Replies

The new Homeland Security Department is an effort to make certain aspects of the federal bureaucracy operate in a more efficient and effective manner. It gives the feds unified ability to deter terrorist activities. It doesn't go after law abiding citizens. While its important for all American's to remain vigilant when it comes to anything that the federal government engages in, this reorganization effort doesn't harm the liberty and freedom all American's cherish. There is no evidence that by protecting and defending the American people from acts of terrorism, President Bush and his administration has shown a desire to damage the Constitutional rights of American's.

The new Homeland Security Department is an effort to make certain aspects of the federal bureaucracy operate in a more efficient and effective manner.

Let me repeat what I said on another thread to a similar comment:

The sheep's naiveté knows no bounds.

Sure, government bureaus are famous for their efficiency and effectiveness, and the bigger they are, the more effective they are. Right?!

This boondogle will definitely cause a lot of American citizens unnecessary trouble, but the terrorists are safer now than they have ever been.

...this reorganization effort doesn't harm the liberty and freedom all American's cherish...

I don't know what "liberty" you cherish, but suspect you cherish "liberty from personal responsibility" (i.e. security) above liberty to live you life without government interference.

I would rather take my chances with the terrorists than with a government which has the power to search my person or property without a warrant or warning, to force me to inject a substance in my body whether I choose to or not or to imprison me if I choose not obey orders to relocate, give up my property, or any other thing any so-called "emergency" requires.

Maybe they won't use the power to reduce our freedom even more than it has already been reduced, but then people used to believe government would not use its power of confiscate one third of their wages.

Hank

It gives the feds unified ability to deter terrorist activities. It doesn't go after law abiding citizens.

It most certainly will, given government's past history. Didn't the new, tough airport screening policies specifically avoid the middle eastern types and instead result in patdowns of little old ladies? And look at the fab job we're doing on immigration - the law-breaking immigrants versus the legit immigrants who try to become citizens the right way.

I shudder to think of what the "unintended" consequences of this Homeland BS is going to be....especially when an out and out one worlder like Hillary gets to control of it. It will be another big, fat, expensive, wasteful, inefficient bureaucracy that WILL NEVER A) DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO, AND B) GO AWAY, ONCE ITS BEEN MADE PAINFULLY CLEAR THAT IT DOESN'T DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO.

The new Homeland Security Department is an effort to make certain aspects of the federal bureaucracy operate in a more efficient and effective manner.

I'm originally from Missouri, so they'll have to Show Me.

This is one of the few mergers we are going to see where a merger results in the INCREASE in the number of employees. By this measurement alone I don't think we are going to see a more efficient government. Only if Bush uses the power that he lobbied for, to reward merit and to cast aside standard government pay scales and HR procedures, can he actually make this more efficient by cutting those who are more focused on saving their jobs rather than serving their country.

Furthermore the scope of DoHS isn't covering the FBI or the CIA. By this measurement Homeland Security isn't going to be as efficient as it can be. If these two entities can function separately as well as separate from DoHS, why did we have to merge the others?

There is no evidence that by protecting and defending the American people from acts of terrorism, President Bush and his administration has shown a desire to damage the Constitutional rights of American's [sic].

If we are going to reward illegals who cross our borders to siphon on our welfare state via amnesty, work programs, etc., then the Constitutional rights of Americans are damaged by dilution. It doesn't mean as much to be a citizen if noncitizens receive benefits, as would be the case if the Mexican government has its way.

We got nailed because we have too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Too many bureaucrats prevented the FBI from connecting Phoenix to Moussaoui. Not enough personnel are available to lock down our borders while allowing legitimate commerice to transact. John Walker Lindh can get into Al Qaeda [sp?] but we don't have field personnel in the list of Bin Laden's best friends?

This is only going to work if we cut off, say, half the heads of the agencies and apply the payroll to more operatives. The structure needs to flatten, and the personnel need to be made accountable for their actions. If someone in the INS, e.g., doesn't perform their duties, then they should be let go or offered early retirement.

Thanks for tolerating the babble :)