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.
Today the Brookings Institution is publishing our edited volume, "Bytes, Bombs, and Spies: The Strategic Dimensions of Offensive Cyber Operations." And here is
The 2009 attack in Fort Hood suggests which questions we should be asking in Orlando.
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.