Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. In 2019-2021, he served as the Director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, executive secretary of the department's Commission on Unalienable Rights, and senior adviser to the...
To understand the sometimes glaring gaps between candidate Obama’s promises and President Obama’s policies, it is useful to appreciate an old tension in American progressivism. . . .
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.
Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed and President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act—legislation intended to thwart the threat of domestic terrorism. Critics were quick to denounce USA Patriot as a dangerous expansion of government power at the expense of our civil liberties. Are the critics right? Or can we win the war on terrorism without sacrificing our civil liberties here at home? And what has the American experience in earlier crises, such as the Civil War and the two world wars, taught us about balancing national security and personal freedom?
Clarity of purpose is only half of a winning political strategy. The other half involves a clear understanding of the possible. By Peter Berkowitz.
One of the more interesting sections of the war funding bill Congress will soon send President Bush is its provision for "readiness..."
I disagree somewhat with my friend Peter Feaver about the president's plan for Afghanistan deserving the support of us loyal opposition. . . .
Under President Nixon, in 1973 the United States abolished the draft, moving to an all-volunteer armed forces. Now some—most notably New York congressman Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee—have called for a reinstatement of the draft. Is this a good idea? What lessons from history can we call on to help answer this question? And what impact would the reinstatement of the draft have on society as a whole and the military in particular? Peter Robinson speaks with David Kennedy and Edwin Meese. (33:11) Video transcript
Peter Schweizer, the William J. Casey Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a former consultant to NBC News, discusses how Congress and the government, in giving sweetheart contracts to friends and big donors, cause a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars.
In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter sits down with Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, to examine the many issues facing the nation today.
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter says the Obama administration has so far acted responsibly in Iraq and Afghanistan...
To succeed in the war on terror, Philip Bobbitt insists, the West needs an entirely new conceptual framework.
By Peter Robinson.
Editor’s note: The following is the text of a letter sent by the Committee on the Present Danger to President Obama, members of the Senate and members of the House regarding critical changes to America’s missile defense that will likely threaten American safety and security. . . .
Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum...
Recorded on July 16, 2015 - Hoover fellows Charles Hill and James Mattis discuss the Iran deal and the state of the world on Uncommon Knowledge with Hoover fellow Peter Robinson. In their view the United States has handed over its leading role to Iran and provided a dowry along with it.
During a distinguished Army career, Chris Gibson, who spent a year as a Hoover national security fellow, displayed brains, determination, and courage. Now he’s testing his mettle in Congress.
The 9/11 attacks were the clearest possible call for effective national intelligence. Why are we still waiting? By Amy B. Zegart.