Woo—it’s the day before Christmas Eve! RantCrush will take a short holiday break but we’ll be back again on December 27. Now go read today’s rants and then focus on all that yummy holiday food. We all deserve a little vacation after this crazy year. Happy Holidays! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Messy Foray into Nuclear Weapons

Donald Trump tweeted yesterday that he seemingly wants the U.S. to expand and strengthen its nuclear powers. Nuclear experts were shocked, and rightfully so–no president has proposed a buildup in nuclear capabilities in a long time.

The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 22, 2016

“Can a tweet start an arms race? This one may just have done that,” Joseph Cirincione from global security foundation Ploughshares Fund told NBC. In what seems to be the new routine for Trump, his spokespeople tried to explain and clarify what he meant after the fact.

Jason Miller said Trump meant that we need to prevent nuclear proliferation among terror groups, and strengthen American deterrent capability. Kellyanne Conway had a similar explanation last night on Rachel Maddow’s show when she said: “He is making the point this is about nuclear proliferation in the face of rogue nations and regimes that are stockpiling weapons.” Still…many people worry that the Trump gang’s explanations after the fact aren’t going to be good enough.

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 RantCrush Top 5: December 23, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

A memorial dedicated to the victims of racial terror lynching is being planned in Montgomery, Alabama. It will be called the Memorial to Peace and Justice and will be built in tandem with a related museum. The effort is being spearheaded by the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI).

We are building a nat’l memorial to lynching victims & opening a museum addressing our history of racial injustice. pic.twitter.com/XgWNYhe4hS

— EJI (@eji_org) August 18, 2016

According to EJI, the memorial looks over “the City of Montgomery and out to the American South, where terror lynchings were most prevalent.” In a recent interview with PBS, Bryan Stevenson, the founder of EJI, explained his organization’s motivations for building the lynching victims memorial and museum. When asked why we need a memorial like this Stevenson said:

We are really burdened by this legacy. And I don’t think we have acknowledged it adequately. We terrorized African-Americans at the end of the 19th century and through half of the 20th century. The demographic geography of this country was shaped by this era of racial terror and lynching.

Currently there is no official memorial that commemorates the decades of violence that black Americans experienced–EJI documented over 4,000 racial terror lynchings between 1877 and 1950. EJI argues that in order to recover from that era of mass violence, and the profound effects it still has on our country today, we need to acknowledge and confront our history. In the PBS interview, Stevenson explains the success that other nations have had with this kind of approach:

So, we have been asking people in the community to engage in acts of truth-telling and acts of recovery, reconciliation, reparation. I think we need that in this country.

In South Africa, you have seen that. In Rwanda, you have seen that. In Germany, you have seen that. I think they are healthier communities because they acknowledge their histories of mass atrocity and violence. I think we’re less healthy because we haven’t talked about the genocide of Native people, we haven’t talked about slavery, we haven’t talked about lynching.

The effort is almost completely funded, and was recently propelled into the news again as the result of a $10 million donation from philanthropists Jon and Pat Stryker. The memorial will contain the names of over 4,000 victims, on 800 columns. There will also be a duplicate 800 columns made, that will be given to states where the lynchings occurred, to be be placed onsite. The 11,000-square-foot museum, called the From Enslavement to Mass Incarceration museum, will be nearby. If everything goes according to plan, the museum will be opened in 2017, and the memorial in 2018.

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 Lynching Victims Memorial Planned in Montgomery, Alabama appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Justice announced Wednesday that a D.C. Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD) officer has been arrested on suspicion of supporting the terror network ISIS. This is the first case of a U.S. law enforcement officer facing terrorism charges. Here’s what we know:

Who Is He?

The officer’s name is Nicholas Young, and he is a 36-year-old man from Fairfax, Virginia. Young has been a MTPD officer since 2003, and has been under surveillance for suspected ties to terrorism for six years.

Breaking: Fairfax home searched, of MetroTransit cop Nicholas Young, 36 charged w attempting to help ISIS @wusa9 pic.twitter.com/AN99yIjQtB

— Peggy Fox (@PeggyTV) August 3, 2016

What Did He Do?

Young is accused of allegedly purchasing nearly $250 worth of gift cards that were intended for ISIS in order to purchase mobile messaging accounts to recruit others to join the terrorist organization.

He is also accused of making vague threats to kill FBI agents and informants or bring guns into federal court, according to a criminal complaint obtained by the Washington Post. The paper writes, “Young allegedly threatened to kidnap and torture an agent who interviewed him, and leave the head of anyone who betrayed him in a cinder block at the bottom of a Virginia lake.”

How Long Has He Been on the FBI’s Radar?

According to the DOJ’s statements, Young has been on the FBI’s radar since 2010. Here is a rough timeline of his encounters with the FBI:

• In 2010, Young was interviewed by law enforcement about his relationship with Zachary Chesser, who later pled guilty to supporting a foreign terrorist organization and making threats against the creators of “South Park” for writing an episode about Islam he disliked.
• In 2011, Young traveled to Libya one time and attempted to travel a second time. He also had several meetings with an undercover law enforcement officer, many of which were with Amine El Khalifi, who later pled guilty to planning to conduct a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol Building in 2012.
• In 2014, Young met approximately 20 times with an FBI informant, who he advised how to travel overseas to join the Islamic State and evade detection.
• In 2016, he contacted the same FBI informant about purchasing the gift cards for ISIS.

Is Metro Safe?

According to authorities, there was never any credible or specific threat to the Metro system. MTPD officials initiated this investigation and have been working closely with the FBI throughout the case. Metro Transit Police Chief Ron Pavlik said in a statement.

This investigation began with concerns that were reported by the Metro Transit Police Department, and it reinforces that, as citizens, we all have a duty to report suspicious activity whenever and wherever it occurs.

Young was terminated from the MTPD Wednesday morning after his arrest.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How did a D.C. Metro Cop Become First U.S. Officer to Face ISIS Charges? appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, news of a horrific series of terror attacks in Paris, France, shook the world. The final death toll is unknown, but as of now, it is at 127, with over 300 injured. According to French authorities, there were eight attackers, all of whom are now dead. The attacks occurred at places of joy and celebration: like a soccer stadium, a concert hall, and restaurants. ISIL has taken responsibility for the acts of terror, although that claim has yet to be verified. However, the Islamic State claims that the attacks were in retribution for France’s involvement in Syria.

President Francois Hollande called the attacks by ISIL an “act of war.” He stated that they were:

Committed by a terrorist army, the Islamic State group, a jihadist army, against France, against the values that we defend everywhere in the world, against what we are: A free country that means something to the whole planet.

Shock, awe, compassion, and sadness still dominate the international conversation. Prominent world leaders have made statements in support of France, devoting aid and support in these horrible circumstances.

President Obama gave a brief statement in the White House briefing room on Friday night. He stated:

This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share. We stand prepared and ready to provide whatever assistance that the government and the people of France need to respond.

British Prime Minister David Cameron echoed the same sentiments, pledging British support for France:

Shocked, but resolute. In sorrow, but unbowed. My message to the French people is simple: Nous sommes solidaires avec vous. Nous sommes tous ensemble. We stand with you. United.

Others who spoke against the attack included Pope Francis, who called the attacks a piece of the “piecemeal World War Three.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged solidarity, and Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote to Hollande that the acts of terror were “proof of the barbarian nature of terrorism, which challenges the human civilization.”

The world also took to social media to show its support for the people of France–Facebook users are adorning their photos with a blue, white, and red filter, the colors of the French flag. Others took the time to share their thoughts on Twitter:

“When Paris turned off its lights, the rest of the world turned them on.” pic.twitter.com/Ed7uHzQtHq

— chilly (@billyganbold_) November 14, 2015

Don’t allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks — Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) November 14, 2015

Powerful Image: The U.S. stands with France after the #ParisAttacks by cartoonist Steve Benson. pic.twitter.com/xngRW9XHTx

— Luis (@LuisANavia) November 14, 2015

Details are still coming out about the specifics of the attacks, as well as the ultimate response. For now, thoughts are with the people of Paris, as they struggle to get through this troubling time.

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 Terror Attacks in France: The World Reacts appeared first on Law Street.

ISIL and the Iran Nuclear Deal have dominated the news in the Middle East as of late. But this week brings another headline contender, the actions of the Afghan Taliban. On Monday, the Taliban gained serious headway by capturing the major Afghan provincial capital of Kunduz. This is a real setback for the U.S.-trained Afghan security forces. The attack also raises the question of whether the U.S. will pursue the same exit plan from Afghanistan as it had intended.

The Attack on Kunduz

By the end of this summer, the Taliban and Afghan government were at an essential stalemate after months of back and forth. There weren’t any real victories nor losses; however, that quickly changed on Monday. Taliban forces took the city of Kunduz within hours of attacking. Kunduz was last under the Taliban’s control in 2001, before the U.S. entered Afghanistan and the Taliban fell from power. The city was considered one of the regional “centers of the American troop surge” five years ago. It is also the first major city to fall to the Taliban in fourteen years.

Kunduz, Afghanistan’s fifth largest city, was estimated to contain 300,000 residents in 2013. However, with the recent exodus of refugees in the Middle East, the number is probably lower. The city sits in the far north of the country, and is considered a main trading center as it contains essential supply lines and smuggling routes. The city is located approximately forty miles from the Tajikistan border.

During the siege, the Taliban freed hundreds of prisoners held in Kunduz. Crowds following the lead of a Taliban fighter with a megaphone chanted “Death to America! Death to the slaves of America!” Of the 600 freed inmates, 144 are reportedly members of the Taliban.

As for casualties, a spokesman for the Public Health Ministry, Wahidullah Mayar, tweeted that 30 people had been killed and more than 200 injured. He also stated that 90 percent of them were civilians. The main trauma center, run by Doctors Without Borders, reported receiving 171 wounded people, including 46 children. A representative from the center also expressed extreme concern over limited supplies and a growing number of wounded civilians.

After the attack, the newly elected emir of the Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, issued a statement to the residents of Kunduz. The statement hit five focal points: the Taliban would safeguard the city and the people inside, it would refrain from “extrajudicial killings, looting or breaching,” residents should feel safe in returning to work as normal, the Taliban would not retaliate against security forces or the government, and lastly, the Afghan government should discontinue blaming “outside intelligence agencies” for its defeats. However, according to the New York Times, alleged reports and videos from inside the city counter these promises. According to one official, electricity and phone services are out in most of the city. Roads to enter and leave the city have also been blocked.

A Lack of Preventative Measures?

The fall of Kunduz has left some questioning the strength and pragmatism of the Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani.

First off, the success of the attack itself may have been able to be prevented. Over the course of the past year, local officials in Kunduz reported Taliban movement surrounding the city. Meanwhile, some members of the Afghan government, along with Western officials, didn’t appear to take these concerns seriously. They believed the Taliban’s gain to be minimal and isolated to rural areas. Mohammad Yousuf Ayoubi, the head of the Kunduz provincial council, stated that although 70 percent of the province surrounding the city remained under Taliban control, zero efforts were made by security forces to make an offensive move or reinforce the city. This lack of preparation is being partly blamed for the fall of Kunduz.

The Counter-Response

As of Wednesday, the counter-attack had yet to see much success. On Tuesday, Afghan security forces fought back, including at least two U.S. air strikes. But by Wednesday morning, the situation seemed worse. Afghan reinforcements were held in the Baghlan Province, completely stopped or delayed by Taliban ambushes. One report cited 1000 Afghan soldiers and police officers held in the northern part of Baghlan.

The Taliban further advanced Tuesday night, surrounding the local airport, where hundreds of Afghan forces and civilians retreated. During the course of the night, “at least 17 members of the Afghan National Civil Order Police were wounded and one was killed defending the area around the airport.” The situation mildly improved after the U.S. air strikes, but U.S. attempts to airdrop food and ammunition reportedly failed. By noon on Wednesday, 60 soldiers had surrendered or had been taken by the Taliban.

So, how does this recent development fit into the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan?

The U.S. and Afghanistan

The End of the War

On December 28, 2014, the U.S.-led coalition ended its combat mission in Afghanistan. The war began October 7, 2001, when the Taliban harbored and refused to give up Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. U.S and NATO allies have remained ever since in order to train Afghan military forces and police officers to be self-sufficient, even after the fall of the Taliban.

“Over the course of a decade,” stated Army General John Campbell, chief of the International Security Assistance Force, “our Afghan partners and we have built a highly capable Afghan army and police force of over 350,000 personnel.” December 2014 marked the end of the longest war in American history and the transition to the NATO Resolute Support mission. The mission called to gradually reduce troops on the ground and “train, advise and assist” Afghan Security Institutions. Twenty-eight NATO Allies and 14 partner nations contributed to the mission.

The Removal of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

Before the formal end of the war, President Obama laid out a removal plan of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in May 2014. He planned to remove all but 9,800 American troops by the end of 2014, cut that number in half by 2015, and eventually pull the remaining troops by 2016. By the end of his presidency, President Obama planned the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to be that of a normal embassy with a security assistance office in Kabul.

This past May the plan was modified. During a meeting at the White House, President Ghani asked for the withdrawal plan to be slowed down. The meeting clearly reflects a serious concern on behalf of Ghani that a Taliban resurgence could manifest once U.S. forces have departed. Obama agreed to keep the number of U.S. forces at 9,800 until the end of the year, but still vowed to uphold his decision to remove all forces by 2016. Obama’s approval of the additional 5,000 troops shows confidence in Ghani’s leadership. Relations between the Obama administration and Ghani’s predecessor, Hamid Karzai, had rapidly crumbled before Karzai’s term ended. Unlike Ghani, Karzai refused to sign a bilateral security agreement in exchange for a continued U.S. military presence. Obama called Ghani’s leadership “critical to the pursuit of peace.”

Criticism

The current removal plan from Afghanistan is very reminiscent of the removal of U.S forces from Iraq in 2011, which did lead to severe consequences. Although the Obama administration exudes confidence in the status of the Afghan security forces, some Republicans and other critics fear history will repeat itself. Violence erupted in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Critics claim the void of leadership allowed the growth of ISIL.

The fall of Kunduz promptly led to statements equating it to Iraq.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, stated “The fall of Kunduz to the Taliban is not unlike the fall of Iraqi provinces to ISIL…it is a reaffirmation that precipitous withdrawal leaves key allies and territory vulnerable to the very terrorists we’ve fought so long to defeat.”

In a similar tone, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), stated “It is time that President Obama abandon this dangerous and arbitrary course and adopt a plan for U.S. troop presence based on conditions on the ground.”

If anything, the current state of Kunduz doesn’t promote confidence in Afghanistan’s forces maintaining control.

Conclusion

The Taliban’s control of Kunduz may very well be short-lived. But it could also be a warning sign. The strength and leadership of the Afghan government’s security forces needs to be able to stand on its own. We may be looking at a conflict that draws the United States back in. As of this moment, peace talks between the Ghani government and Taliban have been all but abandoned, and the situation seems to be worsening–what happens next will depend on the many players wrapped up in the growing conflict.

Resources

Primary

NATO: Transition Ceremony Kicks off Resolute Support Mission

Additional

The Long War Journal: Taliban Emir Seeks to Reassure Residents of Kunduz

New York Times: Taliban Fighters apture Kunduz City as Afghan Forces Retreat

New York Times: Taliban and Afghan Government Dispute Status of Kunduz

New York Times: U.S. Strikes Taliban-Held Land Near Kunduz Airport as Afghan Crisis Deepens

Time: U.S. Ends Its War in Afghanistan

Reuters: Afghan Forces Fight to Retake Northern City from Taliban

Reuters: Obama Plans to End U.S. Troop Presence in Afghanistan by 2016

Reuters: Troops from U.S.-led mission fight Taliban near Afghan city

The Washington Post: Obama agrees to slow U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

 I

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 The Taliban Captures Kunduz: Should the U.S. Still Leave Afghanistan as Planned? appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of talk over the potential shutdown of a crucial government agency–the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). But for a lot of Americans, exactly what DHS does isn’t really known. What would the effects of shutting it down be, and how could it affect daily life in the United States? Read on to learn about DHS’s inception, history, functions, and the current debate in Congress over its future.

What is the Department of Homeland Security?

DHS is a department under the Executive Branch of the Government. As a result, the Department reports to the President of the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security was created just after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, when Tom Ridge was appointed to serve as the first Secretary of Homeland Security. However, it was not considered to be an independent office until November 2002, when the Homeland Security Act passed Congress. The first day of business for the new office was March 1, 2003.

The DHS states its mission as follows:

The vision of homeland security is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards.

Since then the Department has evolved due to acts of Congress or through actions made by its leadership. Often these changes have been made with the intention of streamlining how DHS deals with various areas of national security.

Why did 9/11 spark the creation of DHS?

On September 11, 2001, 19 members of a terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda took control of four United States passenger airplane flights and pointed them at various locations inside America. The targets of the first two flights were the Twin Towers located in New York City. The target of the third flight was the Pentagon in Washington, DC. The target of the fourth flight has not been determined, but many believe that the aircraft was aimed at the White House; however, the plane did not reach its target because it was forced down in a field located in western Pennsylvania. Between the four aircraft and their targets, roughly three thousand people died that day. The video below briefly shows what happened on the fateful day.

Prior to 9/11, an attack on American soil had been virtually unthinkable. The U.S. responded in part by creating the DHS to address the new challenges of terrorism and security in a changing global environment.

What is the Homeland Security Act?

The Homeland Security Act was a bill sponsored by former Congressman Richard Armey (R-TX) to create a department that could fulfill a threefold primary mission:

(A) Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;

(B) Reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism; and

(C) Minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States.

Who runs DHS?

The Department is overseen by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Currently that position is held by Jeh Johnson, who was appointed by President Obama in 2013. Prior to Johnson, the Homeland Security secretaries were Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, and Janet Napolitano, although James Loy and Rand Beers also served in acting capacities. The Secretary of Homeland Security is a member of the President’s cabinet, and is 18th in the order of Presidential succession.

What kind of a budget does the Department of Homeland Security run on?

DHS is funded by taxpayers, and granted its budget by the United States Congress. For fiscal year 2015, the Department of Homeland Security requested $38.2 billion from Congress. The funding request to Congress was increased to forty one billion, two hundred million dollars for fiscal year 2016.

What does the Department of Homeland Security do?

DHS is involved in a number of initiatives, which cover a wide scope. The big four are known by the acronyms FRG, HSARPA, CSD, and RDP. There are also two other areas, known as SAFECOM and the Blue Campaign. Read on for more information about each of these initiatives.

First Responders Group

The First Responders Group (FRG) is a group of many programs that deal with First Response–or the government reaction to any sort of catastrophe such as the 9/11 terror attacks. The programs run by FRGs range from implementing First Responder training, to improving public safety, to conducting research into technology to help prevent or protect the public and those who are involved in dealing with disasters. One example is the website FirstResponder.gov. The purpose of this website is to keep all information on First Response in one place.

Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency

HSARPA is a group of different programs that aim to protect America’s borders, be they land or sea, from a range of threats. These threats can include chemical, cyber, biological, or conventional explosives. An example of the steps undertaken by HSARPA is the Air Cargo Program, which aims to develop better technology to check luggage for any signs of explosives.

Cyber Security Division

The Cyber Security Division is a branch of HSARPA that deals specifically with cyber threats to America. As it is a branch and not a standalone program, it includes a smaller group of programs. One of the biggest of which is the Rio Grande Valley System’s Analysis Project, which aims to help with the environmental and immigration challenges that are presented by the Rio Grande Valley.

Research and Development Partnerships Group

The Research and Development Partnerships Group is a newer branch of DHS, created in 2010. This group focuses on working with 30 other laboratories around the country focused on keeping America safe. An example of what RDP does is the Disaster Assessment at Harbors and Ports: The Unmanned Port Security Vessel project. The aim of this project is build a ship that functions like a drone to patrol U.S. ports for signs of danger.

SAFECOM

SAFECOM is a program that is designed to help to develop safer communication lines, be it improving already existing methods of communication, or helping to create new methods. One example is  FirstNet. This is an organization that DHS sponsors whose purpose is to set up and maintain a high quality network that is only available for first responders.

The Blue Campaign

The Blue Campaign is a program that was created by the Department of Homeland Security, which works in partnership with law enforcement agencies as well as other government agencies to spot, take down, and prevent human trafficking. It also seeks to provide relief and protection to those who have been victimized by human trafficking.

 What happens if the Department doesn’t get its funding?

If the Department of Homeland Security does not receive the funding that it needs to keep the doors open, all non-vital programs will be shut down and many of its employees–roughly 15 percent, or 30,000–will be furloughed. The rest–approximately 200,000–will still work, but will not necessarily receive anything for their work. While 15 percent doesn’t seem like too many, any reduction in DHS staff is a concern for our national security and first response capabilities. The video below explains not only how America arrived at this situation, but also what will happen if the money doesn’t make it to DHS in time.

Crisis Averted?

The deadline has been postponed, and the DHS is now funded through March 19, 2015. That being said, the argument still isn’t over. There are still a lot of things that Congress will have to sort out before DHS is guaranteed to stay funded. Arguments over President Obama’s immigration plans are first and foremost. The Department of Homeland Security is a vital tool that the United States uses to make sure its borders are secure and that its citizens are safe. If the funding keeps getting held up, the viability of all of these programs is at risk.

Resources

Primary

Department of Homeland Security: Blue Campaign

Department of Homeland Security: Creation of the Department of Homeland Security

Department of Homeland Security: DHS Budget

Department of Homeland Security: First Responders

Department of Homeland Security: Homeland Security Act of 2002

Department of Homeland Security: RDP

Department of Homeland Security: SAFECOM

Department of Homeland Security: Secretary Jeh Johnson

Additional

HISTORY.com: 9/11 Attacks – Facts & Summary

USA Today: Homeland Security Shutdown: What’s It All About?”

MSNBC: A DHS Shutdown by Any Other Name

CNBC: Congress Pursues Funding to Avert DHS Shutdown

Politico: GOP Leaders Set to Swerve DHS Off the Cliff

Chris Schultz

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

The post Department of Homeland Security: The Rise of National Security After 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.