SECURITY: Homeland Security

Bush created the Dept. of Homeland Security to deal with threats against domestic interests. This is the first time such duties have been deemed important enough to be partitioned from the rest of our defensive security duties. September 11th was of course the motivating factor, as well as the very real possibility of new attacks.

Bush named Tom Ridge, who has been director of the White House Office of Homeland Security for nearly a year, as his nominee to lead the vast, new department.

"He's the right man for this new and great responsibility," Bush said of Ridge, during the signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House.

The president also tapped Navy Secretary Gordon England to be Ridge's deputy, and he nominated Asa Hutchinson, currently the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, to serve as undersecretary for border and transportation security.

www.cnn.com...

Homeland Security Website with possible threats, info on the 9/11 commission, www.whitehouse.gov...

The questions are... Has Homeland Security been successful?, If Kerry wins does Homeland Security remain strong, active, and financially supported?

[edit on 3-8-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

[edit on 8/3/2004 by zsandmann]

[edit on 8-8-2004 by Valhall]

Also, many questions remain about this terrorism czar position. Does anyone have any information on who he will answer too and what power he has... or even what he will do? Is it part of Homeland Security or something totally different?

I sure don't know

The Sec. of Homeland Security is in command of an intra-agency task force to fortify the US from inside threats, these include:

Border and Transportation Security - including the Coast Guard

Critical Infrastructure - communications systems, power grids, and transportation networks

Chemical and Biological Threats - BioWatch program, which protects many large U.S. cities by monitoring the air for biological agents that could be released by terrorists.

Helping our First Responders: The Federal Government has provided more than $13 billion to equip and train local officials such as firefighters, police officers, and EMS workers to respond to terrorism and other emergencies and created a National Incident Management system.

The USA PATRIOT Act - The ever discussed and criticized Patriot Act

As with all Secretary positions in the cabinet he reports directly to the president.

Originally posted by lockheed
Also, many questions remain about this terrorism czar position. Does anyone have any information on who he will answer too and what power he has... or even what he will do? Is it part of Homeland Security or something totally different? I sure don't know

Are you refering to the proposal to create a new Intelligence Tzar and counterterrorism department? Bush in his call for the adoption of the 911 panels recomendations stated he wanted these independant of the White House. IMHO this makes the most sence as you do not want a YES person delivering a slant on data because he or she fell that that is what the president want to hear.

Bush recommends an intellegence "czar." This is referring to the creation of a new top level position - "national intelligence director." This was the recommendation of the 911 commission, however, Bush has said he wishes the position to be outside of White House control.

Bush said the czar would be responsible for "leading the intelligence community across our government" and would be able to provide "the best, unbiased, unvarnished assessment of America's intelligence professionals."

This surpasses the CIA directors authority.

But Bush stopped short of giving the new intelligence director full control over the budgets and personnel of the agencies, including those of the military

There will be limits don't worry.

FULL STORY

The president has already created the National Intelligence Center and National Intelligence Director position. I refer you to my thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, this happened while we were focused on the terror threats and while Congress was not in session. Bush claimed that the terror threats was a reminder we needed such a center and position.

I ask, what does Homeland Security and the National Intelligence Center give us that cannot already be handled by the CIA or other intelligence agencies. Can you gaurantee that 9/11 will not happen again as a result of Homeland Security? Can you gurauntee that a middle man (which is what Homeland Security will become with the National Intelligence Center) will be needed?

The amount of bureacracy in the intelligence community is mind-boggling. What is the point of the National Intelligence Center with Homeland Security set-up? We're going to have an intra-agency department in charge of various agencies/departments which are in turn by themselves in charge of other agencies/departments, etc. etc. I can't even fathom how things will work out with the amount of government management that will be involved.

I quote from the article in my thread:

President George W. Bush, declaring the nation was still not safe from terrorist attack, announced Monday the creation of a national director to oversee federal intelligence gathering and the creation of a National Intelligence Center to monitor and coordinate all government counter-terrorism plans and activities.

How does that relate to Homeland Security?

Zsandman, the position will be with the presidential executive branch, whether that means White House I am unsure.

And when Bush states unbiased, he means the director will be marketing his product -- intelligence to his consumers -- the president and other cabinet members. You can find that in the commission report, but I believe that should be reserved for another thread or for a different subject of this current thread.

I advocate that we have a well-defined intelligence community, we have the CIA, FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, National Intelligence Center, and the rest of the 12!

Are all these agencies necessary? I thought the main fault of 9/11 and Iraq was non-quality intelligence information. Remember the FBI translation who claimed the FBI knew, tell me how these problems be solved by adding more bosses on top of her. They wont...I say no to Homeland Security and no to the National Intelligence Center and I advocate a reformation of those agencies already in place.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
The amount of bureacracy in the intelligence community is mind-boggling. What is the point of the National Intelligence Center with Homeland Security set-up? We're going to have an intra-agency department in charge of various agencies/departments which are in turn by themselves in charge of other agencies/departments, etc. etc. I can't even fathom how things will work out with the amount of government management that will be involved.
[edit on 3-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

From experience with Canadian politics, the bureacratic nightmare should be avoided. When bureacrats start to run the show things become very messy. Money and resources are wasted on people who are friendly to the government. Note friendly to the government.
Heres the story with the Canadian sponsorship scandal
Story

TORONTO � For the first time, the federal government's sponsorship scandal has been linked directly into the heart of former prime minister Jean Chretien's office, the Toronto Star reported Saturday. Jean Pelletier, Chretien's former chief of staff and one of his closest confidantes, made regular phone calls to the head of the sponsorship program, imposing political pressure on how millions of dollars should be handed out, says a staffer who worked in the office that administered the money.

The total amount wasted cost about $300 million dollars, all of which was taxpayer dollars. This cost the liberals their majority in Parliament. If George Bush wants to be re-elected for four more years, and protect the United States from Terrorism, he is best to stay away from having the intel community from being a bureacy. The government should have at most two intelligence agencies. One civilian, one military. They in turn are lead by an elected official. Who if not is elected by the people directly, selected through a bipartisan selection committee.

The recent release of the 9/11 commission report has many people demanding that the recommendations need to be implemented immediately, but with all proposed major changes to how the US is responding to the threat of terrorism, you must step back and understand what brought us to the events of September 11, 2001.

I will focus on the CIA in this post, to find out HOW our intelligence got to the point that it was on 9/11, one need only to review the history.

The CIA was formed by the The National Security Act of 1947 and in my opinion it was created to prevent the possibility of another global war. WWI and WWII, could possibly have been avoided if proper intelligence could recognize imminent threats and plans by those who seek control of the world. The world leaders at the time either "knew" and did not care or they were not privy to the signs of the coming aggression. Either way, by not addressing the problem in it's infancy took a great toll on the world.

The CIA went relatively unchecked but after the failed CIA operation in Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, and rumors of their possible involvement in the assasination of President Kennedy, finally the Watergate scandal, in 1975, both the White House and Congress launched their own investigations into CIA activities. The result, was in 1976, both Houses of Congress established their intelligence oversight committees, which became permanent in 1977.

Also in 1977 President Carter, restructured the Intelligence community, establishing a high-level committee to be led by the director of central intelligence (DCI).

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR, many in Washington, called for major reform of the intelligence community, one Senator actually called for the abolishment of the CIA and hand over it's responsiblities to the State Dept.

CHANGES--WITHOUT RED PERIL, WHO'S THE ENEMY?

This situation raises anew a question that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, asks: Without the Soviet threat, why not just abolish the C.I.A. and let the State Department take over?

Other changes in procedure enacted by President Clinton in 1996 further eroded the ability of the CIA to do it's job efficiently. But his steps were in concert with what many at the time were thinking.

I have linked below more information about the pulse of the government after the fall of communism, and for the most part, the CIA was a definite target of reduced funding for the years to come.

It will take awhile to read the information but I highly recommend it so you can understand the history of what happened.

To sum up, the CIA was formed to gather intelligence around the world in order to be able to recognize threats before they grew to the point of being able to cause great harm. By leaving the agency unchecked for so long, they grew to become too powerful and finally in the 70's, reforms were made to try and keep the agency in check. After the fall of the Soviet Union, many inside the beltway targetted the CIA for major budget cuts and reduction in it's ability to gather intel, some even pondered abolishing the agency altogether.

Now I will address the recent recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

I would in no way implement the recommendation to create a new Intel Director, what good would that do? As a result of the attacks, the Homeland Security agency was created, it's job is to be able to gather all available intel,
disseminate it and make decisions to protect the homeland. It is still trying to fill positions and train these people to be able to do this job efficiently and competently. To create a "new" intel entity would be redundant, and a huge waste of taxpayer money. This money could be put to a much better use say funding the Border patrol and Coast Guard, enabling these two to hire more personnel, purchase equipment to aid them in their efforts, and to train them to be more efficient.

My point is, the Intelligence gathering agencies are there, any changes should be to fund these existing agencies to increase their efficiency, it took years of neglect to bring our Intel to the level of 9/11, it will take years to bring it back up to speed.

Budgeting the CIA from the Defense Dept has to end, while the DOD will whine and cry about it, common sense says the intelligence gathering entities need to be seperate from defense spending.

Who is to blame for the mess? I would not blame anyone, a mistake was made, after the fall of the Soviet Union, our Congress feeling much like the country, felt the need to take money from Intelligence and put it towards other issues to help the country, all the while failing to recognize the growing threat of global terrorism. When we remember those who perished on 9/11, we must not forget to look back in history to see where our mistakes occurred. By simply taking this trip into history, it shows that the creation of another Intelligence agency would be another mistake.

The National Security Act of 1947
Key Events in CIA's History
1945-1950
Emergence of the Intelligence Establishment
The Central Intelligence Agency
1992 Congressional Debate
CIA CASTING ABOUT FOR NEW MISSIONS (House of Representatives - February 05, 1992)
CIA: The Need for Reform

I when I herd this was not so sure that its was going to work these are my reasons why

1. The FBI,CIA,NSA and all of these other groups do not play well together.The fight TOOTH and NAIL for each others funding

2. Having the D.O.H.L.S a Cabinet Level Post makes it Very Political.....And Information no matter how Credible could be Stretched to seem More Accurate than it is.

As for the terror Czar I think this is a HORRIBLE idea....Lookat the war on drugs its had a Czar......and we have been losing the war on drugs sense it`s inception

[edit on 4-8-2004 by Truth_Hunter_1976]