Posted on 06/11/2002 1:03:51 AM PDT by Demidog
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Some members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, were surprised by President Bush's proposed consolidation of federal law enforcement and civil defense capabilities under a new cabinet level Department of Homeland Security.
But some are even more surprised to learn the plan has much in common with a nine-year-old idea hatched in the Clinton-Gore administration, which proposed a significant expansion of domestic police powers.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) told CNSNews.com he believes Bush is doing what he believes is best. "But I think building a bigger bureaucracy is not going to help," Paul said. "We already have a bureaucracy that's so big and out of control that they can't communicate. Adding on to this and giving them more money is not going to help."
Although much work needs to be done to implement Bush's proposal, the initial proposal includes many aspects similar to those put forth by his predecessors.
Reinventing the Reinvention of Government?
Numerous components of President Bush's proposal, which were sketched out in a televised address last Thursday, are strikingly similar to a plan proposed by former Vice President Al Gore as part of the Clinton-Gore "Partnership for Reinventing Government" in 1993.
The Clinton administration recommendation in question was listed as 312 on a list of 1,498 suggestions, bearing the summary "The DLE should reinvent federal law enforcement to ensure activities are coordinated and critical resources are shared."
DLE was the Clinton administration acronym for Directorate of Central Law Enforcement.
The Scripps-Howard News Service reported August 11, 1993, that Gore had "drafted a proposal to transfer all federal law enforcement activities to the Justice Department. The new 'Directorate of Central Law Enforcement,' headed by the Attorney General, would oversee the FBI, the DEA, Secret Service, Customs Service, Internal Revenue Service, Postal Service and BATF.'"
Paul wrote about the Clinton-Gore proposal in his September 15, 1993, "Survival Report," arguing it would "create a national police force that is one of the building blocks of totalitarianism."
"The result will have the Soviet-sounding name "Directorate of Central Law Enforcement," he wrote.
Bush's proposal includes the Customs Service and Secret Service. It also incorporates the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, and parts of more than a dozen other federal agencies under the yet to be created Department of Homeland Defense.
Today, Paul says regardless of who is proposing a consolidation of federal police power, it has potentially ominous consequences.
"We already had, before 9/11, over 80,000 federal agents carrying guns. Now that we have federalized security at airports a lot of them will have guns. And then, with this new program," he warned, "I think we're probably going to double or triple the number of federal agents who will be carrying guns."
Erich Pratt, communications director for Gun Owners of America, points out that the Constitution authorizes federal "law enforcement" to address only counterfeiting, piracy and other "felonies committed on the high seas," and treason.
"Everything else should belong to the states," Pratt said. "But over the years, more and more power has been flowing to Washington and now you have more than 350 agencies at the federal level that are armed and can act like real cops. That is not the vision that George Washington and James Madison had."
Paul and Pratt agree that federal "law enforcement" agencies should limit their activities primarily to providing intelligence gathering, evidence analysis, and other support services to state, county/parish, and municipal agencies.
"Law enforcement should be carried out locally," Paul added, noting that federal agents were not armed and had no arrest powers until the early 1900s when prohibition and the federal income tax were imposed.
A Threat To Constitutional Rights and Freedoms?
Both men fear the Bush plan could lead to abuses of citizens' constitutional rights.
"For a good many years now, I've been warning people that we were already moving toward a police state," Paul recalled. "We're going in exactly the wrong direction."
Pratt points out that with a consolidation of management and resources, comes a consolidation of the information various federal agencies have gathered on law-abiding citizens.
"That's why we don't want all the law enforcement functions to be centralized in Washington, DC," he said. "There is a tremendously increased risk, centralizing all that information in one place."
Paul says the disrespect of the federal law enforcement bureaucracy for basic freedoms, such as self-defense and property rights, is easily seen in the decision to deny commercial airline pilots the option to carry guns when they fly.
"Only government can regulate and provide the weapons for self-defense," he said, describing the philosophy. "So we deny the weapons going to the airline pilots at the same time we should recognize that four well-placed guns could have taken care of [the Sept. 11 hijackings]."
Tricky Business Opposing The Bush Plan
Paul says he doesn't know how other lawmakers who privately oppose the consolidation proposal might be affected if they publicly expressed their objections.
"I have no idea about them. I know I have to do my best to say what I believe and do what I think is right and then explain it to the people in my district," he said. "I have that obligation and, so far, I've been able to explain my positions."
Paul has supported President Bush's authority and decisions to pursue the 9/11 terrorists, but he was one of only five members of the House and Senate to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act, which gave federal agencies broad new law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers following the attacks.
Other members of Congress have voiced criticism of Bush's new plan, if not for its substance at least in the way in which it was presented.
"I don't want, every time somebody raises questions about past mistakes, the White House is going to announce some kind of new reorganization," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said upon learning of the plan last week.
"What I want to do is fight terrorism. I don't want to just be moving organizational charts around," he said.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), also a member of the Judiciary Committee, was caught off guard by the announcement, as well. "It was a big surprise," Sessions told Fox News. "Everybody knew that this had been discussed to some degree, but no one expected such an announcement."
Sessions says he's "not sold yet" on the idea.
"I think this is ridiculous," said Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) when FBI Director Robert Mueller refused to verify Biden's speculation about the plan prior to the announcement. "This is one of the reasons why there is this pale that, sort of hangs over the office, and this whole question about what we do about homeland defense."
Most Republicans, however, rallied around Bush's plan quickly, sending out a flurry of press releases pledging bipartisan backing.
"I support President Bush's decision," stated one such release from the office of House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), noting the current dispersal of homeland security responsibilities "among dozens of federal agencies."
Sensenbrenner believes the "clout of a cabinet officer" is needed to organize and manage the various law enforcement and intelligence functions currently spread throughout those agencies.
"Of course, the details regarding the organization and responsibilities of the new Homeland Security department are critical," he added.
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Do you take drugs specifically?
Please do not take them. Please buy them. We all profit when shoplifting does not occur.
No, he did NOT vote against the tax cuts. Ron Paul voted for every single one of Bush’s tax cuts, including the cut in marginal tax rates and the elimination of the marriage tax penalty in March 2001 and the tax cut bill that Bush signed in June 2001, as well as the Tax Relief Guarantee Act of this year. In addition he has introduced such bills as The Family Health Tax Cut Act, the Teacher Tax Cut Act, and the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. How about hearing it straight from the horse's mouth?
"I always vote to reduce taxes," Paul stated. "Texans in my district know that I support every tax cut bill in Congress, as my voting record shows. I supported President Bush by voting to lower tax rates for all taxpayers, and I also voted to end the unfair marriage penalty. I will vote to end the destructive estate tax, which is the third plank in the President's tax cut plan. Rest assured that I will support his plan in its entirety. I applaud the President for following through on his campaign promise to reduce taxes on American families."I have had to address this same disinformation before, and I can only imagine that certain persons not happy with Ron Paul’s support of the Constitution even when it goes against GOP policy have been spreading false rumors to discredit him."Federal taxes are far too high, and the federal government is far too large," Paul continued. "My commitment to voters is simple: I follow the Constitution and I fight to make government smaller. This commitment compels me to vote for all tax cuts and against all spending increases. Although my own legislation would reduce taxes more drastically, I always will support the President's tax-cutting efforts as a positive step in the right direction."
"Because the marshals and their deputies were the only civilian police power available to the National Government during its first century, they became the veritable `handyman' of Federal law enforcement. In addition to their significant duties to the Federal courts, the early marshals took the national census, arrested counterfeiters and moonshiners, and sealed the borders to prevent armed excursions abroad. They also played central roles in every major test of the young Government's power and the primacy of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land: from the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, to the Reconstruction Era following the Civil War, and the lawlessness of the `Wild West.'"
Congressional Record, May 31, 1989, Page: E1934
1789 came well before the "1900s."
Thank you. I'd be interested in hearing his answer.
The only good LE agency is that which catches criminals who violate other peoples life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The only good 40 billion dollar, 177,000 employee bureaucracy that won't work as intended that will eventually become a monster is a "dead" or nonexistent 40 billion dollar, 177,000 employee bureaucracy that won't work as intended that will eventually become a monster.
Conservatives need to re-learn this , for it is the truth.
GWB Is The Man !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
This sounds like Patty Murray talking. I am aware of Ron Paul's positions. I didn't say he is for gun control. I said he sounds like a gun control soccor mom. And he does. Eeeeeeew! Agents will have guns! The horror! Triple the number of guns! Eeewww. What the heck does he want Federal Agents to have? Nerf balls?
No he doesn't. Gun control soccer mom's have no problem with federal agents having guns. Your attempt fails miserably.
Sure they can. Politically. Which is what they are doing. The President also asked us to contact our representatives to apply pressure on them. Did you never take a civics class?
LOL.
LOL. The Congress, regardless of the structure of any beaurocracy, has the power of oversight. That power is not diluted in any way by the re-organization of any beaurocracy.
The President is providing that leadership tonight by asking the Congress of the United States to do a big thing. Look, I spent 12 years up there. You and I both know that when you start putting these agencies and departments together, a lot of men and women up there spend a lot of time waiting to become committee chairmen who have responsibilities over some of these things. I mean, this is going to cause -- this is a real challenge for Congress, and we say that in a very respectful way, because we're asking them to rethink the kind of partnership relationship they have with the homeland security function. And I'm convinced that if we couple congressional leadership with presidential leadership, we'll do a great thing for America, and be better prepared to defend ourselves against future terrorist activity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.