The 2009 attack in Fort Hood suggests which questions we should be asking in Orlando.
Amy Zegart is the Davies Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, a professor of political science (by courtesy) at Stanford University, and co-director of Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation. She teaches and writes about intelligence challenges, congressional oversight, and national security policy. Her books include Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI and the Origins of 9/11, and Flawed by Design, which chronicles the development of the CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and National Security Council. From 1999 to 2011, she was a public policy professor at UCLA. She also spent four years as a McKinsey & Company management consultant. Follow her on Twitter @AmyZegart
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Lost in the Going Dark debate is the serious discussion of we value more: security interests in maximizing the prospects of successful law enforcement investigations or our security interests in maximizing U.S. power on the world stage by ensuring the American tech industry continues to thrive.
Amy Zegart responds to Senator Dianne Feinstein on the SSCI Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program.
Did the CIA or SSCI Report win the torture debate? Sen. Feinstein's report is more Rohrschach test than smoking gun, unlikely to change opinions on either side.
Jack gave a terrific rapid reaction to the DNI's 2015 annual threat assessment, delivered last Thursday. Here, I wanted to add a few more brief thoughts comparing this assessment to previous ones.
In August 2012, thanks to YouGov, I launched my first national survey to probe more deeply about what Americans know about intelligence agencies, what they think about controversial intelligence programs, and where those attitudes come from. In light of the Edward Snowden revelations, last month I asked YouGov to run another poll that asked some of the same questions, along with new ones about NSA so that I could start tracking trends over time. The poll ran Oct. 5-7, 2013, and included 1,000 people (with a margin of error of +/- 4.3 percent).