Office of Homeland Security

Andrew Adams

I just posted this on another thread, but also wanted it to stand alone.Tom Ridge is a man who I've sat and talked to on a number of occasions and consider to be a friend. While he's not as conservative on some issues as I would prefer; he is as ardent a patriot as there is in this country.He graduated from West Point, he served three tours of duty in Vietnam, he served my district nobly in the United States Congress, and he has been an admirable governor.I happen to think that having a single office coordinating the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, FAA, and INS anti-terrorism divisions is a good idea. I realize that the black helicopter crowd is opposed to any idea that might strengthen federal law enforcement; but then the black helicopter crowd also spawned Timothy McVeigh.I urge anyone who is opposed to the office of Homeland Security to read John Locke's Two Treatises on the function of government. This document, and the Natural Rights philosophy it lays out, are the major philosophical underpinnings of our constitution. If you read this, you will find out that the proper function of a government is to secure the safety of its citizens; in fact, Mr. Locke saw the protective role of a government as its only reason for existence.In accord with its philosophy, the office of Homeland Security is exactly in concert with the entire philosophical underpinning of our constitution, and I know of no man who I would rather have running it than Tom Ridge.

bondai

Just another Government office that will suck up millions and millions of taxpayers dollars with nothing to show for it. That is if you don't count the fancy new wire tap equipment and the news weapons that can be used against US citizens at a later date.It is almost as laughable as the Fed's taking over airport security.

rgrjit8

That's right Bondai, and there's nothing like a bit of national hysteria to rush through these types of legislation.I mean, they've pretty much played the drug war for all it was worth to hammer our fourth amendment (an other amendments) rights. They were starting on gun control as a lever to hammer us down some more.Then this opportunity presented itself. How convenient!Here's an interesting article about this subject: http://civilliberty.about.com/library/weekly/aa091801a.htm

bondai

I don't want to be negative, especially now but the Fed's have a long list of failures as far as Government run agencies are concerned. We need to keep a close eye on this one. As far as the Fed's handling airport security. If they are unable to keep this nation secure and free from attack what makes anyone think they can provide security for air travelers.

Highball

When you get tired of cotton candy,go read Josey1's post on the 'Good,constitutional gov.Ridge' setting up a national police forces...an idea totally against the founders ideas...and any American able to think. There is a huge difference between guarding against foreign invaders...and setting up a military/police force against 'the terror within' identified the other night on a 'cbs special' as.....a white guy with a gun....

landis

I think I like him allready...

Homer J Simpson

I just don't like the name 'Homeland Security.' It doesn't sound kosher.(rimshot.)Aside from it's Naziesque name, it also sounds like a name for a home improvment mega-store, specializing in fire extinguishers, locks, heavy doors, burglar alarms...........If this agency had a cooler name, I just may be all for it!

Phil

Homeland Security/Gestapo.

opentop

Isn't the Department Of Defense responsible for "homeland security"? Will we need a "United States Homeland Security Force" now? Why is a new bureaucrat and staff always our government's response to everything? I think if I hear the word "czar" one more time, I'll just move to Russia where czars came from in the first place. They called the guy Reagan appointed to fight the "war on drugs" (big joke that's become, hope our "new war" isn't conducted like that mess) the national drug czar and now they're calling this guy in charge of homeland security the "homeland security czar". What gives? Are rhetoric and "new vocabularies" all we can ever expect from our leaders? Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said we'd have to develope "a whole new vocabulary" to describe "our new war". WHAT THE HELL is wrong with the vocabulary we have? I guess we can't use "police action" or "international collective intervention" anymore. We're going to have to call this one "Extrinsic Reactive Protection Operations" or something. And the words we were using to cover the "accidental" destruction of non-military property and the "unintended" killing of innocent bystanders (i.e. "Collateral Damage") just won't do anymore either. We're going to have to call that "Consanguin Deterioration" I guess. When I was in the military, collateral damage meant damage to things near the target, not "oops we hit the WRONG target". What's "friendly fire" going to be called this time around, "Benevolent Calefaction"? Are hype and speculation all we can ever expect from our "free press"? Seems to me that most people just want the straight truth and action rather than teasing pleas for patience, rhetorical nonsense ("dead or alive", "Infinite Justice", "America's New War", "Enduring Freedom" and all that crap) and the rampant speculation engaged in by our media. I guess it's a function of these relatively new 24 hour "news" cable chanels, that if they don't actually have news to report then they just get a bunch of pundits together and speculate on the maybes and ifs. It's sickening. No wonder Block Buster's movie rentals have almost doubled over the norm since Sept. 11. Most people are so tired of watching round the clock coverage of the dust clouds in lower Manhattan or Bin Ladens freaky mug plastered on their TV screens every ten minutes that they'll go rent just about anything to escape it. Although that ought to help the economy a little. Buy Blockbuster stock now I guess. Two maybe three months from now all the hype will be gone, Bin Laden will be no closer to being "brought to justice" and we'll probably still be playing "tit for tat" games in the press with the Taliban.