You must log in or register to comment.
No we don’t.
Considering that TSA, a part of DHS, let more than 90% of guns get through when tested speaks volumes. The new statistics on that have been classified so I guess we just trust then when they say they’ve caught as lot of guns.
Know why you go through this scanners at the airport? Because a former congressman owns (owned?) a large stake in the company that produces them.
Our intelligence knew all about 9/11 before it happened. A whole new agency wasn’t necessary, just new rules.
Considering all of the laws ICE is breaking in the name of punishing what amounts to a misdemeanor, I think we could go back to not having them.
But you know what we COULD use? How about some healthcare?
No, that’s what the FBI is for.
They saw a problem after 9-11 (government agencies not communicating), and decided to solve it by adding further government agencies, all of which compete with each other for budget.
BRILLIANT
The DHS is an attempt at collecting executive power within nonelected officials to prevent a Democratic president having free reign and actually doing anything.
DHS was created in direct response to the 9/11 attacks. It is an agency that was created with the goal of coordinating efforts and information sharing between multiple other agencies so that we don’t miss the signs of a terror attack again. But, as many people predicted at the time, that mission has been blurred and subverted. We now have a massively bloated and over-funded agency that acts like it is in control of all the other agencies it was meant to coordinate, without any real mandate to give them such authority. I’m in favor of getting rid of them altogether.
John Oliver, who has his own problems, does a really good breakdown on how the original idea got spun so far out of the intentions. Essentially its exactly what you said below in a nice 20 minute video. Good stuff.
What are John Oliver’s problems? I haven’t heard any controversies as of late. Other than the Paramount Skydance thing, of course.
No no its more that he does a really good job of trying to present “both sides” (understanding some of those arguments are complete bullshit) but sometimes doesnt spend enough time either debunking or recognizing valid arguments.
I say that agreeing with his general point on a lot of stuff.
Any specific examples? Asking out of legit curiosity
Have they found ANYTHING in the 13 YEARS they have been in operation?
That one guy with a shoe was stopped by a customer, not DHS.
We could have fed children in schools. Think of the children.
Only 13? I thought it started after 9/11.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began operations on March 1, 2003, after being established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
911 was September 11 2001. Government works slow. They are STILL trying to figure out if freeing the slaves was a good idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security
Who downvotes FACTS?
That’s 23 years, not 13
Sshhh… I was basking in the relative calm of the Obama years for a moment.
Sorry, you are correct. Pre-coffee typing.
When it’s an agency that’s about prevention, the lack of terrorism incidents is not really a failure on their part. All the security theatre nonsense is obviously wasteful but that is a different point.
Prevent WHAT?
Something that already happened? The FBI knew about the hijackers. They LET it happen.
We’ve already fixed the problem with secure cockpit doors. There is no need to pat down grandma on her way to Disneyland.
Prevention of terrorist attacks is the point. Having no terror attacks doesn’t mean there would be none without them. As I said , security theatre, patting down grandma, is not the success. I’d be inclined to listen to the experts. However, I’m worried this administration no longer has any.
So we agree that anything can be used for good or evil and this is now being used for evil.
I can live with that.
I don’t disagree. My point is about how we measure success. For a state apparatus that is meant to prevent terrorism, the lack of airplane based terrorism is not necessarily a sign that it’s not needed. It can also be a sign of it’s success.
However, it’s a giant organization with lots of useless parts, too. Like parting down grandma, or more likely abuela.
No, not really. Their name “homeland security” has always been a little too nazi-1984-ish sounding for me. The Federal Emergency Management people and programs are sometimes useful though.
Only when it’s properly funded. But we can do that.
We never needed DHS, it was always a Conservative surveillance program.
Make an exception for FEMA and throw out the rest.
FEMA predates DHS. It got rolled intoit post 9/11.
The Coast Guard also got moved under DHS.
Which is weird since you’d think it’d be under the national guard.
I’d add some aspects of CBP as well, but drastically reducing their scope to strictly export control of goods. They do important work with shipping, licensing, and trade with other countries. This can be very important to researchers and universities working with international organizations or in international waters.
I know they have a very well deserved bad rep, however, some of the things they do are important. Maybe even just peeling away their export control and agricultural work to a separate entity then chucking the rest of it out.
No. It was always pork and did absolutely nothing to make us “safer”
Not JustICE is the most accurate headline ever.
No
Typical Republican playbook. Infiltrate all government institutions, run them into the ground, and point at their failures and say the government can’t do shit.
Are you trying to defend DHS? You do realize it was created by Republicans right? George W. Bush created it taking advantage of the panic following 9/11. It’s an entirely redundant organization whose function can be met by the existing institutions that were doing the various jobs prior to it being formed. ALL of the legislation that was passed as a result of 9/11 needs to be repealed, and that includes the creation of the DHS.
Not exactly defending it, just stating the Republican playbook. It’s why we can’t have nice things.
Yeah but in this case they weren’t actually trying to starve the beast. They just really suck that much at governance.
No. Tear it all down and create something that actually helps make people safe.
“You don’t need it, WE need it.”
