While this idea is only barely making the news cycle, the evolution of Obama's idea to have a domestic national security force that rivals the department of defense is really starting to bother me.
What I want to understand is how this idea is any different from warrantless domestic wiretapping and why it should not bother me as much as wiretapping bothered so many other people. This question is not intended as a challenge so much as it is a legitimate attempt to discover if there is something I am missing.
(Please note that, while I supported the Bush administration program that used domestic warrantless wiretapping, I have never supported unchecked use of warrantless wiretapping itself. It would be far better for us to redevelop and fund legal and legitimate intelligence programs; however, these programs do not currently exist, but the threat does, resulting in my support for those programs.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I think the 'warrantless' part is generally the area of my concern. A new agency that does what the FBI has thus far been so inept at without relying upon the military in violation of the spirit of posse commitatus intrigues me, but thus far all I see is speculation. Until there's something to comment upon I see little to comment about.
The one thing I do find about all this that does not bother me is that it is being proposed in the light of day and in the forum of public comment. There will be a significant debate in every forum about this, should it continue as a viable program and be proposed as an agency of our federal government. It is happening in a way that meets constitutional muster thus far, which in and of itself differentiates it from the warrantless wiretapping and subsequent nonsense. (For the record, I include Obama's vote for the amnesty provision under the heading 'subsequent nonsense'.)
I keep hearing - here and elsewhere - that these are dangerous times in need of new powers, new agencies, extra secrecy, national security letters, warrantless surveillance, retroactive amnesties, laws that are not inviolate but can be set aside at the presidents' whim and his say-so... all in the name of "keeping us safe". A re-read of this blog would be hard-put to dissuade me from the idea that your arguments to this point haven't been in favor of those things when the powers were vested in President Bush. This is endorsed by his administration, which is the main thing which makes me leery of it, to be quite frank.
Do we need it? I'm not sure we do. Is it just a national police force, ala the FBI but with arrest powers? If so, then there will be states rights issues as there always have been (which has historically kept the FBI from making arrests). But at this point it is a nascent idea that has borne passing mention from the president-elect and little more. My opinion of it would depend greatly upon what it is, what powers they have, and the rationale for it's creation and what it is.
Ok. I've now watched the entire video found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw and also finished reading the entire article you linked.
So - in the words of the American Thinker article - it's "not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts..." as it has been repeatedly categorized by some conservative bloggers and politicians http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4GFoIweckPDP1oRhKBlHOwD94CCDU00 When I responded, it was to those comments and articles, not the one you linked to.
My apologies.
So... I think I like this idea - the larger idea beyond the snippet you posted - of expanding national service and creating places and ways to expand volunteerism in the sort of domestic Peace Corps that Clinton began with Americorps. I've repeatedly bemoaned the fact that there is no homefront in this war, no effort to engage the people in what it means to be a citizen of this country, to be active citizens. Voting is step one. There's more to it than that. It's also about taking the FDR track on getting us farther along the road out of this recession, just as we did with the WPA, the CCC and other domestic civilian organizations. So I ask you what is wrong with expanding domestic service opportunities beyond just military service to include domestic programs and volunteerism. For years there has been a growing to create a public service academy, a nonpartisan college of public service which brings to the domestic front what the military finds at Annapolis, and Colorado Springs.
http://www.uspublicserviceacademy.org/
So tell me, Denny... how does this equate with warrantless domestic surveillance?
In my view, it equates with warrantless wiretapping because both, in some way, violate the Constitution and because, unlike warrantless wiretapping, a national police force has the power to make the very kinds of things many people feared would result from warrantless wiretapping able to happen with a great deal of more ease.
We have passed a variety of amendments and laws in our nation's history designed to prevent the use of military force on our own soil against us. Creating a force equivalent to the military and with an equal level of funding merely circumvents a long standing protection we have in place.
Besides, if we need the military domestically, we already have a long standing mechanism for that very kind of action: it's called the National Guard.
If we want public service programs to help people become involved in their nation, why not expand community service programs or public works? Why create an entity that has the power to use force to deprive the liberty and possibly the lives of American citizens?
I ask these questions because I see the potential for two wrong things in what Obama proposes: first, just because his overall idea is sound does not make this specific proposal right. Second, whether Obama's own intentions are noble or otherwise, just like the Republican elimination of the filibuster would have eventually come back to haunt them (HT: David), so to could the creation of a benign national police force come back to haunt us all.
Ok... I've watched the entire video and that's not what I ended up with at all. As I said, the 'National Police Force' I was commenting on at first was mentioned in some conservative blogs. The article you're posting says it's not that at all, and if you watch the entire video you can see that he's basically talking about the same thing you are.
If we want public service programs to help people become involved in their nation, why not expand community service programs or public works?
Expanding national service is what he's talking about. This is not at all what Rep Broun of GA was equating to teh second coming of the Nazi party. I don't how he got that from this or how you could get that from this, but it's just not there.
Near as I can tell from the speech, what he's talking about isn't a paramilitary domestic force, but a "National Security Homefront" if you will, a way of engaging the populace in and investing their time and interest in our society the better to defend it.
As I said earlier, maybe before we comment we should wait until there's actually something to comment upon.
I'm not supporting what the guy from GA spouted off about, except to say that, when I heard the very same line, I jumped to the very same kind of conclusion.
Also, again what bothers me about a national security home front is the potential for abuse.
Maybe its the suggestion of any expansion of the power of force at the federal level that is not held carefully in check by the very same mechanisms that make the DoD the fractious, dysfunctional organization it is, thereby preventing the potential for coup.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. --Thomas Jefferson.
Why can't I find a comments link to this post on the home page? The discussion moved on to the post that followed this, but I had to dig deep to find a way to make this comment. Just wondering.
I noticed that earlier today. Apparently its some kind of Blogger issue because I could not find any reason the link would not show up. I will investigate further and let you know.
Post a Comment