'Department of Peace'

[Frodo]

The proposed 'Department of Peace' would include mandates not dissimilar to those of the United States Institute of Peace, as well as additional ones outlined below:

    * Monitoring of all domestic arms production, including non-military arms, conventional military arms, and of weapons of mass destruction,
    * Making regular recommendations to the US President for various arms reductions strategies,
    * Assumption of a more proactive level of involvement in the establishment of international dialogues for international conflict resolution (as a cabinet level department),
    * Establishment of a US Peace Academy, which among other things would train international peace-keepers,
    * Development of an educational media program to promote non-violence in the domestic media,
    * Monitoring of human rights, both domestically and abroad,
    * Making regular recommendations to the President for the maintenance and improvement of these human rights,
    * Receiving a timely mandatory advance consultation from the Secretaries of State, and of Defense, prior to any engagement of US troops in any armed conflict with any other nation,
    * Establishment of a national Peace Day,
    * Participation by the Secretary of Peace as a member of the National Security Council,
    * Expansion of the national Sister City program,
    * Significant expansion of current Institute of Peace program involvement in educational affairs, in areas such as:

   1. Drug rehabilitation,
   2. Policy reviews concerning crime prevention, punishment, and rehabilitation,
   3. Implementation of violence prevention counseling programs and peer mediation programs in schools,

    * Also, making recommendations regarding:

   1. Battered women's rights,
   2. Animal rights,

    * Various other "peace related areas of responsibility".
------------------------------------------------------

Funding for this new department -according to language in a proposed bill- is supposed to be about 2% of that given to the Defense Department.


And here is a link to an advocacy group favoring the creation of the Department of Peace.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Sounds very Orwellian, despite some good intentions.

[John Dibble]

I'm not really sure whether I should vote Bad Idea or Other/Stupid Idea. A few things in there might have merit, but they don't need a whole new department. Most of the remaining stuff is just feel good bullcrap.

[Everett]

Do we really need a separate department for this sort of thing? Many of these proposals sound good, but I really don't favour expanding the federal government unless something else is trimmed away. I consider several of the current departments extraneous at best, and adding yet another one certainly isn't going to help.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The proposal made a lot more sense when it first made back in the 18th century.  We had a Department of War and the Department of State did not yet have its current focus on foreign affairs, but included tasks that today are handled by Interior, Commerce, FEC, GSA, OPM and others.

[CPT MikeyMike]

I'm not really sure whether I should vote Bad Idea or Other/Stupid Idea. A few things in there might have merit, but they don't need a whole new department. Most of the remaining stuff is just feel good bullcrap.

My thoughts exactly.

[MaC]

why not just rename 'Defense' into 'War' like it used to be.

Think of how great more taxpayer dollars, increased bureaucracy and red tape would be if we had this department.  What would be good however is if we enacted the Peace Amendment:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PeaceAmendment.htm

[Padfoot]

why not just rename 'Defense' into 'War' like it used to be.

Think of how great more taxpayer dollars, increased bureaucracy and red tape would be if we had this department.  What would be good however is if we enacted the Peace Amendment:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PeaceAmendment.htm

Thats a bit too isolationist for my taste.  Also, the section dealing with congressional eligibility to vote on a declaration of war seems a bit absurd. 

However, I agree wholeheartedly with renaming "Defense" to "War" since we haven't had to use military force to defend the states for quite some time and war is all this department seems to be interested in.  They certainly favor it over diplomacy.

[MaC]

why not just rename 'Defense' into 'War' like it used to be.

Think of how great more taxpayer dollars, increased bureaucracy and red tape would be if we had this department.  What would be good however is if we enacted the Peace Amendment:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PeaceAmendment.htm

Thats a bit too isolationist for my taste.  Also, the section dealing with congressional eligibility to vote on a declaration of war seems a bit absurd. 

Quote from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

uhm, the Constitution is absurd?  No, the reason it's the legislative branch's power is because the framers didn't want one person (President) making the choice of whether this country goes to war or not.  The War Powers Act-that's absurd.

[adam]

Sounds like yet another waste of tax payer's money.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Horrible Person

[Padfoot]

why not just rename 'Defense' into 'War' like it used to be.

Think of how great more taxpayer dollars, increased bureaucracy and red tape would be if we had this department.  What would be good however is if we enacted the Peace Amendment:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PeaceAmendment.htm

Thats a bit too isolationist for my taste.  Also, the section dealing with congressional eligibility to vote on a declaration of war seems a bit absurd. 

Quote from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

uhm, the Constitution is absurd?  No, the reason it's the legislative branch's power is because the framers didn't want one person (President) making the choice of whether this country goes to war or not.  The War Powers Act-that's absurd.

Both of my comments were in response to your proposed Peace Amendment, NOT the Constitution.

Section 2 of the Peace Amendment:
 Section 2. The members of the House of Representatives and the Senate eligible to vote on a declaration of war are those who are between the ages of 18 and 35, or who have children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren between those ages.

In fact, that is a direct affront to the section of the Constitution that you yourself just quoted.  This Peace Amendment would restrict the ability of certain members of Congress (and by proxy, American citizens) to declare war.

Why were you so quick to assume this was an attack on the Constitution?  Not once did I actually mention that document and I thought I made it clear that my problems were with Mr. Browne's proposed amendment by quoting your reference to it.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

BAD idea.

[MaC]

why not just rename 'Defense' into 'War' like it used to be.

Think of how great more taxpayer dollars, increased bureaucracy and red tape would be if we had this department.  What would be good however is if we enacted the Peace Amendment:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PeaceAmendment.htm

Thats a bit too isolationist for my taste.  Also, the section dealing with congressional eligibility to vote on a declaration of war seems a bit absurd. 

Quote from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

uhm, the Constitution is absurd?  No, the reason it's the legislative branch's power is because the framers didn't want one person (President) making the choice of whether this country goes to war or not.  The War Powers Act-that's absurd.

Both of my comments were in response to your proposed Peace Amendment, NOT the Constitution.

Section 2 of the Peace Amendment:
 Section 2. The members of the House of Representatives and the Senate eligible to vote on a declaration of war are those who are between the ages of 18 and 35, or who have children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren between those ages.

In fact, that is a direct affront to the section of the Constitution that you yourself just quoted.  This Peace Amendment would restrict the ability of certain members of Congress (and by proxy, American citizens) to declare war.

Why were you so quick to assume this was an attack on the Constitution?  Not once did I actually mention that document and I thought I made it clear that my problems were with Mr. Browne's proposed amendment by quoting your reference to it.

Well, I think Section 2 is wishful thinking-ultimately those congresspeople who have children should have more to think about, but hell most of the rest of it's alright-and it's way better than a "Department of Peace"

[jokerman]

A Department of Peace sounds redundant at best and and at the worst could impede upon the ability of the Defense Dept. to do it's job.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

A Department of Peace sounds redundant at best and and at the worst could impede upon the ability of the Defense Dept. to do it's job.

[angus]

Sounds very Orwellian, despite some good intentions.

I agree.  "Homeland Security Department" was an equally bad idea.  Like Homeland security, Peace creates more bureaucracy where it isn't needed, wasting money during a time of nearly crippling budget shortfalls, and it exacerbates the problem of unnecessary regulations on departments, slowing internal workings of the government.  For example, the Justice Department, at least in principle, exists to see that justice is done, so those function of the Peace Department are already under the government's advisement.  Education already takes care of much of the rest, at least in principle. 

A national peace day may be a good idea.  I'm always for more holidays.  And this one might be an especially good idea for an empire engaging continual warfare.  It reminds us of an alternative.  But monitoring human rights abroad is exactly the sort of thing that gets us entangled in protracted wars abroad in the first place, so that idea will not be likely to lead to greater peace for our country.  Several of the other ideas are simply big brother over-reaching and over-regulating. 

And all cost more money.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Dunno if it is a good idea but we need something to keep the Bush/Lieberman/McCain brownshirted warmongering terrorists from taking us into another illegal immoral war of terrorism like the war they have launched in Iraq.  If that means a Dept of Peace so be it.  If it means drafting them all and sending um to Iraq with a rifle and five bullets so be it.  If it means putting every single one of them in jail for crimes against humanity so be it.

[MODU]

This is basically the State Department.  I vote "stupid" idea.

BTW, we have a thread on this somewhere when Cindy Shehan called for the Department of Peace a year ago.