PDA

View Full Version : Mac Users and Homeland Security


sturm375
Jun 7, 2002, 12:54 PM
How do you guys feel about Pres. Bush's proposal for a new Cabinet position for Homeland Security?

Call me paranoid, but everytime I see or hear the words "Homeland Security" I think of opressive governments. Maybe I spend too much time on the Sci-Fi channel, but I swear Bush's speech last night could have been copied from several movies I have seen where a new "Homeland" protection agency is introduced. Inevitably, this protection agency takes away freedoms and liberty of the people it is trying to protect.

Also I hear from the news agencies that this idea is getting a great deal of support from both sides of the aisle in Congress. Anything that gets that much support from congressmen, I view suspiciously.

And did I hear right? Durring the speech last night, I could swear Bush basically said that if I didn't support this proposal, I was an unpatriotic coward?:mad: And then he urged Congress to "rush" this through? Why? Something this big should be VERY closely examined.

Lastly, looking at all the departments covered in this "merger", doesn't FEMA cover nearly 90% of what is proposed?

Let me know what you think Mac Community!

jefhatfield
Jun 7, 2002, 12:57 PM
i would take similar steps to the president but being a democrat, my views would be more liberal

i would keep a slightly keener eye on human rights and personal liberties and freedoms

racial profiling would be less common and i would try to make this a spy war more than something that would use carrier groups and b-52s

cleo
Jun 7, 2002, 01:00 PM
Yeah, I too am suspicious. If anything, hell, it's perfectly clear that we can't run the beaurocracies we already have with anything approaching effiency... how's adding another going to help matters?

jefhatfield
Jun 7, 2002, 01:05 PM
the republicans could use this to fight terrorism, but my skepticism would lean towards the gop trying to use this in a way to get votes this november in midterm elections

the dems would do the same, too

the pols have moved beyond 9/11 and it is back to politics as usual

the greens, libertarians, and reform party would be the only sincere parties right now if they had the power...the dems and gop are too jaded to do anything swiftly or effectively

i may become a green party member one day...though i may be considered a little to conservative

wdlove
Jan 21, 2003, 07:41 PM
Laura's Weekly E-Blast!
http://www.LauraIngraham.com

Playing (and losing) Homeland Security Politics

Hoping for an edge against President George W. Bush, Democratic hopeful
Joe Lieberman told the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee last week: "I
must say that the administration's homeland security efforts thus far have
left much to be desired." The occasion was the confirmation hearing of
Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge, and Lieberman unloaded for the
cameras: "Almost every independent assessment that I have seen says that
in almost every way, America is as vulnerable today to terrorist attack as
we were on September 11th."

That may be a useful way to score political points among an uneasy public,
but there is little indication that Senator Lieberman, his party, or most
Republicans, for that matter, will take homeland security seriously enough
to reexamine our immigration policy. Today the INS reports that it is
still unable to find 300,000 illegals who are subject to deportation.
Our borders remain so porous that in places like Arizona, citizens are
taking enforcement upon themselves, patrolling lands on horseback and in
Jeeps. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is still mulling ways to give
Mexico (and many U.S. businesses) what it wants - amnesty for millions who
entered the U.S. illegally.

Those who question the amnesty proposal are branded "anti-immigrant."
Those who suggest that we institute a temporary moratorium on immigration
from nations with terrorist ties are labeled "xenophobic."

Lieberman, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday, could cite nothing
positive that the Bush Administration has done to protect the homeland.
Yet given his deep concern about securing the homeland, Lieberman might
have voiced support to the new government practice of registering visitors
from 25 nations with links to terror. Congress passed this legislation,
long overdue, in an attempt to account for tens of thousands of visitors
in the U.S. who hail here from the world's most dangerous nations. The
practice has been in place throughout Europe for decades, but that has not
stopped "immigrant rights groups" and the mainstream media from
complaining.

For the past few weeks, The Washington Post "news department" has featured
tear-jerker stories about men from the Middle East and South Asia who are
subject to the post-September 11 requirement that male temporary visa
holders ages 16 and older from 25 designated countries register with the
INS by certain dates. (This was passed as part of the USA Patriot Act.)
Here's how a January 20th front-page story on the registration requirement
begins: "Mohammed's relatives filed somberly into his sister-in-law's
cramped living room<sum>they had come to help the 38 -year-old limousine
driver make a grim choice: obey a government order requiring men from
countries deemed terrorist havens to register with the immigration
authorities-and risk being swiftly deported for overstaying his tourist
visa three years ago - or defy that command and potentially doom his
pending effort to secure a green card." (Mohammed, along with thousands
like him across the country, decided to continue to break the law and not
register.)

In December, a coalition of Arab American groups filed a federal
class-action lawsuit against Attorney General John Ashcroft, to prevent
the government from detaining those caught violating the terms of their
visas pursuant to the registration deadlines. How did we get to a place
where enforcing our immigration laws, policing our borders, has become
something to be ashamed of, or something to avoid altogether? If
Lieberman is serious about challenging the Bush Administration, he would
ask these questions, rather than repeating vague charges about lapses in
our homeland security. But of course asking such questions means
incurring the wrath of Muslim-American organizations or groups like La
Raza, the most powerful Hispanic lobby in the US.

Joe Lieberman knows that most Americans still prefer Republicans' handling
of foreign policy and national security, so he's cleverly trying to
position himself as the wise man on domestic security. Yet until the
Democrats muster the courage to buck their own special interest fringe on
issues like border policy and immigration enforcement, their criticism of
the Bush homeland security policy will ring hollow. (Memo to John
Edwards: Since you are the candidate for "the regular people," remember
that regular people favor tougher enforcement of our immigration laws.)

UN Idiocy Watch: A diplomat from Libya was overwhelmingly voted to
preside at the March 17-April 25 session of the U.N. Human Rights
Commission, against the strong protest of the US. The vote was 33-3, with
17 countries abstaining. The vote was secret, but our so-called friends
in France were thought to be among the abstainers. Libya has an atrocious
human rights record, remains under suspended U.N. sanctions stemming from
the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland, and is on the State
Department list of countries that support terrorism. Heck, why stop with
the Human Rights Commission? Gadafi for UN Secretary General!

alex_ant
Jan 21, 2003, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i may become a green party member one day...though i may be considered a little to conservative
No such thing as too conservative as long as you're against the rampant corruption in our current government.

I wish the Greens, Libertarians, Reformers, and all the other 3rd parties would get together and form a temporary Anti-Corruption party, and attempt to heavily recruit Democrats & Republicans who have also had enough of corruption but feel "locked in" by it. John McCain could run for president again under this party and I believe he could bring a lot of people to the polls who are sick and tired of governmental corruption and want to change it. Maybe I'm too optimistic...

Joe Lieberman is the best candidate for office the Republicans have.

Choppaface
Jan 21, 2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
I wish the Greens, Libertarians, Reformers, and all the other 3rd parties would get together and form a temporary Anti-Corruption party, and attempt to heavily recruit Democrats & Republicans who have also had enough of corruption but feel "locked in" by it. John McCain could run for president again under this party and I believe he could bring a lot of people to the polls who are sick and tired of governmental corruption and want to change it.

d00d!!! they could join up with the socialists of central and south america and we could have one big west hemisphere clean-out!!! *grabs sickle and hammer* i'ma cut them corruptn' repubbies!!! :D :D

chmorley
Jan 22, 2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by Choppaface
d00d!!! they could join up with the socialists of central and south america and we could have one big west hemisphere clean-out!!! *grabs sickle and hammer* i'ma cut them corruptn' repubbies!!! :D :D Beepbeepbeepbeepbeep.

Huh? Was that supposed to make sense?

pianojoe
Jan 22, 2003, 01:11 AM
Isn't freedom for everyone our most important good? What happened on 9-11 was only possible because of our "open society". Should we really "close it down"? Then, the terrorists will finally have succeeded!

BTW, I'm not American, so, maybe I don't understand these things, but, as we say in my country, freedom is, in the first place, the freedom to be different. So, if I choose not to be a patriot according to Mr. Bush, where's the problem?

Backtothemac
Jan 22, 2003, 10:19 AM
What amazes me is that people think that we are closing down our society and our freedoms. That is absurd. I am just as free today as I have been my whole life.

sturm375
Jan 22, 2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What amazes me is that people think that we are closing down our society and our freedoms. That is absurd. I am just as free today as I have been my whole life.

No you are not.

Before, as per the freedom of speech, you could state in an email/phone call/fax/conversation that you were so mad at the government you want to {insert terrorist act her}. Yes the government might investigate, and see that it was very unlikely you would do such a thing. With the "enemy combatant" this no longer hold water. You must watch what you say against our government. They have taken one of our greatest freedoms, and buried it. I'd go on, but I have to get back to work.

Backtothemac
Jan 22, 2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by sturm375


No you are not.

Before, as per the freedom of speech, you could state in an email/phone call/fax/conversation that you were so mad at the government you want to {insert terrorist act her}. Yes the government might investigate, and see that it was very unlikely you would do such a thing. With the "enemy combatant" this no longer hold water. You must watch what you say against our government. They have taken one of our greatest freedoms, and buried it. I'd go on, but I have to get back to work.

Nope. The only difference is that now, they monitor your email through an algorithm. If before you stood up and took a bull horn and said that you were made, and everyone should [insert terror attack]. Guess what you went to jail. It is called insighting a riot. Besides if you ever wrote in an email that you were so mad that you wanted to [insert terror attack], then you are not normal, and you need help. Normal people still have all of the freedom that would have had otherwise. You can speak out against your government. Even in email. Just don't plan terror attacks against the US and you will be fine :)

MacBandit
Jan 22, 2003, 11:08 AM
Don't forget that they have also created a special judgment body for people that are considered terrorists completely bypassing our regular judicial system and laws protecting your rights. If they even consider you a terrorist they can and have the right to now to throw you away and get to you when they feel like it. You are also guilty until proven innocent in this system and you do not have the right to an attorney.

They also now have the right to look at any database of names they want to with out anyone knowing. In fact if the person who manages the database is requested to give it up for investigation he is held by law to keep it secret even from his employer and supervisors. This has caused some recent problems in that the government did a search of all airline databases and made it so no one that is even considered a possible terrorist can fly this includes the aliases they use. I'm not talking about known terrrorists. I'm talking about potential. They haven't been tried yet and they are taking away there freedom of travel. Well it turns out that one of these potential terrrorists uses an alias that is the same as some 70 year old woman in Florida and because of this she couldn't go visit her family over the holidays. As far as I know she is still not allowed to fly because of it.

The government has also searched Safeways databases for potential terrorists based on food purchases.

I'm sorry but this is all too much like 1984. If you don't know what 1984 is you don't have any right to using a Mac. Apple has been against this use of governing power from the very start.

Whether you believe it or not we are not the free America we were a year and a half ago and never will be again. Once freedoms are lost you can not ever expect to regain them. We are in a sorry state of affairs and the simple fact is my president is the one who is leading the fight against personal rights. I am so ashamed.

Nipsy
Jan 22, 2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What amazes me is that people think that we are closing down our society and our freedoms. That is absurd. I am just as free today as I have been my whole life.

Sure you are.

Until you check out the wrong combination of books, or buy some hummus and falafel with a healthy tan, use the wrong words in an email ('this virus is terrorizing the whole country'), go to Tiajuana without your passport, go to Vancouver without your passport, wanna knit on an airplane, etc.

Your freedoms are being eroded in front of your face, even those which are constitutionally protected, and it is ignorant not to admit it.

Our government can't handle murder, rape, burglary, espionage, larceny, etc. with any level of effectiveness, but they can call a middle eastern MP3 trader a terrorist and get away with it.

The guise of homeland security is just a giant umbrella, and you'll see homeland security used to indict shoplifters, insider traders, bad check writers, etc. While I don't condone these activities, I feel strongly that some good old cold war style spycraft is a better solution than assimilating every bit and byte for gov't consumption.

Remember when some senator's home address /phone was published and he was livid? I would imagine he had the power to have those pages shut down (citing homeland security).
You won't have that power, whether it is your address, your medical history, your credit, etc.

Do you really think the gov't has the right to know everything about everybody?

Between patriot & dmca, there is nothing you can do privately.

Backtothemac
Jan 22, 2003, 11:41 AM
I really don't understand why everything has to be a conspiracy. Like the computers will filter "this virus if terrorizing the country" and in 20 seconds the FBI, DEA, CIA, ATF, and any other agency that has letters for its name will be beating down your door.

This isn't about catching commo thiefs and criminals, but terrorists. Damn, until people start walking out of jails going, "all I did was call Bush a terrorist pig in an email" then give it a chance, and don't be such a democrat :)

Choppaface
Jan 22, 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by chmorley
Beepbeepbeepbeepbeep.

Huh? Was that supposed to make sense?

it depends on how you compare it to some of the 'arguments' here :D
and bweep has a W in it!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

sturm375
Jan 22, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Nope. The only difference is that now, they monitor your email through an algorithm. If before you stood up and took a bull horn and said that you were made, and everyone should [insert terror attack]. Guess what you went to jail. It is called insighting a riot. Besides if you ever wrote in an email that you were so mad that you wanted to [insert terror attack], then you are not normal, and you need help. Normal people still have all of the freedom that would have had otherwise. You can speak out against your government. Even in email. Just don't plan terror attacks against the US and you will be fine :)

I didn't say anything about taking a bullhorn, or speaking to a large audiance. I said specifically: email/fax/phone/conversation. This is communication between 2-5 people (just a guess on my part), that is private. This person has not done anything else, just opened up their mouth. Not insiting a riot, possibly not in the right mind, but has not committed any harm against anyone. Yet still, any US citizen, can be locked up without attorny, or court date for this action. This violates 2 maybe 3 of the Bill of Rights. Who gets to draw the line as to what is criticisim, and what is terrorist activity toward the US govt? It shouldn't be the Executive branch, that's for sure.

Without their day in court, the Bush adminstration essentially has carte blanche dictatorship conserning citizens.

It boils down to what comes first on the priorities list. "National Security", or civil rights. In my opinion, this country cannot have a secure nation without civil rights.

SPG
Jan 22, 2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Damn, until people start walking out of jails going, "all I did was call Bush a terrorist pig in an email" then give it a chance, and don't be such a democrat :)

Funny you should mention that! There have been several cases already.
People show up to protest bush at an appearance and sent off to a fenced in "protest site" several hundred yards away and always out of view of the media and our very sensitive george bush who doesn't want his feelings hurt.
So of course there are some people who know what our rights are and hold up signs critical of bush or his policies.
In North Carolina a man was arrested for refusing to remove his anti bush sign while people around him were allowed to carry pro bush signs. The man wasn't combative, wasn't posing a threat, wasn't even being disruptive. He was in no way different from the people around him except that his message was anti bush. The ACLU showed up for his hearing and grilled the police chief who gave the orders, and guess what? The order to arrest anti bush protesters in the crowd was given by white house staff.

Bush did it before taking over the white house:
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/08/31/p2s1.htm

And you check in here for an updated list of how we are as free as ever :
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechlist.cfm?c=86&ContentStyle=1

Taft
Jan 22, 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by sturm375


I didn't say anything about taking a bullhorn, or speaking to a large audiance. I said specifically: email/fax/phone/conversation. This is communication between 2-5 people (just a guess on my part), that is private. This person has not done anything else, just opened up their mouth. Not insiting a riot, possibly not in the right mind, but has not committed any harm against anyone. Yet still, any US citizen, can be locked up without attorny, or court date for this action. This violates 2 maybe 3 of the Bill of Rights. Who gets to draw the line as to what is criticisim, and what is terrorist activity toward the US govt? It shouldn't be the Executive branch, that's for sure.

Without their day in court, the Bush adminstration essentially has carte blanche dictatorship conserning citizens.

It boils down to what comes first on the priorities list. "National Security", or civil rights. In my opinion, this country cannot have a secure nation without civil rights.

Along these lines, there have been a ton of stories over the last year or so detailing the nightmare that some people of mid-eastern decent have gone through since 9/11.

Could someone explain to me how holding a person for 6 months or more without being charged is legal?? Some of these men were not allowed communication with their families and were smeared by the press, and yet did nothing wrong, besides being of the wrong skin tone or heritage. Often these men were not allowed to talk to a lawyer and were kept in solitary confinement for months on end.

BTTM, you said that you're no less free than you were a year or two ago. What about those of us who don't happen to be white middle aged men with a history of military service and a conservative track record. Do you think my friend [name removed] from work who is of Iranian heritage feels his freedoms are secure?? He doesn't. I've asked.

Taft

sturm375
Jan 22, 2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Taft


Along these lines, there have been a ton of stories over the last year or so detailing the nightmare that some people of mid-eastern decent have gone through since 9/11.

Could someone explain to me how holding a person for 6 months or more without being charged is legal?? Some of these men were not allowed communication with their families and were smeared by the press, and yet did nothing wrong, besides being of the wrong skin tone or heritage. Often these men were not allowed to talk to a lawyer and were kept in solitary confinement for months on end.

BTTM, you said that you're no less free than you were a year or two ago. What about those of us who don't happen to be white middle aged men with a history of military service and a conservative track record. Do you think my friend [name removed] from work who is of Iranian heritage feels his freedoms are secure?? He doesn't. I've asked.

Taft

The "enemy combatant rule allows Bush to imprison, indefinatly, anyone "fighting against the US," without a trial, lawyer, or contact to the outside world.

Case in point, Jose Padillia(sp?), a US Citizen, after flying back from Pakastain, was detained at customs. (O'hare Int'l Airport). The feds started a trial, and when the judge threatened the procecuter that they didn't have evidence to hold them, Ashcroft transfered Jose to Rumsfield to be held in a Navy Brig. This was nearly a year ago, nobody has seen or heard from Jose since then.

The case against Jose:
The administration accuses Jose of planning to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the use. They say he was talking with known Al Quada(sp?) operatives. Also, he decleared $5,000, while he had $10,000 at the customes in O'Hare. None of these things do the feds have enought evidence to hold a public trial, but due to the "enemy combantant" rule, he is now in a Navy brig off the east coast, in International Waters, where the courts cannot get him.

If you look at the definition of "enemy combant" to that of treason, they are almost identical. The difference is that treason must be proven in a court of law, while the Adminitration can just declear somebody an "enemy combantant", and done, your gone.

alex_ant
Jan 22, 2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I really don't understand why everything has to be a conspiracy. Like the computers will filter "this virus if terrorizing the country" and in 20 seconds the FBI, DEA, CIA, ATF, and any other agency that has letters for its name will be beating down your door.
There is no conspiracy.

1) The government will use as much power as it is given
2) The government has been given an unprecedented amount of power
------
3) The government will use this power.

Aren't Republicans supposed to be all for personal freedom and small government? Why do they argue for the largest government agency ever devised and unprecedented restrictions on and monitoring of our personal lives? (This goes for Democrats just as well)

Nipsy
Jan 22, 2003, 02:40 PM
Here's a benign example of an invasion of privacy coming soon to a mailbox near you:

You get a Safeway Card because you want to save money.

You use your real name, address, and phone number, because your ignorant, stupid, or really believe the groocery store needs to call you.

Safeway tracks your shopping for a year, to tailor advertising to your demographic.

The government seizes data about your shopping habits, tied in to your name, address, phone number, credit card numbers, and checking info.

A lobbying group representing advertising makes substancial contributions to their faves on the hill.

This data is quietly released to advertisers, marketers, etc.

You get a call during dinner offering to sell you the food you're already eating.

No harm/no foul? An annoyance of life?

Well, next it'll be your medical records, your timesheets, your financial records, etc.

Search and seizure are effectively negated. Communication privacy is effectively negated (The most secure comminques are now those via snail mail!). Privacy of records if effectively negated. The right to trial by jury is eroding.

Do you trust your govenrment enough to let them hold YOU for a year while they decide whether or not YOU are or are not at all involved in terror...or pot dealing, adultery, littering, etc., because you are named Ahmed, and bought a falalfel platter. I most assuredly do not!

Life (let's keep this one), liberty (sold down the river in favor of Homeland Security and Copyrights), and the pursuit of happiness (sponsored by Pepsi).

Backtothemac
Jan 22, 2003, 02:48 PM
Taft,
Good point. I understand it from that view, but remember I am a Native American ;)

Alex, good point. Yes, we are for individual freedom and small government, but we are also for not having our country nuked, and terrorized.

SPG
Jan 22, 2003, 03:01 PM
Sturm, you can get the full story here:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/
scroll down to the story "secret government"

BTW, Jose Padilla was being held originally for questioning in a murder investigation, so he's probably no angel, but the relevant part of all this is how this sets a precedent for say, ELF the guys who wreck ski lodges? or the guy who plasters a thousand anti war posters? or anyone else that they have nothing at all on but can't let them go and admit that they were wrong.

For all those out there who think that this can't happen to you. I was once picked up thrown in a patrol car and was on my way to county jail for "resembling in height and complexion a suspect currently being sought" luckily they actually caught the guy earlier that day. Years ago a friend of mine spent two days locked up for suspicion of bank robbery. He was at a supermarket across town at the time of the robbery.

The authorities make mistakes. That's to be expected. When they have no check on their authority and no oversight is when those little mistakes can have severe consequences.

diorio
Jan 22, 2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Nipsy
Here's a benign example of an invasion of privacy coming soon to a mailbox near you:

You get a Safeway Card because you want to save money.

You use your real name, address, and phone number, because your ignorant, stupid, or really believe the groocery store needs to call you.

Safeway tracks your shopping for a year, to tailor advertising to your demographic.

The government seizes data about your shopping habits, tied in to your name, address, phone number, credit card numbers, and checking info.

A lobbying group representing advertising makes substancial contributions to their faves on the hill.

This data is quietly released to advertisers, marketers, etc.

You get a call during dinner offering to sell you the food you're already eating.

No harm/no foul? An annoyance of life?

Well, next it'll be your medical records, your timesheets, your financial records, etc.

Search and seizure are effectively negated. Communication privacy is effectively negated (The most secure comminques are now those via snail mail!). Privacy of records if effectively negated. The right to trial by jury is eroding.

Do you trust your govenrment enough to let them hold YOU for a year while they decide whether or not YOU are or are not at all involved in terror...or pot dealing, adultery, littering, etc., because you are named Ahmed, and bought a falalfel platter. I most assuredly do not!

Life (let's keep this one), liberty (sold down the river in favor of Homeland Security and Copyrights), and the pursuit of happiness (sponsored by Pepsi).

First of all, I agree with Backtothemac in that I am as free as when I was ten years ago. I'm not going to send emails saying, "I want Bush to die!" to people, and if I was, maybe the CIA, FBI or whoever the hell's in charge should take me out.

Second, Nipsy, I think you're being a bit paranoid on the whole safeway/politcal process.

Nipsy
Jan 22, 2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by diorio


Second, Nipsy, I think you're being a bit paranoid on the whole safeway/politcal process.

I would have thought so too, until I started seeing the coverage (from varied reputable sources, both left & right) of people who were being contacted by the authorites because of their food buying habits.

Surely this information will leak from protective agencies, to proactive marketers.

alex_ant
Jan 22, 2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Alex, good point. Yes, we are for individual freedom and small government, but we are also for not having our country nuked, and terrorized.
But along those lines... aren't Republicans supposed to be skeptical of the usefulness of large bureaucracies? Wouldn't the DHS be more effective if it were small and nimble and if its power were checked?

Backtothemac
Jan 22, 2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

But along those lines... aren't Republicans supposed to be skeptical of the usefulness of large bureaucracies? Wouldn't the DHS be more effective if it were small and nimble and if its power were checked?

I think we need to do away with all the bureaucracies and have one agency that handles it all. Although a superagency, it would allow oversight.

sturm375
Jan 22, 2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


I think we need to do away with all the bureaucracies and have one agency that handles it all. Although a superagency, it would allow oversight.

That is exactly what I said the minute the DHS was proposed. We don't need another agancy, we need to merge the exitsting ones.

1- agency for external security (CIA)

1- agency for internal law enforcement (FBI)

1- agency for standards and measures (NIST)

1- agency for protecting our elected officials (Secret Service)

Every agency that is currently operating, could be merged into these four. These plus the Military is all we need.

Backtothemac
Jan 22, 2003, 04:04 PM
OMG! We agree on something!

:)

wdlove
Jan 22, 2003, 08:06 PM
Thank you Republicans are for smaller government, less regulation, combining of some existing bureaucracies. Homeland Security Department is a good start!

MacBandit
Jan 23, 2003, 01:01 AM
It's not so much that they will suddenly knock down your door and lock you up for an indefinite amount of time before you someday have a trial in which you are guilty until proven innocent and have no rights to an attourney.

It's that they can do it if they wish. As stated many times before if the Government can, the Government will!!

sturm375
Jan 23, 2003, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by wdlove
Thank you Republicans are for smaller government, less regulation, combining of some existing bureaucracies. Homeland Security Department is a good start!

Unfortunatly, the DHS dose nothing of the sort. The only agency they absorb, is the INS. In fact the DHS will create dozens of new agencies. It's just another money hole. If it were run by anyone but the government, it might work. Since it is run by the government, it won't.