Was it worthwhile to create the Department of Homeland Security?

[KingOrfeo]

The DHS was formed in 2002 by taking 22 existing security-related agencies out of their departments and grouping them under new central management. Seemed like a good idea at the time; failure of coordination between such agencies was seen, rightly or wrongly, as one of the things that allowed 9/11 to happen. But vette has been saying that DHS has been a bureaucratic boondoggle from day one, that the agencies still have no clear lines of communication between them and nobody knows what they're doing. Do we really need it? Of course we need the customs and immigration services, FEMA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, etc., but what is the point of DHS itself?

Criticism from the left sees DHS as a threat to Americans' civil liberties and privacy -- is there anything to that? "Homeland Security" is an ominous phrase, to be sure, it sounds like the kind of secret-police/political-police "Interior Ministry" they have in police states, but, after all, the department's creation was only a reorganization, of agencies already existing; it did not expand government's reach or functions or powers, and did not much expand the federal payroll AFAIK. And the FBI (the one federal agency that actually has sometimes functioned as a domestic political police force) and CIA and NSA are not parts of it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mark_j]

The DHS was formed in 2002 by taking 22 existing security-related agencies out of their departments and grouping them under new central management. Seemed like a good idea at the time; failure of coordination between such agencies was seen, rightly or wrongly, as one of the things that allowed 9/11 to happen. But vette has been saying that DHS has been a bureaucratic boondoggle from day one, that the agencies still have no clear lines of communication between them and nobody knows what they're doing. Do we really need it? Of course we need the customs and immigration services, FEMA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, etc., but what is the point of DHS itself?

Criticism from the left sees DHS as a threat to Americans' civil liberties and privacy -- is there anything to that? "Homeland Security" is an ominous phrase, to be sure, it sounds like the kind of secret-police/political-police "Interior Ministry" they have in police states, but, after all, the department's creation was only a reorganization, of agencies already existing; it did not expand government's reach or functions or powers, and did not much expand the federal payroll AFAIK. And the FBI (the one federal agency that actually has sometimes functioned as a domestic political police force) and CIA and NSA are not parts of it.

You know, the administration had the chance to de-fund/remove all that early in the first term.

Why didn't they?

Seems that most of congress voted to keep that intact, including the so called "Patriot Act".

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Had Robert E. Lee captured Washington the US government woulda collapsed immediately, because outside of Washington there is no coherence or cohesion, and nothing has changed since the 1860s. Its how politicians design government, to make it fragile and ineffective.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You know, the administration had the chance to de-fund/remove all that early in the first term.

Why didn't they?

Probably because they 1) did not want to appear soft on "security" and 2) were more preoccupied with dealing with the recession than with yet another governmental reorganization.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

If we can't have an agency like S.H.I.E.L.D. as the end result of this shit, with helicarriers and hi-tech junk to protect our country, it's all bunk.

http://www.tvserial.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/agents-e1416518868786-860x450_c.jpg

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/275788/Article/images/19418424/4994703-large.jpg

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

So they doubled down on the Patriot Act and expanded NSA spying.

Which I would not support; likewise with Guantanamo and indefinite detentions and drone-strikes and silencing whistleblowers. All of those are different matters from DHS, however.

 

[someoneyouknow]

No. It was an increase in the size and cost of government designed to treat U.S. citizens like criminals, not protect us.

Next question.

 

[KingOrfeo]

No. It was an increase in the size and cost of government designed to treat U.S. citizens like criminals, not protect us.

Next question.

How was it an increase in the size and cost of government? The collected agencies already existed, only the top management of the department was new.

 

[someoneyouknow]

How was it an increase in the size and cost of government? The collected agencies already existed, only the top management of the department was new.

The collected agencies already existed, yes, but DHS is a brand new agency, directly in the line of succession (albeit at the end). It has its own personnel, own director, etc. Thus, it's an increase in both size and cost.

This link from DHS itself shows the FY 2016 request is $41 billion:

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY_2016_DHS_Budget_in_Brief.pdf

Whereas the FY 2015 request was $38 billion:

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY15BIB.pdf

Those numbers are what they are requesting to run the agency. This is above and beyond what all those other agencies it interacts with receive.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The DHS was formed in 2002 by taking 22 existing security-related agencies out of their departments and grouping them under new central management. Seemed like a good idea at the time; failure of coordination between such agencies was seen, rightly or wrongly, as one of the things that allowed 9/11 to happen. But vette has been saying that DHS has been a bureaucratic boondoggle from day one, that the agencies still have no clear lines of communication between them and nobody knows what they're doing. Do we really need it? Of course we need the customs and immigration services, FEMA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, etc., but what is the point of DHS itself?

Criticism from the left sees DHS as a threat to Americans' civil liberties and privacy -- is there anything to that? "Homeland Security" is an ominous phrase, to be sure, it sounds like the kind of secret-police/political-police "Interior Ministry" they have in police states, but, after all, the department's creation was only a reorganization, of agencies already existing; it did not expand government's reach or functions or powers, and did not much expand the federal payroll AFAIK. And the FBI (the one federal agency that actually has sometimes functioned as a domestic political police force) and CIA and NSA are not parts of it.

It was the lack of coordination between CIA and FBI specifically that most directly resulted in the horror of 9/11 and whose absence from the DHS realm makes the latter little more than a bloated bureaucracy. DHS does serve as the "corner streetcop" of commercial airline safety, but beyond that it does precious little.

 

[KingOrfeo]

No love for DHS in this thread so far. Does nobody care to defend it?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You know, the administration had the chance to de-fund/remove all that early in the first term.

Why didn't they?

Seems that most of congress voted to keep that intact, including the so called "Patriot Act".

The priority was given to the health needs of uninsured Americans, and rightly so.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

No love for DHS in this thread so far. Does nobody care to defend it?

Not I. It can stop giving tanks to suburban police departments now.

 

[sr71plt]

It was the lack of coordination between CIA and FBI specifically that most directly resulted in the horror of 9/11 and whose absence from the DHS realm makes the latter little more than a bloated bureaucracy. DHS does serve as the "corner streetcop" of commercial airline safety, but beyond that it does precious little.

Bullshit. The United States is an open society and was much more so before 9/11. One of the few statements George Bush made that I could agree with was that the terrorists only have to win once and the protectors have to win every time, or the "don't think too clearly couch prognosticators" will say just what you posted. If it hadn't been for the intelligence agencies plugging away while you were eating donuts and complaining about paying your taxes, the horror of 9/11 would have happened some fifteen years earlier than it inevitably did, given the sieve-like openness of U.S. society.

 

[unregistered]

 

[patient1]

I think that both the Dept and the Patriot Act should be repealed.

Some of the findings of the 911 Comission Report should be implemented in the form of inquiries and audits with the savings-

23.The burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive’s use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use. (394-5)

25.Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Now, in 2004, Washington, D.C., and New York City are certainly at the top of any such list. We understand the contention that every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel. (396)

 

[sr71plt]

Maybe you ought to educate yourself before shooting off your uninformed mouth. Go here to look at the case of Jamie Gorelick and her connection to that lack of coordination between departments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gorelick

Your fucked up sense of education is probably the last thing I need in life. I worked in government (and in the areas covered by Homeland Security). I'm pretty sure you've spent your time on Pluto.