Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Politics

Senate Confirms Trump's Pick for NSA, Cyber Command (politico.com) 58

An anonymous reader shares a report: The Senate Tuesday quietly confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command. U.S. Army Cyber Command chief Lt. Gen. Paul Nakasone was unanimously confirmed by voice vote to serve as the "dual-hat" leader of both organizations. The two have shared a leader since the Pentagon established Cyber Command in 2009. He will replace retiring Navy Adm. Mike Rogers after a nearly four-year term. The Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees both previously approved Nakasone's nomination by voice vote.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senate Confirms Trump's Pick for NSA, Cyber Command

Comments Filter:
  • Quietly? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by superdave80 ( 1226592 ) on Tuesday April 24, 2018 @02:09PM (#56495663)

    The Senate Tuesday quietly confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee...

    What do you mean 'quietly'? Are you implying that they were trying to hide it? I hate how news organizations have started using this phrase haphazardly to try to make it seem like something nefarious is going on...

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Boring position, boring nominee, boring committee hearings, boring vote. Of course it was quiet.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "Quietly" here means "without objection". It would do you wonders to brush up on your language comprehension skills.

      • Then use the phrase "without objection"? It would do wonders for journalists to write more clearly, because quietly can mean a lot of things.
    • Perhaps by "quietly" they meant that there wasn't a huge fight over it, massive amounts of shit spouting on Twitter, or the usual circus act that goes along with most of American politics in this day and age.

      There could well be something nefarious about this as when both the Democrats and Republics agree on something (see the Patriot Act for example), it usually does a really good job of completely fucking over the electorate.
      • Like with FOSTA that was co-sponsored by 27 Democratic and Republican senators, but more Republicans voted against it than we did. It killed personals and craigslist and is continuing to harm many other web sites.

        • Like with FOSTA that was co-sponsored by 27 Democratic and Republican senators, but more Republicans voted against it than we did.

          The final vote on FOSTA was 97-2, and the two votes against it were Wyden (D-OR) and Paul (R-KY), so how does that work out to "more Republicans voted against it than we did"?

          However, you could say that there were more Republicans than Democrats voting FOR the bill, and you'd actually be correct.

          https://www.senate.gov/legisla... [senate.gov]

          • Why would not count all of the people that voted on the bill instead of just in the Senate? According to:

            https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/27/17057754/sesta-fosta-passes-congress-cda-230-house-of-representatives [theverge.com]

            "The measure passed on a 388-25 vote, with 14 Republicans and 11 Democrats voting in opposition."

            • Why would not count all of the people that voted on the bill instead of just in the Senate?

              As my friend says, you specifically mentioned senators.

              But even if we take the House of Representatives into account, there were 3 more Republicans than Democrats voting against the bill, but many more than 3 more Republicans voting FOR the bill. So if you take both houses of Congress into account, there are still way more Republicans than Democrats SUPPORTING the FOSTA bill.

        • by Memnos ( 937795 )

          Oh and don't forget its other "unintended consequence". It puts prostitutes at risk. You can call the Other, but I've known some and they're actual people. Every "save the children", "keep us from sin, Oh Lord" law we make causes indiscriminate harm, irrevocably restricts freedom, and achieves nothing in its purported goals.

          Or maybe that's intended.

    • this is a pretty important appointment. Someone who has oversight over a lot of questionable practices. You'd expect a little more talk on both sides. If he's just a great candidate Trump should be tooting his horn (after all, most Trump appointees have been questionable at best and horrifyingly bad at worst). If not, this is just another example of how both sides are really only in the tank for the mega corps.
    • Found the article I remembered from January that first mentioned him as a possible replacement:

      https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/05/nsa-mike-rogers-to-retire-267634 [politico.com]

      Sounds like Trump didn't give them enough time to fully research this guy before forcing the vote.

    • In this context, I believe "quietly" means: "we're just hearing about this because our news organization is too focused on sensational headlines to follow what actually goes on in the world."

  • USA Cyber command [wikipedia.org], which was started in 2009, is really just an arm of the NSA. It makes perfect sense from a political view point for the lead of the NSA to also oversee the Cyber command. One counter argument to this might be that Cyber command is/was intended to be defensive focused while the NSA is focused on all communication intelligence both offensive and defensive. At some level there is likely to be some management structure that is only Cyber Command focused. This story is likely a non-event.

  • Voice vote? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by H3lldr0p ( 40304 )

    So that just means we don't get to know who voted for this guy, or even if there were enough votes for him to carry.

    When you thought things were getting bad with this admin, their legislative buddies pull another stinker on us. If they had the votes and were confident in the nominee a voice vote wouldn't be necessary. If this guy really was that good, being on record for him wouldn't be an albatross around anyone's neck. But here we are.

    • Re:Voice vote? (Score:4, Informative)

      by breech1 ( 137095 ) on Tuesday April 24, 2018 @03:10PM (#56496083)

      So that just means we don't get to know who voted for this guy, or even if there were enough votes for him to carry.

      No, it means the guy was confirmed overwhelmingly (the article states it was unanimous). Congress will do voice votes when there's no serious opposition to the matter at hand. If a Senator didn't like him, that Senator could have raised an objection and forced a on-the-record vote. That didn't happen, so you can assume that everyone present in Senate was fine with him.

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      That's not the real question to me. To me the real question is "Is he an expert in the field?". This time nobody seems to be saying either yes or no.

      FWIW, I think picking the head of a government department by a popularity contest is mindbogglingly stupid, but I can't really think of a better way. The guy needs political support to do his job, but he also needs to understand the job, and the jobs are all different, so a standardized test would be worthless.

  • confirmed1

    It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to run NASA, but really?

    Couldn't they find ANYONE else to run it?

  • Based on the Facebook stuff, they seem to not understand how the tubes work...
  • by Hasaf ( 3744357 ) on Tuesday April 24, 2018 @03:00PM (#56496007)

    As it stands, only about a quarter of the age eligible population is able to join the armed forces. If Cyber Command had become its own service then they could have opened recruiting to anyone who was willing to do the work, study hard, and become a member. As it stands, the ranks will be closed to those who are not a member of the physical elite.

    Not only dies this close the door to service by those who are not in near perfect physical condition; but it also limits the pool of potential candidates based on a factor that has nothing to do with their acumen at cyber-security.

    • As it stands, only about a quarter of the age eligible population is able to join the armed forces. If Cyber Command had become its own service then they could have opened recruiting to anyone who was willing to do the work, study hard, and become a member. As it stands, the ranks will be closed to those who are not a member of the physical elite.

      As it stands today, the United States Military could not function without the generous assistance of a few hundred thousand contractors supporting it. And a lot of those contractors were former military members who simply grew well beyond their former physical limitations.

      Not only dies this close the door to service by those who are not in near perfect physical condition; but it also limits the pool of potential candidates based on a factor that has nothing to do with their acumen at cyber-security.

      Couldn't agree with you more here, but let's be honest for a minute. How many potential candidates within the "uber-hacker" ranks would pass a background investigation for a security clearance, as well as a drug test? Physical condition

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      A new service takes money away from the CIA and NSA computer funding.
      Every new mission completed wold take prestige away from existing agencies.
      Best to keep it within the existing command structure and allow all winning to be the result of existing "cyber" teams.
  • by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Tuesday April 24, 2018 @03:15PM (#56496121) Homepage

    Are we for or against this nomination, or do we not care?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      On one hand the vote was unanimous which makes me think, without research, the guy might do a good job.

      On the other hand, any time Congress agrees on something without any contention makes me feel, as a citizen, that I'm about to get bent over and rammed hard from behind.
      • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        That is a graphic but very accurate way of putting. I will admit I know nothing about this appointment or that it was even pending today.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Collect it all domestically goes on.
    • by pots ( 5047349 )
      Probably don't care, unless you work for the NSA or Cyber Command. This was an uncontroversial nomination.

Where there's a will, there's an Inheritance Tax.

Working...