Nigerian tried to blow up the plane

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Then you were ascribing a great deal of content to the statement that was not present.

There are several government agencies that handle the sort of thing that Homeland Security does, creating ADDITIONAL replication of tasks. Simply creating an oversight board, or even just going so far as creating efficient sharing of records would be more useful, as well as more fiscally responsible.

I don't know what Homeslice was saying anymore than you do. That is why I phrased my statement the way I did.

What you stated is what Homeland Security is supposed to do. It wasn't meant to duplicate efforts, but to tie together the information generated by a number of disparate departments (CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.) in to one cohesive picture. It was also supposed to place more import on that information by making it a cabinet level department. What you state is exactly what DHS is supposed to do.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

I don't know what Homeslice was saying anymore than you do. That is why I phrased my statement the way I did.

What you stated is what Homeland Security is supposed to do. It wasn't meant to duplicate efforts, but to tie together the information generated by a number of disparate departments (CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.) in to one cohesive picture. It was also supposed to place more import on that information by making it a cabinet level department. What you state is exactly what DHS is supposed to do.

All that I did was read what he typed. You seemed to find more than was there.

What Homeland Security was supposedly intended to do, and the reality, are vastly divergent. You don't need an entirely new department to do what you say was the originally intended function. I wonder how much money has been sunk into HS? It rankles at my innate fiscal conservatism.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

All that I did was read what he typed. You seemed to find more than was there.

What Homeland Security was supposedly intended to do, and the reality, are vastly divergent. You don't need an entirely new department to do what you say was the originally intended function. I wonder how much money has been sunk into HS? It rankles at my innate fiscal conservatism.

The different departments were supposed to work together before. They never did so effectively since they were never subordinate to those trying to get them to work together. Institutional barriers overcame any effort to change how things worked. By creating an additional department with oversight and control that barrier was supposed to be eliminated. It doesn't appear to have worked, but the milder form you are suggesting hasn't worked either.

As for the money, I believe DHS was supposed to save money by centralizing appropriations for a number of different departments in order to prevent redundant and unnecessary spending. That DHS doesn't appear to do that either shouldn't exactly come as a shock.

[EpyonXero]

I dont work for Homeland Security but but one thing I learned from working for the government is that its very cliqueish every agency or even department within an agency feels like they need to protect their own interests against other agencies. They only work together if their forced to by regulations.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by EpyonXero

I dont work for Homeland Security but but one thing I learned from working for the government is that its very cliqueish every agency or even department within an agency feels like they need to protect their own interests against other agencies. They only work together if their forced to by regulations.

As a complete outsider I have only read the same thing, but the theme is repeated constantly. Even with a cabinet level department supposedly performing oversight and fostering cooperation between agencies they didn't work together in this case. I am using a wide brush, but it seems endemic in the government that most agencies are primarily concerned with protecting their agency and its budget rather than their primary mission (in this case protecting America).

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by goof2

You appear to think that majority of the blame for the failures in this incident falls on Bush. Do you think the same of September 11th?

I blame Bush for the HSA/TSA, not for this terrorist incident. The incident would have occurred with or without the HSA/TSA.

The existing intelligence & law enforcement community was already responsible for homeland security. The fact that certain information was allegedly not being shared between these agencies doesn't prove that a brand new agency needed to be created. Sounds more like a failure to hold certain individuals accountable. Instead the Bush Admin did something that they knew would be deemed more impressive: Create a new agency.

It's just like the business world, every time you create a new department or business unit, you've created a bunch of people who feel the need to justify their positions by creating new programs & policies.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

As a complete outsider I have only read the same thing, but the theme is repeated constantly. Even with a cabinet level department supposedly performing oversight and fostering cooperation between agencies they didn't work together in this case. I am using a wide brush, but it seems endemic in the government that most agencies are primarily concerned with protecting their agency and its budget rather than their primary mission (in this case protecting America).

Creating Homeland Security simply created a new "clique", rather than addressing the real problem.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

I blame Bush for the HSA/TSA, not for this terrorist incident. The incident would have occurred with or without the HSA/TSA.

The existing intelligence & law enforcement community was already responsible for homeland security. The fact that certain information was allegedly not being shared between these agencies doesn't prove that a brand new agency needed to be created. Sounds more like a failure to hold certain individuals accountable. Instead the Bush Admin did something that they knew would be deemed more impressive: Create a new agency.

It's just like the business world, every time you create a new department or business unit, you've created a bunch of people who feel the need to justify their positions by creating new programs & policies.

I think your corporate analogy is inaccurate. It was previously like a number of separate companies had merged forming a number of subsidiaries with little executive structure on top to manage the subs in a common direction. DHS was supposed to create that "executive structure" as well as make the top "executive" a cabinet level position. In theory the idea was, in my view, a good one. In practice it has not achieved its objective.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Creating Homeland Security simply created a new "clique", rather than addressing the real problem.

As I have stated, I am a complete outsider so I don't know if it has created a new "clique". I haven't read about that being the problem like I have with interactions between the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc., but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Whatever the ultimate cause is, I agree that DHS hasn't been effective at fixing the problems its creation was supposed to fix.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by goof2

I think your corporate analogy is inaccurate. It was previously like a number of separate companies had merged forming a number of subsidiaries with little executive structure on top to manage the subs in a common direction. DHS was supposed to create that "executive structure" as well as make the top "executive" a cabinet level position. In theory the idea was, in my view, a good one. In practice it has not achieved its objective.

They have a cabinet-level position, but other than that............

Does the DHS actually have any authority over the FBI in certain matters?