I've long been a critic of the Department of Homeland Security as in, I don't believe that it should exist, or should ever have been formed. Well, it seems that Senator Schumer agrees with me. And he's even honest enough to take some of the blame.

I concur! First off, it always seemed to be more of a jobs program than an effective agency. Instead of finding a way to integrate intelligence between agencies, it became another bureaucracy.

Secondly: the name. Can somebody think of anything so blatantly Orwellian? I mean, since when did we refer to the US as our "homeland?" That's so...European. This is the land we escaped our homes to get to, dammit.

DHS is a monstrosity, a failed mess given to us by the Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman. It would be nice if he admitted what Schumer is saying. Everyone I know who works for DHS is disgusted with the agglomeration.

And I'm with Gregg - what a choice of name!

The Department of Homeland Security should have been called Department of Civil Defense (has friendly echos of WW2) and it should simply have been the lumping together of the Border Patrol/Coast Guard and perhaps ATF under one roof, perhaps with the addition of the State Department's foreign visa duties.

I might have missed something but a Senator blaming Congress is not the same as him taking some of the blame onto himself - so no honesty involved ^_^

As to Orwellian naming nothing tops the proposed "Department of Peace".

DHS shouldn't have been formed. If various sub-agencies needed to feed to single command, make NSA a top-level department (The NSA is already a cabinet post) and put CIA, ICE, ATF (or get rid of it), DEA (or get rid of it), TSA (or get rid of it), USCG (or put it under DoD), NRO (or keep it under DoD), and other such security/intelligence agencies under that umbrella. That way, the person responsible for advising the President on national security measures is the same one responsible for advising the American people, rather than some Homeland Secretary.

Heh.

DHS was a good idear, but like so manythings of this administration the execution of forming it was beyond the mental capabilities of all the folks working on it.

Like almost everything else this administration does they had no idear of what they were trying to accomplish, hence they accomplish crXp. There are three things that any "Domestic security" agency needs to accomplish:

1. Coordinate the various "arms" of federal law enforcment, across the board but particularly in terms of any "inside" arm action by external forces.

2. Coordinate border defense.

3. Coordinate and legalize the flow of information from external intelligence forces into domestic law enforcement...and under the code of Federal Law allow methods of outward intelligence to "follow inward" external threats which become domestic. This needs to be done for two reason...First to stop them and second to allow any such action to be prosecuted as a law enforcement action.

The Washington Post did a pretty good analysis of how badly DHS was formed. But there are two glaring oversights.

The first is that not a single Federal agency taht has a semi combat force (ie a SWAT TEAM) is in DHS. Once this was done the agency was more or less a gelding for external threats that become domestic. If a SWAT team is needed the FBI or USMS are going to be called, and that is the end of DHS overview. The second is that there is no real method of sharing external intel with the various agencies. Hence USCG has its own intel (still) Customs has its own etc. Why Customs (for instance) has most if not all of its Go fast boats in Fl when the USCG has a squadron of boats there is ridiculous.

The Admininstration took zero thought in what it wanted this agency to accomplish and the organizational structure shows it. The answer is not so simple but is doable.

the guy(s) who has done some good work along these lines are former Senator Gary Hart and Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. First apart and then together they have come up with some really thoughtful proposals on how to reverse the stupidity and make the organization into something that is functional.

As it is right now if a major non nuclear terrorist action starts (that is not in the skies) the FBI and the USMS are going to be the only "gunslingers" that the nation has, unless we call in th emilitary, which we should never do in this country.

Robert

> DHS was a good idear,

Outside of "illiterate rube" characters in comedy skits, I've never actually heard any use the word "idear." Much less write it.

Amazing, but somehow not unexpected.

Reading Oler's posts is like watching a one-man demolition derby of the English language. How much damage can one man do to himself?

Oler has a number of useful thoughts in his post here, except for the statement that DHS is a good idear.

I wouldn't dwell on his spelling skills. The message comes through. It's a lot easier than reading my kids IM messages.

"Be Nasty to Robert Week" is this week.

I wouldn't be particularly concerned about his other idiosyncracies either. He's certainly not pusillanimous in his views.

Robert

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at May 11, 2007 07:08 PM

"Idear" comes from a friend who is from the "north". He says "Cubur" as well. Rhode Island. He has a few words that remind me of "strategery"...the one our noble President uses.

Robert

Why did Toast_n_Tea sign his comment, "Robert"?

Leland, TNT is parodying Roberts penchant for signing "Robert" just above the "Posted by Robert.."

Robert

I don't trust politicians of any stripe, and DHS is an embryonic secret police ala KGB or SS. It creeps me out to see government vans fitted out for prisoner transport with federal DHS license plates. Someday someone is going to try to use them to make inconvenient people disappear. While we are at it, please remove the Patriot Act as well.

While we are at it, please remove the Patriot Act as well.

Right. We, being the policymakers for the whole world, will get right on that. ;-)

Robert

Funny

When Sen Cleland voted against DHS, he was denounced
by the GOP as being in league with Bin Laden.

Did Simberg ever say anything about that?

When Sen Cleland voted against DHS, he was denounced
by the GOP as being in league with Bin Laden.

Did Simberg ever say anything about that?

Posted by anonymous at May 12, 2007 09:07 AM

That was evil. The entire "for us or against us" mentality was "weak". I dont know what Rand said. Most of the far right cheering section was clapping on cue.

Robert

When Sen Cleland voted against DHS, he was denounced by the GOP as being in league with Bin Laden.

Did Simberg ever say anything about that?

What's the point of this comment? Did the person who wrote it even read the original post. This is a discussion about the existence of DHS, not a rehash of elections in 2002.

What's the point of this comment?

The point of it is that Anonymous Moron is back, being an anonymous moron.

No, the issue was granting collective bargaining to DHS employees, Bob. Max couldn't figure that
either did you. The DHS probably was a good idea,
but the very nature of bureaucracy, has made very
brittle. One wishes they were as ruthlessly efficient as you insinuate; (despite having an
Phoenix Project man, as a deputy director)

Thank God for federalism. As an elected official from a border State with major international sea and air ports, Schumer has a strong incentive to respond to complaints from his constituents about DHS-imposed hassles on shipping and travel.

(despite having an
Phoenix Project man, as a deputy director)

IS that what I think it is? Pete was the DD of the DXS and then went on to head the Phoenix Foundation with MacGyver as his guy. Oy vey, too much TV in my past.