Replies

The main concern I hear regarding the new powers granted the Justice Department are that they may someday be used by someone like Hillary. But to use them against innocent citizens, she would have to break the law in some fashion, which she would do anyway, as she has amply demonstrated by her past behavior. She would just be breaking DIFFERENT laws.

Or perhaps the concern is that the new laws make specious invasions of privacy more justifiable, under the linguistic cover of broadened Justice/Homeland Security powers. Is that the crux of the matter? I would really like to know if the sometimes brutal criticism I've seen at FR over this new legistlation is appropriate and warranted. I admit that I want President Bush and his administration to succeed, and that such desire may blind me somewhat to what is happening. But I also don't want to run around like a chicken with my head cut off, in an inchoate overreaction. Are there any good threads debating this stuff rationally?

Not to bang my own drum, but I've read through a lot of the initial bill as passed by the House, and will re-read the entire bill starting tonight as signed by the president. A discussion of that exercise is here:

One FReeper's analysis of the Homeland Security Act, HR 5710

You are right about a lot of the claims being made about this bill - it's basically a large-scale administrative change with a couple of minor stinkers thrown in, as well as some potentially problematic vaguely defined powers and some beneficial aspects (Section 880, for example, kills off TIPS). Claims, for example, that this bill would allow forced vaccinations are hypothetical instead of being based on specific wording. Do we need to watch that process? Of course - but that's true of the transition of any law into the Federal Register.