Skip to main content
  1. Life
  2. Society & Culture
  3. Social Issues

The Current State of US Foreign Policy Past and Present

See also

When considering the current state of the global threats and the national security capabilities and must consider the goals of our nation and the intricate way in which they are interwoven with our international allies. For example growing economic crises will affect nation’s stability, energy shortage will affect national security and its ability to function and respond to threats. Fragmentation or failure of states will occur, with destabilizing effects on neighboring states. There has to be a non military alternative to these types of problems. There is a myth of super powers in this globally connected world. After the cold war there was a global consensus not to return to the post WWII form of diplomacy where one simply roles a battalion of tanks and commence with mutual destruction. Rather there was a development of political posturing that took shape. The International community’s migration to a capitalistic cooperativeness that doesn’t allow for military conflict. An example is US-China relations and there economic codependency. The US nor China would never take a chance to destroying its economies by taking unilateral military action against each other. So know one must ask what and how does the Western Democratic theory effect national security and how if any way does it play a part? The answer is very simple; it is Diplomacy and the development of strong codependent and economic ties. Remember All western democratic theories seek the spread of Western Democratic, democratic values to ALL countries and all international institutions. We see this happening in the form of the United Nations. Through this body there is strong democratic institutions were member states can resolve issues unilaterally and bilaterally.

US Foreign policy and the Excutive branch

US Foreign policy is based on a Pluralist set assumptions than a realistic form of government in pluralism we see that this form uses a multiple bodies working cohesively to produce policy rather than one solitary entity(Viotti & Kauppi 1998).. No one body actually rules yet they rule by consensus of the cooperative bodies. This is present most of in the representative republic and parliament style body coined by western societies. In this form of government power is shared and decisions are processed through a series of bodies lending itself to democratic measures e.g.; votes, vetoes etc. Non-government organizations have influence on policy such as environmental organizational, workers unions and other “special interest”. Certain Agencies can act automatously to enforce or create policy and example is the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and (EPA) Environmental Protective Agency with delegated pre authorization from the various governing branches.

Viotti & Kauppi second assumption for the pluralist state is the “the state is not a unitary” actor. An ideal example of this is that idea of divided power is coined in the United States as “checks and balances”. The events of September 11, 2001 challenged this policy established at our founding. The President is Executive also known as the “Commander and Chief “. His duty is to act as commander of U.S Armed forces and his office executes duties outlined in constitution. The President or Executor sets the national agenda He acts with the two equal branches e.g., U.S Congress (Legislative branch) and U.S Supreme Court (Judicial branch) to govern. Congress acts as a “policy editor” in the Pluralist form of government. Congress through various chambers and committees address international policy issues such as national security policy, budget authorization – ratifying Investigation treaties, affirming senior appointments. Congress in the matters of crisis and non crisis issues in relation to national security is subjugated to the president and the executive branch. Congress has not seen an evolution to its power in the last ten years wear as it has helped the executive branch create new institutional structures under a banner of national security e.g.; Department of Homeland Security without assuring oversight. President Franklin Roosevelt drew only on statutory authority. Later presidents relied on their constitutional powers for classification authority, and today President George W. Bush relies on a theory of inherent presidential authority and a unitary theory of the presidency that puts the president before the Congress and the judiciary in constitutional importance. The Congress granted emergency powers to President of the United States that would allow him to effectively and immediately seek those who planned and carried out the September 11th and bring them to justice. The president would call for legislation that would give law enforcement the "tools" needed to pursue and capture any whom would plot on behalf a terrorist groups or organizations that objective is to overthrow the United States using violent acts. The product of the United States Government was called the Patriot Act.

The Bush administration used its powers to completely circumvent congress in 2003 after certain authorizations were delegated to the Executive branch. The USA PATRIOT Act follows a series of previous acts that are related to the investigations of foreign intelligence. In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed to produce legal guidelines for federal investigations of foreign intelligence targets. Among the rules put in place were regulations governing: Only foreign powers or agents of foreign powers were to be subject to FISA investigations. Thus, targets are primarily those foreign persons who are engaged in espionage or international terrorism. Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, expanded FISA to permit targeting of so-called "lone wolf" terrorists without requiring any showing that they are members of a terrorist group or agents of such a group or of any other foreign power. The USA Act (Public Law 107-56) was passed on October 12, 2001, and subsequently folded into the USA PATRIOT Act. Under the USA Act, a terrorist who was not an agent of a foreign power could be the target of a federal investigation of foreign intelligence. The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act was passed on October 17, 2001 and was later transformed into the USA PATRIOT Act. It increases the federal government's powers to investigate and prosecute the financial supporters of terrorism. The provisions that were established through the act were defined as need for a clearer definition of electronic surveillance, expansion of the biological weapons statues, Immunity under Title 18 Section 1983 for law enforcement who executes wiretaps under the FISA law and the inclusion of the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act. The Bush administration focused on the these particular powers in titles X, IV, and II due to their importance of the war planed they and military leaders developed to protect our country

In the pluralist form of government such as seen in US foreign policy we see the various elements of governmental coalitions vying for position and yet they work together to form a decisions of national security in the United States. In the United Kingdom we see a parliament system that requires coalitions of all parties to govern. This aligns with the definition given by Viotti & Kauppi in the context that a minimum winning coalition is needed to govern. The fourth and final assumption of pluralism is defined by Viotti & Koauppi as an agenda of international politics is extensive. Leading up to the invasion Iraq there was a broad sense by the Bush administration and Tony Blair and his Labor Party to create a coalition of international support through diplomacy, unfortunately the preemptive took in the invasion of Afghanistan. The U.S. and U.K. found very few takers due to the ambiguity of the Iraq connection to the September 11th attacks., and of course after the case was made before the U.N security council of the WMD’s little support was still mustered due to French opposition to committing NATO troops. This was far cry from the Clinton administration years where the U.S and same UK administration was able to mass a NATO coalition forces to expel Slobodan Milosevic the ousted president of Serbia and Yugoslavia.

We have thus a return to what Viotti & Koauppi would define as true pluralism in the sense that. The Obama administration manages to use international political credibility through diplomacy. The most notable are the International monetary and the support from NATO and Arab League to establish a “No Fly Zone “over Libya. This administration also has had great success by Viotti & Koauppi standards on placing pressure and sanctions on countries such Iran and Syria and place social and military pressure on China in the Southeast Asian region by establishing as coalition with ASEAN (The Association of Southeast Asian Nations).

US Congressional over sight of U.S Foreign Policy

Congress acts as a “policy editor” in National Security Policy, Budget authorization , Ratifying Investigation Treaties, Affirming senior appointments Congress in the matters of crisis and non crisis issues in relation to national security is subjugated to the president and the executive branch. Congress has not seen an evolution to its power in the last ten years wear as it has helped the executive branch create new institutional structures under a banner of national security e.g.; Department of Homeland Security without assuring oversight. President Franklin Roosevelt drew only on statutory authority. Later presidents relied on their constitutional powers for classification authority, and today President George W. Bush relies on a theory of inherent presidential authority and a unitary theory of the presidency that puts the president before the Congress and the judiciary in constitutional importance. The Congress granted emergency powers to President of the United States that would allow him to effectively and immediately seek those who planned and carried out the September 11th and bring them to justice. The president would call for legislation that would give law enforcement the "tools" needed to pursue and capture any whom would plot on behalf a terrorist groups or organizations that objective is to overthrow the United States using violent acts. The product of the United States Government was called the Patriot Act.

The Bush administration used its powers to completely circumvent Congress in 2003. The USA PATRIOT Act followed a series of previous acts that are related to the investigations of foreign intelligence. In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed to produce legal guidelines for federal investigations of foreign intelligence targets. Among the rules put in place were regulations governing: Only foreign powers or agents of foreign powers were to be subject to FISA investigations. Thus, targets are primarily those foreign persons who are engaged in espionage or international terrorism. Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, expanded FISA to permit targeting of so-called "lone wolf" terrorists without requiring any showing that they are members of a terrorist group or agents of such a group or of any other foreign power. The USA Act (Public Law 107-56) was passed on October 12, 2001, and subsequently folded into the USA PATRIOT Act. Under the USA Act, a terrorist who was not an agent of a foreign power could be the target of a federal investigation of foreign intelligence. The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act was passed on October 17, 2001 and was later transformed into the USA PATRIOT Act. It increases the federal government's powers to investigate and prosecute the financial supporters of terrorism. The provisions that were established through the act were defined as need for a clearer definition of electronic surveillance, expansion of the biological weapons statues, Immunity under Title 18 Section 1983 for law enforcement who execute wiretaps under the FISA law and The inclusion of the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act. The Bush administration focused on the these particular powers in titles X, IV, and II due to their importance of the war planed they and military leaders developed to protect our country.

The questions then arose as to what are legal precedents of the Executive branch in foreign relations and national security. Opponents argued that titles X, II, and VI of the Patriot Act are ineffective and unconstitutional. The ACLU states that they are ineffective because we have no way efficiently monitoring every single one call in America without racially profiling. . OpponentsAlso claim it is arguable whether the X, II, and VI of the USA PATRIOT ACT permit witch hunts, although some, such as Peter P. Swire, believe that the debate about such things as government access to library records has been important as a symbol of possible over-reaching in government surveillance (Calabresi, G. 2003).. Opponents argue that the President is committing an illegal action. Members of Congress are skeptical about X, II, and VI of the Patriot Act due the lack of information provided. Opponents argue that the Bush Administration easily obtain warrants "after the fact" meaning that once strategic intelligence has been secured the administration could then adhere to FISA by going before a judge to get a warrant. Opponents state the this administration is seeking to undermine our judicial system to empower a "monarchy" executive branch

Supporters cite that electronic surveillance is an effective and constitutional method of investigation. Electronic surveillance was first challenged in 1908 the courts in the case Olmstead v. US. Roy Olmstead Moreover, the parties' Fourth Amendment rights were not infringed because mere wiretapping does not constitute a search and seizure under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (Calabresi, G. 2003). . They then continue with the argument that Title 18 section 1983 gives national security agencies immunity as long as they act under the color of law. Supporters reason that national security agencies acts under the direct mandate of the Attorney General who receives his orders from the President of the United States. Supporters also advocate that the President was given emergency powers shortly after September 11 to act without warrants within a fifteen day "window" as so congress does not declare war. Supporters reason that the President is still acting within his scope of authority.

Judicial stance on National Security and US Foreign Policy

James Robertson, a U.S. District Judge and member of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, resigned in apparent protest over the president's authorization of the NSA secret domestic eavesdropping program, the Washington Post reported. When Robertson submitted his resignation to Chief Justice John Roberts he declined to state a reason for quitting but was concerned about the questionable legality of allowing the NSA to conduct domestic surveillance without a warrant. More specifically, Robertson was concerned that information gained from warrants less NSA surveillance could then have been used to obtain FISA warrants, according to the Washington Post. One anonymous source stated, "They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants - to kind of cleanse the information. What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

The most important area where the courts found of the Bush administration is how they interrupted the basis for necessity. The United States Supreme ruled in the case of The U.S v. U.S District Court in favor that lesser standards relating to search and seizure might be a fitting for cases relating to national security. It also clarified that lower standards are acceptable only in regards to the collection of intelligence in relation to counter-intelligence not when the administration is attempting to use the intelligence in criminal cases involving civilians.

The Courts are using the exclusionary rule as litmus test to determine whether or not constitutional rights have been or may be violated. Judges are also excising the rule of necessity when determining what powers to grant or allow certain law enforcement as to ensure civil liberties are maintained and executive powers are balanced. This is to assure that they maintain their authority granted to them under the constitution. The issue has no reached the Supreme Court as of yet, but court nominees such as Samuel Alto and John Roberts have avoided placing any prejudgment on decisions regarding the Patriot Act and Executive Powers

Conclusion

The analyses that can be drawn from the issues presented are based solely upon the events that have transpired. The expansion of Executive powers have been historically effective in stopping terrorism. It may have a tendency to over step civil liberties in certain aspects of life but it is effective. The issues that prove to be non-effective rather just flagrantly intrusive need to amended .It are not uncommon for amendments to be debated and even altered to address the diversity of the entire group. The constitution did not call for the civil liberties of slaves when first drafted, but due to the social and moral obligations the nation's leaders took action to extended liberties during the civil rights movement of the late 60's. This action was greatly unpopular, but the moral and social obligation took precedence. "Seek and peek" actions have no place in our society. As a citizen of the United States of America each citizen is granted privacy so long as that does not include or infringe on the privacy of others. Law Enforcement has been given "probable cause" as a tool to conduct searches when investigating or making an arrest. The Good Faith Doctrine, which was added in the Supreme Court cases of U.S. vs. Leon and Mass. vs. Sheppard, both in 1984.

Comments

Advertisement

Life

  • Derek Hough
    Derek Hough brings quadruple threat talent to 'DWTS' and beyond
    Today's Buzz
  • Hookah smoking
    Young adults believe hookah smoking pose no health threat
    Camera
    7 Photos
  • Top outdoor activities
    Don't spend your summer indoors: Top outdoor activities to do with your significant other
    Camera
    10 Photos
  • Baby shower idea for men
    A new twist on baby showers is throwing a Daddy Baby-Q
    Camera
    7 Photos
  • Wedding special
    'Curvy Brides' offers a new look into every bride's pursuit for her picture perfect wedding gown
    Camera
    7 Photos
  • Morbid obesity
    Health: Morbid obesity decreases life span by up to 16 years
    Camera
    7 Photos