"While many of those constituent parts should certainly be retained—those parts should be returned to their original homes. They did just fine there before 2002. The organization itself? I think we’ve seen well enough at this point that it needs to go."
Gotta disagree with this. First and foremost DHS had been debated and dreamed up long before it was implemented. It was only because of 9/11 and the proof that the various organs weren't talking to one another, and intentionally so, that 9/11 happened in the first place in many cases. Then Katrina proved it even more once again.
Moreover, many of those original institutions didn't belong where they sat--the Secret Service also doing money crimes investigations as well as POTUS protection all under Treasury made little sense. Where to put the Coast Guard is a perennial question that never gets properly resolved.
A) If you want to send them back to various Departments, that's fine, but you'll have to then create numerous Fusion Centers to ensure the information gets to where it should be going in real time. And second, you'll need all of these agencies to then run under a single technological umbrella to ensure each system talks to one another freely and accurately and without delay. That can be done, but damn its gonna be time consuming.
B) We can just get rid of all the different agencies and create a US Police Force or something like it, which just has the different functions of investigation, immigration, airport security, prisons, etc. within it. Which also allows lateral moves much easier. Obviously, if we survive Trump there is going to be little appetite for a nation police force that acts at the behest of the President. Which means that can be done, but only with iron clad, unbreakable, protections built in, starting with constitutional amendments, Congressional approval only for certain acts, new laws around police use and actions, and consequences for breaches such as auto impeachment etc.
C) Keep DHS as is, reform it as we wish, get rid of ICE, etc., add in new protections, const amendments, etc.,
any of these options are a massive step. But 'return to 2001' aint a good option. I can't stress than enough.
I mean really the only problem with that is that DHS was largely unrelated to 9/11. That was primarily an IC problem which necessitates the ODNI (depending on who you ask).
Fusion centers in the law enforcement sphere would have little if anything to contribute to those sorts of problems.
As for FEMA—I still want it to exist, I just don’t see why DHS is a particularly necessary Department for it to exist.
DHS was about the combo of the sprawling elements of the IC, with the numerous domestic law enforcement agencies, adding in airport security, and the simple fact no one talked to one another, liaisons were considered "hostages"--direct quote--not people to be worked with, and there was no function to force it to happen (though treason charges should have been applied in cases). The ability to connect was what the Department was created to do. People literally just wanted a single source point for data while functions remained relatively separate.
"DHS was largely unrelated to 9/11."--this is just wrong. The Hart-Rudman Commission Report had been sitting there untouched for a few years, then 9/11 happened, and every knowledgeable observer pointed out they'd created the outline to stop exactly the scenario that occurred on 9/11--terrorists fall through the gaps of every department to conduct a mass casualty event. And that happened even though the lights were blinking red.
One could argue that ODNI is necessary because there are so many different intel agencies--another thing that needs to be discussed: why not just have 3--domestic (FBI); External (CIA); and Military (DIA) and all the functions are subsumed under those directors. But ODNI is not enough to deal with the connections between them and all the other agencies.
Yes, things like FEMA are an absolute necessity. And need to be radically expanded--something that would really help to re-form a citizen identity is mass training for catastrophic events. Not disagreeing with you there.
But still the best place is a single Department under a single IT system that talks to everyone simultaneously. We just need to De-Confederatize law enforcement, ratify a dozen or three new Constitutional Amendments, and re-write the DHS governing authorities, as well as laws regarding POTUS' use of force.
Getting rid of DHS is simple, but you'll just end up with all the problems we've had for generations, which will lead us back to the same point eventually.
And yes, ICE needs to be destroyed. There is nothing we can do to save that agency.
On your first footnote, I think DHS is arguably deleterious to state capacity. If you imagine it continuing to serve as a more or less arbitrary instrument of the executive, it will rather quickly begin to cannibalize the functions and funding of other state agencies & departments (especially under the Trump administration’s belief that the executive can spend appropriations as it sees fit). I think that’s likely to begin very soon, to resolve the apparent problem of DHS overspending.
It wouldn’t take long before this degrades the state’s ability to operate effectively across the board.
I mean, you're not totally wrong, but at the same time, there are a lot of parts to DHS that I wouldn't actually want to disappear. So, idk how much it would actually change at the end of the day.
The use of the word ‘Homeland’ in creating this agency was the big tell. It’s a word not heretofore often encountered in America except in quotes from Hitler and his regime about their ‘homeland,’ Nazi Germany.
"While many of those constituent parts should certainly be retained—those parts should be returned to their original homes. They did just fine there before 2002. The organization itself? I think we’ve seen well enough at this point that it needs to go."
Gotta disagree with this. First and foremost DHS had been debated and dreamed up long before it was implemented. It was only because of 9/11 and the proof that the various organs weren't talking to one another, and intentionally so, that 9/11 happened in the first place in many cases. Then Katrina proved it even more once again.
Moreover, many of those original institutions didn't belong where they sat--the Secret Service also doing money crimes investigations as well as POTUS protection all under Treasury made little sense. Where to put the Coast Guard is a perennial question that never gets properly resolved.
A) If you want to send them back to various Departments, that's fine, but you'll have to then create numerous Fusion Centers to ensure the information gets to where it should be going in real time. And second, you'll need all of these agencies to then run under a single technological umbrella to ensure each system talks to one another freely and accurately and without delay. That can be done, but damn its gonna be time consuming.
B) We can just get rid of all the different agencies and create a US Police Force or something like it, which just has the different functions of investigation, immigration, airport security, prisons, etc. within it. Which also allows lateral moves much easier. Obviously, if we survive Trump there is going to be little appetite for a nation police force that acts at the behest of the President. Which means that can be done, but only with iron clad, unbreakable, protections built in, starting with constitutional amendments, Congressional approval only for certain acts, new laws around police use and actions, and consequences for breaches such as auto impeachment etc.
C) Keep DHS as is, reform it as we wish, get rid of ICE, etc., add in new protections, const amendments, etc.,
any of these options are a massive step. But 'return to 2001' aint a good option. I can't stress than enough.
I mean really the only problem with that is that DHS was largely unrelated to 9/11. That was primarily an IC problem which necessitates the ODNI (depending on who you ask).
Fusion centers in the law enforcement sphere would have little if anything to contribute to those sorts of problems.
As for FEMA—I still want it to exist, I just don’t see why DHS is a particularly necessary Department for it to exist.
Please excuse the delayed response.
DHS was about the combo of the sprawling elements of the IC, with the numerous domestic law enforcement agencies, adding in airport security, and the simple fact no one talked to one another, liaisons were considered "hostages"--direct quote--not people to be worked with, and there was no function to force it to happen (though treason charges should have been applied in cases). The ability to connect was what the Department was created to do. People literally just wanted a single source point for data while functions remained relatively separate.
"DHS was largely unrelated to 9/11."--this is just wrong. The Hart-Rudman Commission Report had been sitting there untouched for a few years, then 9/11 happened, and every knowledgeable observer pointed out they'd created the outline to stop exactly the scenario that occurred on 9/11--terrorists fall through the gaps of every department to conduct a mass casualty event. And that happened even though the lights were blinking red.
One could argue that ODNI is necessary because there are so many different intel agencies--another thing that needs to be discussed: why not just have 3--domestic (FBI); External (CIA); and Military (DIA) and all the functions are subsumed under those directors. But ODNI is not enough to deal with the connections between them and all the other agencies.
Yes, things like FEMA are an absolute necessity. And need to be radically expanded--something that would really help to re-form a citizen identity is mass training for catastrophic events. Not disagreeing with you there.
But still the best place is a single Department under a single IT system that talks to everyone simultaneously. We just need to De-Confederatize law enforcement, ratify a dozen or three new Constitutional Amendments, and re-write the DHS governing authorities, as well as laws regarding POTUS' use of force.
Getting rid of DHS is simple, but you'll just end up with all the problems we've had for generations, which will lead us back to the same point eventually.
And yes, ICE needs to be destroyed. There is nothing we can do to save that agency.
On your first footnote, I think DHS is arguably deleterious to state capacity. If you imagine it continuing to serve as a more or less arbitrary instrument of the executive, it will rather quickly begin to cannibalize the functions and funding of other state agencies & departments (especially under the Trump administration’s belief that the executive can spend appropriations as it sees fit). I think that’s likely to begin very soon, to resolve the apparent problem of DHS overspending.
It wouldn’t take long before this degrades the state’s ability to operate effectively across the board.
I mean, you're not totally wrong, but at the same time, there are a lot of parts to DHS that I wouldn't actually want to disappear. So, idk how much it would actually change at the end of the day.
The use of the word ‘Homeland’ in creating this agency was the big tell. It’s a word not heretofore often encountered in America except in quotes from Hitler and his regime about their ‘homeland,’ Nazi Germany.