Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz
Hover fellow Peter Berkowitz says the absence of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain leaders at the Camp David summit suggests a lack of confidence in the Iran nuclear deal.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, weighs in on President Obama’s recent visit to Israel.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, discusses his upcoming book Israel and the Struggle over the International Laws of War.
Legal scholar Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, argued in RealClearPolitics in February 2016 that Israel's possession of the Golan was “lawful and just” and should be supported by the United States and the international community.
Human Rights attorney Scott Horton debated Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Peter Berkowitz on human rights and the rules of warfare in a debate organized by the Pomona Student Union on Mar. 4 at 7 p.m. in Edmunds Ballroom. . . .
Regardless of what Iran gets out of the nuclear deal, its proxy Hezbollah clearly gains—and Israel clearly loses.
The world continues to feed Palestinians’ delusions that they will one day return to land that is now part of Israel—encouraging the Palestinians to spurn peaceful solutions that could actually be attained.
The prospect for peace in the Middle East requires believing in miracles.
Over the last few days, Israel has pulled its troops out of Gaza and agreed to a 72-hour cease-fire with Hamas. The battle over international public opinion, however, continues to rage.
Bin Laden is gone now, dispatched from this earthly realm in 2011 by the Navy’s lethal SEAL Team Six. Yet we remain mired in the seemingly endless fighting in the Middle East, and the rationale for that is in dire need of clarification, if not justification.
The September 11 attacks in New York and Washington have already cost America thousands of lives and billions of dollars in damages. But those are only the direct costs. How severe and how lasting will the impact be on our economy as whole? And how will new burdens on the federal government, including a military buildup and a bailout of the airline industry, affect fiscal policy? Should the government cut taxes or increase spending to get the economy moving again?
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has a budget of about $3 billion and more than 16,000 employees working to identify and protect the United States from foreign threats. Yet the CIA failed to prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. How come? Should the CIA have been able to foresee and prevent this sort of attack? Now that the cold war is over, is it time to abolish the CIA or reform it to respond to the new threat of terrorism? If reform is the answer, should the CIA put more emphasis on high technology or on placing agents in the field?
Be careful when one uses the superlative case—best, most, -est, etc.—or evokes end-of-the-world imagery...
Hoover Institution: In Countering Terrorism Richard A. Posner Examines Intelligence Reform, Proposes Alternative Approaches
In his new book Countering Terrorism: Blurred Focus, Halting Steps (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), the Honorable Richard A. Posner examines the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 and its implementation, and looks at alternative approaches to counterterrorism that go beyond that of intelligence reform...
The Future Challenges essay series, a collaborative effort of Hoover’s Koret-Taube Task Force on National Security and Law, is an online volume that explores a variety of emerging national security and law challenges, including the crafting of rules for the detention of unlawful enemy combatants, the proper orientation for the United States toward the International Criminal Court, the deradicalization of terrorists, application of the principle of proportionality to asymmetric warfare, developments in the war-powers doctrine, cyber-warfare, the search for and regulation of weapons of mass destruction, and the reform of Congressional oversight of intelligence.
In October 2001, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the USA Patriot Act. The law is intended to prevent future terrorist acts by enhancing various law enforcement tools. Critics argue that the Patriot Act is a dangerous infringement on American civil liberties. Now, more than two years after the passage of the Patriot Act, do we have any evidence that the critics are right? For that matter, do we even know whether the Patriot Act is working to deter terrorism? Should the Patriot Act be allowed to expire, or should its provisions become a permanent part of the war on terrorism?
In late 2001, in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Bush administration proposed the USA Patriot Act, which gave law enforcement agencies expanded surveillance and intelligence-gathering powers. Congress overwhelmingly approved the Patriot Act on the condition that most provisions of the act would expire in 2005. President Bush now wants all provisions of the act extended. Should they be? Or are the provisions dangerous and unnecessary infringements on our civil liberties? Peter Robinson speaks with Jenny Martinez and John Yoo.