in american government what does defense policy mean?
143897
an outline of all of the nations you want to attack
547403
Simple.  A group of previously independent states give up some of their power and decision making to a centralized body, agreeing to abide by the rules set by that centralized body.  In return, the states gain from joint defense and joint funding of key nationwide programs.
723167
America's politicians are, so, by association, yes.\n\n"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.\n\nWe must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." Dwight D Eisenhower\n\nThose warnings have been largely ignored.
1184033
Do some time in the military and find out. I have...\n\nedit: So the correct question would be:\nHow many politicians does it take to defend America?\nTo which the correct answer would be:\nThe world may never know...\n\nThe military is indicative of American. I would assume there were as many liberals "defending America" as there are conservatives. \n\nThere are very few in the government, and especially our current administration, who have served or have children serving. Strangely enough, most of the former military are on the liberal side - 24% (13 of 55) of Republican Senators  have served, compared with 27% (12 of 44) of Democrats (including a Medal of Honor winner) and 100% of Independents.
22738
The text is: "The Attorney General may request the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance under section 382 of title 10 in support of Department of Justice activities relating to the enforcement of section 2332a of this title during an emergency situation involving a weapon of mass destruction. The authority to make such a request may be exercised by another official of the Department of Justice in accordance with section 382 (f)(2) of title 10."\n\nWhat it means is, the Attorney General can ask the military to help prevent and punish the use of weaposn of mass destruction in the United States. Generally, crimes committed by US citizens in the US cannot be enforced by the military, which is why this exception was made.
82186
Defense spending is one of the top priorities of the Federal Government. Defense should not take a rest because of "peacetime". Our enemies will always continue to upgrade their abilities, whether there is a declared war or not. We cannot fall asleep at the switch.\n\nIf someone wants budget cuts, take it from art grants, charity handouts and other things that are not within the realm of what the Federal Government was set up to be.
410177
Public policy is based on what (according to the general consensus) is good for most people, or for the community. Public policy is the driving force behind many laws. For example, speed limits and drivers licenses are based on the public policy of keeping the roads moderately safe. The confidentiality (privilege) for speaking with an attorney or priest or counselor is based on the public policy goal of people seeking help for their problems.\n\nEthics are the codes and rules that apply to a particular profession. Attorneys have ethical codes, including confidentiallity. Priests have ethical codes, based upon the morals of their religion. Evem business tycoons have ethical codes (or so rumor has it).\n\nWhere something is generally accepted as an ethical duty, such as attorneys or priests keeping confidences, and where that ethical duty is generally useful, that translates into a public policy favoring that ethical duty, which in turn usually gets enacted as some type of law.
84703
Definition by US Gov't.:  "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."\n\nThis word is used a lot lately in very imprecise ways.  For example, Iraqis who blow up US troops are not terrorists, because the troops are not noncombatants.  To call any government or any person working for any government "terrorist" is a contradiction in terms.  This doesn't mean that they may not be behaving in inappropriate ways, just that people should find something else to call them.\n\nFor example, if it is discovered that the men who carried out the Trade Center attacks were actually working for the government of, say, Iran, (and I am not implying that they were) then they would no longer be called "terrorists."  They would be "enemy combatants."  This is a distinction which is particulary relevant in the current political climate.
862106
This looks like a Middle School homework question.\n\nIn the US, Australia, Canada, Germany and Switzerland, the federal government is the national government. The national government is responsible for defense, foreign policy, etc.\n\nIn the US, Australia and Germany, the state governments come under them; Canda terms these provinces, Switzerland calls them cantons. These divisions have tremendous powers reserved to them, unlike more unitary states  such as France, Ireland or Austria.
489499
The U. S. Government.
178253
Democrat.  Make your question harder next time.  Ask what party stands for.  Spin says national defense or budget.\nThe real difference?\nRepublican party favors unrestrained capitalism, believing that the free market can best provide for the needs of the public.  You can see this via high numbers of contractors in Iraq and other outsourcing of food inspection to food producers and in budget cuts of EPA. \nDemocrats believe that unrestrained capitalism has wrought great evil in the past, and that the government must take the side of the individual citizens against the great power and wealth of business.  They favor a progressive tax rate such that large incomes and businesses pay a higher tax rate, and that the government provide services that industries have a conflict of interest in performing.
13443
First, here's a quick definition of what liberalism means as used in America today: \n\n"American liberalism emphasizes mutual collaboration and consensus-building to solve political problems. A liberal in the United States is likely to favor institutions and political procedures that protect and empower the weak against aggression by the strong and guarantee individual freedom from restrictive social norms. Liberals encourage progressive taxation, minimum wages laws, anti-discrimination laws, and social programs."\n\nMost liberals associate with the Democratic party - Democrats tend to support these sorts of policies. However, not all Democrats are liberals - many are more moderate, and many fiscal conservatives - people who want to minimize government spending in general - have defected from the Republican party recently.\n\nAlso, many people with liberal views may not call themselves liberal - while many liberal views are strongly associated with churches, for example, a number of major churches in the U.S. associate with the Reupublican party due to its stance against abortion. Since the Republican party is currently strongly anti-liberal, many liberal stances have been adopted by the party through the term "compassionate conservativism," which permits the stance without association with the politically charged term "liberal."\n\nCommentators like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reill have recently been involved in a general trend toward writing books which equate liberalism with terrorism, anti-american sentiment, and weakness - for this reason, the word is quite misunderstood now, something that might be apparent in the large amounts of hate present in some of the answers to your question.\n\nI hope this helps give an unbiased view of what liberals believe, and why the word is so politically sensitive right now.
277874
It's what they use as read between the lines. Not all policies are good for the American People. Alot tend to go towards the Capitalists and Imperialists, for profits only, at the expense of the American People. You can surely understand that! They have hidden agendas in Legislature such as the Patriot Act. Raising fuel cost's, with record profits after Hurricane Katrina, and so on, and so on.
531903
You may find this site helpful.  Basically, S.I. means the US cannot be sued for issues stemming from its implementation of policy.......\n http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm
466071
Everything done by the US Government is protection of some capitalist interest or another. The Cold War, Iraq, The Gulf War, and the Bay of Pigs invasion are all examples of that. The people dont run the USA, the large corporations do.\n\n\npeace
748332
Democratic. In a republic you have very little say in the laws that are passed and repealed, and the only things you basically vote on are the representatives. A federal government takes power away from the states and by extension the people, and as such is an unwanted unitary force. A democratic government means that the people vote on passing, amending, and repealing laws. For an example of the one true democracy on this planet, take a look at Switzerland.
76730
Yes.  "Don't ask, don't tell" is the common term for the current military policy which implements Public Law 103-160, codified at 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654. The policy prohibits anyone who has sexual bodily contact with a person of the same sex from serving in the armed forces of the United States, and prohibits any homosexual or bisexual from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces.\n\nStatistics on the number of persons discharged from the military in the years since the policy was first introduced (1993) show that more people are discharged now than were before.  For instance, a total of 787 people were discharged from the U.S. Military in 2003 as a result of violations of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.