Dept of Homeland Security - Savior or White-wash?

This morning, President Bush signed into law legislation the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a cabinet-level department to combat terrorism within the borders of the United States. This legislation is being hailed as "the largest reorganization of the federal government since the development of the Department of Defense was created in 1947".

This new department, for all its luster, is not without scandal, however.

Before going before the now Republican-dominated Senate, articles were added to the bill that had not been agreed upon. Some of these unjustified items (as reported by USAToday):

- The pharmaceutical industry, which donated $35 million to the last two political campaigns, would gain protection from lawsuits over adverse side effects of vaccines. Conveniently, the restrictions would be retroactive, terminating injury cases that are already in the courts.

- Makers of faulty bomb detectors, gas masks or other anti-terrorism devices would be granted immunity from liability, even in cases of intentional wrongdoing.

- Companies could cover up violations of the law by hiding behind new restrictions on access to government information (Freedom of Information Act).

- A provision inserted by incoming House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, would hand Texas A & M University the first department grant: a homeland-security research center.

- Worse than these special-interest additions is the lack of adequate funding for agencies that actually will play a major role in homeland security. Congress is quitting for the year ? encouraged by the White House ? without delivering promised billions more for such programs as truck and nuclear-plant security, bioterrorism research and Customs operations.

There has also been the concern by many that this single department will tip the balance of power between the three branches of government, give the Executive Branch more power than the Legislative and Judicial branches.

In my opinion, this new department is a whitewash to placate the rampant fears of Americans, while assisting Big Business interests in the field of anti-terrorism. I do not believe it will be effective in its goals; quite the contrary, I think it will create far more red-tape and bureaucracy than the combined departments that preceeded its faculties.

CNN put it best:

Over the weekend, Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vermont, said creating the new department will only divert resources from the fight against terrorism and "give the American people a false, false sense of security."

What is your opinion on this new department and its potential to follow through onits promises to the American public? I, for one, agree with Senator Jeffords.

Links of interest:
CNN-Bush Signs Homeland Security Bill, 25 November, 2002
USAToday-Homeland Security Comes Loaded with Gifts, 20 November,2002

 

White-wash.

While a good idea in theory, the actual implementation, along with the tag-ons, is nothing more than a cover for Bush's political agenda.

Not good.

Peace,

V-03

 

While a good idea in theory, the actual implementation, along with the tag-ons, is nothing more than a cover for Bush's political agenda.

Amen.

A better plan would be to loosen the leash on the intelligence services (CIA, FBI, NSA, NMIA, etc.), and allow them much greater independence.

- Scarlet.

 

My theory on this:

Bush doesn't really want a department of homeland security. However, when Lieberman brought it up last year, he stole the idea, and played it off the democrats during the elections with the whole Union thing and not supporting the war on terror.

I believe very few politicians want something like this, but a combination of peer pressure and the consequences to both parties if they are seen as weak on terror and the belief that most of the voters want it.

 

From the New York Times, November 14th, 2002:

New York Times
November 14, 2002
You Are a Suspect
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON ? If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you:

Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you
receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend ? all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you ? passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance ? and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen.

This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.

Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua.

A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, "The buck stops here," arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing.

This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the "Information Awareness Office" in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the "data-mining" power to snoop on every public and private act of every American.

Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts.

But Poindexter's assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight.

He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such necessary differentiation as bureaucratic "stovepiping." And he has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans.

When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person's medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president.

This time, however, he has been seizing power in the open. In the past week John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O'Harrow of The Washington Post, have revealed the extent of Poindexter's operation, but editorialists have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of Information Act.

Political awareness can overcome "Total Information Awareness," the combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and postal workers as snoops caused the Hou

 

Couple questions about Homeland Security:

1. Why do we need a Dept. of HS if we already have a Dept. of Defense? Isn't that the point of the Dept. of Defense?

2. If Bush is a Republican, and Republicans favor a limited government, why is President Bush trying to expand his power? (For some reason, I'm expecting Bush flaming from this.)

3. Other than consolidating a bunch of defense groups into one big clump under one boss, what's the selling point of the DoHS? I mean, what's so great about it, and why is it necessary (esp. when we already have a Defense Dept.)?

 

1. Why do we need a Dept. of HS if we already have a Dept. of Defense? Isn't that the point of the Dept. of Defense?

Not a clue. My guess is so it looks like the Bush Administration is doing something substantial about terrorism (as if threatening Iraq isn't enough).

2. If Bush is a Republican, and Republicans favor a limited government, why is President Bush trying to expand his power? (For some reason, I'm expecting Bush flaming from this.)

I wouldn't call it expanding his power, though I see why you say it, but more about expanding the government's power.

As to why? Well, because public opinion demands it. And I'm sure none of us are idealistic enough to believe that politicians care more about principles than votes.

3. Other than consolidating a bunch of defense groups into one big clump under one boss, what's the selling point of the DoHS? I mean, what's so great about it, and why is it necessary (esp. when we already have a Defense Dept.)?

Not a clue.

- Scarlet.

 

This Department is merely a reogranization and centralization of many separate departments in the effort for them to collaborate and communicate better.

 

Some of the tag-ons are supposed to be removed when they return I believe. It remains to be seen how well this is going to work, but they have had information sharing problems before and putting these agencies under one umbrella is supposed to help with that. Having worked for the Federal Government before, things rarely work in practice the way they are supposed to on paper unfortunately. Tom Ridge is going to have a tough job.

 

Why have a Dept. of H/S when both the FBI and CIA have complained about being under-funded? Surely money could be spent on improving the capabilities of these agencies?

As for Poindexter, all he needs to do is hire Dewey Clarridge, Ollie North and Alexander Haig as "consultants" to make it a Neo-Reaganite shindig!

E_S

 

I always thought that FBI was supposed to take care of everything that falls under the Homeland Security Dept.? Why not just save money and give the FBI proper funding?

 

Because what you always thought was wrong.

For the sake of an example, both the Coast Guard, Border Patrol/INS and Customs fall under the new Department whereas before the Coast Guard was in the Department of Transportation, Border Patrol/INS in the Department of Justice, and Customs was in the Department of Treasury.

Can you see how those three agencies would be better situated under one roof?

 

Savior or WhiteWash? I would say somewhere in between. It all depends on just how things 'work out'.

THere is always plenty of pork in bills, and Republicans Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Lincoln Chaffee already have it in that alot of the 'pork' spending will be reviewed within 6 month's anyway.

Otherwise.... history (and bills) are written by the winners of elections......

 

Can you see how those three agencies would be better situated under one roof?

And what of the allegations that the departments that truly need the funding under the new department are not slated to have a sufficient budget?

Also, what is your reasoning behind these "special gifts" inserted into the bill by our venerable Republican leaders?

...history (and bills) are written by the winners of elections...

Excellent point, TripleB. This is something voters will need to remember when the time comes.

 

Since pork barrel spending was inserted by both parties, I see no reason to isolate Republican inclusions.

Of course I also see no reason to defend them but your claim it was all the Republicans is rather ludicrous.

Second, nebulous allegations are all well and good, however if you'd like to bring up specifics it would be appreciated.
Unless of course you just want to lambast me for not answering the specifics you didn't give, in which case go ahead.

 

While a good idea in theory, the actual implementation, along with the tag-ons, is nothing more than a cover for Bush's political agenda.

Not good

That is an absurd statement.

It really was a bipartisan effort, with the Dems wanting more unionized options in the bill. Not only that, the original idea came from the Democrats themselves.

The President merely wanted the ability to hire or fire individuals (the same authority Carter was given in his term). I agree that the add-ons weren't necessary, but that is the nature of the game in Washington these days. Every bill has add ons to it. The issue will be addressed in the next Congress next year.

The creation of this department is merely an reorganization effort to improve communication and efficiency of the previously separated departments.

Besides, most Americans agree with GWB on the Homeland Security issue. It was plainly stated in this past election.

BTW, the New York Times is a nototriously liberal newspaper. They are obviously going to be in opposition to anything GWB comes up with.

 

I will have to wait and see if the Government is capable of protecting our borders, which was the problem with 9/11, not the FBI and the CIA.

 

White-Wash

Stupidest scam ever.

 

We'll have to wait and see the results and how effectively it is implimented. The basic concept is to get a middle man in there so that the CIA, FBI and other critical agencies relay important information to each other. But I love how people that don't like Bush always condemn any law he signs. It's funny really.

 

Well those clauses that listed on the original post of this thread are down right wrong and it has nothing to do with homeland security at all in my opinion. Those are special interest groups trying to secretly influence their agendas. I hate special interests groups and that is why I'm opposed to these other measures. It had better be fixed when they come back from their holiday break.

I do believe though that in this day and age we need a department of homeland defense. However like all other branches in the government they must keep a limited ammount of power.

Oh and yes I do find it funny when Bush haters love to condemm everything he signs or supports. It's getting really old real quick.

So those things listed are whitewash, however Homeland defense is not whitewash.

 

Well, had the Democrat's maintained or expanded the Senate and retook the House, I am sure the HomeLand Security Bill would look much different.

So would politics in general.

I am sure that we would see Clinton and the Media gloating like they had somehow beaten George W Bush.....

But why bother with what did not happen?

 

It really was a bipartisan effort, with the Dems wanting more unionized options in the bill. Not only that, the original idea came from the Democrats themselves.

Good point, Darth_Mischievous. It was originally brought up by the Democrats, and Bush immediately rejected it. However, the original plan was not to give economic and legal loopholes to "big business". Democrats voted for the final version under the guise of repealling three of the aforementioned "gifts" in a compromise session next year.

And yes, the people are in favor of it, by majority. I still don't quite understand this. These are the same people who were crying fear of an Orwellian government 3 years ago. Ironic, isn't it?

 

That is an absurd statement.

Your opinion, DM. A little rude and disrespectful too, I might add.

It really was a bipartisan effort, with the Dems wanting more unionized options in the bill. Not only that, the original idea came from the Democrats themselves.

Yah, and Mr. Bush had his senate colleagues tweak it to his liking, keep most of the perks for his friends quiet, and then claim all the credit for it.

Despite what many might think, "union" is not a dirty word. Daschle wanted protections for workers in the bill. Since this department will employ so many, I don't see why this is so beyond the pale. Wouldn't you want some job security? The department will be staffed by mostly middle-class workers who need federal protection; they're all not multimillionaires like the movers and shakers in DC.

The President merely wanted the ability to hire or fire individuals (the same authority Carter was given in his term). I agree that the add-ons weren't necessary, but that is the nature of the game in Washington these days. Every bill has add ons to it. The issue will be addressed in the next Congress next year.

You know, that doesn't make it right. Mr. Bush has consistently pleaded with lawmakers to "put aside the way things have been done" and get this homeland bill passed. It just seems ironic to me his partymates would slap so many little things on and then basically give the dems the finger, in an attempt to "show off" their new majority. I mean, this is the president who crowed about changing the "tone" in washington. Truly amazing, the difference between campaign promises and an administration's actions .

The creation of this department is merely an reorganization effort to improve communication and efficiency of the previously separated departments.

Agreed.

Besides, most Americans agree with GWB on the Homeland Security issue. It was plainly stated in this past election.

I could not disagree more. "Most" americans it certainly was not. More voting americans fell for Bush's beating the war drum and playing on psychological fears of terrorism, but that doesn't mean a mandate. In fact, key republican leaders in congress were warning Bush and Lott not to use that word or act according-because it wasn't there.

This country is as divided as ever. Most of the swing races were very close, within 5 or less percentage points. The governorships are just about even. The house may have stayed in GOP hands, but the senate majority is still too small for them to claim "most" americans. Especially since the voter turnout in the election was so low. Republicans tend to be more polarized about voting, that's all. This is no way translates to "most" anything.

BTW, the New York Times is a nototriously liberal newspaper. They are obviously going to be in opposition to anything GWB comes up with.

You know, in every pro-Bush post on this board, the word "liberal" tends to come up in a negative fashion. Just what is wrong with the NYT having differing views from the president? A free press is a vital preventative measure against dictatorship in this country. I for one am delighted that King Bush is not allowed to run roughshod over his opposition without honest and if necessary, scathing commentary from the media.

I mean, the republicans certainly used the spotlight to rip into Clinton, and over his affairs no less-something far from important when compared to the terrorist threat. The fact that Newt Gingrich and his cronies were able to tie up congress with the impeachment proceedings was a testament to just how good we had it. But even in a war, we're still a democracy. It's just a crying shame that those who disagree with the leadership have to be branded with arrogant monikers such as "liberal".

Peace,

V-03

 

Hey, I'm all for giving money to Texas, even if it IS those Aggies.


Actually, I don't know anything about this bill nor do I really understand it. The only thing I understood in that whole thing was "grant" and "Texas A&M"

 

Another little tidbit about this new department, as reported this morning by the Washington Post:

Creation of the department was supported by both parties in Congress, but some Democrats yesterday continued to complain that Bush has vetoed or discouraged action on a number of Democratic initiatives to increase funding for domestic security. The office of Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) yesterday released a list of proposed homeland security spending increases that Bush has refused to fund, including bioterrorism training for first responders and cyber-security measures.

An array of privacy advocates and civil liberties groups said yesterday they believe the new department is part of an alarming trend by the administration to collect information about U.S. citizens while simultaneously restricting the amount of information the government discloses to the public.

Representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Federation of American Scientists and the Electronic Privacy Information Center said the new department could create advisory committees that are exempt from public disclosure laws. The legislation creating the department also shields from public disclosure information that industry might share with the government about critical infrastructure.

The goal is to allow industries with facilities that might be terrorist targets to share details with the government without fear of public disclosure. But the new law prevents the government from taking action against any company that provides such data, even if it contains evidence of wrongdoing by the company. In an analysis released last week, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), said the provisions "gut" the federal Freedom of Information Act.