GOV 312L 1st Edition Lecture 4 Current Lecture OutlineI. Discussion on 9/11II. The constitution, executive authority and foreign policyIII. National security bureaucracy and bureaucratic politicsIV. War and the expansion of executive authorityV. Interview with Bobby ChesneyVI. Wrap-up Current Lecture Notes- Remembering 9/11; as a watershedo Shift to terrorists and states harboring terrorists as chief threato Changes in public opinion: debate over trade-off between security and libertyo Increased domestic security measures due to vulnerabilityo Increased presidential authorityo Transformative event in American politics US became vulnerable to attack Changed the lives of all ages, people living there and far- The Constitution and Presidential Authority on Foreign Policyo Commander in chief clause: president shall be commander in chief of navy and army of the US; presidents use this to justify their use of force around the world such as for war/armed conflicto Constitution allows president to make treaties with advising of the Senateo Article 2, section 1 gives president broad executive powerso Any powers over foreign policy that aren’t given to someone else explicitly, lie with the presidento Separation of powers and policies Article 1, section 8 says Congress shall have the power to declare war, and to raise and support armies- Congress hasn’t officially declared a war since World War 2but US has fought wars/conflicts since then so this clause isa bit ambiguous Part of Madison’s separation of powers and checks and balances systems Parliament: fusion of executive and legislative powers- Parliament has a prime minister Separate elections means separate constituencies having huge effects on mentality of president and Congress Also separate by fixed terms; president for 4 years, Senators for 6 years, and House members for 2 yearso President and his National Security Council play an integral role. They prevent groups from getting in their way so they can complete their tasks.These groups don’t necessarily have conflicting goals but just need to taketurns It comes down to the president to choose winners and losers within the administration  Delegation of responsibility to defense department has consequenceso Managing the foreign policy bureaucracy Competing foreign policy intersts within executive branch Intensely political: deciding who wins and loses Big implications for implementationo Bureaucratic interests driven by assessment by what might maximize their influence Competing interests among agencies generated by “turf” wars or organizational competition Bureaucratic power function of resource control- Spend all resources so can lay claim to more next years Policy preferences generated by organizational needs Example: air force v. army in early stages of the Cold Waro Classical liberalism: war making and expansion of presidential authority War as a tool to extend political influence over external and internal factors- Thomas Paine: war as art of conquering at home; war as means to raise taxes- Richard Cobden: war as justification to maintains high levels of armaments; measure costs in lives, economic costs, and lost individual freedoms Implications: these arguments motivate calls for democracy as a means to peace; and justification for legislative checks on executive authorityo War making and expansion of presidential authority Conventional wisdom: war expands presidential authority Important empirical finding: not just with respect to the prosecution of the war, also in domestic policy matterso Interview! Legal challenges of fighting wars prompted by 9/11. How did 9/11 change politics?- Relationships among power and diplomacy-impact technology can have- NSA surveillance, new technologies playing big role- Focus tends to be on executive branch and new power; what president can do with this authority is much more dramatic- Government can use force not in ways of war/peace- Drone strikes are a way of fighting back How to wrestle with issues/challenges of surveillance to our liberties (govt hearing phone convos)- Knowing difference between domestic and foreign for electronic surveillance- Internet, phones, way we talk today has impacted rules- Security vs privacy/individuality Sustainability of meeting new threats? Political legitimacy to continue fight of security/liberty?- Dynamic relationship between acting legally/authorization- If consensus is that technological surveillance was unauthorized and threat to liberty/illegal, will lead to pushback and it won’t last much longer President more constrained by law and can do more than prior despite these constraints- Your institution form your legal claims- Capabilities by drones and through the cyber are discreet and secret from the radar- Info about policy comes out sooner or later and if there’s much disagreement, it won’t be sustained for very long Obama’s strategy dealing with ISIS, claiming he has the authority to do so. On what grounds? Do you agree?- Criticizes on legal grounds; says the law is separate and they don’t have legal rights to it (but he also believes Obama should do it but not legal) Patriot Act is full of provisions-democratic