Steven Brill says his liberal media associates were unduly upset by his positive comments about Tom Ridge and the HSD (according to Drudge).
What have Ridge and his department done right? According to Brill, they deserve credit for preventing fresh terror strikes in the US since the start of the war.
So, two questions for debate:
How good a job is the HSD doing?
Is the liberal media’s reaction to Brill’s book inappropriate?
How can you really judge? Its a thumbs up because “nothing has happened!” Who can say if the HSD is to thank for it, or if its sheer dumb luck?
By your logic, placing every man, woman, and child physically present in the U.S. under 24-hour surveillance by Government agents would be a good thing, since that would certainly prevent terrorist attacks by any one of them. In fact, preventive detention for all people, everywhere, would be very effective, as well. Preventing terrorism is a worthy objective, but it’s a bit absurd to say that it’s worth any price we have to pay for it.
We also need to be on guard against another bogus way “success” is sometimes measured. The Transportation Security folks are proud of trotting out statistics about how many “forbidden items” they’ve confiscated from air travelers. This is a meaningless statistic. How many of those travelers were potential terrorists? I believe the answer is “none,” since I don’t recall seeing anything about any of them being arrested and convicted. In short, the security people have simply confiscated large numbers of items from completely law-abiding people. Hooray!
So, how good a job is HSD doing? Well, since so far it’s just a bureaucratic box-drawing excercise, taking existing organizations and connecting them with new lines on an org chart, it’s probably much too early even to ask the question. Some of the things our beloved DOJ is doing may be effective, but I think they represent a dangerous erosion of our Constitutional liberties, and we’re going to live to regret surrendering them so readily.
On question 2, I’m not going to take the bait offered by your oft-repeated strawman, “liberal media.”
I note that the “duct tape and cover” methods espoused by the HSD are not mentioned in the OP. Perhaps a bit too embarrassing? This is one sign to me that the HSD isn’t doing its job, the fact that it put forth a completely ineffective and even counterproductive method for the average American to “protect themselves” from a terrorist attack. This has become something of a joke among people around me, of every political stripe.
The color system of terrorist threat is another sign; a useless tool which seems to be more subject to political grandstanding and/or arbitrary whim than actual threats. It’s also become a joke among people I know and work with, liberals and conservatives alike.
Brill needs to wake up and smell what he’s shovelling – It’s not just liberals criticizing the “work” of the HSD, it’s pretty much everyone with a brain in their head, including a number of conservatives.
To me, it remains to be seen whether the HSD, a “big government” initiative if ever there was one, will be beneficial or harmful. It has the potential to be either, as it could possibly increase security, but along the way it stands to trample a number of our rights and freedoms. All I know for sure is the the two most outward signs, “duct tape and cover” and the Rainbow of Threat, are a couple of the biggest jokes I know of, and they do not speak well for the work of the HSD. If that’s the best it can do, then it’s a waste of money and resources.
I’m curious. Do you work in a field that is related to public safety or the government? I ask because if you worked at, say…FEMA or INS or something I might be very concerned that you and your fellow professionals do not consider such a system valuable. If you are simply making jokes around the water cooler with your friends from Marketing, I am less inclined to be concerned about your assessment.
I fail to see a need to identify proponents or opponents of the HSD as “liberal” or “convervative”. I would hope that most people could objectively examine such an organization on the merits of its purpose and the effectiveness of it’s execution.
Alas, I fear that a great many people would argue which side of the sky the sun will come up in tomorrow if the prediction came from the “wrong” political party.
As for the HSD, there are things it is doing well and things it is not doing well. In this day and age, it seems silly to berate them for erring on the side of caution.
Ye gods, whats with the misleading title? Once again december is juxtaposing arguments. Liberals disagree with positive statements = Liberals want Home Security failure.
I must admire your faith in the conservative cause. Most wouldn’t cite Drudge for fear of looking like a mindless zealot. Hats off. But this liberal outrage in Drudge’s article is limited to one PBS host expressly during a discussion of the book (if we disregard, as we should, the rest of his “friend of a friend said” style reporting). In fact I would prefer to see the clip from PBS before I even believe that much.
A question for december, if this were true do you think this would represent some shift in the Liberal stance? Do you feel that up until now the liberal argument was that mass wire-taps would not net more crooks?
There are at least two dozen gaping holes in the United States’ border in part because the Homeland Security Act (PL 107-296) insists on defining “Indian tribes” as local governments.
That means that to get any federal assistance for Homeland Security programs, tribes have to go to the states in which their reservations are located. Tribes are sovereign governments and don’t pay state taxes. Bearing that in mind, just take a guess how many federal Homeland Security dollars allocated to the states have found their way to Indian tribes. There are at least two dozen tribes with borders on the open ocean, or Canada, or Mexico.
The one time then-Governor Bush had anything substantive to say about Indian tribes during the election campaign, he ignorantly contradicted two and a quarter centuries of law and precedent by saying he felt that tribes should be subservient to state control. And lo and behold, despite a clumsy PR effort during the campaign which claimed otherwise, that’s just what he did with the Homeland Security Act.
The result is that there are obvious and specific corridors straight into the interior of the United States which are underpopulated and almost completely unsupervised. The problem was pointed out in advance, amendments to correct it were offered and voted down by the Republican majority in the Senate, and now–just as we “liberals” warned–America’s guts are just as open to entry and exploitation as they ever were.
You heard it here first.
December, I cannot fault DHSec for doing the job they were created and commissioned to do. But I can question, and do question, some of the modes in which they achieve the results they do, and in particular (not DHSec, but DOJ) some of the alleged infringements on due process of law that “this crisis requires.”
Many years ago, long before 9/11, a writer I respect greatly said “F*S=k” – freedom times security is a constant. We give up a lot of the freedom we theoretically have to ensure that we live in a society where we can feel safe in our persons and possessions. To me, it’s vitally important not to put too heavy a weight on either variable in the equation, because the other decreases by a proportionate amount. You and I would probably strongly disagree on the relative values we’d place on each, and that’s OK – the results will have to be a compromise in a nation of free men with divergent opinions.
Keep your focus broad, and see that it’s possible to disagree with a given security-focused proposal on the basis of undue interference with American freedoms – and that the reverse is true, too. Keeping that balance is tough – but it’s the essential key to America surviving as a free country in the new century.
Personally, I don’t think the Homeland Security Department is doing a good job. However, I do have to give credit to the TSA–even with the extra crap that it now takes to fly, they’ve been more professional than Algenbright ever was.
asterion:re Algenbright-> do you mean Albright? I don’t get the joke. And so are you comparing organizational policies/directives with a person’s professionalism? Sorry, you post is unclear to me…
or was this just a standard Clinton admin slam that requires no further analysis? Honestly wondering.
I also have seen a big improvement in airport security – at least in the portion of it that I experience as a passenger.
Oops, sorry. Yes, Albright.
Who/what did I say used to be running security?
Argenbright Security was the main airport screening companies. He’s saying that the TSA, the government agency that handles airport security now, is more professional than Argenbright, the private company that used to.
Captain Amazing- thanks “Argenbright”. A google search with the misplaced “L” confused me.
Hey, why are conservatives happy about the Office of Homeland Security? It is part of an expanding government. you should be against it!
december (or anyone for that matter). Kindly provide at least one cite of a terrorist plot on the scale of the September 11 strikes on the Pentagon and World Trade Center that has been foiled by Homeland Security (that was why it was created, right).
My perception is that it is not really effectively doing much but making folks nervous and curtailing personal liberties.
I am not sure how an individual could reply to the OP. As suggested early, if simply on the lack of subseq terror attacks, yes, they have been very successful. But, we have no way of knowing that any specific terror attacks have been prevented.
I personally do not feel “safer” because of the increased security. To the contrary, I personally dislike the proliferation of armed security. Far too often they seem ill-aimed at eliminating any specific threats. At the same time, they are all too effective in citizens from expressing certain views, and curtailing free travel and access.
I resent that I am being coerced into accepting it as routine that I must consent to what I consider unreasonable searches for dubious reasons.
As far as airlines are concerned, I think a single screen and reinforced cockpit doors would be sufficient. Maybe increased luggage screening, but I’m not sure. Isn’t the searching of pilots rather silly? If they wanted to take the flight down, they wouldn’t need a weapon. I think the repeated and invasive searches are excessive, unnecessary, intimidating, and more for show than practical effect.
We have yet to see the ultimate bill for all of the increased security measures - or for increases up the terror color chart. What level of government is going to pay for all of this, and what else will need to be given up to afford it.
I do not understand why people think that certain entities, such as museums, tourist attractions, and certain government buildings, are likely targets. At the same time, bridges, tunnels, underpasses, and train stations are essentially unwatched.
I agree with Poly’s equation (altho at first I was confused, trying to figure out what cuss word the dear prude was trying to avoid spelling out!). I also tend to agree with what Ben Franklin said about sacrificing freedom for security…
My personal preference is to accept a little risk for sake of increased freedom from government intrusion. But it seems as tho the current trend is clearly in another direction. And most folk do not seem to mind at all.
Just got another example.
Tho I have never been a big fan of take your kid to work day, I just learned that activities have been cancelled in many gov’t offices “for national security concerns.”
And believe me, we aint talking FBI or military here.
The terror alert levels are utterly ignored by everyone I know. They are radio show joke fodder.
I don’t see the benefit in reshuffling government agencies into one giant bureaucracy. I find it kind of baffling coming from Bush, as it seems radically anti-conservative to me. It appears to be nothing more than “we need to look like we’re making major changes here”-type tactics.
I can’t recall any major accomplishment of the DHSec so far. I don’t doubt the people now under its umbrella are doing what they have always done: their jobs, as best they can. A simple mandate from the president that they strive for full cooperation and information sharing would be just as effective as playing draw the box, and considerably less expensive.
The OP states questions if liberals are upset because the Homeland SD doing a good job. Despite the obvious inflamatory nature of the remark, i’d like to make a quick point. It is a fallacy of presumption because it is not assured that the Department of Homeland Defense is doing a good job. I would argue that it isn’t possible to tell. Now before someone says, “If there are not attacks, then it is doing a good job.” That would be another fallacy called begging the question or a fallacy of presumption.
From about.com
The department of homeland defense is doing a good job because there are no terrorist attacks, and there are no terrorist attacks because the department of homeland defense is doing a good job. Obvioiusly this is illogical, because there could simply be no attempted terrorist attacks. Maybe there is some other organization preventing terrorism. The same logic applies to someone who would say, Because I asked for clear weather, the rain stopped, therefore the rain stopped because I asked for clear weather.
But all of that aside. It is obviously unclear if the department of homeland defense is doing a good job. Having that fallacy preemptivly disposed of, we can go to the meat of the issue. How can you describe having done a good job? If DHS won’t let us leave our houses, but terrorism stops, then have they really done a good job? The variables are, Our level of freedom, our rights, terrorist attacks, attempted terrrorist attacks, prevention of terrorist attacks, and privacy and rights. The job of the DHS should be to prevent terrorism with the least infringement to the privacy and rights of individuals. On human rights, I would say that it isn’t going good, because we have a number of American citizens in Guantanamo Bay without any sort of proceedings or formal charge. No Habeus Corpus, no nothing. So on that particular aspect, I would say that DHS has failed. Prevention of attacks. That really depends on the amount of attempted attacks, but it seems like there have been a few, and they were prevented. So, there goes a plus. Privacy? Well, then there’s a negative, because it is lower than it was before due to the Patriot Act. I’m just saying that the criteria for “doing a good job” includes more than preventing terror attacks. It is very typical to start the debate from a standpoing from which the facts that construct the argument are debatable. If someone wants to debate the actual relavance of the question due to the shaky foundations of the question they can be discredited easily for not sticking to the question. And that’s what I’m doing here: explaining that it is necessary to question the relavance of the question because it rests on the presumption that the HSD is “doing a good job” it would be like saying that “Are conservatives trying to rule the world because they have small penises?” When someone tries to argue the validity of the question the OPer can simply say, “yeah, but that’s not what I asked.” Considering how no rational person could exclude liberty, privacy, and ability to assert individual rights from the efficacy of the efforts of DHS, and those ideas are typically hard to quantify into a number that can confirm or deny whether that subjective aspect has been improved or hindered. Just to sum it up, I do assume that you argue that DHS is doing a good job based on the measurable statistics. That is a presumption on my part, but because mesurable statistics can’t quantify subjective terms that must be included into the equation, the conclusion to be drawn from the statistics alone is always subject to confirmation or denial from the immeasurable aspects, which are difficult to prove.
Having said that: I’ll continue to argue as I normally would had I not just stated why the whole premise of the argument is wrong, because I believe I have some information to share:
I would say that the quantifiable aspects they are doing good. However, I do believe that is in spite of their bad policy.
Qutoes from the Washington Post article:
It is hard to deny that the HSD isn’t providing the right funds in the right places. So, “how good a job” are they doing? I would say, not as good a job as they could do, because big terror targets are taking away money from schools and other public welfare funds to support the anti-terrorism, while states like Iowa actually have work at figuring out a way to spend the money.
I want to have an honest debate, december, but inflamatory remarks aren’t really the stuff of a good exchange of ideas. I realize that I have been a little inflamatory in the past, and I apologize. I am now trying to explain why your arguments are irrelevant on their foundations. You based your argument on so many false presumptions that it makes it impossible to debate within the confines of the terms.
So in summary, my answer to the question is:
Are liberals upset because the DHS is doing a good job?
irrelevant because the DHS doing a good job is based on subjective notions that can’t be concretly determined. Some aspects are quantifiable, but others are not
How good a job is DHS doing?
Again, not possible to tell, because of the previous reasons, but there are obvious signs that say there could be improvment.
and Finally, is the liberal media’s criticism inapprpriate?
I can’t tell because I didn’t read the book and nobody should comment that didn’t read the book because these reactions could be about parts that he or she hasn’t read.
Here would have been a better way to open the same debate:
Why do some people criticize Brill’s book?
Are the criticisms just in terms of the job that the DHS is doing?
Is the criticism fair?
This leaves out all subjective ideas:
Liberal
Homeland security department’s doing a good job.
If you want a debate that doesn’t end up debating whether the terms for the debate were correct to begin with, then only use objective terms and ideas. Subjective, as everyone knows is different to everyone. Its okay to have opinions, but when stating things that aren’t clearly denoted as opinion, then you should be prepared to defend whether what you say is correct, or if it can be proven correct.