Disband the Department of Homeland Security

[LouisB]

I can't put this in GD because I'm not a skilled debater and I really don't have a position except to say that I think it would be a good idea. And, I can't defend that idea, either.

So, I'm curious: Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to eliminate the Department of Homeland Security? I don't even care why anyone would or wouldn't think it a good idea but feel free to state reasons if you are so inclined.

[Czarcasm]

Fixing title and moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

[Leaper]

LouisB: This is an aside from what I think could be an interesting OP, but as Czarcasm's action should tell you, you shouldn't necessarily be afraid of posting to GD just because you feel you can't support or debate your position. I know why you were reluctant, but you do have a reasonable, defensible position, and you seem to want a good faith effort to actually DEBATE... OTOH, maybe that's BECAUSE you were reluctant to go into GD.

Just use your best judgment, and you usually won't go wrong. If it feels like something people can discuss/debate reasonably, go ahead and put it here, IMO. (Mods, feel free to correct me if I got something wrong here.)

[Czarcasm]

LouisB: This is an aside from what I think could be an interesting OP, but as Czarcasm's action should tell you, you shouldn't necessarily be afraid of posting to GD just because you feel you can't support or debate your position. I know why you were reluctant, but you do have a reasonable, defensible position, and you seem to want a good faith effort to actually DEBATE... OTOH, maybe that's BECAUSE you were reluctant to go into GD.

Just use your best judgment, and you usually won't go wrong. If it feels like something people can discuss/debate reasonably, go ahead and put it here, IMO. (Mods, feel free to correct me if I got something wrong here.)
He's doomed! Doomed, I tell you! :D

Actually, this type of question is perfectly suited for Great Debates. Just jump in whenever you have a point to make or a question to ask, and watch where it goes.

[Loach]

Why? Do you have a problem with the concept or with the execution?

[Czarcasm]

I find the concept to be ill-used and badly explained to the public at large. Vague powers for a vague threat, an extremely ill-thought-out name(who didn't think "Fatherland" when they heard "Homeland"?), and a Big Brother advertising campaign. What's not to love?

[silenus]

Disband them, publish the names of every person employed by them, and offer a bounty.

[Loach]

(who didn't think "Fatherland" when they heard "Homeland"?)

I didn't. Still don't. And when I saw that thought here for the first time I just shrugged.

[Czarcasm]

I didn't. Still don't. And when I saw that thought here for the first time I just shrugged.You have never seen that comparison between the two terms before?

[Sage Rat]

I'm not fond of the executive branch having any policing powers. At the moment that might not be too great of an issue, but I would be worried about an expanding scope of power.

My primary issue with them at the moment is that they seem pretty inept and, indeed, rather big brotherish in their approach and love of posting their logo on everything. The idea of dis-separating various government groups so that they can work together more effectively, on the other hand is a fine idea given the right execution.

[Loach]

You have never seen that comparison between the two terms before?

Not here in this thread. Here on the Dope. In the past. Here is where I first heard it and I thought it said more about those making the comparison than those that came up with the name.

[Spoons]

(who didn't think "Fatherland" when they heard "Homeland"?)Honestly, I didn't. But I did think "Motherland," and its associations with the USSR. For example, this statue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Motherland_Calls). There are other Soviet uses at Wikipedia's Motherland disambiguation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Motherland) page. Note how it offers "homeland" as one translation for "motherland."

[marshmallow]

If I had to think of a way to fight a small, fragmented group of unconventional guerilla fighters who could strike anywhere at anytime I would suggest piling one convoluted bureaucracy on top of another. Also, it creates thousands of jobs, right? So it's all good.

[LouisB]

Why? Do you have a problem with the concept or with the execution?Both.

[Stealth Potato]

You'll get no objection from me. :D

But I did think "Motherland," and its associations with the USSR. For example, this statue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Motherland_Calls).
Nothing really to add; I just wanted to say that that is a kick-ass statue.

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm not fond of the executive branch having any policing powers.

Well, the only way to resolve this would be to jump back in time to 1908 when Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte, a Presidential appointee, hired a permanent staff of agents which he dubbed the Bureau of Investigation.

I forget what happened to them, though. I think they eventually disbanded to pursue solo careers.

[foolsguinea]

I'm not fond of the executive branch having any policing powers.Um, what do you think an executive is for? Who should run the EPA? Who should enforce the Clean Air Act? Who should run the FBI?

Now, if you mean that you want professionals & careerists to police rather than Presidential appointees, that's another issue. Maybe we need policing under some other authority than political appointees. But it is an executive job by its nature.

[mswas]

The best argument for this is that the DHS is basically filling a redundant role to the CIA, except that it unifies both domestic and foreign intelligence under one roof. Increasing the cooperation between the FBI and CIA would be better than having a DHS.

[Czarcasm]

I'm not sure I want the FBI and the CIA unified in any way. One is supposed to investigate outside the U.S., the other in. Too much vague "cooperation" allows the CIA to operate inside the U.S. via their good buddies over in the FBI.

[Ravenman]

So, the only two coherent arguments I've heard against the Department of Homeland Security are: 1) the name is creepy and 2) the government shouldn't have the power to enforce laws.

On the other hand, the whole reason for establishing the Department of Homeland Security boils down to: 1) OMG!! 9-11let'sdosomethingand QUICK!!!

I think the establishment of DHS did a lot of bad things -- FEMA was neutered once transferred to a different place on a bureaucratic map, billions more spent to rearrange office space here in DC leading to no improvement in services to the public, and so on. But I don't see how rearranging government yet again would improve that.

Besides that, I'm not scared of the Department of Homeland Security. There's good reason to be concerned about what the CIA and FBI are up to these days... but who is the boogeyman in DHS? The Coast Guard? TSA? The color coded terror chart? On the chart that has a Y axis of malevolence and an X axis of capability, the component agencies of the Department of Homeland Security are dots right next to the US Postal Service.

[Czarcasm]

But that is a major part of my problem with Homeland Security-the vagueness of its powers and responsibilities. It adds a layer of bureaucracy that is damn near impenetrable, wrapped in a flag and blessed by the President.

[BrainGlutton]

I find the concept to be ill-used and badly explained to the public at large. Vague powers for a vague threat, an extremely ill-thought-out name(who didn't think "Fatherland" when they heard "Homeland"?), and a Big Brother advertising campaign. What's not to love?

I don't like the name either -- the "Security" part, that is. In many countries, a department or ministry of "security" is what they call the agency responsible for suppressing political dissent. But, in the U.S., insofar as that is done it all, it has always been the FBI's job and the DHS has shown no ambition to poach it. I'm not really worried the DHS is going to turn into our new secret police. The question is whether the DHS is worth having. When Congress created it, they simply hived off several existing agencies and gathered them under one new department. Has this, or has it not, notably improved the aggregate performance of those agencies?

DHS organizational chart (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/DHS_OrgChart.pdf) (pdf).

[smiling bandit]

But that is a major part of my problem with Homeland Security-the vagueness of its powers and responsibilities. It adds a layer of bureaucracy that is damn near impenetrable, wrapped in a flag and blessed by the President.

Worse - the President AND Congress!

Actually, the biggest problem with it is that, in addition to being a big layer of pointless bureaucracy atop bureaucracy, they tosed in a giant fruit salad of departments which don't fit.

[Stranger On A Train]

But that is a major part of my problem with Homeland Security-the vagueness of its powers and responsibilities. It adds a layer of bureaucracy that is damn near impenetrable, wrapped in a flag and blessed by the President.Sam Lowry: Excuse me, Dawson, can you put me through to Mr. Helpmann's office?
Dawson: I'm afraid I can't sir. You have to go through the proper channels.
Sam Lowry: And you can't tell me what the proper channels are, because that's classified information?
Dawson: I'm glad to see the Ministry's continuing its tradition of recruiting the brightest and best, sir.
Sam Lowry: Thank you, Dawson. --Brazil (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/)

I'm not sure what is more disturbing; that Terry Gilliam's dystopian satire is becoming increasingly true, or that DHS has become a self-parody of inept bureaucracy, collecting together various organizations that already functioned under its wing, increasing budget demands without any actual increase in operational funding, and then becoming totally incapable of any serious response to a natural disaster or major terrorist act. The "vague but credible warning" of terrorist attacks that popped up on every major holiday and anniversary in the few years after the September 11, 2001 attacks just served to further highlight the functional uselessness of this overarching organization. The single most visibly useful thing DHS has done has been to publish its Homeland Security Advisory System, which doesn't say anything good about the effectiveness of the organization.

I'd like to see it disbanded and its various child agencies distributed back to the Department of the Treasury, Department of Justice, et cetera. However, on the list of things to correct about post-Sept. 11 hyperbolism, it's pretty low; it comes off as less sinister than bumbling, and only destructive of civil rights in the most oafish, ill-considered manner that is readily taken to task by activist groups like the ACLU. I'd place closing down prisons in Gauntanamo and Eastern Europe, halting interrogation techniques like waterboarding, ensuring that there are firm restrictions on how domestic data gathering is used and disseminated, and others much higher on the list.

Stranger

[Dinsdale]

I haven't kept up to date on funding and staffing, but in years past I saw nothing to suggest the creation of DHS was necessarily resulting in any significant efficiencies or effectiveness. Working in a huge federal bureaucracy myself, I am cynical about the efficacy of solving a complex problem by cobbling together a new huge federal bureaucracy.

My understanding when it was created was that things were done in - um - a less than stellar manner. Small things like no one considering whether it was necessary that everyone in DHS use the same technology and actually be able to communicate with each other. And in many instances I was personally aware of, more than one agency took advantage of the "spin-off" to simply purge themselves of their most useless employees.
Q-How do you get rid of a long-term federal employee?
A-Create a new agency and transfer him! :D

For some time, my understanding was that there remained considerable duplication between DHS functions and the other agencies that had historically provided those functions. No gov't agency gladly gives up any aspect of its mission - and the funding that goes along with it.

I would not be surprised to hear many of these problems have been addressed by now. My only questions would be at what cost, and for what benefit?

Perhaps my greatest objection to DHS tho, is that it continues what I see as the administration's efforts to instill a constant perception of unfocused fear. Surely we wouldn't need a huge DHS if we weren't under constant threat, no? And when the public believes fear is warranted, it is easier for interested parties to ram through "security" measures that chip away at civil liberties that I personally hold far more dearly than a sense of personal security.

[LouisB]

I heard a discussion of the Department of Homeland Security on PBS (All Things Considered??) this morning. I'm in and out of my car pretty often so I didn't hear it all but basically it had to with its shortcomings and its triumphs. In spite of having quotes from Tom Ridge and Chertoff, the shortcomings (failures) far outweighed the triumphs. There was a quote from someone, I missed the name, to the effect of what we are discussing here: Break the damn thing down and return the pieces to their previous state. The consensus seemed to be that overall the DHS was a failure and probably would continue to be so.

Did anyone else catch this program? Have I got the gist of it right or did I hallucinate: It was very early and I was still very sleepy.