The following is an installment from the Truman National Security Project fellows’ series.  Aaron Chatterji writes:

The most interesting moment of last Friday’s debate came at the very end, when Senator Obama spoke about his father’s journey from Kenya to the United States, at a time where “[t]he ideals and the values of the United States inspired the entire world.”  He then argued “that I don’t think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same.” It was yet another moment where I felt that Senator Obama, by virtue of his unique background and perspective, was speaking directly to my own experience.

Like Senator Obama, I believe we need to restore America’s standing in the world and inspire the next generation of global citizens. My father also came to the United States in the 1960s, in pursuit of higher education and inspired by American ideals.  He has told me about the letters he wrote to universities all around the country, just like those penned by Senator Obama’s father, detailing his educational background and his research interests. To this day, I am still in awe that there were so many open-minded and open-hearted American professors willing to sponsor a student they had never met from half way across the world. This is the American dream I grew up believing in.

As my parents settled here, became citizens, and started a family, America continued to be a magnet for immigrants from around the world who have created millions of jobs and added considerable value to the American economy. The American dream I believe in is a two-sided bargain: we create an environment to attract the best and the brightest and these immigrants make our nation stronger and more prosperous.

There are some troubling signs that this bargain may be breaking down. At Duke, I often listen to foreign students discuss their future plans.  While I frequently think of my father, one detail is fundamentally different. Many of these students are hoping to return home after finishing their education at Duke. In particular, as India and China have developed rapidly in the last decade, local opportunities for educated young professionals have grown dramatically. For many, the idea of returning home at a comparable salary and a much higher quality of life is enough to dissuade them from ever pursuing the American dream.

I worry a lot about losing these bright and creative minds to other nations, but I am consoled that our efforts to improve the developing world have succeeded in the decades since my father came to the United States. As we reach out, both through policies to attract high skilled immigrants and with initiatives to help poor countries develop their own economies, we face a difficult tradeoff: By fostering international development, we might improve our international image but also attract less international “stars” as we expand peace and opportunity around the world. Fortunately, Senator Obama has articulated the right set of policies to tackle this dilemma, including important investments in American education and innovation. For him, me, and the millions of others like us, our task will be to globalize the American dream while somehow preserving American exceptionalism.

In my view, this will be our next President’s most important challenge.

Aaron K. Chatterji is an assistant professor at Duke University and a Fellow at the Center for American Progress. He is also a Fellow of the Truman National Security Project. The views expressed here are his own.

I did some digging on the FBI’s issuance of new collection guidelines.  Apparently the story is (very quietly) some six days old.  Here’s from the AP:

The rules, known as attorney general guidelines, will update how agents conduct interviews as the FBI shifts from a traditional crime-fighting agency to one whose top priority is protecting the United States from terrorist attacks.

The Justice Department says the guidelines will merely streamline existing authorities used in criminal and national security investigations. But critics call them a broad expansion of FBI powers that could result in racial, ethnic or religious profiling without any evidence of a crime.

The government initially wanted to issue the guidelines by Oct. 1, but Cook indicated Tuesday that was unlikely. She said, however, that the Justice Department expected to finalize the new rules in the near future.

A growing group of House and Senate lawmakers — comprised of both Democrats and Republicans — has urged Mukasey to release the policy to the public before it takes effect, allowing scrutiny and easing concerns about rule-making done in secret.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said after the hearing that he remains “skeptical” about how well the guidelines will work, but maintained they “could represent an improvement” over current policy.

Again, I’m not going to render a final verdict until they’re actually released, but the issue seems a bit at-odds with itself.  The WaPo editorial from yesterday says, “[t]he biggest change gives agents who are gathering information in the earliest stages of an intelligence or terrorism probe the discretion to use techniques that now require approval from superiors.” 

To me, the two pieces don’t mesh: does this refer to interrogation or field collection?  

Stay tuned.

I’m going to reserve full comment until I’ve seen the guidelines, but in light of my Fort Dix post this morning, this WaPo editorial is notable:

SINCE the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation essentially has been remaking itself into an intelligence agency that would rather thwart terrorist plots than apprehend perpetrators after they’ve struck. To that end, the bureau and the Justice Department have crafted guidelines that allow FBI agents as much flexibility to deter terrorist strikes as they have to disrupt the crimes they traditionally handle. We’ve had a chance to review the guidelines; we believe they are reasonable and include safeguards that should protect against intrusions on privacy and civil liberties.

…

The biggest change gives agents who are gathering information in the earliest stages of an intelligence or terrorism probe the discretion to use techniques that now require approval from superiors; those techniques already are available to agents working on routine crime matters. For example, agents who receive a tip about drug-dealing at a local bar could send in a source to gather information about whether there is probable cause to launch an investigation. Agents could carry out such probes on their own, without being required to identify themselves as law enforcement officers.

My initial read is that these changes don’t address the systemic deficiencies of the problem — agents need a mindset adjustment, not a few rule tweaks about when they need permission for something.  But again, I’ll wait until the full guidelines are released.

From Forbes.com:

In a suspenseful vote of 205-228, the House of Representatives squashed a bill granting the Treasury $700 billion to shore up the U.S. financial system. Clearing the House was seen as the bill’s biggest hurdle, and now the proposed bailout is thrown into disarray.

…

On Wall Street, market response was swift and terrible. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had been trending down throughout the morning, plunged almost 7% in minutes before recovering somewhat. Prices for Treasury bonds soared into the stratosphere, pushing the yields down. The three-month Treasury yield sank to 0.68%, while the London interbank offer rate rose to 3.88%.

Obviously the financial crisis is extraordinarily unique, important, and deserves to be talked about by the candidates more than anything now.  It’s too bad that there likely will be little attempt to talk about anything else significantly important before election day.

Good to see someone has picked this up:

John McCain, Republican presidential candidate, has said he would authorise his secretary of state to talk to Iran about its nuclear programme, in a break with Bush administration policy and his own previous stance.

His comments, on one of the most charged issues, reflect a measure of convergence on foreign policy between Mr McCain and Barack Obama, his Democratic rival.

Jury selection begins today in the trial of five defendants accused of plotting to attack the military base at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

I’m not overly familiar with the details of the case, but I’d guess that the prosecution isn’t going to get all it’s aiming for.  Terrorism prosecutions are only successful if the DA can show that the group had intent and capability of carrying out the alleged plot.  But here’s what the feds have in this case:

The government’s case is built primarily around secretly recorded conversations made by two cooperating witnesses who befriended the defendants. Those conversations, prosecutors say, detail “plans to attack Fort Dix and kill American soldiers” and include “discussions of the supposed justifications for such attacks rooted in radical jihadist ideology.”

In other words: “not much”.   If the prosecution is relying on a handful of (possibly coerced) conversations, that’s an extremely poor substitute for hard evidence, including weapons caches, detailed attack plans (maps, notes), evidence of the participants’ history in violent acts, etc., etc.. Talking about doing something is not a crime, no matter how awful. 

From the same article:

But defense attorneys contend their clients talked a bigger game than they intended to play, portraying them as easily manipulated individuals led into a plot by paid FBI informants who created a conspiracy out of hollow words and empty threats.

…which is probably enough to cast a bit of doubt in the jury’s minds.

I just released a paper on this topic called “Getting Intelligence Reform Right.”  I argue that domestic terrorism cases are doomed to being consistently knocked down to lesser charges unless the FBI changes its ways.  According to New York University Law School’s Center for Law and Security, of 510 cases initially charged under anti-terrorism statutes from 2001 to 2006, only 158 were eventually prosecuted as “terrorism” or “material support to terrorism.”  Here’s why: 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—the agency charged with collecting intelligence on al Qaeda (and similar groups) within U.S. borders—remains mired in an organizational culture focused mainly on throwing bad guys in jail rather than preventing terrorist attacks in the first place. To a layman, the difference may seem inconsequential, but it drastically impedes the FBI from completing its counterterrorism mission.

I propose building a first-rate domestic intelligence agency within the FBI.  By isolating the division from the prosecution-oriented divisions of the rest of the Bureau, a “agency-within-an-agency” should recast its officer corps and slowly create the forward-leaning intelligence posture we need.

Mark and I have written a “national security messaging” document for progressives.  It’s published over at the DLC’s site.  Here’s a snippet from the intro:

For much of the 20th century, progressives enjoyed a reputation for vision and fortitude in the stewardship of foreign relations and national defense. Franklin D. Roosevelt oversaw America’s military triumph in World War II , and Harry S. Truman built the security infrastructure that would ultimately win the ensuing struggle against Soviet Communism. John F. Kennedy overcame early foreign-policy missteps and handled the most frightening chapter of the Cold War with singular adroitness.

The struggles within the Democratic Party over the Vietnam War, however, led to a long estrangement between the party and much of the public on security issues. Over the past four decades, the Democratic nominee for president has only managed to win the popular vote four times—once (barely) in the post-Watergate election of 1976, and in the three elections (1992, 1996, and 2000) that took place in the interlude between the end of the Cold War and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In short, the post-Vietnam War liberal and progressive movement has yet to prove that it can win a presidential election when the nation’s security interests are perceived to be at stake.