# Should Obama keep or dismantle the Department of Homeland Security? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 27, 2008, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-keep-or-dismantle-the-department-of-homeland-security/478886 "2008-12-27T23:25:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![twhitt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@twhitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twhitt)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2008, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-keep-or-dismantle-the-department-of-homeland-security/478886/21 "2008-12-28T18:44:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It looks like Franken is probably going to win in Minnesota now, so that gives them 59 plus Lieberman. That’s all they need. > > Not that they probably couldn’t twist a couple of Republican arms anyway. I believe this is a miscount. There are 55 Democrats, 2 independents (Sanders, Lieberman), 1 vacancy (previously Obama), and 1 unresolved contest (likely to be Al Franken). Assuming all of these are resolved to favor the Democrats, that’s 59. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-keep-or-dismantle-the-department-of-homeland-security/478886/22 "2008-12-30T08:06:42Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Because the purpose of FEMA does not mesh with the purpose of Homeland Security, and FEMA will always be a low priority while it is within an organization whose reason for existence is to prevent an attack. Yes, because an attack on, say, a dam, would in **no way** resemble any kind of natural disaster. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-keep-or-dismantle-the-department-of-homeland-security/478886/23 "2008-12-30T12:50:05Z")
They need to get rid of that show, _Homeland Security, USA_, (yes, I know this is not within Obama’s power to do) before it manages to indoctrinate a new crop of soft-headed wonder children about how great and necessary it is for the TSA to confiscate full size tubes of tooth paste and glorifying the existence of so-called border checkpoints that are up to 100 miles inside the United States. And the actual DHS? Well, that needs to go, too. At the very least, the name of it needs to be changed to something less jingoistic, and major changes need to be made regarding the TSA and the Air Marshals. So much criminal activity has been uncovered within these organizations, from employees who are criminals to those who have used their position to smuggle drugs, that it’s hard to think of them as being more beneficial than they are harmful. How about instead of roving ‘Papers, please’ checkpoints 100 miles from the boarder, devote more resources to the handling of visas and immigration, so that we don’t have people who become illegal because ICE didn’t process their paperwork fast enough? ---
**Author:** ![lee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lee/32/7455_2.png) [@lee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lee)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-keep-or-dismantle-the-department-of-homeland-security/478886/24 "2008-12-30T15:26:30Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Yes, because an attack on, say, a dam, would in **no way** resemble any kind of natural disaster. It would resemble that, which is why there is no need for FEMA to be integrated into DHS. FEMA is much better off focusing on what to do in an emergency, whether it be a response to nuclear war, an earthquake, flood, or the blowing up of a dam. It needs to plan what to do in an emergency and have funding set aside for it specifically. Although each emergency has its own nuances, so much is needed in common for all of them, it is worth having one agency to deal with them. With it folded into DHS, there is too much temptation to think that we can take some money from preparing to respond to emergencies and better spend it preventing potential emergencies. It is a foolish notion, as if we can prevent all emergencies to the extent we would not need to prepare for them! But the thought is deep in our culture, “a stitch in time saves nine” and “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” That is not to say the two, should both exist, should not share information to their mutual benefit, but then FEMA needs to share information with all areas, from transportation to communications. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-keep-or-dismantle-the-department-of-homeland-security/478886/25 "2008-12-30T18:46:02Z")
> [@lee](#): > > It would resemble that, which is why there is no need for FEMA to be integrated into DHS. FEMA is much better off focusing on what to do in an emergency, whether it be a response to nuclear war, an earthquake, flood, or the blowing up of a dam. It needs to plan what to do in an emergency and have funding set aside for it specifically. Although each emergency has its own nuances, so much is needed in common for all of them, it is worth having one agency to deal with them. Yeah, DHS (which I’ll give you is a _stupid_ name, should have just dusted off the ol’ “Civil Defense” moniker and gone with that). Any kind of _huge_ disaster, be it natural or terrorist, you’re going to need the same people involved. My sleeply little town of 20K had sections of it get pasted by some tornados a couple of years back. Not only did they need people trained in helping disaster victims, but they also needed National Guard forces to prevent looting. Even _before_ FEMA was folded into DHS, the National Guard would be called out to aid in disaster situations doing things like evacuating civilians, maintaining order, trying to abate future damage, and other things. > [@](#): > > With it folded into DHS, there is too much temptation to think that we can take some money from preparing to respond to emergencies and better spend it preventing potential emergencies. It is a foolish notion, as if we can prevent all emergencies to the extent we would not need to prepare for them! But the thought is deep in our culture, “a stitch in time saves nine” and “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” No, this is what happens when you put fucksticks in charge. Do you _really_ think that if “Heckuva Job Brownie” had been in charge of an independent FEMA Katrina would have been handled _any_ better? Folding them into one agency, _with_ a competent head makes sense, as you can better ensure that folks not only know _who_ they need to talk to, but that are _able_ to reach the person they need to. One of the big problems on 9/11 was that police and fire radios in NYC were **not** able to talk to one another. Centralizing control over the various agencies under someone who knows what the fuck they’re doing means that folks are going to have the right kind of radios so they can all talk to one another. Seperate bodies tend to want to do things “their own way” which means you’ll wind up with lots of problems when the shit hits the fan. (A previous lesson should have been the first Gulf War, when we found out the Army folks couldn’t easily talk to those in the other forces and vice versa because they were all using different radios.) > [@](#): > > That is not to say the two, should both exist, should not share information to their mutual benefit, but then FEMA needs to share information with all areas, from transportation to communications. And this can happen _best_ when the agencies are combined. You’ll note tht FEMA _hasn’t_ had near the level of scandals since “Heckuva Job Brownie” was replaced. Yeah, DHS needs work to run smoothly, but given that Obama seems to be picking highly qualified people, I don’t think that’s going to be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-keep-or-dismantle-the-department-of-homeland-security/478886/26 "2008-12-30T19:10:24Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Folding them into one agency, _with_ a competent head makes sense . . . So, what do you think of [Napolitano?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano) ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-keep-or-dismantle-the-department-of-homeland-security/478886/27 "2008-12-30T19:24:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So, what do you think of [Napolitano?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano) Based on her wiki entry, it looks like she might be good reorganizing DHS into a more streamlined operation. Which would be a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2008, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-keep-or-dismantle-the-department-of-homeland-security/478886/28 "2008-12-30T19:40:35Z")
The problem is it’s very difficult, if not impossible to prove a negative. GW Bush could say "There has been no terrorist attack on American soil since 2001 so the department IS working. Well maybe no one planned it yet, maybe they are waiting. Maybe the department actually thwarted all the attempts The only thing you can do is disprove it Unfortunately with government, it’s hard to dismantle things. The whole country would (eventually) be better off to start over from scratch. Move the capital out to the nation’s center and re-organize from the ground up. But of course, no on in Congress, no Obama himself is interested in governing but rather keeping themselves in office or going down in the history books ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2008, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-keep-or-dismantle-the-department-of-homeland-security/478886/29 "2008-12-31T06:46:13Z")
> [@twhitt](#): > > I believe this is a miscount. There are 55 Democrats, 2 independents (Sanders, Lieberman), 1 vacancy (previously Obama), and 1 unresolved contest (likely to be Al Franken). Assuming all of these are resolved to favor the Democrats, that’s 59. Correct. Jim Martin would have been 60. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-keep-or-dismantle-the-department-of-homeland-security/478886.md?page=1)