|
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
 Posted - 08/03/2004 : 06:04:15
|
I've been noticing in the news the last couple of days that one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission is to appoint a new leader of inteliigence - someone who will oversee all intelligence.
I find this confusing. I thought Homeland Security headed up by Tom Ridge was supposed to fulfill this function.
Now, am I remembering incorrectly or are we just adding another tier to the bureaucracy?
Also, if I'm mistaken, then what does Homeland Security do that can't be done by the FBI?
|
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 06:49:06 [Permalink]
|
Whence bloweth the wind?
I think that this falls under the tired, old, "We gotta do sumpin, even if it's wrong!" catagory.
I further think that the idea is not a bad one. Our intellegence, law enforcement, and judicial have for too long squabbled with each other over turf and generally worked at cross purposes. We have J. Edgar Hoover to thank for much if not most of it, but that's sewage down the pipe.
The trick is to keep the office of the Intelligence Czar non-political, then to trim the deadwood. The Homeland Security has done nothing, as far as I can see, but come up with some pretty colors and a lot of useless noise. That can go, altogether. Ashcroft's Justice Dept. has accomplished, aside from screwing up trials and investigations by witholding witness', little more than the conviction of Tommy Chong and a handful of Big Easy hookers. And terrorizing medical pot users and fighting assisted suicide laws. That needs revamping, and, after anointing his gourd in the fry vat at Mickey D's, Ashcroft needs to be retired with his jaw wired shut. The FBI and the CIA both need a good bitch-slapping to get their collective heads on straight, so the Czar will need to be a right bastard in our service, not the administration's. Any administration's.
And so forth.
Just going to have to wait and see how badly this will be screwed up, I guess.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 07:12:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SciFi Chick
I find this confusing. I thought Homeland Security headed up by Tom Ridge was supposed to fulfill this function.
According to the DHS website, their mission involves more than just gathering intelligence. For instance, while its "strategic goals" include "awareness" (i.e. gathering/assessing intel), another is "recovery" (described by the website as "lead[ing] national, state, local and private sector efforts to restore services and rebuild communities after acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies").
Thus, for instance, FEMA is a part of DHS, but this would have little to do with an "intelligence czar."
A question to be answered is how DHS will fit into this intelligence restructuring. But if you want to see how complext the whole intelligence thing is in this country, check out all the departments listed here. They range from the various military branches to the CIA and FBI to-- get this-- the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
It's crazy enough that having a sort of overall head to supervise everything might be a good idea...
(edited to make verbs agree with subjects)
|
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 08/03/2004 07:14:44 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 10:11:39 [Permalink]
|
| I fear that the new intel department will be completely politicized, and used as a political tool by whomever happens to be in office at the time. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 10:25:21 [Permalink]
|
I fear that you are right, Dude. The Intellegence Czar will be no more than another toady(s) for whatever administration. An award perhaps, for political loyalty -- the competent need not apply.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Seen that sort of thing happen too many times.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 10:42:39 [Permalink]
|
I'm still positive that they formed Homeland Security as a liaison to the other intelligence organizations, but oh well.
This whole thing seems like a bad idea. I suppose we'll need this czar to be protected by Secret Service. I mean, if one man (cause we all know it will be a man) has information about everything, doesn't that make him a liability-- er, I mean national treasure that must be protected? |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 12:34:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SciFi Chick
I'm still positive that they formed Homeland Security as a liaison to the other intelligence organizations, but oh well.
This whole thing seems like a bad idea. I suppose we'll need this czar to be protected by Secret Service. I mean, if one man (cause we all know it will be a man) has information about everything, doesn't that make him a liability-- er, I mean national treasure that must be protected?
Naw. It's going to be all politics and the new dummy will be no more effective than this dummy:
quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Tuesday the government concluded "it was essential" to publicize detailed surveillance documents and raise the terror alert, even though the intelligence information dated from as far back as 2000 and 2001.
Speaking at a news conference in New York, Ridge said that because of the heightened security steps, "We have made it much more difficult for the terrorists to achieve their broad objectives."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040803/D847SR6O0.html
It is merely another attempt by the administration to take attention off it's blunders. A pity. It might have worked. Instead, it will be no more than yet another department in a sprawling, ever-growing fungus of a government. And we all thought that the Republicans hated big government. Go figger.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 12:36:03 [Permalink]
|
If the president has his way, this position will make very little difference. At first, Mr. Bush opposed this appointment. Then, in classic Bush, Too fashion, flip flopped when the media and his opponents criticized his decision. Now, he wants the appointment "with some changes." Those "changes" basically amount to another redundant office in our bloated government.
Personally, I'm wondering why the Department of Homeland Defense can't perform this function. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 12:41:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SciFi Chick
I'm still positive that they formed Homeland Security as a liaison to the other intelligence organizations, but oh well.
This whole thing seems like a bad idea. I suppose we'll need this czar to be protected by Secret Service. I mean, if one man (cause we all know it will be a man) has information about everything, doesn't that make him a liability-- er, I mean national treasure that must be protected?
Homeland Security was formed as an omnibus intelligence sharing, terrorism response, and domestic readiness agency. They were supposed to help the departments share information, not make an information clearing house. The FBI would have to send intell to the CIA, etc. The new Info czar, which Bush originally opposed on the advice of both the CIA and FBI heads, is supposed to provide that intelligence clearing house.
It's a political circle jerk, but it appears like motion. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 13:28:51 [Permalink]
|
Val,
Do you believe that the scope and power of an already under-funded Homeland Security can be broadened to do the job of Security Csar? Would this keep us from creating another pointless bureaucratic drain on public funds? Or, would you prefer a strict compliance to the commissions findings?
I'm pretty uncertain on this issue... |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 06:15:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
Val,
Do you believe that the scope and power of an already under-funded Homeland Security can be broadened to do the job of Security Csar? Would this keep us from creating another pointless bureaucratic drain on public funds? Or, would you prefer a strict compliance to the commissions findings?
I'm pretty uncertain on this issue...
No, I don't believe that the scope and power of an underfunded Homeland Security can be broadened to Security Czar. Without funding, any department is doomed to fail. I'd be very apprehensive about someone being appointed Security Czar. I'd have visions of the head of the Anistazi (sp) or Hienrick Himmler flash in front of me.
Creating pointless bureaucratic drains on public funding is what government does best.
I think quite a few of the concepts behind the commission's recomendations have some merit. However, without a clear plan and adequate funding, all it will amount to is a political campaign talking point. Basic partisan dick waving which does little to improve safety.
The position of Intelligence Czar is trying to address the failings of the CIA, FBI, and DHS. The CIA and FBI are very territorial and DHS lacks the power to compel them to play nice and share. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 07:53:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I think quite a few of the concepts behind the commission's recomendations have some merit. However, without a clear plan and adequate funding, all it will amount to is a political campaign talking point.
After doing some more reading on the subject, it's clear that the Bush administration isn't event following the commision's recommendations! To wit, there's this piece in the Washington Post, wich notes, in part:
quote:
Bush's statement embraced the two most significant of the 37 recommendations by the commission that investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but with significant limitations. Under his plan, the new intelligence chief would lack the authority over budgets, hiring and firing that the commission had envisioned. (emphasis mine)
So it's going to be a dummy position designed to make us feel better (and to make Bush look like he's doing something about our nation's security).
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 07:57:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I think quite a few of the concepts behind the commission's recomendations have some merit. However, without a clear plan and adequate funding, all it will amount to is a political campaign talking point.
After doing some more reading on the subject, it's clear that the Bush administration isn't event following the commision's recommendations! To wit, there's this piece in the Washington Post, wich notes, in part:
quote:
Bush's statement embraced the two most significant of the 37 recommendations by the commission that investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but with significant limitations. Under his plan, the new intelligence chief would lack the authority over budgets, hiring and firing that the commission had envisioned. (emphasis mine)
So it's going to be a dummy position designed to make us feel better (and to make Bush look like he's doing something about our nation's security).
Why does this not surprise me?
I was referring to the position as envisioned by the panel, not Bush's talking point politics vision of it.
Sad really, there was something that was supposed to help homeland security. Too bad Bush doesn't take it seriously. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
