Homeland Security? Don't Make Me Laugh!

CNSNews.com ^ | December 09, 2002 | Alan Caruba

[Wolfie]

Good article. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[Huck]

A lot of deep-fried conservative friends of mine are worried about losing our civil rights as we gear up to fight an invisible enemy that looks like your next door neighbor. I am conservative, too, but not to the point that I think the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, and other government agencies have so many people and so much time that they are going to be checking what I bought at the market last week. No, realistically, they will focus their personnel, time and money on finding the real enemies.

Does it bother me the government now has such broad powers? Yes and no. Yes, because the last time I read the US Constitution, they really should not have the right to invade my privacy without a court-ordered warrant. No, because I want them to invade the privacy of everyone of the more than one thousand mosques, the many Muslim parochial schools and Arab "charities" in America. I may be a patriot, but I am not stupid either.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Grut]

I am conservative, too, but not to the point that I think the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, and other government agencies have so many people and so much time that they are going to be checking what I bought at the market last week.

If they can catch the right villains by doing so, they will. But if they can't, they'll check "what I bought at the market last week" in the hopes of catching somebody doing something and justifying their budgets. Alan Caruba doesn't understand bureaucracy.

[Wolfie]

I think I said it all in #2.

[Diverdogz]

Right about now, it would be very nice to have Ronald Reagan's missile defense system in place, but everyone made fun of him when he suggested it in the 1980s.

I'm trying to remember which terrorist incident this would have prevented. ....anywhere in the world, If ANY country had such a system. Nope, can't think of one.

[FReepaholic]

>>...But if they can't, they'll check "what I bought at the market last week" in the hopes of catching somebody doing something and justifying their budgets....<<

Very true.

[panaxanax]

We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. David Rockefeller

[steve50]

We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. David Rockefeller

They've been working very hard the last few decades to get the leadership in place in key areas that will accept it. As long as we think we are running it, the US citizen will go along.

[Huck]

OK.

[Wolfie]

You're no fun ;). I'm sure a lot of people agree with the author, but if the Constitution only means something when its convenient, then it means nothing at all.

[alwaysconservative]

I generally agree with these excerpted comments. My life is already an open book to whoever wants to look at it, whether I like it or not. This is nothing different than what very clever retailers already know about my purchases from "saver's cards", or if I pay by check or credit card, my "habits" can be tracked by the retailer. My phone bill can be viewed by the phone company. My insurance company knows all about my medical conditions. "Free" internet cards subjects me to continuing barrages of advertisements for products they think I want. Cookies keep track of all kinds of information about us on the internet. The bottom line is, if you don't want something about you disclosed, pay cash, keep your mouth shut, and your fingers silent. Anyone who doesn't think that they don't do this already (before passing the Homeland Security Act) is dreaming.

What I LIKE about the bill is that it puts the bad guys on notice that they are no longer protected by an indifferent bureaucracy and an apathetic criminal justice system. This President and this attorney general ARE pressing for prosecution and conviction of criminals. They think that Osama bin Laden is a bigger threat to the country than Microsoft or RJ Reynolds. That part is okay by me.

[WhiteGuy]

A 21st century "Reichstag Fire"?

Here in the USA?

All the peices are in place, except controlling the OIL.

They're working on that.

[Huck]

I recently ran across these comments by Phil Gramm, from CNN.com:

He disagrees with the president and most Republican politicians about the GOP's current hero: "I am not a Theodore Roosevelt man. In the end, he was very weak on private property, had a strong collectivist bent and saw government as an engine for good in a way that was fashionable."

I got into a debate about all this on Thanksgiving with my uncle from TN. He hates the Homeland Security bill. To tell you the truth, I still don't even know much about it.

[citizenK]

If you all don't mind me stepping into the fray here ---

Huck says (re the Homeland Security Bill):To tell you the truth, I still don't even know much about it.

I admit that I don't know much about it either. However, I support the general idea of restructuring the government bureacracies so, at least where it comes to security issues, a greater capability for getting information/intelligence into the hands of people who can do something with it is enhanced. Hopefully, this restructuring will make it easier for we the people to identify the responsible parties in government and thus increase their accountability.

What I don't like --
Combine this with the Patriot Act - frankly speaking, the government had the capability, or the tools so-to-speak, to already investigate, sniff-out, and prevent the 9/11 attacks from occurring. Our government failed us, in part because it is made up of a maze of bureaucracies that often work at against one another (the FBI and CIA is the classic example), or a set of bureaucracies that don't do the job they were tasked to do (some don't even come close).

But the failure of the government is not entirely based on the failure of the bureaucracies, the failure lies in their oversight and the legislators we elect to supervise and manage the bureaucracies they create. Our elected leaders failed us miserably with respect to the terror attacks on our country and our national security in general, yet the American people for the most part have given them a pass. So, part of the problem I have with these acts of Congress that are supposed to enhance our security is that they work to dissolve the elected leaders from the accountability and culpability they hold for the jeoprady in which they have placed the country. It's quite typical of politicians to enact any sort of leglislation to give the appearance they are doing something - anything - in a time of crisis or at a time when expedience demands they need the appearance that they are doing their jobs.

I am sure I could find a more eloquent and direct way of getting to the point here...but the more I think about this issue, the more angry I become, and it's tough enough to get off to a good start on a Monday...

[B4Ranch]

Can You Change America? Part 2

[galt-jw]

ping

[galt-jw]

What's stopping them? Nothing. I repeat. Nothing.

This was impressed on me as I read the recent news that thousands of trucks from Mexico will soon be crossing our borders and traveling throughout the United States. More than 14,000 trucks cross the border from Canada every day. Let's add to them the thousands more trucks from Mexico. Do you think this will stem the flow of illegal drugs and aliens from south of the border? Are you feeling secure yet?

preach on, me brother. this is the game, exactly. the govt is protecting us?

yeah, kinda like a pimp is protecting his whore.

[galt-jw]

But the failure of the government is not entirely based on the failure of the bureaucracies, the failure lies in their oversight and the legislators we elect to supervise and manage the bureaucracies they create

Only if you have not considered the contradiction between those who obviously know better and are intelligent, versus their consistency of failure against the measure of chance, along with the contradiction between their behavior and their promises and principles.

[strela]

Does it bother me the government now has such broad powers? Yes and no. Yes, because the last time I read the US Constitution, they really should not have the right to invade my privacy without a court-ordered warrant.

A statement stunning in its sweeping meaninglessness. Last time I checked, a warrant was still required to "invade one's privacy."

No, because I want them to invade the privacy of everyone of the more than one thousand mosques, the many Muslim parochial schools and Arab "charities" in America. I may be a patriot, but I am not stupid either.

Ah, I see now. So, according to the author, only white, Christian males are entitled to privacy - Muslims who also happen to be American citizens need not apply. Lovely.