The House passed a defense bill on Friday that included a description of global warming as “a direct threat to the national security of the United States.” The bill, which sets the Pentagon’s budget and priorities for Fiscal Year 2018, easily passed by a 344-81 vote.

In addition to its acknowledgement of climate change as a potential security threat, the National Defense Authorization Act includes a number of amendments that directly contradict Trump Administration policy.

For instance, the bill declines President Donald Trump’s request to shutter a number of military bases around the country in 2021. Defense Secretary James Mattis told the Armed Services Committee in a hearing last month that closing the bases would save $10 billion over five years. The Obama Administration failed to garner congressional support with the same request.

An additional rebuff to Trump’s stated policies is the bill’s directive that the Pentagon create a so-called “Space Corps.” The proposed unit, opposed by both the Pentagon and the White House, would fall under the Air Force’s auspices, and would provide a front line of defense against future space-related threats. The Senate will negotiate the proposal when it takes up the defense bill.

But the bill’s most surprising feature is its nod to the myriad threats posed by climate change. In addition to calling climate change a “direct threat” to U.S. national security, it also directs the Pentagon to issue a report to Congress on the effects climate change might have on military bases.

Republicans in Congress have long been reluctant to address climate change as a real threat, and Friday’s vote by the Republican-controlled House might mark a change in posture.

Trump has made clear his own views on climate change–he recently withdrew the U.S. from the 194-nation Paris Climate Accord–but the Pentagon’s highest-ranking official, Mattis, has hinted that he recognizes the security threat posed by rising temperatures.

“‘I agree that the effects of a changing climate—such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others—impact our security situation,” Mattis said in his confirmation hearing testimony earlier this year.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) expressly supported the bill, specifically for its 2.4 percent pay increase for military troops. “[The bill] includes support for military families, and honestly, a really well-deserved pay raise for our troops,” Ryan said earlier this week.

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 House Passes Defense Bill that Calls Climate Change “Direct Threat” to U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

A day after North Korea launched yet another missile test, the Pentagon tested a missile defense system on Tuesday, its first in three years, in recognition of the closer-than-ever reality of a nuclear-armed North Korea. The system, called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, is designed to thwart inter-continental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, that can strike the continental United States.

Kim Jong-un, the North’s leader, suggested Pyongyang is nearly capable of launching such a missile, and its recent flurry of medium and short-range missile tests has proved Kim’s rhetoric is more than mere words.

Here’s how the $244-million defense system works:

A test missile is launched off an atoll in the Marshall Islands. Concurrently, a so-called “interceptor” launches from an underground airbase in California, spitting out a “kill vehicle” that collides with the missile–hopefully destroying it–mid-air before it can hit the earth. The system, which launched its first test in 2004, is far from a sure thing: it has been successful in four of nine attempts.

According to the Associated Press, Tuesday’s test was a success:

BREAKING: Pentagon says it has shot down mock warhead over the Pacific in key success for US missile defense program.

— The Associated Press (@AP) May 30, 2017

“This is part of a continuous learning curve,” Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, recently said. “We improve and learn from each test, regardless of the outcome. That’s the reason we conduct them,” he added. “We look forward to understanding the results so we can continue to mature the system and stay ahead of the threat.”

That threat is perhaps more pressing than ever before. North Korea has launched a handful of missile tests since President Donald Trump took office in January. Trump has vowed to stop the threat, and has looked to China, the North’s neighbor, largest trading partner, and primary benefactor, to pressure Kim to cease his provocations. Trump, meanwhile, reacted to North Korea’s latest test on Twitter:

North Korea has shown great disrespect for their neighbor, China, by shooting off yet another ballistic missile…but China is trying hard!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2017

In addition to Tuesday’s interceptor test, the Pentagon is deploying two U.S. aircraft carriers to the Sea of Japan on Wednesday, for a few days of training. Despite the training sessions taking place hundreds of miles off of the Korean Peninsula, one U.S. official told CNN, “how can we say it’s not sending a message?”

On Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” Defense Secretary James Mattis made clear that the U.S. is taking the North Korean threat seriously. He said: “They have been very clear in their rhetoric — we don’t have to wait until they have an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear weapon on it to say that now it’s manifested completely.”

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 Pentagon Tests Defense System Designed to Thwart North Korean Missiles appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, the Pentagon demanded the return of a U.S. underwater drone that a Chinese Navy ship grabbed from the South China Sea on Thursday. The American ship USNS Bowditch had deployed the drone to do research. Staff onboard the American survey ship had noticed that the Chinese ship had been following them for days by the time they fished the $150,000 drone out of the water. The U.S. staff then tried to call the Chinese via radio, but got no answer.

The incident occurred about 40 miles off the coast of the Philippines. It is unknown why China would simply steal the American research drone from the water. It was used to collect oceanographic data, and map the sea floor, water salinity, and temperature. As the purpose was biological research, the crew is made up of civilian mariners and scientists. It didn’t contain any sensitive information and was part of an unclassified program, said Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis. He added:

The UUV [unmanned underwater vehicle] was lawfully conducting a military survey in the waters of the South China Sea. It’s a sovereign immune vessel, clearly marked in English not to be removed from the water–that it was US property.

China seized U.S. Navy Ocean Glider Unmanned Underwater Vehicle ~50nm Subic Bay https://t.co/UxbYQmJ0jY

— M. Taylor Fravel (@fravel) December 16, 2016

On Friday the Pentagon issued a formal protest to China, demanding the return of the drone. Officials said that they were trying to determine whether this was a spontaneous decision by the Chinese seamen that spotted the drone, or a deliberate strategy from senior Chinese leaders. This is likely to further complicate the relationship between the U.S. and China. There are also concerns that the seizure could be related to Donald Trump’s phone call with Taiwan earlier this month.

In the beginning of December, Trump spoke on the phone with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen, which marked a reversal of the customary U.S. stance on Taiwan. The island wants to be independent from China, while China sees Taiwan as a breakaway province. So normally, the U.S. sells weapons and other items to Taiwan, but doesn’t do much more. That phone call didn’t exactly please Chinese leaders. Then on Thursday, an American think tank declared that China has been building weapons like anti-missile and anti-aircraft systems on its man-made islands, despite earlier claims that the islands are exclusively for civilian use. As Trump takes office, it will be interesting to see how the American-Chinese relationship changes.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pentagon to China: Please Return Our Underwater Drone appeared first on Law Street.

The media output and amount of propaganda coming from the terror group ISIS has dropped dramatically as the group has experienced increasing military pressure, according to a new study. In August of last year, which was the peak of ISIS’s media activity, the group released 700 media items from official sources in Syria and other countries. This past August, it only published or released 200 items.

The propaganda by ISIS has from the beginning focused on how the group is creating a functioning new society with thriving businesses and happy citizens–a new caliphate, meaning a unified Muslim country. Foreign Muslims were “invited” to move to Syria and live in a peaceful, thriving Muslim community, specifically in Raqqua. The propaganda material often featured pictures of happy children and a life of prosperity. But as the fighters face defeats and mounting pressure, Aleppo is in ruins, and some high profile leaders have been killed, that image becomes harder and harder to uphold.

Daniel Milton from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, who wrote the new report, told the New York Times:

It’s not just the numeric decline. The caliphate was their big selling point. Now there’s an inability to say we’re doing the things that make us a state. And that was behind their broad appeal.

Very interesting piece on falling ISIS media output. Sobering last question on traumatised youth growing up in Raqqa https://t.co/UWnS8iboKX

— Julian Sayarer (@Julian_Sayarer) October 11, 2016

Another figure that illustrates the Islamic State’s shrinking influence is how many foreign fighters join the cause. According to the Pentagon the number of fighters going to Syria and Iraq from other countries has shrunk from about 2,000 a month a year ago to only 200.

Milton believes the decreased media output is due to the military actions against ISIS. The fact is that the “caliphate” is not an organized state. It is a group of militants trying to fight for a cause, but this means that the people publishing media content are also soldiers. When they fight, no one is there to put out media content, and when they get killed, the army shrinks even more. Also many media outlets, like Twitter, have made an effort to block radical Islamic accounts.

But even though the new information points to decreased power when it comes to territory as well as propaganda, experts warn that the ideology and mentality of the Islamic state will keep attracting lone terrorists for a long time. There is also the risk that Islamic fighters will return to their real home countries in the West, and carry out terror attacks like the ones seen in France. And, lastly, there is the problem of how to take care of the kids that have grown up during the war and been fed with propaganda for their whole lives.

“How do you deal with all the children who have had these experiences and who have been exposed to this worldview? This is going to be a long-term problem,” said Milton.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Has ISIS Propaganda Production Decreased? appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government allegedly paid a British PR firm half a billion dollars between 2007 and 2011 to produce fake al-Qaeda videos as part of a propaganda program, the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed on Monday.

A British PR firm called Bell Pottinger reported frequently to the CIA, Pentagon, and the National Security Council. The staff produced videos made to look like amateur footage shot by rebels, and Arabic news programs.

One of the video editors, Martin Wells, called the operation “shocking, eye-opening, life-changing,” and provided comments to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. When he applied for the job in London in May of 2006 he only knew it involved a project in the Middle East. When he went for an interview it surprised him to find guards watching the room where it took place. When he asked when he would find out if he got the job, they said: “You’ve already got it. We’ve already done our background checks into you.”

Bell Pottinger in the spotlight for creating propaganda videos for US military in Iraq: https://t.co/QzBAPV0HSn #comms pic.twitter.com/ALM9asdimZ

— PRWeek UK (@prweekuknews) October 4, 2016

Wells then had 48 hours to prepare for a flight to Baghdad, where he spent his time producing fake news segments and low-quality, violent commercials for al-Qaeda. He and the other staff sent out the videos to local TV stations and the military dropped digital copies off in different raids. Since the video files contained embed codes they were able to trace where and how the footage was being watched—and also trace the people who were watching them–a powerful counter-terrorism tool.

This was not a small operation—it cost over $100 million a year. Sometimes approval came straight from the White House and at one point almost 300 staff members from Britain and Iraq were involved. Wells stayed for two years. The whole operation ended in 2011, when American troops withdrew from Iraq. It was not the first time the government has used the media to spread its views and policies.

In 2005 the government hired a Washington-based firm called the Lincoln Group to pay Iraqi newspapers thousands of dollars to publish pro-American articles, written by the U.S. military. In 2009 it was revealed that the Pentagon hired controversial PR firm Rendon to monitor journalists embedded within the U.S. military to see whether they were covering their missions in a positive way.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did the U.S. Pay Half a Billion Dollars for Fake Anti Al-Qaeda Propaganda? appeared first on Law Street.

In the fall of 2015, President Obama signed a defense policy bill that included directions for the Pentagon to release a detailed report of the backgrounds of all the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Obama gave the Pentagon a deadline of January 24, 2016. That date was missed, but the report was delivered exclusively to Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), a fervent opponent of Obama’s Guantanamo strategy, in June. On Tuesday, that report was released to the public.

The report includes the basis for the prisoners’ detentions, from low level to high level “indefinite detainees.” It includes backgrounds on the 107 prisoners detained at Guantanamo as of late 2015, when Obama signed the bill directing the report be compiled. At present, there are 76 prisoners left at Guantanamo, 34 of which have been cleared for transfer. One of Obama’s campaign promises was to close Guantanamo before his term ended, and some Republican lawmakers who oppose shutting down the prison see him as too quickly clearing prisoners for release in order to make good on that promise before January.

Ayotte has been calling for a single unclassified report on the Guantanamo prisoners for years. In an email to The Associated Press regarding the report, she said:

While the Department of Defense watered down information and failed to provide key details regarding some detainees, the report still provides Americans with a consolidated, unclassified source of information regarding the dangerous terrorists at Guantanamo who the administration has recently released or plans to release soon.

Among the high level suspected terrorists the report details Karim Bostan, a 13-year detainee, ran an al-Qaeda affiliated cell that targeted U.S. forces in Afghanistan. He has been cleared for transfer to a country outside the U.S. that is willing to accept him. Those negotiations are ongoing. The report also details the backstories of low-level detainees like Muhammad Said Salim Bin Salman. Detained in Guantanamo for 14 years, Bin Salman was suspected of traveling to Afghanistan to train at an al-Qaida camp. The Yemeni native said he never fought, and was deemed a medium intelligence risk. He was transferred to Oman in January.

Ayotte might be one of the most vocal opponents of shuttering Guantanamo–a proposition also supported by George W.Bush–but she is hardly the only Republican opposed to closing the prison. They say it’s irresponsible and could result in former terrorists re-engaging in terrorist activities. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported that five percent of detainees released under Obama have re-engaged in terrorism operations. Eight percent are suspected of re-engaging. Under Bush, 21 percent of released prisoners re-engaged and 14 percent were suspected of re-engaging. 500 prisoners were released or transferred under Bush and 162 under Obama.

At a Congressional hearing in March, Paul Lewis, the Pentagon’s official on the Guantanamo closing, alluded to American deaths that have come at the hand of released prisoners, saying, “there have been Americans that have died because of Gitmo detainees.” It’s a contentious issue that will surely remain relevant for months to come, but for now at least, we have a bit more transparency than in the past.

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 Pentagon Report Sheds New Light on Guantanamo Detainees appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State is ”inevitably going to be defeated,” said President Obama at a press conference on Thursday. The President met with reporters after a briefing at the Pentagon from his national security team on the fight against ISIS.

He said that even though ISIS will certainly be defeated, the networks from the terrorist group will probably keep trying to commit acts of terrorism:

As we’ve seen, it is still very difficult to detect and prevent lone actors or small cells of terrorists who are determined to kill the innocent and are willing to die. And that’s why… we’re going to keep going after ISIL aggressively across every front of this campaign.

Although the press was supposed to focus on the war against terrorism, a lot of the questions ended up being about the Trump situation. But after a few, the President had had enough.

I would ask all of you to just make your own judgment. I’ve made this point already multiple times. Just listen to what Mr. Trump has to say and make your own judgment with respect to how confident you feel about his ability to manage things like our nuclear triad.

See Obama’s speech here.

Today @POTUS convened his @NSC44 at the Pentagon for a regular meeting on efforts to degrade & destroy ISIL.https://t.co/XhNlSMdNfj

— WH National Security (@NSC44) August 4, 2016

Also on Thursday, the Egyptian army confirmed that it killed an important ISIS-allied leader, Abu Duaa al-Ansari. In total 45 terrorists were killed and weapon and ammunition supplies destroyed in the airstrikes by the army in the Sinai Peninsula.

Al-Ansari was the head of the group Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, which prospered in the chaos after the Government of Egyptian President Mubarak was overthrown in 2011. The group entered an alliance with ISIS in 2014 and was responsible for bombing a gas pipeline between Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, as well as the crash of Russian flight 9268 in 2015.

Russia got a reprimand from Obama for its continued support of the Syrian government and attacks on opposing forces. But the U.S. will continue to attempt to cooperate with the nation to jointly bring down ISIS.

However, as Obama pointed out at the press conference, independents inspired by the Islamic State may very well keep attacking people in public spaces such as subways or parades to spread fear, which is why the U.S. must keep up the work of fighting against the terrorist group.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama: Islamic State Will Be Defeated, But Independent Attacks Still a Threat appeared first on Law Street.

With its recent series of missile tests and blustery rhetoric, North Korea is cultivating an atmosphere of paranoia in the Pacific and prompting America to collaborate more closely with its Pacific allies. The nuclear nation’s latest provocation came at dawn on Wednesday, when two Rodong missiles launched from a province in the west toward the Sea of Japan in the east. One missile fizzled quickly and plunked down into the sea, while the other continued on for 620 miles, South Korean and Japanese officials said, making it one of the North’s furthest reaching missile tests yet. The most concerning element of Wednesday’s launch: the second missile landed within Japanese maritime territory, as it flew well within Japan’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone, or EEZ.

The latest round of missile tests comes at a tense time between North Korea and the U.S. North Korea took umbrage with the direct sanctions the U.S. recently placed on its Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un (they also targeted other high-ranking members in Un’s cabinet), as a former diplomatic corridor between the two nations was shuttered. The North Korean diplomat who used to head that channel said the U.S. sanctions amounted to a “declaration of war.” Heightening tensions between North Korea and the U.S., South Korea recently agreed to deploy the U.S.-built THAAD missile system–a truck mounted missile interceptor–that has also angered China.

Wednesday’s launch of two mid-range missiles–Pyongyang is thought to possess an arsenal including 300 Rodong missiles, which have a maximum range of 800 miles, far enough to strike mainland Japan–were condemned by government officials in Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan called the episode a “serious threat to Japan’s security” and an “unforgivable act of violence.” Japan recently released its annual defense report, which, according to South Korea media, refers to North Korea’s nuclear threat as “grave and urgent.”

Washington, which maintains strong economic and military ties with Japan and South Korea, also denounced the North’s most recent test. “This provocation only serves to increase the international community’s resolve to counter [North Korea’s] prohibited activities, including through implementing existing U.N. Security Council sanctions,” said Gary Ross, a Pentagon spokesman and naval commander.

In June, North Korea sent a series of Musudan missiles to an altitude higher than it had in the past, signaling its readiness to strike U.S. military bases in Japan, or its southern neighbor, South Korea. The North’s increased military flexing might be a pre-emptive response to joint military exercises set to take place between the U.S. and South Korea later this month, as it usually amps up its weapons testing in the months leading up to the annual military exercises. In an interview with The Associated Press, Han Song Ryol, the North Korean diplomat who said the U.S. had already declared war on Pyongyang with their sanctions, said if the August exercises go as planned, North Korea has a “self-defensive right and justifiable action to respond in a very hard way.”

And indicating just how serious this latest threat is being taken by the international community, the U.S. and Japan called an emergency meeting with the United Nations Security Council for Wednesday afternoon.

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 North Korea Continues to Test Missiles; Emergency U.N. Meeting Called appeared first on Law Street.

When we take a moment to think about women in combat, oftentimes a picture of the 1997 Demi Moore film, “G.I. Jane” comes to mind with a scene that looks a little something like this:

However, women have not been allowed to work in all combat units despite G.I. Jane’s portrayal implying it was possible…that is, until December 3, 2015.

“There will be no exceptions,” stated Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter in his announcement, during which he informed United States officials and citizens that women would be able to hold positions and jobs within all combat units of the military. Secretary Carter went on to address that women would have these opportunities so long as “they qualify and meet the standards,” marking a significant and positively well-earned turn in the tide for the rights of women within the military.

The breaking and encouraging news comes on the heels of the first two women, Kristen Griest and Shaye Haver, who graduated the grueling Ranger training on August 21, 2015 and were not allowed to join a combat unit following their training and the acquisition of their new titles like their male counterparts. Now, for the likes of women like Ms. Griest and Ms. Haver, they will finally have the well-deserved opportunity to put their training into practical use.

The secretary excitingly highlighted the ability of the military to utilize a level of skill, insight, and point of view that had yet to infiltrate combat units thus far–the sensible woman’s touch, if you will. Secretary Carter was supported by all of the top leaders in the Army, Navy, and Air Force in his decision, but met negotiating terms by the Marines in which he refused to indulge special requests or exceptions, stating that his decision would apply to all branches of the military equally.

General Joseph Dunford, a commandant in the Marines, provided the Secretary with a detailed recommendation and data pertaining to mixed-gender units versus all-male units, showing that women were more likely to get injured in the training process and did not perform better than the men. However, Secretary Carter was not swayed, due to his own “evidence-based” research, and found that mitigating factors during the implementation process would account for any of the issues outlined by the Marines. General Dunford was not present for the announcement, but the secretary assured that the general would take full part in the implementation process.

Image courtesy Of [Utah National Guard via Flickr]

So how exactly will this change be implemented?

That seems to be the question that everyone is pressing Secretary Carter to answer. The secretary has not provided a concrete answer. However, he has provided a timeline: January 1, 2016 is the due date for plans to be submitted on how to open up the combat jobs to women and April 1, 2016 is the date by which those plans have to start being integrated into military procedure. We will have to wait for the start of the New Year to see how plans and integration unfold.

Now up for debate–will women be subject to the draft as a consequence of participating in combat units and what is the constitutionality of the decision if they are not?  Women, ages 18-26, are the only group entirely exempt from the military draft under the Military Selective Service Act–even non-U.S. citizens, such as male refugees between the ages of 18-26, are subject to the draft in a time of war when troops are short-handed. The Military Service Act’s constitutionality was challenged under the Fifth Amendment in Rostker v. Goldberg. The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality finding that Congress acted within its constitutional authority to raise and regulate armies and navies when it proposed and authorized the registration of men and not women. Justice William Rehnquist, in authoring the opinion, noted that Congress’ decision to exempt women from registering for the draft stood as women were not in combat at the time. Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented in Rostker, stating that the exemption “categorically excludes women from a fundamental civic obligation.” Since the combat restrictions no longer exist, the issue may be revisited in legal dispute as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause within the Fifth Amendment.

So we wait. We wait for the plans and implementation to unfold and to see if a constitutional challenge is brought against the Military Service Act in light of Secretary Carter’s decision to open combat unit jobs to women.

But while we wait, we can share in Rep. Martha McSally’s (R-Ariz.) sentiments on the underlying change in combat units:

It’s about damn time…Women have been fighting and dying for our country since its earliest wars. They have shown they can compete with the best of the best, and succeed. We are a country that looks at people as individuals, not groups. We select the best man for the job, even if it’s a woman.”

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women in Combat: Making Moves Toward Gender Equality 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.

Things continue to get worse for the University of Phoenix. After the FTC began investigating the parent company of the for-profit string of schools–Apollo Education Group–more government agencies are either launching investigative probes or turning away from the company.

On Thursday the U.S. Department of Defense officially put the University of Phoenix on probation. Essentially that means that the for-profit schools will be barred from recruiting on military bases, and veterans won’t be able to use the money they receive from the department’s tuition assistant program for education at any of the University of Phoenix branches. However, any students that are currently using the DoD’s benefits and are enrolled in classes are allowed to continue their education.

The DoD didn’t necessarily disclose the exact reasons for its dismissal of the University of Phoenix. However, Military Times reported on a letter it obtained that was sent by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Defense to the University of Phoenix. Reasons it cited for putting the for-profit collection of schools on probation included the probes by the FTC and the state of California, as well as recruitment attempts that broke the DoD’s policies. One of those was the use of “challenge coins” According to the Wall Street Journal:

The coins—which are bigger than a silver dollar and often have unit insignia—are often given by those in the military to one another for a job well done or to commemorate an event. The University of Phoenix used trademarked seals and insignia on their coins without the consent of the military, according to the Defense Department. The university said it has since stopped using such coins.

However, the DoD isn’t the only government agency that’s not getting along with the University of Phoenix. On Friday, just a day after the DoD’s announcement, the Justice and Education Departments announced joint investigations into the University of Phoenix. They will be establishing an interagency task force to ensure that the company is held to proper accountability and oversight. These moves by the DoD, the Justice Department, and the Department of Education are consistent with the FTC probe, which is attempting to determine if the University of Phoenix used unfair or deceptive recruiting practices, particularly when it came to recruiting veterans.

In light of the DoD’s announcement, the University of Phoenix stock fell nine percent. The University of Phoenix is almost certainly on a downturn–this is just the latest bad news for the for-profit education giant.

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 University of Phoenix Continues to Fall appeared first on Law Street.

For many people, Guantanamo Bay conjures horrific thoughts of terrorists, torture, and inhumane treatment. Many are surprised to hear that this dark stain in American history still exists and holds more than 100 detainees. While President Obama pledged to close Guantanamo Bay during his first campaign for the presidency, the process has been far from easy. Where can the United States send detainees to be released, and who will accept those deemed simply too dangerous to be set free?

What is Guantanamo Bay?

Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a U.S. military prison located at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Southeastern Cuba. Since 1903, the United States has been leasing the 45 square miles the base sits on from Cuba in an arrangement that can only be terminated by mutual agreement. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, existing detention facilities at the base were temporarily repurposed in order to hold detainees and prosecute them for war crimes in the “War on Terror.”

Since 2001, Guantanamo Bay has housed nearly 800 detainees. As of the beginning of 2015, there are 127 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. During President George W. Bush’s administration, the United States claimed that since the detainees were not on American soil they were thus not protected by the U.S. constitution. Their status as “enemy combatants” meant they could be denied U.S. legal protections and even protections from the Geneva Conventions. Many detainees endured cruel, inhumane treatment and various forms of torture while being held indefinitely without charges. The Supreme Court later ruled in various cases that procedures at Guantanamo Bay violated military law and the Geneva Conventions.

President Obama signed an executive order following his 2009 inauguration ordering the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay to be closed within a year. Despite this order, various obstacles have required that the facilities remain open.

Why haven’t the detention facilities closed?

The difficulty in closing the facilities at Guantanamo Bay comes in finding an appropriate place for the detainees to go. Many countries do not wish to take in detainees, and Congress objects to holding trials in the United States for any of the detainees who may have to serve longer sentences.

On December 19, 2014, President Obama signed the annual defense policy bill, titled the National Defense Authorization Act, into law. The Act prohibits him from closing Guantanamo Bay or transferring the detainees to U.S. soil. Negotiators even rejected a change that would have allowed detainees to come to the United States for emergency medical care rather than fly doctors and equipment to them. Despite signing, the frustrated President Obama hinted that he may claim constitutional powers to transfer some detainees against Congress’ wishes. According to the Washington Times, President Obama stated that since the law “violates constitutional separation of powers principles, (the) administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.” Watch the video below for more of President Obama’s sentiments.

At this point, the best way to whittle down the number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay is to transfer them elsewhere. Fifty-nine detainees have been approved for transfer but still remain at the facility. President Obama is allowed to transfer detainees to other countries willing to take them; however, the transfers can only take place after the Secretary of Defense certifies that they are not likely to join terrorist organizations. Frustrations linger between President Obama’s National Security staff and outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. While the staff has approved transfers, sign-off delays from Hagel and the Pentagon slow the process.

Has progress been made?

After a virtual halt in transfers between 2011 and 2013, a quickened pace for detainee releases was seen in 2014. Last year the Obama administration was able to transfer 28 detainees. Most recently they have been accepted by Kazakhstan, Uruguay, and Afghanistan, and they are not likely to face further detainment.

Transfers

Another 59 detainees have been approved for transfer but remain at Guantanamo Bay; 51 of those approved are from Yemen. The United States is not willing to send the detainees back to Yemen due to instability and prevalent militant activity. Concerns that the government there cannot ensure that the men will not join a terrorist organization rule out any chance they would be sent back to the country. The United States is instead looking to countries in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East to take some of the detainees. Countries must assure the United States the detainees will not return to the battlefield and will be treated humanely.

Detainees in Limbo

If the United States can find places to send all of the 59 detainees approved for transfer, officials can begin the more difficult task of deciding what to do with the remaining prisoners. An additional 58 detainees are expected to remain in limbo. They are considered too difficult to try in court due to insufficient evidence, but they are still too dangerous to release. Ten detainees, including five alleged to have helped plot the 9/11 attacks, are in the military trial stage and have been for months. Administration officials say that the detention center cannot be closed without sending at least some of the remaining inmates to the United States to be held for longer sentences.

Cost Issue

The hope is to decrease the population down to the low 120s within the next month, making it half of what is was when President Obama took office in 2009; however, this still leaves President Obama far from his goal of closing the prison. The White House has continually argued that Guantanamo is a propaganda symbol used by terrorists to fuel anger at the United States and so it should be eliminated; however, the Obama administration has increasingly made the argument for Guantanamo Bay closure from a financial standpoint. According to the Wall Street Journal, the cost to operate the prison is between $400 and $500 million annually. The annual cost per inmate at Guantanamo Bay is well above $2 million, while officials say the cost to hold an inmate at a U.S. supermax prison would be only around $78,000. As more inmates are transferred from Guantanamo Bay, the cost per inmate continues to rise. The hope is to reduce political opposition to the ban on transferring detainees to the United States by shrinking the number held at Guantanamo until maintaining the separate facility seems far too expensive.

Watch the video below for more information on the difficulty of closing Guantanamo Bay.

Does releasing detainees pose security risks?

It depends on who you ask. A 2013 report from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) stated that 17 percent of the more than 600 Guantanamo detainees released or transferred since 2002 returned to militant activity. An additional 12 percent were suspected of doing so. In order to cut down on this recidivism the DNI recommended avoiding transfers to countries enduring conflict, instability, or active recruitment by terrorist organizations. President Obama noted, however, that over 90 percent of Guantanamo Bay detainees transferred during his administration are not confirmed or suspected of having reengaged in terrorist activity. Still, many critics contend that the increased pace of prison transfers raises national security concerns.

The risk of future terrorism  is not limited to released Guantanamo Bay detainees. For instance, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State, was once a prisoner at a U.S. detention center in Iraq before being released. Others note that recidivism in the U.S. legal system is higher than 60 percent, which is much worse than recidivism rates from Guantanamo Bay. While there are risks in releasing detainees, there are similar risks in releasing any prisoner.

With the goal of shutting down Guantanamo Bay, there are few other options than releasing detainees to other countries. Americans remain fearful of detainees being held on U.S. soil. A Gallup poll released in June 2014 said 29 percent of Americans support closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and transferring detainees to U.S. prisons. Sixty-six percent oppose the idea. While Americans may agree in theory that the prison should close, they do not want the detainees to ever be held on U.S. soil.

Watch the video below for more of the potential risks of moving prisoners to the United States.

Conclusion

Guantanamo Bay will not be closing anytime in the immediate future. Ultimately President Obama may have to threaten executive action if he cannot overcome congressional opposition to moving the detainees more quickly and shutting down the facility. With no place to put many of the remaining prisoners who are stuck in limbo, it is likely some would have to be sent to the United States for the prison to close anytime soon. At this time, that seems unlikely to happen; however, given fewer detainees and extremely high costs of running the facility, the American public may eventually warm to the idea of housing certain prisoners in the United States.

Resources

Primary

White House: Executive Order: Closure of Guantanamo Bay

Director of National Intelligence: Summary of Reengagement of Detainees

Additional

Washington Post: U.S. Prepare to Accelerate Detainee Transfers

CNN: Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Fast Facts

Politifact: Obama: ‘We’re Spending Millions for Each Individual’

The New York Times: Four Afghans Released From Guantanamo Bay

Washington Times: Obama Signs Defense Bill That Keeps Gitmo Open

CNN: U.S. Hopes to Transfer Dozens From Gitmo

CNN: What Happens When Detainees Get Out?

USA Today: Obama Faces Challenges in Closing Gitmo

Fox News: U.S. Releases Fives More Guantanamo Bay Prisoners

Wall Street Journal: Obama Weighs Options to Close Guantanamo

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Will it Take to Finally Close Guantanamo Bay? appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday in a dramatic escalation of the many-sided conflict in Syria, the United States, along with a coalition of Middle Eastern states, showered ISIS strongholds with airstrikes and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Lawmakers, public officials, and pundits have traded arguments over whether the United States has any interest in intervening, whether ISIS poses any threat to United States, and whether the United States has any justification in getting involved in Syria’s three and half year long civil war. In support of the strikes that started on Tuesday, President Obama has invoked several international and domestic legal justifications. Like any justifications for war, however, they aren’t completely solid.

On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power answered the international justification question in a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, saying that the United States has the right to carry out self-defense on behalf of Iraq.

Generally, a country can only use force in the territory of another sovereign country if it is authorized to do so by the U.N. Syria is a sovereign country, and Power’s letter to Secretary General Ban only informs him of the attacks, it doesn’t ask for his permission. However, force can be used against a sovereign country without permission if it’s for the sake of self-defense. The United States is arguing that, although Syria is a sovereign state, it isn’t doing anything to stop or weaken ISIS within its own borders, justifying the United States’ defense-based intervention.

President Obama also has to cover his bases for legal justification domestically. To that end, he told Congress on September 9th that he doesn’t need Congressional permission and that he has the authority to take action. This justification can be found in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). That resolution gave the President authority to:

Use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.

The law is vague and has a wide enough breadth that it has been successfully used by the United States for continued military actions across the world.

The organizations targeted in the wording of the AUMF have generally been Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. While ISIS has its origins in Al-Qaeda and claimed to still be affiliated, Al-Qaeda officially cut ties with ISIS in February, prompting controversy over whether the president actually has the legal authority to target them without Congressional approval. But this week’s strikes didn’t target ISIS alone. The Pentagon announced that the attacks also targeted the Khorasan, a little-known terrorist group that does have connections with Al-Qaeda via Jabhat al-Nusra, another Al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria.

Additionally, an incredibly interesting facet of this conflict is that, despite the fact that Obama has previously said that he wanted to eventually repeal the AUMF, he is using it to justify strikes against ISIS. The Obama Administration’s choice of justifications has prompted questions over the president’s apparent change of heart about practicing restraint in counterterrorism. Historically, however, the expanded offensive isn’t so strange, as Obama has bombed half a dozen other countries in the Middle East and North Africa during his presidency.

Remember that just over a year ago, the United States was having the same debate about getting involved in Syria, except that Obama was then insisting that it was necessary to bomb Syrian President Assad, after his regime killed upwards of 1,400 people in a sarin gas attack. That plan was ditched at the last second when Russia made a deal with Syria to dispose of the country’s chemical weapons. But historically speaking, what Obama’s administration did on Tuesday really isn’t a departure from his foreign policy strategies.

Some Obama critics say that if Obama had gone through with those threats against Assad last year, the United States may not be in this mess with ISIS today. A common theory about how ISIS grew to be so powerful is that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad strategically watched idly by as it clashed other rebel groups, who were trying to oust him and create a democratic government, and took over large swaths of land. He even bombed the rebels as they gained ground against ISIS. He did this, some say, in order to have a legitimate claim to having a terrorist threat in Syria and lure in Western powers to help him, and not the rebels. As it turns out, Assad didn’t need to convince the West to join his side. They are, however, giving him a courteous “heads-up” about bombing his enemies.

While his administration has done its homework and technically managed to justify these new attacks on ISIS, Obama’s words and actions surrounding them don’t scream consistency, either. His backing out of the plan last year to strike Assad in Syria suggests that he may have only been talking about strikes to save face. It suggests that only when words like “Islamist” and “terrorist” are being thrown around is it necessary to take action. And using the AUMF to take those actions suggests that it’s acceptable for the president to change his position on that justification whenever it’s convenient.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Thirteen years ago yesterday our country was shaken to the core. I was sixteen, skipping school and watching some awful show on television when the program was interrupted by the news reporting on the first airplane hitting the Twin Towers in New York City. Not even 20 minutes later, as the news anchors were still reporting on the crash, we all watched as another plane crashed into the second tower. It was live TV and there was no controlling what the viewers were going to see. The confusion and horror coming from the news anchors was something I could never forget. My brother and I sat in silence not knowing what to do, what to think, or what was going to happen next. Parents pulled their kids out of school and I remember this feeling of urgency in the air and the uneasiness of what could possibly happen next. Thousands of people had just lost their lives and the country witnessed it. There were no answers, only questions of why and what will happen next.

Every year we remember that horrendous day. It was a constant fear for the first year or two, but also a great feeling that our country had come together and we had heroes to thank daily. Budweiser aired a commercial during Superbowl XXXVI that really demonstrated the somber tone and respect the entire country had for the events of September 11, 2001. The ad was only shown once to ensure they did not profit from it in any way. Even today, 13 years later, it is the most moving dedication done in such a small amount of time.

Yesterday was a somber day for us all. Most news outlets covered the anniversary in addition to current events. While watching one of the programs I had to do a quick rewind to make sure I was hearing it correctly. Young America’s Foundation had gone to the George Washington University campus in Washington, DC last Friday, September 5, to interview students about the anniversary of September 11. YAF only had a few questions to ask these students:

1. Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?
2. Do you know what ISIS is?
3. Did you know that ISIS is responsible for the beheading of two American journalists? If so, could you name one?
4. Are you aware of the celebrity “nude photo” hacking scandal? If so, could you name any of the celebrities involved?

The responses from these kids are just mind blowing…

So the total results:

• Six out of 30 students recognized that this week is the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
• Four out of 30 students were able to name one of the American journalists beheaded at the hands of ISIS.
• 29 out of 30 students were able to identify one or more celebrities involved in the nude photo hacking scandal.

The kid interviewed two minutes in genuinely reacts like he had no idea what had been going on and it clearly upset him, which is great but frustrating. Actually this whole situation is frustrating. How is it that college students in their late teens and early twenties know more about pop culture and the ridiculousness of a nude picture hacking scandal than they do about current events and the death of two Americans at the hands of terrorists? This is not only the responsibility of these young adults to know what’s going on but it is the responsibility of teachers, parents, and our society as a whole.

There are already so many issues with what kids are learning in the classroom today that this should not surprise me, but it honestly does. How is this possible? When I was growing up my parents and grandparents talked to me about Pearl Harbor and the significance of that date. We may have brushed through it in history class but it is a day that I remember because it was an important part of history. My grandparents even lost friends and family members during the attack on Pearl Harbor and World War II. The same could be said about 9/11 and the Iraq War that followed. Hell, there are even movies about the two events. While there have been about seven movies made about the Pearl Harbor attacks, nearly 20 have been produced about 9/11.

What has become of our younger generation? Things need to change or our society will become Idiocracy.

This video is a great representation of what is going on in our culture and it needs to stop. We need our children to be better and smarter and more informed. We are not only disappointing our parents and grandparents, but we are disappointing our country, our culture, the world, and our Founding Fathers! Flabbergasted.

I don’t want to end this post on a note of frustration for our society. Instead I want to share a moving video about the last surviving search and rescue dog who returned to Ground Zero yesterday, a place she had not been to since 2001.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Never Forget.

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 9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly For These GW Students 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.