Mediaboss Marketing

Last week, former CIA Director John Brennan testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the United States knew about potential Russian interference in the presidential election at least as early as last year. While well-publicized investigations are now ongoing about potential contacts the Trump campaign had with Russia, theres a critical question being ignored: Why didnt the Obama administration take steps to stop Russian interference in an American election?

As former chair of the National Security Agency and Cybersecurity Subcommittee of the House Intelligence Committee, I engaged in a bipartisan effort with Congressman Jim Himes (D-Conn.) to get the Obama administration to define what offensive and defensive actions were in the context of cyber warfare. Unlike conventional warfare, theres no front in a cyber war, so learning whether youre on offense or defense in a given situation is critical. For example, if there is a known threat, does NSA take steps to merely defend against the threat or actively seek to counteract that threat? Despite our efforts to discuss the issue with officials and amend bills on the floor to force the issue, the Obama administration continued to stonewall.

Had the Obama administration decided to clarify when to actively fight a threat and when to defend against one, we could have mitigated the threat of Russian interference in our election process. If the Obama administration had used the tools at its disposal, its entirely possible we wouldnt need the current investigations. They could have cut the Russians off at the pass.

A few weeks ago, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a mountain of documents related to the targeting and minimization procedures used by the NSA. Targeting is how we determine which potential foreign intelligence sources we are monitoring. Minimization is how we restrict the amount of information disclosed from the raw intelligence.

The documents revealed something very disturbing about the so-called Section 702 collection, which is one of the ways the NSA collects internet transactions. I was a big supporter of Section 702 collection while in Congress, but as with all legislation its only as good as the implementation. I was shocked to learn about the Obama administrations failure to follow Section 702s targeting and minimization procedures. Not surprisingly, the FISA court reprimanded the government about its lack of candor and the serious Fourth Amendment issue[s] presented by these Obama administration violations.

Beginning in 2011, the Obama administration cast a wider net than allowed by law. Instead of limiting searches to foreign agents who were targets of investigations, the administration searched for communications about those peoplemeaning Americans who only mentioned a foreign agent would have their communications accessed and analyzed without any warrant or probable cause. This is an obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Further, these kinds of searches can result in the disclosure of the identities of U.S. citizens collected as part of the raw intelligence. The minimization procedures require the masking of the names of U.S. individuals who are incidental to a foreign communication. But we know from Susan Rice and others that the Obama administration repeatedly unmasked the identities of citizens found in raw intelligence.

Something I would have never imagined would occur in America resulted from this illegal use of intelligence: surveillance tools were likely used on our fellow citizens who were not suspected of a crime. While using methods designed to keep us safe, the Obama administration was trampling on the law and our constitutional rights. While refusing to do anything about the Russian threat they knew was coming, the Obama administration targeted the Trump campaign for surveillance.

We can all hope that no future administration, regardless of party, weaponizes intelligence-gathering against its own citizens for political purposes under the guise of public safety. And we can hope that in this new war where the battle is in binary code instead of bullets and bombs that no administration again violates the constitutional rights of Americans.

Lynn Westmoreland served in the U.S. House as a Georgia Republican from 2005-17.He headed the House subcommittee on the National Security Agency and Cybersecurity.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

More:
How did Obama's massive surveillance state fail to defend Americans against Russia? - The Hill (blog)

Story highlights

(CNN)Former President Barack Obama delivered a poignant message to the people of Manchester today following Monday night's deadly terrorist bombing.

"As the father of two daughters, I am heartbroken by the extraordinary tragedy that has occurred in Manchester," Obama said in a video posted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesperson.

Standing alongside Merkel and Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby in Berlin, Obama offered his condolences to those affected by the suicide bombing, which targeted a pop concert attended mostly by teenage girls.

"To all the families who have been affected, to all those who are still recovering, to those who have lost loved ones, it's unimaginable to think about the cruelty and the violence that the city of Manchester has suffered," Obama said.

"Our thoughts and prayers are with all of you. There are families all around the world who are grieving with you," he added, appearing visibly moved.

Obama said that the city had shown its character in the "kindness and ways in which you are assisting each other" in the wake of the attack, which left at least 22 dead.

"Just know that the entire world is in solidarity with you right now," he said.

Obama's comments followed a tweeted response Tuesday, in which he said "Americans will always stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of the UK."

Our hearts go out to those killed and wounded in Manchester. Americans will always stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of the UK.

President Donald Trump condemned the perpetrators of the attack, calling them "evil losers."

"So many young beautiful innocent people living and enjoying their lives murdered by evil losers in life. I won't call them monsters because they would like that term. They would think that's a great name. I will call them from now on losers because that's what they are," TrumpsaidTuesday.

Go here to read the rest:
Obama: 'As the father of two daughters, I am heartbroken' by Manchester attack - CNN

New York Times

Manchester, NATO, Barack Obama: Your Friday Briefing New York Times ... Manchester sees itself as the multicultural capital of northern England, and the city held itself to a high standard in memorial events for the 22 people killed in Britain's deadliest terrorist attack since 2005. Crowds sang the Oasis song Don't ...

Go here to see the original:
Manchester, NATO, Barack Obama: Your Friday Briefing - New York Times

While the Libertarian Party doesnt have much political power in the United States, the libertarian philosophy is alive and well within the Republican Party when it comes to certain issues. When you listen to the most conservative Republicans denounce health care programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare, their language is remarkably similar to that used by libertarians. Take Nicholas Sarwark, the chairman of the Libertarian Party. When I interviewedhim for Salon earlier thismonth about how a strictly free market approach to health care wouldaffect Americasmost vulnerable and cited real examples of a diabetic person, a severely depressed individualand someonewith unspecific lower back pain, Sarwark started out with a valid critique of the Affordable Care Actand then turned to more abstract issues. Sarwark began by describing a libertarian congressional candidate with diabetes, Andy Craig of Wisconsin, who he saiddesperately wants to be able to just buy the insulin he needs from a provider and use it. Right? Its the same stuff every day. He cant right now due to government regulation, both in making insulin a prescription-only product in his state even though its safe and effective and could be sold over the counter so its more expensive, and in requiring him to pay for health insurance, which is not really insurance if its something you already know youre going to buy.

This is a valid point, but it doesntdiscredit the conceptof government-run health care. To me, if anything, Sarwarkmakes a strong case for a government-run health care system, which would allow diabetics to receive the medications they need without having to worry about thecost. Of course, thiswould be anathema to a libertarian like Sarwark, which is why the second half of his response railed against the very notion of government-funded insurance:

We dont have car insurance that covers gas and oil changes because thats insane, Sarwarksaid. Youre insuring against a risk of something happening that you dont know if its going to happen. A chronic condition is not insurable. Theres a cost sharing that can be done; there are discounts that can be done. But the first step in having a real discussion about this is recognizing the difference between insurable risks, whichyou know onthe drive to work I get in a car accident and break both of my legs. Thats a risk that is insurable.

That is all well and good. But it doesnt address the issues of the individuals I cited, all employed in full-time jobs and making nowhere near enough money to be able to afford insurance for their medical conditions without the ACA to protect them.

Follow this link:
WATCH: On health care, does the Libertarian Party's plan sound like ... - Salon

It wasn't ultimately surprising that a Republican candidate facing assault charges for allegedly bodyslamming a reporter the day before the election won his House race in Montana anyway. But Greg Gianforte's 6 percent win over Democrat Rob Quist was far lower than most assessments of Montana's relative preference for Republicans would indicate. And Gianforte's winning margin was exactly matched by the unprecedented 6 percent total for a Montana House race for the Libertarian Party's candidate, Mark Wicks.

Wicks for CongressWicks, a rancher and mailman in Inverness, Montana, thinks the key to his unusually good results for the L.P., for a campaign that could not afford any print, TV, or radio ads and only a few signs, was that the L.P. helped pressure the hosts of a televised debate to include Wicks along with his major party competitors.

"When people saw how I handled myself, especially compared to the other two," Wicks said in a phone interview the day after the election, it helped him nearly double the last L.P. House candidate's 3.3 percent. (In Liberty County, next door to his home county, where Wicks says he likely personally known one-quarter of the voters, he pulled 16 percent.)

He credits his good showing in the debate not so much to ideology, but to the fact that he was able "to answer questions in a straightforward and honest way. My answers were consistent but [voters] could tell they weren't memorized. I would answer the question asked and not just pivot to a talking point."

Wicks expects he'll run for office again, though not sure exactly what office or when. He'd like to have more money, sooner whenever that happens. He's like to be in a better position to hit the ground running with a decent cash pile the way major party candidates usually can.

The Libertarian National Committee (LNC) did give him a rare donation of $5,000, but it came too late in the process to do much good, Wicks says. Wicks sees the LNC faced a chicken and egg dilemma--he understands their reluctance to hand over a pile of cash to an untried candidate until after the debate showed he could comport himself well and make a decent run of it, but getting the money within the last couple of weeks before the election gave him no chance to have it serve as seed money for outreach that could have lead to more money.

His campaign was able to spend "a couple thousand" on Facebook advertising, he says, but his jobs and the vast sprawl of Montana's one-district state made in-person appearances before crowds of voters also impossible. He lives about 300 miles from any major Montana city.

Most of his volunteer support came via the Feldman Foundation, a national organization dedicated to finding and helping liberty-oriented candidates (named after Marc Feldman, a deceased former Libertarian Party activist and presidential aspirant). Wicks credits them with a "tremendous job, it took so much weight off my back." They managed his press releases and phone banks, for which he recalls one activist personally made 3,000 calls.

"I've always been a very conservative Republican, very freedom oriented," Wicks says. But "I felt the Republican Party just left me. The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, their budgets...they run on cutting spending and don't cut spending." He won the L.P.'s nomination against seven other candidates at a state Party convention. He knows that many in the Party "are upset that I'm not hardcore libertarian enough for them. But we have to realize we have to start in increments. We can't start with hardcore libertarianism."

At least some voters thinking about him, he says, would "read the L.P. platform and decide they didn't want to vote for me because it goes too far, a little too much freedom in it for their comfort." For example, he stresses that while he campaigned on marijuana legalization, he does not support the legalization of harder drugs. "Legalizing all the drugs is not going to fly in Montana."

Wicks also thinks it's likely he got votes based on what he found as a widespread hate for Gianforte and Quist partisans attacks on each other. Given the overlap on constitutional and free-market rhetoric between Republicans and Libertarians, it's usually the GOP who insists the L.P. is "stealing" their vote. But Wicks says Democrat Quist's fans were messaging him accusing him of having stolen votes from Quist. Wicks thinks it's more likely that a would-be Libertarian voter was scared toward Gianforte for a greater fear of the Democrat winning.

What lessons does he see for the L.P. in his result? He thinks more, and more active, county affiliates are important for candidate services such as setting up events. And he thinks the Party should aim its resources and attention in general more at state or local races and less on the "pie in the sky" of national presidential runs. "That money could be put to a lot better use for other candidates."

He reminds the L.P., and himself, that given that this was a special election and another House race looms in 2018, that "we're nine months away from having to start waving signs around again, and it's hard to build up a Party in that amount of time."

Read more from the original source:
Montana Libertarian Mark Wicks, Who Got 6 Percent Against the GOP's Gianforte, Believes the LP Must Focus More on ... - Reason (blog)