Skip to comments.
Bush to Sign Homeland Security Bill
Fox News ^
| Monday, November 25, 2002
| AP
Posted on 11/25/2002 9:12:06 AM PST by Sparta
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-137 last
To: Hank Kerchief
right on all 3 counts...
To: greasyHeart
Reminds me of an old song. That'll be the day.
To: Sparta
Also, what in the hell will this do for the situation on our borders?
It splits the INS into two branches. One that approves visas ans one that protects the border. Thus avoiding the current conflict of interest in the dept.
To: ppaul
Let the spying on law-abiding citizens commence!LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER
To: Victor
You know what? If you're not a terrorist, and you keep your nose clean, basically a law-abiding citizen and still entitled to your Constitutional rights...why do you fear so??? Hello? Homeland Security? I want to report another one carrying on about those old *Constitutional Rights*...You'll send a team for him right away? Fine.
125
posted on
11/25/2002 3:29:11 PM PST
by
archy
To: Redleg Duke
Yeah, so I see.
To: archy
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison
To: Gunslingr3; FLdeputy
On his first working day after a four-nation tour of eastern Europe, President Bush planned to sign the new Department of Homeland Security into law Monday, marking the biggest overhaul in the federal government in more than 50 years.Hitler is smiling.
To: Victor
If you're not a terrorist, and you keep your nose clean, basically a law-abiding citizen and still entitled to your Constitutional rights....why do you fear so???See, if they search you and follow you to prove that you're not a terrorist, you've already lost your Constitutional rights. This will be an era marked by future generations.
129
posted on
11/25/2002 4:05:55 PM PST
by
Pistias
To: Jim Robinson
What is your opinion of the Homeland Security Bill? Do you think it invests too much power in the state, and, if that power were in unfriendly hands, might that threaten Freepers and other like-minded individuals? This being a free and open exchange of ideas, and the HSB being a landmark bill, I think this is the place to ask a pioneer who ranks with the American greats, imho, this question. What say you? V's wife.
130
posted on
11/25/2002 5:28:49 PM PST
by
ventana
To: watcher1
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison Just so. If, and it's a BIG if, our foreign enemies are thwarted by the new and improved internal security forces, then they'll have no place to turn to maintain their budgets and staffing figures but on domestic targets. And they will, just as Hoover's FBI began with the immigrants and labour movement targets of the *Palmer raids* and then grew into the omnivorous beast it is today.
And of course, as they drive Americans further and further from the promise of what America was to be, fewer and fewer Americans will care whether the enemies of the country prevail or not. Watch too, as the US military becomes as staffed by foreigners as the ranks of the airport screeners are.
-archy-/-
131
posted on
11/25/2002 5:33:23 PM PST
by
archy
To: ventana
Looks like the President was unsatisfied with the apparent inefficiencies and outright failures of several federal agencies he inherited and as a result has reorganized and consolidated in an effort to gain efficiency and better control over the departments under his command. And that's probably a good thing.
As far as investing too much power in the state is concerned, well, I don't think the President or the Congress has the power to do that. I doubt that this act changes the Constitution.
To: Sparta
A sad day indeed. The last time I looked, we already had a Department of Homeland Security. I believe it's called the U.S. military.
This is definitely not what the doctor ordered.
To: Jim Robinson
Yes, the agencies have been woefully inefficient. Working to fix them with an end runaround is not a bad thing. And yes, I'm with you on the Constitution being so durable,it's something to thank God for, but, (just between you and me :) I am rattled by this HSB, nonetheless. V's wife.
134
posted on
11/25/2002 6:40:43 PM PST
by
ventana
To: ventana
Well, we're all rattled. No doubt. Nervous, suspicious, etc. But, on the other hand, there has been a heck of a lot of hyperbole flung about too. And I doubt that many of the people flinging the stuff have even read the thing. I think I'll let the dust settle a bit before jumping on the bandwagon either way.
To: sheltonmac
"....That's very optimistic of you, but what evidence have you seen to lead you to that conclusion?....."
Ummmm....the biggest fight over the Homeland Security bill was about union control over the employees. Bush wants an agency that is a step removed from union control...and he got it. This is an important first step. In effect, he took a myriad of government agencies, all union controlled, and put them under a new roof...without the union muscle. More will follw.
Why am I the only one on this thread to see this??
Anyway, Bush's actions are my "evidence"....
136
posted on
11/25/2002 6:53:38 PM PST
by
Victor
To: Jim Robinson
One of the biggest problems the administration had, was the bureaucracy and protective union rules regarding border patrol and immigration departments.
I have high hopes that those problems are in the rear view mirror.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-137 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson