Homeland Security Force?: From Jabebrwocky To juggernaut? [Editorial: Danger
From Without, or Dangers From Within?]


Thanks to this forward from Dalls, I thought I'd take a few moments to
spew...just in case I am not allowed to do so one of these days!


02/05/01

As always, this talk of a nationalized force under once central oversight
committee raises the same old specter. The question comes down to one of
controls and safeguards. Can the American people CONTROL ever more powerful
federally run organizations? Will too much power be handed to too few
individuals, and what constitutional safeguards do we have against the use of
such a unified force should this ever be turned against the American people?

It's getting rare these days to hear anyone with a political career in the
balance mention the founders' fears over the inevitable use of a Federal
police force against the American people. This fear lay at the heart of the
doctrine of separations of powers as laid out in the constitution. Doesn't
anyone teach this in school anymore? Does anyone teach history any more for
that matter?

If you took the typical American attitude towards their government seriously,
you'd have to believe that we had passed some sort of threshold historically.
It's as if no one in this country sees dictators, despots, monarchs and
renegade military juntas as a possibility for this country. All concerns are
focused outward, in anticipation of attacks from foreign nations. Most seem
incapable of dealing with the possibility of an attack from within our own
borders. And this is why it will probably happen.

Have we forgotten the last 5000 years of recorded history? Have all American
politicians and the leadership of our national military institutions begun to
wear halos. Have all sprouted wings? Do we find them more honest, or do they
lie openly, and laugh in the very faces of their constituents? Are the
assassins and covert operatives in the employ of the NSA, CIA, FBI (and other
more secretive "black ops" forces who seem to account to almost no one)
suddenly become honorable men with no ambitions? Can all our scientists can
be trusted not to abuse the TS_Ultra technologies of MKUltra, the germ and
chemical warfare weapons and EM antipersonnel weapons, or do we see some of
them selling these technologies to our enemies, with the help of those very
same politicians? Can trust all these men and

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/22426/_/981416766/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

_________________________________________________________
"I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of
others to differ from me in opinion"
Thomas Jefferson

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.....!"
---- Hosea 4:6
or
"There ain't no knowledge in the SECOND kick from a mule!"
---- APFN ADVISOR

American Patriot Friends Network (APFN)
http://www.apfn.org
APFN EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE IN SUBJECT LINE TO: apfn@apfn.org

APFN-1 YahooGroups:
Subscribe: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apfn-1/join
Unsubscribe: apfn-1-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
APFN CONTENTS: http://www.apfn.org/old/apfncont.htm
APFN MSG BOARD:  http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/149495.html
APFN Petition Page: Petitions to Abolish H-1B, IBT, Reclaim America.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/petitions.htm
APFN SITE MAP:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/sitemap.htm


Home Edu.Org.(Worldwide)
http://www.home-edu.org


Subject:
Homeland Security Force
Date:
Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:14:36 -0800
From:
Dallas
To:
Dorian Taddei



>
>
>***********************************************************************
>
>The Washington Post
>Thursday, February 1, 2001 ; Page A02
>
>Overhaul of National Security Apparatus Urged
>
>By Steven Mufson
>
>Citing U.S. vulnerability to terrorist attacks, porous borders and
>new technologies, a congressionally mandated commission on
>national security yesterday recommended the creation of a
>National Homeland Security Agency, sharply higher spending on
>scientific research and education, and an overhaul of government
>institutions.
>
>The U.S. Commission on National Security, led by former
>senators Gary Hart (D-Colo.) and Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.),
>warned that "without significant reforms, American power and
>influence cannot be sustained." It offered the most far-reaching
>blueprint for reforming the national security apparatus since a
>similar effort in 1947.
>
>The report comes as the Bush administration is in the midst of
>reexamining the government's foreign policy institutions. Defense
>Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is turning to new threats, Secretary
>of State Colin L. Powell is trying to reenergize the foreign
>service, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice is
>trimming the size and altering the role of the National Security
>Council. Rudman said members of the study group will meet
>with Powell on Friday and plan meetings with other top
>administration officials to discuss the recommendations.
>
>The commission's proposals include unifying the Coast Guard,
>the Customs Service, the Federal Emergency Management
>Agency and the Border Patrol into the new homeland security
>body, whose director would have Cabinet status. The new
>agency would coordinate defense against attacks as well as
>responses if an attack succeeded. The main task of the National
>Guard would be changed to deal with the prospect of an attack
>on U.S. soil.
>
>"It is unlikely that we will continue to be the blessed country
>we've been all these years," Rudman said, referring to the
>possibility of an attack by a foreign power. "The threat is
>asymmetric and we're not prepared for it."
>
>The report also suggested doubling federal funds for science
>and technology research by 2010, abolishing the National
>Economic Council, reducing the staff and role of the National
>Security Council, streamlining the Pentagon, merging authorizing
>and appropriations committees in Congress, and radically
>altering the structure of the State Department.
>
>Members of the commission acknowledged that implementing
>its recommendations would be difficult, noting that many
>previous departmental reorganization reports were shelved.
>
>"We put down what we thought ought to be done," Rudman said.
>"Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's impossible."
>
>The commission's most pressing language was aimed at
>international terrorism. "A direct attack against American
>citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century,"
>the group said.
>
>That seems to reflect a growing fear among policymakers at a
>time when the gap between the traditional war-fighting abilities of
>the United States and other nations has widened significantly.
>
>Many of the report's suggestions focused on the State Department,
>which the group called a "crippled institution, starved for
>resources by Congress because of its inadequacies" and a
>"demoralized and relatively ineffective body." The group said the
>department "rarely speaks with one voice, thus reducing its
>influence and credibility in its interactions with the Congress and in
>its representation abroad." And the commission added that many
>of the department's "core functions were parceled out to other
>agencies."
>
>To deal with a changing world, the commission suggested creating
>five undersecretaries for Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas,
>and the Near East-South Asia, and redefining the responsibilities
>of the undersecretary for global affairs. The position of
>undersecretary for political affairs would be abolished, but the
>undersecretary for management would be retained. Each regional
>undersecretary would deal with three major subcategories:
>economic and transnational issues, political affairs, and security
>matters.
>
>The commission also was sharply critical of the Defense
>Department, where it said that the growth in staff had "created
>mounting confusion and delay." It suggested the Defense
>Department reduce its infrastructure costs by 20 to 25 percent
>over 10 years by outsourcing as many support activities as
>possible.
>
>The group also said the Pentagon should change its acquisition
>procedures to make them less bureaucratic and better suited to
>long-range planning. "The weapons acquisition process is so
>hobbled by excessive laws, regulations and oversight strictures that
>it can neither recognize nor seize opportunities for major innovation,"
>the report said.
>
>The National Security Council, the report continued, had assumed
>policymaking roles that it was never intended to have. The
>commission report said it should return to the much-needed
>role of policy coordinator.
>
>"The NSC adviser should keep a low public profile," the report said.
>
>The Bush administration has already reduced the profile of Rice,
>the national security adviser, by making her position a
>non-Cabinet-level post.
>
>In addition to Rudman and Hart, the commission included former
>House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.); lawyer and former
>commerce undersecretary Lionel H. Olmer; former representative
>Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), director of the Woodrow Wilson
>International Center; business executive and former Air Force
>secretary Donald B. Rice; Norman R. Augustine, chairman of
>Lockheed Martin Corp.'s executive committee; Anne Armstrong,
>a Nixon and Ford administration official and former
>ambassador to Britain; John R. Galvin, former supreme allied
>commander for Europe; Council on Foreign Relations President
>Leslie H. Gelb; former NBC diplomatic correspondent John
>Dancy; James R. Schlesinger, a former energy and defense
>secretary and CIA director; former U.N. ambassador Andrew
>Young; and retired Adm. Harry D. Train.
>
>(c) 2001 The Washington Post
DalVision Design

IamDorian@aol.com