Several noteworthy new hearing volumes on national security policy have recently appeared (all pdf). In most cases, the published volumes include valuable new supplementary material for the record.
“Examining the State Secrets Privilege: Protecting National Security While Preserving Accountability,” Senate Judiciary Committee, February 13, 2008 (published December 2009) (large pdf).
“Coercive Interrogation Techniques: Do They Work, Are They Reliable, and What Did the FBI Know About Them?”, Senate Judiciary Committee, June 10, 2008 (published December 2009) (large pdf).
“Protecting National Security and Civil Liberties: Strategies for Terrorism Information Sharing,” Senate Judiciary Committee, April 21, 2009 (published January 2010).
“Chinese Interrogation vs. Congressional Oversight: The Uighurs at Guantanamo,” House Foreign Affairs Committee, July 16, 2009 (published December 2009).
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.