Creation of the Dept. Homeland Security
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
Ben Swenson
New member
Personally, I'm reserving opinions until I can see the execution of the concept. However, in my mind one more gov't agency is generally not a good thing.
I, too, was suprised at the lack of comment here and was fixin' ta start the party, my ownself.
I am not sure what to make of it.
I am generally opposed to more government as I think it will be used against us, and I think this war on terror has and will erode our Rights.
I am also suspicous of Bush's motives, in that during his speech he said one of the resons for this new cabinet post was to foster communication because a breakdown of communications had failed to prevent the attacks of 9/11. It seems that the breakdown in communications was between the CIA and the FBI, and nioether outfit has been brough under the aegis of this new dept.
The didvision which includes FEMA makes me nervous (adjusting tinfoil hat) because FEMA makes me nervous with their ability to supercede the Constitutin and declare Martial Law.
However some of the consolidations make sense, like the Border transportation and security division which would combine the INS, Customs and the Coast Guard.
I don't know what to make of it, and with my basic distrust of bnig govt, I am going to be a hard sell.
I am not sure what to make of it.
I am generally opposed to more government as I think it will be used against us, and I think this war on terror has and will erode our Rights.
I am also suspicous of Bush's motives, in that during his speech he said one of the resons for this new cabinet post was to foster communication because a breakdown of communications had failed to prevent the attacks of 9/11. It seems that the breakdown in communications was between the CIA and the FBI, and nioether outfit has been brough under the aegis of this new dept.
The didvision which includes FEMA makes me nervous (adjusting tinfoil hat) because FEMA makes me nervous with their ability to supercede the Constitutin and declare Martial Law.
However some of the consolidations make sense, like the Border transportation and security division which would combine the INS, Customs and the Coast Guard.
I don't know what to make of it, and with my basic distrust of bnig govt, I am going to be a hard sell.
D.W. Drang
New member
The thing that really bugs me about it is the name.
"Homeland Security." Makes me think the next phrase we'll hear is "Lebensraum"... or maybe 5 Year Economic Plans...
"Homeland Security." Makes me think the next phrase we'll hear is "Lebensraum"... or maybe 5 Year Economic Plans...
Justin Moore
New member
ein volk
ein Reich
ein Fuhrer!
That's what I think of it
How about we take the fight TO THE ENEMY and kill them? Then there will be no need for all this authoritarian nonsense.
I can't believe the Congress is just going to roll over and play dead in the face of yet another Executive Branch takeover.
William Safire doesn't believe it either
ein Reich
ein Fuhrer!
That's what I think of it
How about we take the fight TO THE ENEMY and kill them? Then there will be no need for all this authoritarian nonsense.
I can't believe the Congress is just going to roll over and play dead in the face of yet another Executive Branch takeover.
William Safire doesn't believe it either
Brett Bellmore
New member
What the heck is the "defense" department supposed to be doing, if not "defending" us?
Personally, I've given up on Bush; I don't think he takes this whole thing seriously anymore. Heads haven't rolled, he lets subordinates toss the security of air travelers aside to satisfy their own anti-gun ideology, we're subjected to "security" procedures which obvously are a joke. Meanwhile he's suddenly a protectionist, he's signing bills he openly admits to being unconstitutional, like that campaign finance abortion, and spending is skyrocketing. And we're supposed to believe that moving lines around on an organizational chart is going to accomplish something, when the boxes are still occupied by the same incompetents!
September 11th woke him up for a moment, but that moment's gone, and he's back to being just another politician. And not even a particularly conservative one!
Personally, I've given up on Bush; I don't think he takes this whole thing seriously anymore. Heads haven't rolled, he lets subordinates toss the security of air travelers aside to satisfy their own anti-gun ideology, we're subjected to "security" procedures which obvously are a joke. Meanwhile he's suddenly a protectionist, he's signing bills he openly admits to being unconstitutional, like that campaign finance abortion, and spending is skyrocketing. And we're supposed to believe that moving lines around on an organizational chart is going to accomplish something, when the boxes are still occupied by the same incompetents!
September 11th woke him up for a moment, but that moment's gone, and he's back to being just another politician. And not even a particularly conservative one!
1>Through the course of my money makin' career I've been party to corporate takeovers. In every case the new company is not the sum of the two original companies. They will without fail eliminate redundant positions, eliminate levels of management, and either run out or can the old, err...experienced workers. Only the government will consolidate, add personnel, and increase the budget beyond the sum of the parts.
2>If Bush does not trust the product of CIA / FBI, then he should commence firing management until he gets to a level with which he feels comfortable. His focus on terror intel is commendable, but you don't get a working situation by rehashing hashed intel.
3>One glaring failure is the failure to include DEA in MotherCountry Defense. The war on drugs and the war on Islamofascists is one and the same. We don't want to admit it but sooner or later we will have to deal with drugs in exactly the same way as we say we want to deal with Islamofascists. The war against Islamofascists will turn when we shut down the flow of money supporting them. Drugs is / are the ultimate in non-traceable funds.
2>If Bush does not trust the product of CIA / FBI, then he should commence firing management until he gets to a level with which he feels comfortable. His focus on terror intel is commendable, but you don't get a working situation by rehashing hashed intel.
3>One glaring failure is the failure to include DEA in MotherCountry Defense. The war on drugs and the war on Islamofascists is one and the same. We don't want to admit it but sooner or later we will have to deal with drugs in exactly the same way as we say we want to deal with Islamofascists. The war against Islamofascists will turn when we shut down the flow of money supporting them. Drugs is / are the ultimate in non-traceable funds.
Brett Bellmore
New member
"3>One glaring failure is the failure to include DEA in MotherCountry Defense. The war on drugs and the war on Islamofascists is one and the same. We don't want to admit it but sooner or later we will have to deal with drugs in exactly the same way as we say we want to deal with Islamofascists. The war against Islamofascists will turn when we shut down the flow of money supporting them. Drugs is / are the ultimate in non-traceable funds."
That was a hoot.
First, the Islamofascists are funded by perfectly traceable oil revenues. Well, traceable until they reach Saudi Arabia, anyway, and other middle eastern oil kingdoms. You might have had a point if we were talking Marxist guerrillas in South America, though.
Second, the war on drugs is the only reason drugs are any more suitable for funding terrorists than, say, wheat. It's a price support program!
That was a hoot.
First, the Islamofascists are funded by perfectly traceable oil revenues. Well, traceable until they reach Saudi Arabia, anyway, and other middle eastern oil kingdoms. You might have had a point if we were talking Marxist guerrillas in South America, though.
Second, the war on drugs is the only reason drugs are any more suitable for funding terrorists than, say, wheat. It's a price support program!
Of course he aint gonna put the DEA into the loop, just like they (US military) didn't bomb the poppie fields in Afghanistan.
His family and other elites are tied to the drug trade.
Here is a novel idea, let Manuel Noriega talk to the media, I'll bet he's got some info on the Bush families drug activities.
Waterdog
His family and other elites are tied to the drug trade.
Here is a novel idea, let Manuel Noriega talk to the media, I'll bet he's got some info on the Bush families drug activities.
Waterdog
Justin Moore
New member
The Northern Alliance (you know our ALLIES cough cough) are one of the biggest heroin exporters in the world.
That's why I laf when I hear Bush say "if you buy drugs you are supporting terror". No we aren't, we are supporting our allies aren't we George?
I guess it depends upon who the drugs come from. If you aren't careful you could wind up supporting the CIA as well
That's why I laf when I hear Bush say "if you buy drugs you are supporting terror". No we aren't, we are supporting our allies aren't we George?
I guess it depends upon who the drugs come from. If you aren't careful you could wind up supporting the CIA as well
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I personally don't care for the name "Homeland Security," which sounds like a translation from the Russian, nor am I wildly enthusiastic about the prospect of having to support more federal employees; conversely, the I.N.S. has been an utter failure, so I'm hopeful this new entity will be an improvement.
I never watch television, so I didn't see President Bush's speech, but was amused by extreme leftist newspaper accounts along the lines of, "That mean nasty unscrupulous @#$%^&! Bush unfairly finessed the Democrats (sic) in Congress who were embarking on a witch hunt!" with lots of snivelling and whining.
I never watch television, so I didn't see President Bush's speech, but was amused by extreme leftist newspaper accounts along the lines of, "That mean nasty unscrupulous @#$%^&! Bush unfairly finessed the Democrats (sic) in Congress who were embarking on a witch hunt!" with lots of snivelling and whining.
ojibweindian
New member
Nascent fascism. That pretty much sums it up and says it all.
This new cabinet level department is proposed to be made up with parts of several other already existing departments. I have the email about this on my work email, so I can't remember all of the departments or portions of already existing departments that would become part of the Homeland Security. I know for sure that APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) a portion of the USDA, Immigration and Naturalization, and Customs would be some of the already existing or portions of already existing departments that would become part of the the new department.
All of this is 'proposed' and not an actuality yet.
And in case you are wondering, APHIS is responsible for trying to prevent any harmful plants, animals, insects, and diseases of plants and animals that would effect any plant, animal, or human here from entering the US, and is on alert already to try and prevent Bioterrorism.
All of this is 'proposed' and not an actuality yet.
And in case you are wondering, APHIS is responsible for trying to prevent any harmful plants, animals, insects, and diseases of plants and animals that would effect any plant, animal, or human here from entering the US, and is on alert already to try and prevent Bioterrorism.
Do we have any better solutions?
We've thousands of vulnerable reservoirs, pumping stations, pipelines, aqueducts, powerlines, powerplants, bridges, overpasses, airports, microwave towers, satellite uplinks, communications cables, central phone switches, etc., etc., etc.
A concerted effort by saboteurs could bring this nation to its knees within days.
How do you propose protecting all these vulnerable points?
We are not supposed to use military for domestic police duties.
The "civilian" AmGard" vehicles and guys supposedly protecting our reservoirs are a joke because of the hundreds of miles of forested shoreline within each AmGard's territory. And most of the time I see their vehicle parked at the county courthouse.
We've thousands of vulnerable reservoirs, pumping stations, pipelines, aqueducts, powerlines, powerplants, bridges, overpasses, airports, microwave towers, satellite uplinks, communications cables, central phone switches, etc., etc., etc.
A concerted effort by saboteurs could bring this nation to its knees within days.
How do you propose protecting all these vulnerable points?
We are not supposed to use military for domestic police duties.
The "civilian" AmGard" vehicles and guys supposedly protecting our reservoirs are a joke because of the hundreds of miles of forested shoreline within each AmGard's territory. And most of the time I see their vehicle parked at the county courthouse.
I'm all for the creation of the Dept. Homeland Security.
Forty, fifty, even a hundred different law enforcement entities with their respective mission statements, directioves, cultures, and priorities "chipping in" is what we have, and that's obviously not going to cut it, security wise.
Not that the new kid on the federal block will solve everything all at once, but it is a step in the right direction.
Forty, fifty, even a hundred different law enforcement entities with their respective mission statements, directioves, cultures, and priorities "chipping in" is what we have, and that's obviously not going to cut it, security wise.
Not that the new kid on the federal block will solve everything all at once, but it is a step in the right direction.
Torquemada
New member
Who's gonna staff it?
Likely, the majority of the personnel are going to come from existing agencies, bringing with them "their" way of doing things. All the existing alphabet agencies have a defined (yet flexible) mission statement which overlaps others' areas, so you get:
1. an incident that needs agents from ABC, XYZ, PDQ and others to get involved because of the overlap
2. info from ABC and XYZ going to PDQ, but it's all proprietary, so PDQ may interpret it differently than ABC or XYZ
3. ABC, XYZ and PDQ fighting over turf and budgets
The smart move is to start it from scratch. Second smartest is to FOLD entire agencies into the DHS and tell 'em to get over it.
Regardless of how it's created, all other agencies should be given a mission statement and that's all they handle, call in the others when the suspects are in custody but stop playing juristictional games.
Likely, the majority of the personnel are going to come from existing agencies, bringing with them "their" way of doing things. All the existing alphabet agencies have a defined (yet flexible) mission statement which overlaps others' areas, so you get:
1. an incident that needs agents from ABC, XYZ, PDQ and others to get involved because of the overlap
2. info from ABC and XYZ going to PDQ, but it's all proprietary, so PDQ may interpret it differently than ABC or XYZ
3. ABC, XYZ and PDQ fighting over turf and budgets
The smart move is to start it from scratch. Second smartest is to FOLD entire agencies into the DHS and tell 'em to get over it.
Regardless of how it's created, all other agencies should be given a mission statement and that's all they handle, call in the others when the suspects are in custody but stop playing juristictional games.