Always happy to oblige.. :D

Michale

If you amend that to say, "I would suggest that there is not one Politically CorrectFBI interrogator worth his or her own salt who would agree with you, Michale." you would be accurate...

Because the entire "OH MY GODS, WE'RE TORTURING PEOPLE!!!
" issue can be summed up as just one big exercise in Political Correctness..

This is fact...

Do you know how I know this is fact???

Because EVERYONE in the chain of command, both civilian and military, *KNEW* we were torturing terrorists for intel..

EVERY.... ONE....

But NO ONE said a peep about it until it became public knowledge..

NO... ONE....

That's bona fide proof that the issue is simply one of political correctness...

In your scenario where interrogators must resort to the use of torture (or when they pull the technique out as a first resort as it is as essential an interrogation tool as a police officer's weapon) in order to gain actionable intelligence when time is of the essence in the effort to save innocent lives, how far would you go if the detainee remains uncooperative through all of your various torture techniques?

First off, torture (as we are defining it now) is not designed to elicit actionable intel... It's designed to elicit co-operation. The actionable intel comes later..

However, allowing for this misconception, my answer to your question is simple...

How far would I be willing to go??

As far as the scumbag terrorist wants to go...

Call me quaint, Michale, but I'd like to think that US LEOs are a step or two above their counterparts in Syria, Jordan or Egypt.

You might be surprised. At least as far as Jordan's "civilian" police are concerned... Don't know too much about Syria and Egypt, as things have changed a LOT since my day...

Michale

Here is a question that all torture enthusiasts must answer ...

In your scenario where interrogators must resort to the use of torture (or when they pull the technique out as a first resort as it is as essential an interrogation tool as a police officer's weapon) in order to gain actionable intelligence when time is of the essence in the effort to save innocent lives, how far would you go if the detainee remains uncooperative through all of your various torture techniques?

You can't possibly be serious. If that's the analogy you want to go with then I am now convinced that you know very little about how to interrogate a detainee - your assertions to the contrary, notwithstanding, literally.

I would suggest that there is not one FBI interrogator worth his or her own salt who would agree with you, Michale.

I am not doubting your claims.

But when I was in the region, the rules governing torture were a LOT less stringent..

Working with the Israelis, the rule of thumb was, "The Ends Justifies The Means"....

I have no doubt that the Israelis still follow that mantra...

It's just less open than it used to be...

All the politically correct BS that permeates the world in the here and now.. :^/

Michale

Coercive interrogations are allowed under the MCA....

That is to say that evidence obtained by torture CAN be admissible give certain circumstances.

Trial Judge is given a lot of leeway in this regard, under the revised MCA-2009..

Michale

That's like saying a good cop never has to fire his weapon... It's simply not an accurate assessment of the career field..

But, if they do, they are likely to be prosecuted. I say this based on what I have read about the Israeli justice system and how they treat interrogators who engage in torture.

If true, I have no doubt that those prosecuted would get a FAIR trial and defense of the Homeland would figure prominently in the disposition of justice..

Because, in Israel, people are ISRAELIs first and foremost... Unlike in America where people are DEMCORATS/REPUBLICANS first and Americans second..

Where in the Military Commissions Act - revised 2009 edition, that is - is the use of torture authorized, Michale?

Coercive interrogations are allowed under the MCA....

Michale

If they are the best, they don't need to resort to the use of torture. But, if they do, they are likely to be prosecuted. I say this based on what I have read about the Israeli justice system and how they treat interrogators who engage in torture.

I completely agree...

The way the Israeli's profile terrorist scumbags....

VERY effective...

Some of the best interrogators are Mossad and Shin Beth... And you can bet that they have no problem with torture...

President Obama has put an end to the use of torture.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary ... I'm all ears ...

He put an end to the public disclosure of torture.. You can bet that it still goes on...

Oh, and by the way ... I said nothing about persecuting anyone. Just to be clear ...

YOU didn't... But persecution is what it all comes down to when politicians get involved..

Michale

Unless you have evidence to the contrary ... I'm all ears ...

The Israeli justice system sees it my way. I'm just sayin' ... or, should I say, I see it their way!

Your government could learn quite a lot from the Israelis on this issue ... and many others, of course.

I don't think the Military Commissions Act, which authorized torture, has been repealed..

There was a lot of talk about it, but Democrats refused to step up to the plate and get it done..

By the way, anyone involved in the use of torture from the poor SOB who is ordered to carry it out to the highest level from whence the order came should be prosecuted, to be clear.

Then I have to oppose that...

People doing bad things for good reasons should NEVER have to choose between serving their country or not being persecuted..

to the highest level from whence the order came should be prosecuted,

Including President Obama?? :D

Let the hem-hawing begin!!! :D

Michale

So, your mantra should more accurately be "Prosecute-it-But-Mitigate-Punishment-If-Warranted" ...

By the way, anyone involved in the use of torture from the poor SOB who is ordered to carry it out to the highest level from whence the order came should be prosecuted, to be clear.

Telecommunications were sued because they assisted the government with domestic surveillance. They were assured that they would not be held responsible for doing their patriotic duty.

Once the domestic surveillance programs were made public, Democrats formed lynching parties...

So, you see.. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to *fairly* prosecute any one who would be prosecuted under your Make-It-Illegal-But-Mitigate-Punishment program.

Because there will ALWAYS be scumbag politicians who will use that to further their own political agenda, regardless of the justification of the torture...

So, the only way that it could be reasonably fair is to hold whoever gave the order to the consequences rather than who just obeyed the order..

If THAT were the case, I would have no problem with your Make-It-Illegal-But-Mitigate-Punishment program.

Michale

Of course that's what the "official" report says. The "official" report is ALWAYS the most PC of reports..

The testimony of those who were directly involved in the process state otherwise...

Here is what I will concede and have conceded in previous discussions with you on this subject: if an interrogator - and I am assuming that we are talking about a seasoned and competent interrogator - believes that he or she must resort to the use of torture in a serious effort to extract information from a detainee that might save innocent lives from imminent threats, then I would defer to the professionalism and judgement of that interrogator; however, that interrogator should be subject to prosecution in a court of law for the use of torture with the penalty for his or her crime mitigated if it is determined that the circumstances involved warrant mitigation.

I stated that I would agree with that position, but ONLY if politics could be kept out of the process..

As we saw first hand with the prosecution of telecommunication companies, it doesn't work..

But, I have a counter proposal...

Hold those doing the torture blameless and prosecute those who ORDER the torture...

Moving on from here, I would have no problem with that..

Let those that give the orders accept the consequences, not those who are just following the orders..

Michale

No. I know that you misunderstand McCain's position on the use of torture as part of a counter-terrorism campaign. You might want to revisit what McCain has said on this issue, time and time again, clearly and concisely.

But to discard a useful tool just because it's "mean"??

To be clear, you are not quoting me when you use the term mean to imply that that is why I believe the use of torture should not be used. Of course, that would be a wrong assumption as I believe the use of torture should never be justified or condoned not because it is "mean", as you put it, but rather because it is wholly counterproductive and, even in the rare cases where it is used and does result in good intel, the counterproductive consequences to the national security of the United States overwhelms the good intel that may have been extracted.

It's not hyperbole to state that, to date, intel gleaned from torture HAS saved hundreds, if not thousands of innocent lives..That alone is a reason to keep the option open..

According to all official reports, it is indeed hyperbole to make that statement. But, that is neither here nor there insofar as whether or not the use of torture should ever be justified, condoned or be called anything but the evil that it is.

Here is what I will concede and have conceded in previous discussions with you on this subject: if an interrogator - and I am assuming that we are talking about a seasoned and competent interrogator - believes that he or she must resort to the use of torture in a serious effort to extract information from a detainee that might save innocent lives from imminent threats, then I would defer to the professionalism and judgement of that interrogator; however, that interrogator should be subject to prosecution in a court of law for the use of torture with the penalty for his or her crime mitigated if it is determined that the circumstances involved warrant mitigation.

Senator McCain is talking about regular war.. In that context, torture IS counter productive, if only for the fact that it violates the Rules of War...

Counter Terrorism is a WAY different ballgame...

Resorting to the use of torture is a sign of laziness, ineptitude and general incompetence when it comes to the art and science of extracting information from detainees -

And yet, it's demonstrable that it DOES work...

I am not saying we have to torture EVERYONE.. I am not saying we should start off with torture...

But to discard a useful tool just because it's "mean"??

Put another way, as I have done before..

There are people who feel as strongly about guns as you do about torture... They advocate that, since only 5% of cops ever use their weapon in the line of duty, it makes sense to disarm cops..

Yet, you and I both know that's ridiculous.. Because, when a gun IS needed by a cop, it could mean someone's life if a cop doesn't have a gun..

So it is with torture.. Not having the option COULD result in the death of hundreds or even THOUSANDs of innocent lives...

It's not hyperbole to state that, to date, intel gleaned from torture HAS saved hundreds, if not thousands of innocent lives..

That alone is a reason to keep the option open..

Michale

Resorting to the use of torture is a sign of laziness, ineptitude and general incompetence when it comes to the art and science of extracting information from detainees - assuming, of course, that the detainees indeed have information to provide.

But my thinking is guided by years in the career field... It's not just "theory" for me..

Michale

Actually, it's not. I can give you many examples of torture producing actionable intel.. From the lips of Obama's own minions..

What you suggest is like saying "Cops can do their jobs competently without using their weapons." or "Cops can do their jobs competently without exceeding the speed limit."

Yes, in some instances, in MANY instances, it COULD work...

But the ONE time it doesn't?? People die...

In police work, deaths might be 1 or 2 or 5 or 10...

In the counter terrorism field.. Deaths are measured in hundreds or thousands...

It makes absolutely NO SENSE to discard a useful tool simply because of squeamishness...

If the world of CT were laid bare for all to see, you would be AMAZED at how many actions would invoke squeamishness in the ignorant masses...

But the simple fact is, these things NEED to be done so that the innocent may live...

That's what it all boils down to..

Michale

That is a proven falsehood, Michale.

You can have humane..

Or you can have effective..

You cannot have both...

One must keep in mind that Gitmo is a resource exploitation center first and foremost..

It's a prison, second...

I believe that the use of torture by US intelligence officials or their proxies - inside or outside of the military, on US territory and abroad - betrays a disturbing level of incompetence

Regardless of all the success stories to the contrary.. :D

Michale

That's a great question and one that I think doesn't get anywhere near the attention in the media that it deserves.

First off, I would say that if the detention center in Cuba had been run differently - that is to say, humanely and efficiently and effectively - then I would have far less concern about the need for closing it.

I believe that the use of torture by US intelligence officials or their proxies - inside or outside of the military, on US territory and abroad - betrays a disturbing level of incompetence across the vast array of intelligence gathering agencies that should worry all Americans.

I'll give it a go...

Michale

It's the opposite of propaganda, anti-Gitmo or otherwise.

Either now, or when it first started...

Michale

Unfortunately, you may be in the majority with the kind of misguided thinking that would see the use of torture as part and parcel of dealing in a dangerous world. Misguided because it does nothing to make the world less dangerous, at best, and makes it far more dangerous, at worst.

Actually, it has been proven time and time again that it DOES work and DOES make the world less dangerous...

Torture, rendition, drone strikes, No Due Process Executions and Assassinations..

They all have 3 traits in common..

They are considered abhorrent. They are things that only "the bad guys do".. They are extremely effective..

As you point out, the majority of Americans are completely for these programs..

Of course, those on the Left are only completely for these programs because it's their guy doing them.. If it was a GOP POTUS, the Left would be hysterically against these programs..

Gives you an idea of the integrity of the Left, eh? :D

Guantanamo Diary should be on your reading list as I think even you would find it extremely compelling.

If it's nothing but anti-gitmo propaganda, probably not. But I'll see if I can find it in E-book format...

Michale

Self Defense is "facist"??? Who knew??

That's not what David said.

Places like Guantanamo are a huge part of the problem and rainbows and unicorns have nothing to do with it.

Unfortunately, you may be in the majority with the kind of misguided thinking that would see the use of torture as part and parcel of dealing in a dangerous world. Misguided because it does nothing to make the world less dangerous, at best, and makes it far more dangerous, at worst.

Guantanamo Diary should be on your reading list as I think even you would find it extremely compelling.

Self Defense is "facist"???

Who knew!??

It's hard to take a moral stance and be credible when you have a prison like Guantanamo that seems outside the law.

It's a dangerous world, my friend... Places like Guantanamo are needed because rainbows and unicorns just don't work...

Michale

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/books/review/guantanamo-diary-by-mohamedou-ould-slahi.html

It is distressing for someone like me who still believes in the promise of America to know that a US judge has ordered the release of Mohamedou Slahi years ago only to have the Obama administration appeal his ruling - on grounds I don't even want to think about - with Slahi's case still pending.

Distressing mostly because of what this means for the future of America as it tries to lead the civilized world out of the darkness that is the barbaric ideology of violently deranged Islamist extremists while losing itself in the dark in the process.

I was recently told that former Vice President Dick Cheney seemed more like a character out of a Stephen King novel. If only that were so ...

I just came across this review of Guantanamo Diary in the New York Times ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/books/review/guantanamo-diary-by-mohamedou-ould-slahi.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-middle-span-region&region=c-column-middle-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-middle-span-region&_r=0

It's hard to take a moral stance and be credible when you have a prison like Guantanamo that seems outside the law.

-David

Yeah, that name has always struck me in exactly the same way ... sounds too much like "the Fatherland", or something.

But, you know what I think has done as much, if not more, harm to US national security than even invading other countries?

I'm currently reading a book written by a detainee at Gitmo who is still being held there under completely spurious circumstances after more than a decade. It's called Guantanamo Diary and it is an unprecedented personal account by Mohamedou Slahi of his treatment and interrogation and detention in Jordan, Afghanistan and Gitmo, mostly in the hands of US officials.

It is nothing short of riveting.

Slahi's diary of his experiences are, at once, eternally hopeful and profoundly discouraging, when it comes to how the US has dealt with the scourge of violently deranged Islamist extremists and their barbaric ideology in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Here, here, Liz.

And Homeland Security still sounds fascist to me. Next thing you know we'll be talking about invading other countries to protect ourselves ... oh, wait.

They will pay a political price...

The furor around the speech, which Democrats say is forcing them to choose between loyalty to Israel and loyalty to their party, reflects a slow transformation.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/benjamin-netanyahu-israel-congress-114965.html#ixzz3QzT96xqf

The fact that it's even a CHOICE reflects how low the Democrat Party has sunk...

Especially when one considers the consequences to Israel of Democrats choosing Party over Israel..

Michale

In the here and now Netanyahu represents the State Of Israel on the world stage...

Just as Obama represents the United States on the world stage..

That's not to say that everyone in Israel is lockstep with Netanyahu anymore than everyone in the US is lockstep with Obama..

But Netanyahu is the leader of Israel.

And if Democrats boycott the leader of Israel to appease Obama's ego....

They will pay a political price...

Michale

Oh, I am going to resist the urge to respond in humour to that ... :)

In respect to all of the hypersensitive souls who may stumble into CW.com and read such blasphemy, you understand. Heh.

Touche' I stand corrected.. :D

Michale

You shouldn't make the mistake of equating the state of Israel with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Doing so can lead you to all sorts of errant assumptions.

Because Lord God Messiah Obama has decreed that Netanyahu shall be shunned....

And there aren't many (any??) Democrats who have the testicular fortitude to defy such a decree from the Lord God Messiah... :D

Personally, I wouldn't miss it for the world. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if Netanyahu backs himself out of a very, very tricky situation.

He won't... His base would crucify him...

Michale

Just to be clear, my contention is that the theory was decidedly NOT sound, from the get-go. And, I believe that the creation of DHS was a mistake from the outset because it was a very predictable distraction and addition to the problems, not a serious attempt to fix those problems.

It will be interesting to see if Democrats boycott the speech as some Democrats have been privately saying...

Why would they want to do that? This is going to be political theatre at its ... well, at its ridiculously dangerous best!

Personally, I wouldn't miss it for the world. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if Netanyahu backs himself out of a very, very tricky situation. That would be a cryin' shame but, alas, the right thing for him to do.

The United States Secret Service was transferred from the US Treasury Department to the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003.

You both should know by now that, while my record is not nearly as extensive as Wikipedia, it is infinitely more reliable.

Now, what do you both surmise the intent of that ... cough...asinine...cough ... move was?

http://www.secretservice.gov/history.shtml

In other words..

What's more important to the Democrat Party?

Obama's ego??

Or the safety and security of the State Of Israel AND the USA...

Michale

It will be interesting to see if Democrats boycott the speech as some Democrats have been privately saying...

Democrats will prove once and for all which Party is on the side of Israel and which Party is not.

Democrats will ALSO prove which Party is the Party of Homeland Security and which Party is not..

Because there is no greater threat to our national security than a nuclear armed Iran...

Michale

The American people are even MORE against amnesty for illegal immigrants now than they were in Nov of 2014..

And, it's only going to get worse for Democrats..

I read in California that wait times at the DMV have increased to as long as 4 months, due to illegal immigrant amnesty...

Once the American people find out how royally scrooed they have become due to illegal immigrant amnesty, the American people are going to be royally pissed...

Remember, you heard it here first...

Michale

Heh. Nice deflection try, but it's really "Republicans care more about playing political games than in funding the safety of America."

That's just spin...

What's important here is what the AMERICAN PEOPLE care about..

And it's clear from the facts that the American people are with the Republicans on this issue..

We'll see how this whole immigration/DHS fight plays out, but keep in mind America of Feb, 2015 is not the same America of early Nov, 2014. Keep that in mind, my friend.

On this issue??

Yer right.. It's NOT the same..

The American people are even MORE against amnesty for illegal immigrants now than they were in Nov of 2014..

You sure about that? SS is stil in Treasury, as far as I know. But I could be wrong, I'm doing that from memory...

Ya know, I think you might be right..

It was the Coast Guard that moved from the DOD to DHS...

So what did happen was what Liz is pointing out: another layer of beaurocracy on top of layers that already existed.

Yes, that is what DID happen.

But that wasn't the intent. Which is all I was saying..

But what's to say that 10 agencies aren't a waste, when maybe 6 agencies might do a better job? That's what the promise of DHS was, and what failed.

Wouldn't you agree?

With the exception of dragging the DHS into pure partisan politics over the illegal immigrant issue, I would agree...

But what if 35 of those patrol cars were sent out to patrol areas that were the same as other patrol cars? Isn't that overlap, and hence a watste?

Yes, it would. You are taking my position and taking it a step further.

Yes, if it could have been shown that some agencies were redundant then those agencies should have been eliminated when DHS was created..

It's possible that some agencies WERE eliminated when DHS was created.. I am too lazy to research it.

The whole point was what I said above..

DHS was a great idea in theory. The THEORY was sound..

But the execution failed because people put their own agendas and their Party agendas before the safety and security of the country...

Michale

Heh. Nice deflection try, but it's really "Republicans care more about playing political games than in funding the safety of America." Guess which political slogan is going to win the popular opinion? Want to bet a few hundred quatloos on that?

Heh.

Michale [5] -

OK, here's a basic misunderstanding you seem to have. The American public is fickle. They don't ever make their mind up and then keep it made up. They change their opinion over time. We'll see how this whole immigration/DHS fight plays out, but keep in mind America of Feb, 2015 is not the same America of early Nov, 2014. Keep that in mind, my friend.

LizM [8] -

I'd suggest that setting up the DHS was a mistake and has turned into a major distraction, not to mention a phenomenal expense.

Wouldn't it have been better to improve existing systems rather than adding another (arguably largely ineffective) layer to the massive national security apparatus?

And you'd be right. Those darn big-government conservatives like Dubya...

Heh.

[9] -

You sure about that? SS is stil in Treasury, as far as I know. But I could be wrong, I'm doing that from memory...

Michale [11] -

Oh, puh-LEEZE. ODS strikes again. Google "Bush daughter purse stolen" to see how far back SS problems go.

LizM and Michale and LewDan [several comments] -

My take: DHS was an effort to consolidate federal intelligence and security agencies in order to get rid of overlap and redundancy. This effort largely failed, because it did not truly realign the agencies in question -- if it had been a true reform, several agencies would have been folded into others, to streamline things. This never happened. So what did happen was what Liz is pointing out: another layer of beaurocracy on top of layers that already existed. If Bush had been truly bold, he would have wiped out some intelligence agencies and reduced the number of them to an even dozen (or less). He didn't do so. Obama inherited this structure, and (contrary to Michale's comments) hasn't changed it a bit.

Michale [24] -

But what's to say that 10 agencies aren't a waste, when maybe 6 agencies might do a better job? That's what the promise of DHS was, and what failed.

To be honest, I don't think this is blame that can be laid at either Dubya or Obama's feet -- I think it's more the beaurocrats versus the reformers. I don't think that's really a partisan issue, but it's easy to see that the beaurocrats won that battle.

Wouldn't you agree?

M [25] -

But what if 35 of those patrol cars were sent out to patrol areas that were the same as other patrol cars? Isn't that overlap, and hence a watste?

LizM [32] -

Wikipedia doesn't mention the SS moving from Treasury to DHS. You sure of your facts?

Anyway, gotta go...

-CW

Well, that article talks about incidents dating back to 2004. DHS was born in 2002.

I know the congressional Republicans have wanted that since before the first inauguration day but, it's very discouraging to think that the Secret Service would want the same thing. In fact, I don't believe it.

"Isn't that when all the Secret Service problems began in earnest?"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/10/julia_pierson_resigns_a_2013_inspector_general_report_detailed_all_of_the.html

It's almost as if the SS wanted the black guy out of the White house before he got into it what with allowing the Salahis to crash his inauguration party. It's only gotten more suspicious.

True...

But, in THIS case, the problem is we can't agree on what the problem is...

By "we" I mean our so-called leaders..

Like being able to say "Islamic Terrorists" for example..

Oh, by the way, that movie I was trying to guess based on what turns out to be the central line of the film ... Lawrence of Arabia!

Kudos! :D I *never* would have gotten that....

Never saw the movie...

Michale

Problems can't be solved if we don't understand what the problem is.

Oh, by the way, that movie I was trying to guess based on what turns out to be the central line of the film ... Lawrence of Arabia!

The problem had a lot to do with the very cultures of the various agencies and to fix that you have to deal directly with the cultures of those agencies.

No doubt..

And that was the flaw when DHS was executed..

It failed to take into account that there ARE people in this country, in our country's leadership that put themselves and their Party BEFORE the interests of the country...

Michale

Why is it that on any given subject, the economy, national security, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, education, immigration--you name it, you wingers ALWAYS insist that the only problem with your theories is in the execution.

You never have actual facts to back you up. It's always an unproven theory and blind faith.--And your failures are NEVER because of erroneous theories but ALWAYS because of "faulty execution." No matter how often you fail.

That's delusional. You simply live in denial. You do not know what would have prevented 9/11. You don't know that it could have been prevented. But to you, your theories are facts. Your delusions are reality. And reality is a mistake.

In the intelligence and counter-terrorism fields, it amounts to the same thing..

Because, in those fields, when agencies don't work together, people die...

Sometimes thousands of people..

I'de call that a pretty good definition of chaos...

Michale

EXACTLY! :D

They theory was (AND is) sound..

But the execution left something to be desired because those tasked with it's execution assumed that people would put the country's interests before their own...

As you say, each agency had it's own "culture".. You call it a culture, I call it a fiefdom..

It amounts to the same thing...

The people who were subjourned under DHS didn't like that they were subordinated to someone/something else..

"I used to be the guy behind the guy!! Now I am the guy behind the girl behind the guy! Which sounds like fun. But is not.."
-Michael J Fox, SPIN CITY

:D

Michale

That sounds very much like a silver bullet theory that doesn't translate very well into practice.

The problem had a lot to do with the very cultures of the various agencies and to fix that you have to deal directly with the cultures of those agencies.

In the intelligence and counter-terrorism fields, it amounts to the same thing..

I still don't understand how adding another level of bureaucracy fixes that problem.

That's because you are looking at it as just another layer, just another agency, when it was designed to be THE layer, THE agency...

Michale

I still don't understand how adding another level of bureaucracy fixes that problem. In fact, I believe there is evidence that it hasn't fixed that problem.

9/11 proved differently...

One agency, coallating all the intelligence from all the different agencies, would have prevented 9/11..

DHS was supposed to be that one agency...

Michale

9/11 proved differently...

And, by the way, I still think the US would be far better served if the Secret Service were back where it belongs in the Treasury department.

Probably...

Michale

Because, before there was DHS, the US intelligence and national security community was hardly in a state of chaos.

The thing is, the problems that engulf the US intelligence and national security community go so much deeper than a Czar or new overarching department could ever hope to solve.

If you think of it as another layer, I can see where you would think that..

But it wasn't designed to be another layer...

The LEO force is a bad analogy.

Because......... ??????

Michale

I can't think of one example where the addition of another layer of bureaucracy on top of an already multi-layered apparatus has ever improved the situation.

If you have 100 different patrol cars working autonomously with no direction save their own, you have chaos..

If you have a central dispatch co-ordinating the actions and activities of those 100 patrol cars and acting as a receiving/distribution hub for all the info those 100 patrol cars gather, then you have an efficient system...

The 100 patrol cars were the different intelligence agencies across the country..

DHS was supposed to be "central dispatch"...

The fact that it didn't work out as planned does not negate the validity of the effort...

Michale

It was a mistake insofar as it did not work as intended..

As I said, the theory is sound..

If you have 10 different agencies doing 1000 different things, there is bound to be redundancy and overlapping and that leads to inefficient use of time and resources..

But if you have ONE agency coordinating those 10 different agencies, assigning protocols and activities and ONE agency acting as a clearinghouse for all the results from those 10 agencies, THEN you have efficient use of time and resources..

Department Of Homeland Security was supposed to be that ONE agency..

One agency to rule them all...

It just didn't work out that way because each of the 10 agencies was their own little fiefdom and the kings and queens of those fiefdoms put their own selfish needs and desires ahead of what's best for the country...

Michale

The Tea Party seems to be the one thing capable of uniting Republicans and Democrats :)

AND the American people... :D

The American people don't want amnesty for illegal immigrants either...

Michale

The agencies of the totality of the national security apparatus are not being replaced, they are being added to. And, that's why I think the whole idea of DHS is a mistake.

"DHS was supposed to be the one agency that all the other intelligence agencies reported to..."

That's doubletalk. If an agency replaces others then there are no others to report to it. If other agencies are to report to it then its another layer of bureaucracy.--Which is exactly what it is and has always been. And that's why its a problem in and of itself.

It was supposed to eliminate turf wars, not fall victim to them. And it can't. Because each agency does have their own turf. Their own legal authorizations and requirements.

That's why you couldn't just solve the information sharing problem by creating one database for everyone. You can't just give everyone access to everything. So DHS is supposed to see it all and decide who with and what to share. That isn't eliminating turf wars, its managing them. Supposedly.

But unless you've got some single analysts who're seeing everything and charged with putting the pieces together, all you're doing is shifting responsibility from individual agencies to DHS and exacerbating things by giving everyone someone else to blame so that no one is truly held responsible.--Which is just our original problem made worse.

So, yes, Liz has it right. DHS is another layer of bureaucracy. Adding inefficiencies, not resolving them. With greater scope and even less transparency. It's a typical bureaucratic waste of money whose only purpose is to make Congress look like they're doing something constructive. They aren't.

The totality of the intelligence apparatus...

DHS was supposed to be the one agency that all the other intelligence agencies reported to...

Michale

What exactly was supposed to be replaced?

Not by the creation of the DHS...

To clarify, it's been reported by MANY former administration officials that the White House likes to micro-manage military/intelligence actions and activities..

Letting amateurs, morons and those with a political agenda have a say in these matters is what leads to inefficiency and crappy morale..

Michale

Not by the creation of the DHS...

I don't see how the addition of another department isn't the addition of another layer of bureaucracy which can only reduce the effectiveness of the real work of maintaining a highly functioning US national security apparatus.

That's just it.. It wasn't supposed to be an addition. It was supposed to be a replacement..

ONE {AGENCY} TO RULE THEM ALL

If I may invoke LORD OF THE RINGS :D

How has DHS become too politicized, Michale?

By participating in functions and endeavors that do not serve the country but rather serve one political Party...

Michale

So, you don't think that the US National Security apparatus has become too much of a bureaucratic mess to be effective?

I don't see how the addition of another department isn't the addition of another layer of bureaucracy which can only reduce the effectiveness of the real work of maintaining a highly functioning US national security apparatus.

From my perspective, the entire US national security apparatus is too heavy on the bureaucracy at the expense of what it really takes to have effective intelligence gathering and real security.

Wouldn't it have been better to improve existing systems rather than adding another (arguably largely ineffective) layer to the massive national security apparatus?

It wasn't added as an additional layer..

The idea behind Department Of Homeland Security was to be the ONLY layer....

But it's become too politicized under Obama and the Democrats...

Yes, DHS had issues under the Bush Administration. But those issues were more of turf war issues and the growing pains that come with a brand new large scale agency...

If it helps to put it in context, think of DHS as Bush's TrainWreckCare, insofar as starting out issues go..

Michale

I was kind of hoping you would respond to [8] ...

Jordanian fighter jets strike hard at ISIS, pay tribute to murdered pilot
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/05/shocked-jordanians-rally-behind-king-against-isis-after-video-pilot-killing/

ISIS has made a fatal calculation..

They have caused the King Of Jordan to release his inner JAMES T KIRK...

"Jim. They are dying.."
"LET them die!!"
-STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

Michale

Isn't that when all the Secret Service problems began in earnest?

Not exactly...

The Secret Service's problems began in earnest when the Obama Administration radically politicized the DHS..

It was at that point that morale within the USSS plummeted...

Michale

Is there something inherently evil in taking care of Americans first??

Michale

Isn't that when all the Secret Service problems began in earnest?

I'd suggest that setting up the DHS was a mistake and has turned into a major distraction, not to mention a phenomenal expense.

Wouldn't it have been better to improve existing systems rather than adding another (arguably largely ineffective) layer to the massive national security apparatus?

Republicans aren't interested in defunding it..

They simply want it to be used for, yunno, homeland SECURITY and not as a way to mint fresh new Democrat voters..

Given the facts, the American people are right there with the GOP on the issue..

Michale

Heheh.

DHS was a conservative idea. I say if Republicans want to defund it, let them.

It is just so ... bizarre.

-David

Remember, the American people are NOT on the side of Obama and the Democrats in this issue.. A point ya'all like to ignore..

The American people gave the GOP the biggest majority they have had in almost a century...

The American people want Obama and the Democrats stopped. They have stated so in unequivocal terms..

The GOP will only lose if they fail the American people..

Michale

"Dogs barking can't fly home without umbrella"
-Jumpin Jack Flash

:D

Michale