United States Department of Homeland Security

Source: Wikipedia.

I remember public discussions that attended the creation of DHS back in 2003. Many pundits were concerned that DHS would enable authoritarianism to replace our constitutional republic. Some even criticized the name of the new agency because the word homeland reminded them of Germany’s mythical Aryan fatherland in the lead up to WWII.

Looking at DHS today one can see more clearly the authoritarian potential it represents. Looking at Wikipedia’s list of incorporated agencies, for example, one can easily imagine DHS as a kind of national social police department. DHS looks like a substitution of law enforcement for operational programs.

Or, to put it differently, one could theoretically govern a large, complex modern nation using just three primary bureaucracies: One for military defense, one for welfare distribution, and one for social control (DHS).

I think creating DHS was a huge mistake. Instead of redesigning our system of government in reaction to perceived threats, we should re-invest ourselves in the constitutional principles of our founding. Our three branches of government (executive, legislature, and judiciary) are sufficient to meet our needs for democratic governance. DHS means we are becoming a police state.

23 thoughts on “United States Department of Homeland Security

  1. If there is any doubt that DHS has become a partisan political tool, take a look at Mayorkas’s embarrassing testimony on Congress. He declares White Supremacy to be the number one terrorist threat, but can’t give a single example referred to DOJ, while at the same time has no idea where 42 known terrorists stopped at the border are now.

    Mayorkas

    Like

    1. “White Supremacy to be the number one terrorist threat”

      I do not remember that time that Islamic terrorists invaded the Capitol to overthrow the government. And, I have yet to read about groups of Islamists dressing up to play Army Man in the woods.

      With that said, you have (deliberately?) distorted what the Secretary said. He did NOT “declare White Supremacy to be the number one terrorist threat.” From your Fox News source …

      “Despite claiming domestic terrorism is the #1 threat to the homeland, [Secretary Mayorkas] can’t name a single case that he referred from DHS to DOJ for white supremacy or domestic terrorism,” Rep. Greg Steube later said of his exchange with Mayorkas.”

      Read that again. . . “Despite claiming domestic terrorism is the #1 threat to the homeland”

      There have been several other motivators of “domestic terrorism” besides white supremacy, but you people always want to play your white victim card.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. DHS was set up as a clearing house to share intelligence among the several agencies responsible for domestic security. THat explains why you see so many agencies falling under their umbrella.

    And while it has not been perfect, how many foreign terrorist attacks have we suffered from since the formation of DHS?

    ANd maybe Mayorkas didn’t feel it was necessary to tell the COngress about the attack THEY suffered on 1/6.

    Like

    1. RE: “DHS was set up as a clearing house to share intelligence among the several agencies responsible for domestic security. THat explains why you see so many agencies falling under their umbrella.”

      Yes, that is the very basis of the criticism that DHS could very easily become a malevolent domestic police force. Before DHS police operations were decentralized across the nation; after DHS they are centralized.

      I wish to bring attention to the fact that centralizing the command and control of police functions at the national level is inconsistent with our constitutionally designed federal system.

      Like

      1. “… centralizing the command and control of police functions at the national level…”

        So you think local police will be under the command of DHS?

        I agree that when I first heard about DHS it did ring of a path to nationalism as in Motherland and Fatherland. We should at least be alert to police state indications. Among the dangers is to make “Marshall” law (credit MTG) easier to implement.

        I am very concerned with the push to create citizen vigilante justice as in Texas and copy cat states. How long before a homegrown Stasi like in East Germany?

        Liked by 1 person

  3. “I wish to bring attention to the fact that centralizing the command and control of police functions at the national level is inconsistent with our constitutionally designed federal system.”

    Outstanding point !!

    Liked by 1 person

      1. National security includes domestic issues under the auspices of the FBI. It has nothing to do with nationalizing local police forces.

        And now I am compelled to ask the following question: is RE actually Mr. Roberts in disguise? LOL

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “It has nothing to do with nationalizing local police forces.”

        I think you are confusing the concept of nationalizing with the concept of federalizing.

        But that aside, you might ask yourself, “If homeland security was already being handled by the FBI, why did we need DHS? Why not just modify the FBI as needed to correct the domestic intelligence failures DHS supposedly corrects?”

        My answer: The FBI was only one agency tasked with spying on the American people. DHS was created to consolidate multiple domestic intelligence and response operations into a single organization.

        Like

        1. Your paranoia is duly noted.

          Remember the reasoning behind the formation of DHS; lack of intelligence sharing resulting in missing the threat that came to be on 9/11.

          Like

          1. Yes, the intelligence work had been done, but it wasn’t shared. Now we have a federal department tasked with domestic surveillance and equipped with police powers. Nothing like it has ever existed in the past.

            Like

  4. It is interesting how many “law and order” “conservatives” have become so much more concerned about overreach when it is white supremacist organizations and “militias” that have begun to get the attention of security agencies. When the “Deep State” spent its days trying to bring down MLK, Roy Wilkins, John Lewis and other civil rights leaders we did not hear much complaining from the right about the threat from the “Deep State.”

    In the same vein, imagine how different “conservative” reaction would have been if the “trespassing” at the Capitol on January 6th had been done by – say – the New Black Panther Party or La Raza Unida. Here is a hint. They would not be accusing Capitol Police of murder.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The Libertarian Party objected strongly to the formation of DHS when it was linked to the Patriot Act in 2003.

      Both Republicans and Democrats supported the idea.

      Like

      1. “The Libertarian Party objected strongly to the formation of DHS ”

        Interesting but not responsive to the point made. To be clear, the point was that “conservatives” only began their obsessive condemnation of our security services (and their obvious preference for the KGB/FSB) when those services turned their attention to another real threat – domestic terrorism by Christofascist militias.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “When the ‘Deep State’ spent its days trying to bring down MLK, Roy Wilkins, John Lewis and other civil rights leaders we did not hear much complaining from the right about the threat from the ‘Deep State.'”

      Maybe that’s because the term deep state hadn’t been coined yet. The John Birch Society, however, had quite a lot to say about secret government conspiracies long before MLK came along.

      I should also note that subversive domestic groups in the U.S. from the CPUSA to the KKK were often monitored under military intelligence programs. It would have been unnatural for conservatives to object to such things, if they knew about them at all.

      So, I don’t think your accusations of hypocrisy carry much weight based on history.

      Like

      1. “So, I don’t think your accusations of hypocrisy carry much weight based on history.”

        Okay. You are more than welcome to any opinions you want. And if you want to equate current “conservatives” with the John Birch Society who am I to naysay.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s