA: Summary of the Clean Air Act

Additional

CFC: Obama Vows to Finalize Carbon Standards, Other Safeguards in Climate Change Plan

DESMOG: Facts on the Pollution Caused by the U.S. Coal Industry

Duke Energy: How do Power Plants Work?

EPA: Learn About Carbon Pollution From Power Plants

EPA: Our Mission and What We Do

EPA: Overview of Greenhouse Gases

The New York Times: Court Gives Obama a Climate Change Win

Union of Concerned Scientists: The Clean Power Plan

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Power Plants and Carbon Pollution: What Can the EPA Do? appeared first on Law Street.

The latest development in the saga over the National Security Administration’s (NSA) bulk data collection just occurred, as an appeals court ruled that the NSA’s actions were illegal. This is big, as this ruling may pave the way for changes in the surveillance programs conducted on the American people by the NSA.

The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) led a case against the NSA’s bulk data collecting procedures that developed in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations. As soon as this information was brought to light, many Americans reacted with outrage, demanding an explanation and justification from the government. Immediately, the NSA and the Obama Administration cited the Patriot Act as a defense–the broad piece of legislation passed in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The intention of the Patriot Act is to combat terrorism and prevent an attack like 9/11 from ever occurring again on American soil. While the Patriot Act originally passed with incredibly strong support–only Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against it–it has since come under intense criticism for its breadth and implications.

One particularly broad section of the Patriot Act was used to justify the NSA bulk collection of phone records. There’s a provision in it that permits the collection of “business records deemed relevant to a counterterrorism investigation.” However, the Appeals Court ruled that this provision simply does not allow a bulk collection of any and all phone records, which is pretty much what the NSA was doing.

Interestingly enough, the appeals court did not rule on the actual constitutionality of the NSA’s data collection. Rather the court stated that the provision of the Patriot Act being used to defend it simply did not apply. As the Wall Street Journal explains:

The court declined to address the issue of whether the program violates Americans’ rights, because, they found, it was never properly authorized by existing law.

The case was also sent back to a lower court for review in light of this decision; however, this ruling, no matter how specific and limited, does create an interesting conundrum in the halls of Congress. The much-maligned Patriot Act is currently up for debate. The provision that the government was relying upon to justify NSA spying will actually expire on June 1 if no action to reauthorize or extend it is taken by Congress. By stating that the provision of the Patriot Act used to justify this spying is not applicable, the judges have put another task on Congress’ to do list if they want the NSA data collection program to continue. The move to shift the responsibility to Congress’ lap wasn’t particularly subtle either. The three judge panel even stated:

We do so comfortably in the full understanding that if Congress chooses to authorize such a far‐reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously.

While this ruling by no means ensures any sort of end to the NSA’s heavily criticized phone data collection program, it certainly is a blow to the administrations that touted its legality under the Patriot Act, and a blow to the Patriot Act itself. Given the Congress’ lack of productivity and rampant disagreement there’s no way to tell what ramifications this ruling will have.

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 NSA’s Surveillance of Americans’ Phone Conversations Ruled Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

One of the biggest hurdles to overcome in terms of providing education for lower-income American children is the sheer lack of resources and money that some schools and states have to spend on things like books and libraries. However, a new plan proposed by the Obama Administration–and involving the help of large book publishers and others–is aimed at closing some of those gaps. The new goal is to provide thousands of free e-books for low-income children.

The initiative was proposed by President Obama at Anacostia Library, part of a low-income neighborhood in Southeast Washington, D.C.

The plan has a lot of high profile players involved. In addition to the Obama Administration, the five major publishers–Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck’s Macmillan, CBS Corp’s Simon & Schuster Inc, Penguin Random House, Lagardere SCA’s Hachette Book Group Inc, and News Corp’s HarperCollins Publishers LLC–have all signed on to help. Overall, 10,000 books will be added to the list that will be provided to low-income children via an e-book format. The books will be chosen from volunteers from the Digital Public Library of America. Yet another organization lending a hand will be the New  York Public Library, which has agreed to develop the application through which the children will be able to access the works. Overall, the plan allots $250 million for the project.

Both libraries and schools are beginning to provide more hardware so that students can access the internet–presumably these e-books would be read on those. This is part of Obama’s ConnectEd program, which encourages using technology to promote and further the American education system. Additionally, tech leader Apple recently pledged to donate $100 million in tech devices to lower-income schools.

One of Obama’s domestic policy advisors, Cecilia Muñoz, pointed out how odd this push for e-books may seem to older American generations, stating:

It’s very different than from our generation. More and more, you’re going to be seeing kids using devices, and what we’re doing is making sure that there’s more books available on those devices.

That assessment does seem accurate. But given that low-income families have significantly less access to the internet and corresponding devices with which to access it, the move to incorporate schools and libraries into the plan is a good call.

The exact specifics of the plan seem to still be up in the air. Whether or not the books will only be accessible in some places, for example, such as libraries or schools, or whether children with accessible devices will be able to access them at home, doesn’t seem to be set in stone. Whether or not the books will be “loaned” like from a library, or distributed freely also seems undecided.

Regardless of how those details are sorted out, however, this certainly seems like a good move to provide more students with access to books. Moreover, the partnership with publishing companies and public institutions is laudable. Someday I hope we can reach a point where every child has access to all the resources he or she needs to reach educational success–this is a small, but great step, in the right direction.

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 New Education Initiative to Provide Free E-Books For Low-Income Students appeared first on Law Street.

One of the markers of the current political climate is the animosity between President Obama and Congress. One of the manifestations of this climate can be seen in the fact that Loretta Lynch’s nomination for Attorney General has continued to languish in the halls of the Senate. If his remarks at a recent press conference are any indication, President Obama has had enough.

Loretta Lynch was nominated for the position of Attorney General nearly six months ago on November 8, 2014, but her nomination has been held up in the Senate since that point. There aren’t really any substantive reasons though, as no one seems to have any objections to Lynch’s qualifications for the job. While there are some concerns over her opinions on President Obama’s immigration reform, it seems like she’ll eventually be confirmed. It’s just a matter of when at this point.

The when is difficult though, as her nomination is being held up until a bill on human trafficking is settled, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Democrats, however, object to the bill because it contains a provision that prevents any money from the crime victims’ compensation fund from being spent on abortion services. Not only do many Senate Democrats object to the provision on moral grounds, they also claim that the Republicans surprised them by adding that provision to the bill without consulting them. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated,

I don’t know how that happened or who was the author of it. But the fact is, the bill that is on the floor today has a provision in it that we were told would not be included.

However, until this matter is solved, McConnell has said that they won’t vote on Lynch’s nomination. He’s framed it as a matter of priority–it’s important to finish a bill that will help trafficking victims before moving on to Lynch’s nomination. But it’s become a game of political chicken, and her nomination is caught right in the middle.

A sense of frustration and exasperation is exactly what the President expressed in a press conference Froday when speaking about the hold ups to the Lynch nomination. He emphatically stated,

Enough. Enough. Call Loretta Lynch for a vote, get her confirmed, let her do her job. This is embarrassing. There are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it.

Regardless of Obama’s impassioned statements, it’s highly doubtful that his remarks will have any effect on the GOP Senators’ actions. Especially after the fights over the Iran deal and Obama’s immigration reform, there’s no real lost love between the executive and legislative branches. Lynch’s nomination will probably remain in limbo, at least for now.

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 Obama Lashes Out at Senate Over Loretta Lynch Confirmation Hold Up appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most hazardous locations for one’s lungs is Texas. A site of many refineries and factories, the state already presents itself as a major emitter; but its activity exceeds the second ranking states by a wide margin. For example, nitrogen oxide emissions from smoke stacks and vents surpass number two ranking Pennsylvania by more than 60 percent, and tonnage of volatile organic compounds eclipse number two Colorado by more than 44 percent. If this is not enough, many state officials are siding with the industries themselves in an attempt to combat the implementation of tighter emissions regulations. Their testimonies argue that toughening up the standards will be too expensive and not necessarily beneficial to public health.

This conflict extends far beyond the Lone Star State. The Supreme Court itself is locked in a debate as to what measures are necessary and how much they will cost. Dissenters argue that the Obama Administration’s latest initiatives via the Environmental Protection Agency do not contain a cost-benefit analysis. The argument leans on wording in the Clean Air Act, which stipulates that regulations be “appropriate and necessary.” But who has the right to unilaterally determine what is appropriate and necessary? A rough estimate at a “quantifiable” benefit estimates that 11,000 unnecessary deaths can be prevented each year. Calculations diverge as to the monetary expenses and savings; one concludes that $9.6 billion in expenses will result in $6 billion in savings, while another maintains that those same costs can result in up to $30-90 billion in savings. These numbers should not be the focus of the decision, though. If thousands of people might live on who would otherwise die, this should be justification enough to implement the necessary measures.

Henan Province, China. Courtesy of V.T. Polywoda via Flickr.

Ozone and air contamination are a widely pervasive problem; the lives that potentially could be saved are not just in urban areas. Gases and ozone emissions are not stagnant; many studies and measurements have found excessively high air contaminants in rural and wide-open areas such as the Colorado mountains and the Native American reservations in Utah. In addition to the problem of poor restrictions on emission, the standards as to what technically constitutes contamination or poor air quality are too lax. For this reason, non-emitting areas are facing health risks that are not legally deemed as such.

Air pollution is a perfectly remediable problem. In the early 1900s, the great steel city of Pittsburgh rivaled Victorian London for poor air quality. But a series of laws and regulations and more efficient use of fuel led the city to be declared one of the most livable by the 1980s; the characteristic smoke and pollution cleared away almost entirely. A more poignant example is Japan. A system of local governments responding to local concerns but acting seamlessly with national and international-level reform efforts enabled the country to curb pollution without derailing economic growth. In fact, considering the incentives to invest in research and new technologies, the formulation of new overseeing agencies and subsequent job creation, by 1980 air pollution control became a profitable industry itself!

This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of the debates in the Supreme Court right now; all the concerns about cost effectiveness and damage to industry and the economy are based on perceptions of the status quo. People seem to be under the impression that the objective is simply to cap emissions while maintaining all the other aspects of day-to-day life and commercial activity. Rather, as demonstrated by the multi-layered action of Japan, it is a complicated process that requires commitment by many parties, but ultimately a worthwhile one because it is clearly doable and benefits not just the health of the people but can be financially desirable, as well.

This past November, an interesting thing occurred in Beijing. In anticipation of the arrival of many world leaders for an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, the government mandated a six-day vacation for urban residents, which included traffic restrictions and the closure of factories in an attempt to clear the smog. It was a monumental success; in less than a week, what came to be labeled as “APEC Blue” dominated the skies. The striking effects of this action has galvanized progressive voices and demonstrated to the nation and world that there is a plethora of options from which we can draw that quite effectively address the problem.

Courtesy of Nicolo Lazzati via Flickr.

Air pollution is one of the most visible and widespread consequences of industrialization, rampant consumption, and natural resource use. It may not have as immediate or drastic consequences as some other environmentally related challenges, but it certainly is dangerous. Most importantly, there are so many things that we can do to address it, which may be surprisingly effective and rapid in doing so, while at the same time improving our own habits and ways of life.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beijing Knows How to Curb Its Air Pollution, So Why Doesn’t Texas? appeared first on Law Street.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United States Congress today. The speech was much anticipated after weeks of political back and forth regarding the invitation extended to Netanyahu by Speaker of the House John Boehner; however, Netanyahu did end up giving his speech as planned, and it focused heavily on Iran and the ongoing American-Iranian talks over nuclear power. That being said, in some ways the speech is less interesting from an international politics standpoint as it is from a domestic policy window.

The controversy leading up to the speech was, to put it bluntly, a total mess. It all started with House Speaker John Boehner extending an invitation to Netanyahu to speak in front of Congress. However, the White House was not consulted in this matter. Democrats called that a slap in the face to President Obama, given that it’s highly unusual for the legislative branch of one nation to interact with the head of state of another. Democrats argue that it undermines the President’s autonomy when it comes for foreign policy decisions.

The Obama Administration–including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and President Obama himself–refused to meet with Netanyahu. The official reason given centered on a concern that Obama didn’t want to interfere with Israeli politics in the period of time leading up to the imminent Israeli elections.

For a very long time, Israel has been one of the few bipartisan issues in the United States. Almost ever politician, regardless of party, has at some point declared his or her commitment to Israel. Americans in general have a consistent history of supporting the country. We as a nation have given Israel more than $121 billion in foreign aid since 1948. A Gallup poll found a plurality–42 percent of Americans–thought Israeli actions against Hamas were justified this summer. Moreover, 62 percent of Americans sympathized with the Israelis. The United States and Israel have long had a close relationship, regardless of which American political party is holding office.

That being said, in today’s toxic political environment, no issue can every really truly be bipartisan. The scuffle over Netanyahu’s appearance today shows that. Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu was just the beginning–many other prominent Democrats who are actually members of Congress refused to attend the speech as well. Seven senators, all Democrats (with the exception of Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent), sat out the speech. A pretty long list of House members, again all Democrats, didn’t attend either.

In addition, Obama spoke about what Netanyahu said. While he didn’t necessarily criticize it, he basically lamented “same old, same old” about Netanyahu’s concerns over the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. According to NPR:

Obama, speaking at the White House, said, ‘as far as I can tell, there was nothing new’ in Netanyahu’s speech, adding, ‘the prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives.’ He said he didn’t watch the speech because it coincided with a video conference with European leaders.

Other Democrats had more overt reactions. Representative Nancy Pelosi stated:

I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech—saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.

I think what we saw today can be best described as a low-key game of political chicken. Republicans took one of the few sort of bipartisan issues and made Obama pick a political side. Had he gone along with the Republican Congress’ power play he would have kowtowed to his political rivals. Yet openly slamming them or Netanyahu could anger an American populace that has consistently supported a friendly relationship with Israel. In a lot of ways, it was a lose-lose situation. While Obama has said that he’s more than willing to keep working with Netanyahu if he wins the upcoming Israeli elections, the relationship may be more frayed moving forward.

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 Netanyahu’s Speech Shows Israel Isn’t Always a Bipartisan Issue appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that college costs have gone up. Way up. Bloomberg estimated that the cost of college had gone up 1,120 percent since 1978. While inflation over time is obviously normal, that’s a huge jump. Compare it to the fact that over the same time period, the price of food has only risen 244 percent. Going to college now requires that many students take out loans, and then struggle to pay those loans off for years to come. President Obama and other politicians have been saying that something needs to be done for a while, and he recently floated a plan to help ease college costs for some students: two years of free community college for students who are willing to work for it.

Obama gave a speech at Pellissippi State Community College in Tennessee about his new plan. At its core, it’s a simple enough idea. Students who maintain a GPA over 2.5, attend at least half time, and make steady progress toward completing their degree will be eligible for the tuition elimination. The schools are going to be held to high standards as well:

Community colleges will be expected to offer programs that either (1) are academic programs that fully transfer to local public four-year colleges and universities, giving students a chance to earn half of the credit they need for a four-year degree, or (2) are occupational training programs with high graduation rates and that lead to degrees and certificates that are in demand among employers.

The reasoning behind providing those first two years free is to train students for more high-skilled jobs. While our unemployment numbers are looking better than they have in years–under six percent as of December 2014–there are still plenty of Americans who are unemployed and underemployed. Despite this nearly five million jobs remain unfilled in areas that require specialized training, such as healthcare work or technology. This plan will attempt to fill that gap by providing workers with skills that can be used in those jobs. As jobs that require a college degree increase–by 2020 it’s estimated that 33 percent of all job openings will require post-high school education–it makes sense to make it as easy as possible for people to get those degrees.

It’s estimated that this will cost about $3,800 per student, and that nine million students will take advantage of the program. That all adds up to a pretty hefty price tag, roughly $60 billion over ten years, which begs the question: how is the Federal government going to pay for this all? The details don’t appear to be fully formed yet, but advocates argue that it’s an investment in the economy. Until our work force is at its most productive, we’re not going to be able to get much done.

Despite the fact that this plan is more bipartisan than most undertaken by the government these days–Republican Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker attended the speech in Tennessee–there are plenty of lawmakers who disagree with the plan. Detractors point to the high price tag as an unnecessary expense. There are also concerns that community colleges aren’t necessarily that successful–only 30 percent of students entering community college graduate within three years.

While there are both positives and negatives to the plan, it’s an early step of what needs to be a much larger solution to the huge problem of college costs and student debt as a whole.

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 College Tuition Elimination Plan Aims to Fill Skilled Jobs Mismatch appeared first on Law Street.

The nation, and quite frankly the world, is reeling after the disclosure of an investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee into the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture practices following September 11, 2001. The report took a long time to come out–there was significant back-and-forth from the Senate, the White House, and the CIA. But now that it has, there’s no doubt–we regularly tortured people, and it didn’t work. The report is revealing, horrifying, and honestly, not entirely unexpected.

It’s an interesting time to be an American. We’re taught, from the youngest possible ages, that if you do something bad you pay the consequences. Our justice system is proof of that–we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. With freedom comes responsibility. Despite that, the CIA operatives, leaders, and anyone else in our government who were involved in this torture will probably never be punished. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black, except the kettle is someone who’s been thrown in jail for a few years for something like well, selling pot, and the pot brutally tortured approximately 100 prisoners.

There’s significant evidence to suggest that legal tracks were covered with regard to how we treated these prisoners. International Law, as grey and ineffectual a field as it is often considered, does exist. The Geneva Conventions dictate how nations behave in war and peace, and the particularly pertinent part is called Common Article 3, which forbids torture of prisoners. Essentially, it says that if someone is no longer an active participant in the conflict because of various reasons–including being detained–they must be treated humanely and the following cannot happen to them:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

In February of 2002, President George W. Bush signed an executive order proclaiming that Common Article 3 did not apply to Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners; however, it was ruled four years later by the Supreme Court that Common Article 3 does apply, in a separate case regarding Guantanamo prisoners. The ridiculousness of the fact that Bush decided part of International Law didn’t exist is kind of beyond the point–the Supreme Court has even acknowledged that Common Article 3 can be used in federal court for prisoners’ protection. As The New York Times put it:

Perhaps most significantly, in ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the Guantanamo detainees, the court rejected the administration’s view that the article does not cover followers of Al Qaeda. The decision potentially opened the door to challenges, by those held by the United States anywhere in the world, to treatment that could be regarded under the provision as inhumane.

Furthermore, the Justice Department has authorized at least some of the torture tactics used, although some of that was after the fact. The Justice Department began an inquiry in 2009, but no charges were ever brought against anyone. It has announced that it’s not going to revisit that decision.

Now, with the disclosure of this report, U.N. officials are demanding that the U.S. do something. As the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad al-Huseein, put it while calling for prosecutions:

In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable or commit torture recognized as a serious international crime they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency.

He also pointed out that the United States did ratify the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994. Other U.N. officials, as well as leading humans rights experts have come forward to condemn the U.S.’s actions and demand some sort of accountability. It would be great if there was that accountability, but at this point I would be shocked. Everything the U.S. has done–Bush and Obama administrations alike–indicate that’s not going to happen. Everything in American history indicates that’s not going to happen. We have consistently shied away from the prospect that we could be held internationally accountable for our crimes.

Now, international law is incredibly complicated; the ways in which it applies to American law even more so. No one has the exact answers about what should or could happen here. But what’s almost certainly not going to happen is any sort of American appearance in front of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Located in The Hague, the ICC has the ability to prosecute individuals for various violations of international law. The statute that governs that court–the Rome Statute–has never been ratified by the United States. And the United States has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, meaning we can’t be referred.

The torture report indicates a horrifyingly dark time in this country’s recent history. We have the opportunity to make it clear that we recognize that truth, and an obligation to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We have a chance to show that we screwed up and we’re willing to pay the price. A chance to be an example of all of those ideals–freedom, democracy, right and wrong–that we espouse to other nations. Too bad we’re almost certainly not going to take it.

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 The CIA: How to Get Away With Torture appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Lately our lives have been beaten down by the constant news about terrorists. It seems like terrorism is everywhere we turn. What happened to the days when we all lived in the nice little American bubble where terrorism didn’t even seem to be a word we could rightly understand? Now it is a word that we use on a daily basis. 9/11 was the starting point of a scary reality for most of this generation and its connection to terrorism. Before that day we could get on a plane and not have to worry about if the person next to us had a bomb in their underwear or constantly wonder and worry about what might happen next. People are unpredictable and you never know what could happen. The security blanket of living in a nation considered a Super Power is no longer there; we walk around with a target on our backs.

Finally our government is getting it together and figuring out what to do to make our world a little bit safer. Even amid all things ISIS at least the government is finally trying to do something. Kudos to President Obama on the airstrikes the other night!

In an effort to deter people from becoming homegrown jihadists, our government has started a pilot program in three cities: Los Angeles, Boston, and Minneapolis. The administration is looking for new ways to intervene in the lives of people who may want to launch an attack on us, even American citizens. The ideas they have put together seem a bit strange and big brother-esque to me, but a necessary evil in terms of protecting the many from the few.

My biggest question though, is how do you know who to look for? How do you know who is thinking or planning anything?

I always think of the film Enemy of the State when it comes to trying to keep an eye on terrorism. What if some innocent person gets pulled into something they aren’t even aware of and the government ruins their entire lives? And once it figures out they aren’t “the guy” it just leaves them alone with a simple apology and they have to to pick the pieces of their life.

How much are we willing to give up to our government in order to be safe? This is something I struggle with all the time because I certainly do not believe in big government, but I do believe our citizens should be safe and protected from harm’s way. Unfortunately there is no right or wrong answer.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Federal Pilot Program Aims to Deter Homegrown Jihadists appeared first on Law Street.

The minimum wage was first created to ensure that workers are protected from being underpaid for their work; however, given that national and local costs of living have varied over time, whether or not the minimum wage amounts are fair has been the main pillar of the  national debate for some time. Read on to learn about the minimum wage and all of the controversies and debates surrounding it.

Current Minimum Wage Laws

The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 is a law passed by Congress that requires employees to be paid at least $7.25 per hour. The act took effect in 2009 as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This law only applies to jobs that are under the purview of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tipped workers may only be paid less than $7.25 an hour if their hourly wages plus tips match or exceed $7.25.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is a federal law that Congress passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Federal laws passed under that power are only effective if they pertain to an area that affects commerce between multiple states. Therefore, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Fair Minimum Wage Act only regulate wages in businesses that are involved in interstate commerce. Businesses that are not sufficiently involved in interstate commerce are not regulated by the federal law but may still be regulated by state or local minimum wage laws. If there are state or local minimum wage laws in effect in the area a (non-interstate commercial) business operates then those laws determine the minimum wage employees of such a business can be paid.

State minimum wage laws are very variable.

The map below represents the minimum wage in a number of states. Green indicates a state minimum wage that is higher than federal minimum wage, yellow shows states with no minimum wage laws, blue states have the same minimum wage as the federal minimum wage, and red states have minimum wage laws lower than the federal minimum wage.

Map of minimum wage variations by state, courtesy of the U.S. Department of Labor via Wikipedia.

According to the Department of Labor, the laws are interpreted as follows:

Federal minimum wage law supersedes state minimum wage laws where the federal minimum wage is greater than the state minimum wage. In those states where the state minimum wage is greater than the federal minimum wage, the state minimum wage prevails.

So why do we still have separate federal and state minimum wage laws? One reason is, of course, politics. The states that have lower minimum wage laws keep them on the books in part to protest what they see as too high of a federal minimum wage. There’s also a more practical application: there are certain workers, such as seasonal workers or those on small farms, who are exempt from the federal laws. In some cases, the state laws may still offer some parameters for those workers.

What are arguments for keeping the federal minimum wage as is?

Supporters of the current federal minimum wage argue that raising the minimum wage will diminish the job market in an economy that is already suffering. They argue that raising the minimum wage to benefit the poor is a shortsighted strategy. Since a majority of the poor (60 percent) are unemployed, raising the minimum wage only makes it more difficult for them to find jobs because it raises the value that they have to demonstrate in order to justify being hired. Moreover, most of the people receiving minimum wage pay are above the nation’s median income so most of the funds workers receive from a higher minimum wage won’t go to the impoverished.

Supporters of keeping the minimum wage law where it is also worry that the costs of a higher minimum wage would be passed on to the consumers, who may be struggling themselves. They reason that the money has to come from somewhere, and in many cases it would come from an increase in the price of goods. In general, it would make it more expensive for employers to hire employees, and have negative ramifications throughout many parts of the economy.

Another argument against raising the minimum wage stems from an idea about the purpose of the minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are often viewed as “stepping stones” for young people, or those looking to get back on their feet–not jobs for those who need to raise families or be permanently employed in that particular place of business. Those who subscribe to this argument tend to worry that with a higher minimum wage, these jobs become permanent paths rather than just stepping stones, and younger people will no longer be able to get their foot in the door.

What are arguments for increasing the minimum wage?

Those who argue in favor of increasing the current federal minimum wage argue that it does not even pay enough to keep a family of three above the poverty line. The average cost of living has increased by leaps and bounds, especially in larger cities. The minimum wage has not increased proportionately with inflation or the pay of the average worker. Today, the minimum wage is insufficient to keep a full-time working parent and one child out of poverty. At a bare minimum the federal minimum wage should be enough to keep a working parent and her child above the poverty line. Along the same lines, supporters of increasing the minimum wage point out that because those who work minimum wage jobs have such a difficult time making ends meet, many of them have to get some sort of government assistance, which is also a big problem for the economy.

That is why the Obama Administration is advocating for legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. This change would raise America’s GDP, and reduce income disparities between several population demographics.

Conclusion

The minimum wage, and its many derivations across the states, will always be a contentious and politicized issue. The actual economic implications of raising or lowering the minimum wage are difficult to glean, and the arguments are sharp. That being said, the minimum wage debate is far from over.

Resources

Primary 

US Senate: Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007

Department of Labor: Minimum Wage

Department of Labor: History of Changes to the Minimum Wage Law

Department of Labor: Minimum Wage Laws in the States

Additional

Forbes: Why Raising the Minimum Wage Kills Jobs

Washington Post: Economists Agree: Raising the Minimum Wage Reduces Poverty

The New York Times: Raise That Wage

The White House: Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address

Atlantic: Minimum Wage Was Once Enough to Keep a Family of Three Out of Poverty

Economic Policy Institute: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Give Working Families, and the Overall Economy, a Much-Needed Boost

CNN: Raising Minimum Wage Won’t Lower Poverty

America’s Best Companies: Five Important Exceptions to Know Regarding Minimum Wage

The New York Times: Raising Minimum Wage Would Ease Income Gap but Carries Political Risks

Entrepreneur: Listen to Small Business: Don’t Increase the Minimum Wage

Deseret News: In Our Opinion: Don’t Raise the Minimum Wage

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debating Minimum Wage in America appeared first on Law Street.

If we don’t do something soon, elephants may be extinct within our lifetime. Both the demand and price for black-market ivory is way up, leading to high poaching activity. With the exception of China, the United States has the highest demand for black-market ivory in the world, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) is fighting to make it easier for black-market ivory to come into the United States.

Let’s start at the beginning: ivory has always been a coveted material. Ivory is popular in China, where it’s often used for ornaments and ground up for use in traditional medicines. When China began implementing legal mechanisms to trade and sell ivory, the black-market prices shot up. In the last few years, the black-market ivory price has ranged from $100-$150 a pound. In some parts of China, good quality ivory can be sold for almost $1,500 a pound. The bigger and older an elephant is, the more ivory it will provide. Elephants in Central Africa are particularly vulnerable, given that they are less protected by the governments in those countries.

Researchers have estimated that if poaching activities are not stopped soon, African elephants will become extinct. According to the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, more than 100,000 African elephants have been killed in the last three years. Between 2010 and 2013, Africa lost roughly seven percent of its elephant population each year. Now, poachers account for 65 percent of elephant deaths, whereas just ten years ago they accounted for only a quarter. All of this means that elephant deaths are happening at a significantly higher rater than new births; experts estimate that if we don’t do something to stem poaching, these elephants could be extinct in about 100 years.

The U.S. has, admirably, taken some steps to try to slow the influx of poached ivory. The Obama Administration came up with a “National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking,” and the Fish and Wildlife Foundation suspended the import of African elephant trophies from countries where poaching is common. The focus was particularly on Zimbabwe and Tanzania; a press release created by the Fish and Wildlife Foundation read: 

Questionable management practices, a lack of effective law enforcement, and weak governance have resulted in uncontrolled poaching and catastrophic population declines of African elephants in Tanzania. In Zimbabwe [there has been] a significant decline in the elephant population. Anecdotal evidence, such as the widely publicized poisoning last year of 300 elephants in Hwange National Park, suggests that Zimbabwe’s elephants are also under siege.

The Fish and Wildlife Foundation has also recently destroyed ivory shipments that it found to break the law.

The NRA has a big, big problem with all of this. It claims that this will restrict the sales of even legally-obtained ivory. Its main concern appears to be that ivory was a main component in the construction of some antique guns. While not many guns were made with ivory, some that have been very popular among collectors were. So, the NRA argues that the stricter ivory laws will criminalize collectors who are just trying to sell and trade those antique guns. There are also sometimes new guns made with antique ivory, to mimic the older styles. The NRA’s argument is that the ban on ivory steps on the Second Amendment rights of those who want to purchase or own such antique guns.

Frankly, it’s a pretty weak argument. The idea of the law is to stop illegal elephant ivory poachers, not hamper Second Amendment rights. There are, however, plenty of NRA members who have been involved with legal elephant killings in Africa. Many African nations allow hunters with permits to shoot elephants. About 1,000 of those permits go to American citizens each year. I bet you a few bucks that at least a few of those thousand permits are given to hunters who have some affiliation with the NRA. And if those hunters were in Tanzania or Zimbabwe, they’d have serious problems bringing their trophies back. While neither argument is particularly good, it’s clear that there are multiple possible motives for the NRA to oppose these kinds of laws. Hopefully that doesn’t hamper the attempts to stop elephant poaching, but the way things are looking, the African elephant population is in real trouble.

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 Elephant Ivory Poachers May Have a New Friend in the NRA appeared first on Law Street.

Sarah Palin is fed up with the Liberal Media bias and is doing something about it. She started an online TV channel called the Sarah Palin Channel that’s going to make Fox News look like MSNBC.

I’m scared too, Catelyn.

In the introduction video, Palin says this is going to be a news channel that is going to be a lot more than news: it will get around the “media filter” and “find solutions.” Reading between the lines, Palin is saying, “The media has filtered me out, so I had to start my own channel. And I want to share my solutions that were too crazy for FOX.” In the video Palin also says that her channel will cut through “Washington DC’s phony capitalism.” So I take that to mean she will continue to call Barack Obama a socialist, while refusing to look at the actual definition of socialism.

The channel will also have very engaging guests and while she did not mention any names, a clip of Ted Cruz campaigning was rolling in the background. I thoroughly look forward to their “Who hates Obama more” and “Because the Bible told me so” segments.

Also, there is good news if you were a fan of Sarah Palin’s reality TV show. The channel will also give viewers a glance into her family’s daily life. They are just like any other American family…that has a ton of money. Watching the Palins really allows you to see how she relates to all those average Joes (read: white people) she talks so much about. And I am sure she will argue that because of her close proximity to Russia, she knows better than anyone how to deal with Putin.

Of course, if this channel is going to be more than news, it might be looking for some TV show ideas. Well, the masses have taken to Twitter to help Palin with some ideas for brilliant television. Here are some of the best:

The Big Benghazi Theory #PalinTVShows

— Lizz Winstead (@lizzwinstead) July 28, 2014

I Love Lucy But Deport Ricky #PalinTVShows

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) July 28, 2014

America’s Funniest Stump Speeches #PalinTVShows

— CC:Indecision (@indecision) July 28, 2014

#palintvshows Everybody Loves Reagan

— James VanLaningham (@jdvanlaningham) July 28, 2014

One of the central themes of the channel, according to Palin, is that it’s about you. But there is one person the site focuses on much more than any other and I doubt that is the “you” Palin was referring to. This person is President Obama, and wow does he seem to be the main focus of the Sarah Palin Channel. Three of the seven stories on the site feature the President, and it even has a clock counting down to the end of the Obama administration. I am guessing it is a countdown to remind Palin when she will lose any relevance she might still have.

I’m laughing too, B-rock.

So in conclusion, Sarah Palin has her own TV channel because being a contributor on FOX News was too constraining for this maverick. The channel is supposedly about you, the viewer, but primarily focuses on Sarah Palin, her family, and Obama. And sadly, just in case you had any hope that this was a joke, this is not Tina Fey parodying Palin — though it can be very hard to tell the difference.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [eskimojoe via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America, Sarah Palin Has Her Own TV Channel appeared first on Law Street.

Two big fights are happening between the White House and the Senate over judicial nominees. Well, that’s nothing new, of course, but the two fights are pretty interesting.

Want to guess the two sides?

Well, if you guessed Democrats vs. Republicans…you’re wrong. The two sides in opposition are the Obama Administration and some Senate Democrats, although for very different reasons when it comes to the two nominees.

The first nominee is Michael Boggs. If appointed, he would have a lifetime seat on the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. He’s a pretty conservative man–as a Georgia legislator he voted very much to the right on some contentious issues. These include voting to keep the Confederate symbol on the flag of Georgia, make abortion laws stricter, banning gay marriage, and defending discrimination against gay couples.

So why in the world would President Obama nominate Boggs? Well it’s all part of a deal. Georgia, like much of the United States, has long been plagued with a shortage of judges. There are constantly open seats on every level of the judiciary. Anytime one side nominates someone too controversial, they get bogged down and that seat never gets filled. So Obama made a deal with the two Republican Senators from Georgia–Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson. They compromised on seven nominees–four of whom were GOP picks, three are liberal. And the nominees are a package deal, meaning the Senate need to approve all or nothing.

It was a gutsy move on Obama’s part. And it looks like it is really not panning out well at all. They do not appear to have a problem with the other three conservative nominees, but many Democrats say that Boggs is just too much of a compromise.

For example, Human Rights Watch released a statement, saying, “through this clear and unapologetic record Boggs has signaled his hostility towards issues of equality in his home state as an elected official. If confirmed, Boggs’ could entrench these destructive, anti-equality values on the federal bench for generations to come.” The Congressional Black Caucus said they were taken by surprise by the nomination and condemned the nomination. The hearing will be today, and it will be interesting to see if there’s enough opposition for this deal to fall completely apart. 

But Michael Boggs isn’t the only judicial nominee that’s causing problems for the White House. Obama nominated David Barron, a Harvard Law School Professor to a seat on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike with Boggs, the disagreement isn’t over Barron’s politics–he’s actually pretty liberal. Instead the hesitation comes from his work on a particular case, the killing of an American extremist named Anwar al-Awlaki.

Barron worked on the team that put together the legal justification for the killing of al-Awlaki by American forces. Liberal criticism of Barron includes the fact that they do not believe the White House has released enough information on Barron’s views and involvements on the subject. Prominent liberal lobbying group ACLU, as well as both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have demanded the release of supposed memos detailing that involvement.

All of these judicial nominees hang in the balance, which is sad because the deal would make progress in filling seats, and David Barron himself is supremely qualified. And honestly speaking, I think the problems come from a lack of prudence in the White House and a strange and surprising disconnect between Obama and fellow Democrats. He’s not running for election again, obviously, but that doesn’t mean that Obama can afford to piss off too many of his usual allies. They hold the power to make the last few years of his presidency pretty ineffectual. If they deny these nominees, lots of behind-the-scenes work will be thrown out of the window, leaving behind the problem of empty courts and backed up cases. Obama has a couple choices here: asking for permission or for forgiveness. So far he’s been choosing the latter, but at this point, the former may be better advised.

[Msnbc]
—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Feature image courtesy of [Tim Evanson via Flickr]

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 Obama Administration Struggles with Judicial Nominees appeared first on Law Street.

Update 1:45pm: This shouldn’t affect the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, although he has required to stay within New York City since last month after Syrian-Americans complained that he had been traveling around the US trying to rally support for Assad’s government.

Update 12:50pm: Here’s another tweet speculating as to the timing of the Syrian Embassy shutdown.

Is this how the US will ramp up pressure on Moscow? By taking a harder line with his friend Assad? http://t.co/KeuG4cl4iu #Crimea #Syria

— Katie Johnston (@katieaj2310) March 18, 2014

I tend to agree that there may be some merit in these theories. The US is currently locked in a game of cat and mouse with Russia over the Crimea issue. President Obama has been pressured by both sides of the aisle to take action. This move to shut down the Syrian Embassy and declare all of Assad’s people in the US persona non grata may send a message to Russia about the kind of leader Obama really is.

Original Story:

As of today, the Syrian Embassy in the United States has been shut down. According to an unnamed source in the State Department, the US government has shut down the Syrian Embassy in DC, as well as all the consulates throughout the United States. Any members of the Assad regime still in the United States have been asked to leave immediately. The Syrian Embassy’s website confirms that it will no longer be in operation, beginning today.

This is a big deal. Given that the US embassy in Syria has been shuttered since February, indications that relations are incredibly strained are nothing new, but this is a huge move on the United States’ part.

There is also an unconfirmed State Department release floating around Facebook and Twitter that reads as follows:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
For Immediate Release March 18, 2014
2014
STATEMENT BY SPECIAL ENVOY FOR SYRIA, DANIEL RUBINSTEIN

This week marks the three-year anniversary of the Syrian revolution. For three years, Bashar al-Asad has refused to heed the call of the Syrian people to step aside. He has directed a war against his own people and created a humanitarian catastrophe in order to hold on to power and protect his narrow interests.

Following the announcement that the Syrian Embassy has suspended its provision of consular services, and in consideration of the atrocities the Asad regime has committed against the Syrian people, we have determined it is unacceptable for individuals appointed by that regime to conduct diplomatic or consular operations in the United States.

Consequently, the United States notified the Syrian government today that it must immediately suspend operations of its Embassy in Washington, DC and its honorary consulates in Troy, Michigan, and Houston, Texas. Syrian diplomats at the Embassy and Syrian honorary consulates are no longer permitted to perform diplomatic or consular functions and those who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents must depart the United States.

Despite the differences between our governments, the United States continues to maintain diplomatic relations with the state of Syria as an expression of our longstanding ties with the Syrian people, an interest that will endure long after Bashar al-Asad leaves power.

The United States will continue to assist those seeking change in Syria, to help end the slaughter, and to resolve the crisis through negotiations – for the benefit of the Syrian people

This is a breaking story, so we’ll have some updates for you throughout the day, but for now, here are some things to keep in mind as the story unfolds: This is a big move on the part of the United States; it was done quickly and quietly and we still don’t know how Syria will react. Also, there is speculation that this may be a message  to Russia regarding the conflict in the Ukraine. But I think we can all agree this is a huge moment — stay here for updates as this story unfolds. 

Took 3 yrs for @StateDept to shut down Syrian embassy. Timing likely also a signal to Russia. Will Syria opposition be given recognition?

— Kim Ghattas (@BBCKimGhattas) March 18, 2014

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured Image Courtesy of [WikiMedia]

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 Syrian Embassy in US Shut Down appeared first on Law Street.

One of the promises that Obama made on the campaign trail during his first election in 2008 was to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Some steps have been taken to do so, but for most part, it has been stagnant partly due to disagreements in Congress. But yesterday, Obama signed a bill into law that might move the closure within reach.

In order to even think about closing Guantanamo, something has to be done with the remaining 158 prisoners who are kept in custody there. Obama has long rallied against the restrictions that make it difficult to transfer prisoners in Guantanamo to the custody of foreign nations, usually a prisoner’s home nation.

In addition to clearing out Guantanamo so it can be closed down, the ability to transfer prisoners to other countries allows them to be tried for their crimes by their own country rather than just languishing in prison on foreign soil. The bill, however, did not go so far as to allow transfer of the prisoners to the United States, where they could be tried for their crimes against this nation.

During the signing, President Obama reaffirmed his devotion to making sure that Guantanamo Bay is closed down. He stated, “the continued operation of the facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners and emboldening violent extremists”.

The bill that contained the Guantanamo Bay provisions is called the National Defense Authorization Act. The National Defense Authorization Act is passed each year. It specifies what the budget and expenditures will be for the Department of Defense in the coming fiscal year.

In addition to this change for Guantanamo, there were some other noteworthy provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014. One of those is a 1% pay increase for all service members. There are also clauses that mandate changes in the way in which sexual assault incidents in the military are reported and dealt with by the Pentagon.

These changes aren’t as dramatic as advocates have called for, but they do take strong steps towards preventing rape in the military, and punishing the offenders when an assault does occur. The bill removes the statue of limitations on reporting rape; bar military commanders from overturning jury convictions in sexual assault and rape cases; criminalize retaliations against people who report such crimes; mandate the dishonorable discharge or dismissal of anyone convicted of such crimes; and give civilian defense officials more control over prosecutions. These are all steps in the right direction, despite the fact that advocates, such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) say they don’t go quite far enough.

Both of these provisions within the National Defense Authorization Act –the Guantanamo Bay changes and the changes to the Pentagon sexual assault policy–are small victories for the Obama Administration. Our President has had a very tough year–between the NSA spying scandal to the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act–it has been a bit of a mess. Although these accomplishments are small, the steps to close Guantanamo Bay fulfills a promise 5 years overdue. And the changes to the sexual assault policy in the Pentagon cements Obama’s status with women, a group that was crucial to his 2012 victory. Hopefully it is a sign of good things to come in 2014.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes via Flickr]

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 Big Changes to Guantanamo Bay appeared first on Law Street.

Apple recently requested an import ban against a few of Samsung’s products, including their smartphones and tablets. I doubt that this would come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Apple’s growing monopoly on mobile devices. But coming from a true Apple junkie, I cannot say that I stand by their grand scheme to overtake the technology market based on their keen ability to appeal to aesthetics.

The International Trade Commission had determined that Samsung violated two of Apple’s patents: one pertaining to the functionality of touch screen capability and another relating to headphone recognition.  The Korean company requested the ban be overturned on public policy grounds, which I agree is a suitable argument to make judging by the tit-for-tat activity that has been arisen between the two companies. But the kicker is, the Obama administration has decided that they will uphold this ban, resulting in a huge win for Apple.

Now, at first look, you may think ‘OK, what’s the problem?’ It is abnormal for the President to overturn the ITC’s decisions. And it’s worth noting that the ban will largely affect Samsung’s older products, and thus, will not result in a significant impact on the availability of Samsung’s current products.  So then why is Samsung arching its back over this decision if its newer products aren’t to be dramatically affected?

Well…

In August, the Obama Administration vetoed the ITC’s decision to ban certain Apple products, reasoning that the ban was incorrectly restricting the importation of products that were the result of standard essential patents — patents that cover inventions that must be utilized to meet technical standards. This is rarely done. It’s bad enough for Apple to be continuously rewarded for their litigious behavior, but to reverse a decision in favor of them? It almost screams political nepotism. Following this decision, the South Korean government voiced that it was “disappointed” by this ruling.  Needless to say, this determination furthers Apple’s powerful stance in the ongoing patent battles across the tech industry.

Amongst the accusations against Samsung that were not decided in Apple’s favor was an alleged violation of a design patent regarding the overall look of the iPhone. US Trade Representative Michael Froman has explained that the decision to uphold the ban is based on “policy considerations, including the impact on consumers and competition, advice from agencies, and information from interested parties.” Oh, that doesn’t leave a generic impression on me at all. -__- If anything, policy and competition considerations should instruct fairness in the industry so that one company isn’t granted extraordinary favors on account of their economic girth and geographic residence.

The juxtaposition of the two rulings may have given rise to trade implications, such as the favoring of a company’s national origin. These assertions were even raised by Samsung in their request to overturn the ban. However, Froman has stood firm in his position that the two scenarios were factually different and that nationality was not considered in the determination. Ehhh.

Again, even as the owner of an iPhone, iPad, iTouch, and Macbook (don’t judge me, you shouldn’t judge people with addictions), I can’t support the government’s efforts to thwart competition in any industry. While Apple showcases the “cool” status symbol our subcultures so anxiously desire, no one can negate the innovative choices that Samsung has brought to the table for consumers.

Hasn’t anyone had a discussion with a techie eager to explain why Droid is better than iOS? At this rate, we may be on our way to having more limited debates if manufacturers that license Droid are having the rug yanked from beneath them.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [renatomitra via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Samsung Ban Upheld: Why Apple Can’t Stop Won’t Stop appeared first on Law Street.