Achtung 45
12-07-2005, 05:38
The Homeland Security Act, though enacted under just circumstances, is incredibly open to quick corruption and a bigger danger to America than the threats it is supposed to save us from. It is an utter waste of taxpayer money, along with the War on Terror (we saw just last week how big a success it's been), and we have frightened ourselves into accepting it.
(a) There is established a Department of Homeland Security, as an executive department of the United States within the meaning of title 5, United States Code.
(b)(1) The primary mission of the Department is to-
(A) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;
The very first statement of the Act is disturbing. It’s good in theory, but in actuality, how are they to prevent it?
(B) reduce the vulnerability of the United States to
terrorism; and
Oh so if part “A” doesn’t work, at least they tried to reduce the vulnerability… :rolleyes:
(C) minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from
terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States.
So if and when there is a terrorist attack, part C keeps the Homeland Security Act legitimate because they could just say “well, it could’ve been worse.” And how are all three the primary mission? They are very separate, they have obvious priority of rank, yet they’re equal. :confused:
Moving on now, all funds given to cities and towns to “protect the homeland” is just money. They aren’t told what to have by terrorism experts or anything of the like. The mayor of any city can buy whatever he wants as long as it has “something” to do with protecting the homeland and with a good enough imagination, everything can be said to help protect the homeland. For example, Columbus, Ohio, bought bulletproof vests for its K-9 units in its fire department. Newark, New Jersey, spent a quarter of a million dollars on air-conditioned garbage trucks, another vital step to protecting the homeland. The entire state of Missouri spent $7.2 million on 13,000 hazardous materials suits, one for every law enforcement officer in the state. Yes, there could be a use for all this in the future, but isn't the Homeland Security Department supposed to PROTECT THE HOMELAND??? There is of course, some legitimacy to the HSA, but with all the power it has to do so little to actually protect the homeland, it's not even worth it. Take this as another example of how anything can protect the homeland. The Washington D.C. mayor bought leather jackets for his police officers. Here’s how he justified it:
A uniform and equipment as part of response and preparedness, I think, is certainly justifiable… Well, I think protective equipment clearly ought to be part of funding for a homeland security strategy. Do you buy that?
What makes this worse, is that Bush can claim that the Homeland Security Act is working and we should keep funding it if there’re no terrorist attacks in America, but if there is one, he can just say that the Homeland Security Act needs more funding and the threat is still real and that we must still blindly follow Big Brother.
(a) There is established a Department of Homeland Security, as an executive department of the United States within the meaning of title 5, United States Code.
(b)(1) The primary mission of the Department is to-
(A) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;
The very first statement of the Act is disturbing. It’s good in theory, but in actuality, how are they to prevent it?
(B) reduce the vulnerability of the United States to
terrorism; and
Oh so if part “A” doesn’t work, at least they tried to reduce the vulnerability… :rolleyes:
(C) minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from
terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States.
So if and when there is a terrorist attack, part C keeps the Homeland Security Act legitimate because they could just say “well, it could’ve been worse.” And how are all three the primary mission? They are very separate, they have obvious priority of rank, yet they’re equal. :confused:
Moving on now, all funds given to cities and towns to “protect the homeland” is just money. They aren’t told what to have by terrorism experts or anything of the like. The mayor of any city can buy whatever he wants as long as it has “something” to do with protecting the homeland and with a good enough imagination, everything can be said to help protect the homeland. For example, Columbus, Ohio, bought bulletproof vests for its K-9 units in its fire department. Newark, New Jersey, spent a quarter of a million dollars on air-conditioned garbage trucks, another vital step to protecting the homeland. The entire state of Missouri spent $7.2 million on 13,000 hazardous materials suits, one for every law enforcement officer in the state. Yes, there could be a use for all this in the future, but isn't the Homeland Security Department supposed to PROTECT THE HOMELAND??? There is of course, some legitimacy to the HSA, but with all the power it has to do so little to actually protect the homeland, it's not even worth it. Take this as another example of how anything can protect the homeland. The Washington D.C. mayor bought leather jackets for his police officers. Here’s how he justified it:
A uniform and equipment as part of response and preparedness, I think, is certainly justifiable… Well, I think protective equipment clearly ought to be part of funding for a homeland security strategy. Do you buy that?
What makes this worse, is that Bush can claim that the Homeland Security Act is working and we should keep funding it if there’re no terrorist attacks in America, but if there is one, he can just say that the Homeland Security Act needs more funding and the threat is still real and that we must still blindly follow Big Brother.