TOPICS
TOPICS
Obama merges homeland, national security staff
President Obama on Tuesday announced the creation of an integrated White House national security staff that will work as one team to tackle homeland security and counterterrorism issues.
The move is designed to "end the artificial divide" between those in the White House working on homeland security and national security, Obama said in a statement. The group will report to James L. Jones, the president's national security adviser.
The decision is part of the administration's effort to streamline and unify its approach to domestic security and counterterrorism. The integrated staff will include new directorates and positions to handle cybersecurity, weapons of mass destruction, transborder security, information sharing, and preparedness and response. A new global engagement directorate will combine efforts in areas such as diplomacy, international development and domestic outreach to accomplish goals in both homeland and national security.
The change directly affects only White House personnel.
The revamped organization is a result of a 60-day interagency review led by John Brennan, White House assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism. Obama said the Homeland Security Council will continue to take the lead on issues such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, natural disasters and pandemic influenza. The new national security staff will support that council, as well as the National Security Council.
Obama said the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism -- the position Brennan currently holds -- will remain his "principal White House adviser on these issues." It's not yet clear how Brennan and Jones, who will supervise the combined security team, will coordinate their roles, or how the new White House structure might influence federal agencies.
The president has said previously that homeland security and national security should not be treated as separate issues -- conceptually or functionally. "The White House must be organized in ways that reflect this reality," Obama wrote in a Feb. 23 presidential directive ordering the interagency review.
COMMENTS
- Dear “Hmmm”, I totally agree that the Wiki should never be used as your sole reference but rather as a mere starting point for research. You will note that MANY articles of the Wiki have substantive authors and references to be followed up on. I happen to appreciate the often succinct manner in their presentation. As least they are less verbose than I; always a good thing, I believe... Kudos for your reading of the PATRIOT Act. You made some other good points such as “issued by judges based on probable cause”. I have NO problem with any search warrant issued by a member of the bench (well, other than that which could be addressed by another member of the Bar). It is those aspects of the FISA, which were changed by the PATRIOT Act, eliminating judicial oversight that I have serious reservations on. When we speak of the theory of separation of powers and checks and balances, the judiciary has a notable place in that theory. The previous administration went so far as to fight the review of the National Security Letters that allowed those Sneak and Peek entries WITHOUT A WARRANT, but a review within 3 days. No time period was established as a follow-up; i.e. releasing the constabulary from any review or oversight. And we all know congress wasn’t doing ANY checks during this time period. I firmly believe it is in the interpretation of the “law” that you and I differ; which would mean we would, once more, have to rely upon a judge for more educated analysis. In these GovExec articles there are many that address the court battles of the previous administration against judicial review and the advent of data mining (another form of library?); aka, that expansion of executive power I’ve spoke of. As you noted the library functions have not been executed (I DO wonder!); but it says nothing about if they ever would OR SHOULD be able to do ANYTHING in that law. Lastly, I stopped NOT at hand wringing but continued with my STILL constitutional right to vote. Well, evidently a few others did also; resulting in what we hope is a relook at some of these laws passed in haste and fear. Thank you for your view point; the exercise of another constitutional right that could land me on some list I’d rather not be on. Tip off Posted June 1, 2009 11:32 AM
- Tip Off, props to you for an outstanding summary of the changes forced by the hand of the Patriot Act. [In a related matter, the very name of this act sends a chill up my spine; as if a loyal opponent of the act for the reasons you've enumerated could be tarred and feathered as "unpatriotic."] When I voted this time, I voted for the party and the individual for president who would work diligently to restore Constitutional and habeas corpus order. I continue to fret that Congress and other agencies and entities won't be too eager or concerned to return "Us" what belongs to every one of "Us." Jackson Richards Posted May 29, 2009 8:39 AM
- Instead of relying on Wikipedia (hardly a reliable source) or ACLU press releases, you should actually read the Patriot Act, and you'll see that much that has been written and said about it is totally wrong. For example, according to testimony before Congress by the Justice Department, the library records search provision of the Patriot Act has never even been used. Regarding searches without the owner's permission or knowledge, they have been legal for decades in drug cases (known as "sneak and peak warrants" issued by judges based on probable cause). The Patriot Act only expanded their application to terrorism cases as well. The same can be said for the other provisions of the Patriot Act as well. Other than hand-wringing by "Tip" and others, mostly on the left, where is the evidence that anyone's rights have been violated by the Patriot Act, or that it has been used against anyone other than the terrorists and criminals it was designed to combat? A little knowledge and real information goes a long way towards quelling irrational fears of actions taken by our elected leaders to protect us, including the Patriot Act. Hmmm Posted May 28, 2009 1:03 PM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco
