Recently Published Hearings on National Security
Numerous congressional records on national security policy have been published in the last couple of weeks, including those listed below (mostly pdf). Some of them may have continuing reference value.
“Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules (Part I),” House Judiciary Committee, May 6, 2008.
“Diplomatic Assurances and Rendition to Torture: The Perspective of the State Department’s Legal Adviser,” House Foreign Affairs Committee, June 10, 2008.
“Improving Detainee Policy: Handling Terrorism Detainees Within the American Justice System,” Senate Judiciary Committee, June 4, 2008.
“The National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007,” House Judiciary Committee, April 15, 2008.
“Federal Bureau of Investigation (Part II),” House Judiciary Committee, April 23, 2008.
“Torture and the Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment of Detainees: the Effectiveness and Consequences of ‘Enhanced’ Interrogation,” House Judiciary Committee, November 8, 2007.
“Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: The Role of Checks and Balances in Protecting Americans’ Privacy Rights,” House Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2007.
“FISA for the Future: Balancing Security and Liberty,” House Intelligence Committee, September 18, 2007.
“Challenges for the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) Posed by the Global Terrorist Threat,” House Armed Services Committee, February 14, 2007.
“Nomination of Dr. Donald M. Kerr to be Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence,” Senate Intelligence Committee, August 1, 2007.
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.