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.
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 (pdf).
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.
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. [right]–Brazil[/right]
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
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! 
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.
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.