Should there be a US Department of Homeland Security?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I get that it was necessary at the time, but now its very existence seems to be more of a net cost to society.

[bedstuy]

There was no need to change the structure of those agencies post 9/11.  It's ultimately inconsequential whether FEMA has one more person in charge above it or whether the Secret Service reports to DHS or Treasury.  These are huge bureaucracies and where you put them in the big organizational chart doesn't matter.

It was just one of those post 9/11 things.  People had this "something has to be done!!" attitude. But, at this point, reshuffling those agencies again would be just as bad as doing it the first time. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

There was no need to change the structure of those agencies post 9/11.  It's ultimately inconsequential whether FEMA has one more person in charge above it or whether the Secret Service reports to DHS or Treasury.  These are huge bureaucracies and where you put them in the big organizational chart doesn't matter.

It was just one of those post 9/11 things.  People had this "something has to be done!!" attitude. But, at this point, reshuffling those agencies again would be just as bad as doing it the first time. 

I've heard differently.  Supposedly the structure of the national security agencies pre-9/11 was so disorganized that some kind of overhaul was needed, thus the birth of the PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security Act.  I'd argue that it was more incompetence on the part of those running said security agencies than the way they were composed, but nowadays the Homeland Security Agency seems to be in charge of the same crap the old, supposedly flawed, system was.  The only difference between now and September 10th, 2001 is that now we're on the look out for smelly brown terrorists more than mentally ill white terrorists.  But yes, you're right in that another reshuffling probably wouldn't create a better outcome.

[H. Ross Peron]

No. We should simply put law enforcement agencies under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.

[bedstuy]

There was no need to change the structure of those agencies post 9/11.  It's ultimately inconsequential whether FEMA has one more person in charge above it or whether the Secret Service reports to DHS or Treasury.  These are huge bureaucracies and where you put them in the big organizational chart doesn't matter.

It was just one of those post 9/11 things.  People had this "something has to be done!!" attitude. But, at this point, reshuffling those agencies again would be just as bad as doing it the first time. 

I've heard differently.  Supposedly the structure of the national security agencies pre-9/11 was so disorganized that some kind of overhaul was needed, thus the birth of the PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security Act.  I'd argue that it was more incompetence on the part of those running said security agencies than the way they were composed, but nowadays the Homeland Security Agency seems to be in charge of the same crap the old, supposedly flawed, system was.  The only difference between now and September 10th, 2001 is that now we're on the look out for smelly brown terrorists more than mentally ill white terrorists.  But yes, you're right in that another reshuffling probably wouldn't create a better outcome.

That's sort of correct.  Charts are helpful in understand this though.



Think of it from the perspective of the constituent agencies.  If you're US Customs, what difference does it make that you report to DHS and there's a bunch of bureaucrats with titles like "Under-secretary for Science and Technology" in some cavernous building in DC?  I don't think it matters.  These agencies basically know how to do their job and whether they're under one department or another is just irrelevant ultimately. 

As for racial profiling and the Patriot Act, I don't see the connection.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I was mostly just making a snide remark about the overall situation post-9/11.  The PATRIOT Act did make some structural and infrastructural reforms to US agencies in addition to the HSA, even though the law overall was obviously more of a surveillance tool than anything else.  Actually, that was probably a poor example, so nevermind.

[Orser67]

I don't oppose the idea in theory. On the other hand, I've heard a lot of people complain about the new reorganization. I think I might like it better if it also had the (non-military) intelligence community under it. Then again, maybe not.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

No. We should simply put law enforcement agencies under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.

The correct and constituitional position.

[ElectionsGuy]

No. We should simply put law enforcement agencies under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.

The correct and constituitional position.

[Lief 🗽]

Most countries have an interior ministry which serves a similar role. Why shouldn't the United States?

[Lambsbread]

No.

[The Mikado]

Aside from the (terrible) name, the biggest problem was creating such an entity and leaving the two most important organizations to its intended purpose, the FBI and the CIA, outside of its umbrella.

[TNF]

Ideally there shouldn't be, but you know that there's literally no chance of it ever going away, because cabinet positions are not abolished in the United States. At the very least the name could be changed to something less horrifyingly fascist sounding (Homeland? Gimme a break).

[Gass3268]

Ideally there shouldn't be, but you know that there's literally no chance of it ever going away, because cabinet positions are not abolished in the United States. At the very least the name could be changed to something less horrifyingly fascist sounding (Homeland? Gimme a break).

Really DHS should get the Department of Defense's name and DOD should go back to being called the War Department.

[Del Tachi]

Maybe call it something like "The Department of National Security" or the "The Department of National Integrity". 

[TDAS04]

No.

[Sopranos Republican]

Ideally there shouldn't be, but you know that there's literally no chance of it ever going away, because cabinet positions are not abolished in the United States. At the very least the name could be changed to something less horrifyingly fascist sounding (Homeland? Gimme a break).

Could be worse, at least it's not fatherland security. But please by all means abolish it.

[Middle-aged Europe]

At least they didn't call it Department for State Security, the standard name for any secret police in communist countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Security_Department

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Constituitionally, it shouldn't exist. Those duties should be within the purview of the DOJ (Justice Department)

[Miles]

Of course.

[MurrayBannerman]

I'd rather see a Department of Cybersecurity.

[BaconBacon96]

No. It's very existence is a reflection of the overly bureaucratic and controlling nature of the US government.

[politicus]

No. It's very existence is a reflection of the overly bureaucratic and controlling nature of the US government.

Agreed in full. Get rid of it.

[dead0man]

I'd rather see a Department of Cybersecurity.

There will be, eventually.  Ideally it will be under the umbrella of the DoD and not Homeland Security.  Politics, bureaucracy and interservice rivalries will probably screw up getting us there though.  As it stands now, the DoD defends the .mil network with US Cyber Command (a subordinate of StratCom, where I work) and the .gov network is protected by the Dep of Homeland Security.