Understanding Homeland Security

Homeland Security means spying on all your phone calls and Internet traffic and holding you up at the airport for hours in security lines – while allowing tens of thousands of undocumented  “Dreamers” to cross the border unimpeded.

To Barack Obama, millions of potential terrorists represent much less of a security threat than American duck hunters.

They should at least ask the Dreamers what their opinion is about global warming. John Kerry says that is the biggest security threat the US has ever faced.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Understanding Homeland Security

  1. Pathway says:

    The Visigoths are inside the walls.

  2. _Jim says:

    Homeland Security – From the first time I saw that term I thought: “Security to keep us, um, in line and in check.” Sort of like the rent-a-cops at the mall type ‘security’ to be constantly on-the-watch for anything out of line versus a law enforcement agency (like the FBI) that can be called on by citizens when something is spotted as being wrong.

    Homeland Security was meant for us (literally: to be watchful of the citizenry), not ‘them’ (the enemy). That has been my thought.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Given that “Homeland Security” has been accompanied by the the Military Commissions Act and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act that nullify Posse Comitatus and habeas….

      …this act alone ends constitutional and Bill of Rights protections allowing the chief executive the extraordinary right to designate anyone an enemy of the state on his say alone based on no evidence beyond his word that’s now the law of the land. It means anyone can be charged with “terrorism” for what Orwell called a “thoughtcrime” making us all “enemy combatants, unsafe from the reach of “Big Brother” residing in the White House with the power of life and death over everyone everywhere in the world.
      This new law allows the chief executive the right to order anyone arrested, interrogated, tortured and incarcerated in a secret prison anywhere in the world, subject to the justice of a harsh military tribunal with no competent counsel or right of appeal. It goes even further annulling the habeas rights of “everyone” including innocent US citizens falsely accused of terrorism, charged under this law and prosecuted under its provisions as harshly as a verifiable bomb-thrower caught in the act.
      October 17 was doubly heinous as George Bush also quietly and privately signed into law a revision to the 1807 Insurrection Act. It was hidden in Sections 1076 and 333 of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Two hundred years of tradition along with the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act prohibit using federal and National Guard troops for law enforcement inside the country except as allowed by the Constitution or authorized by Congress in times of a national emergency like an insurrection. Under the new law, the chief executive can claim a public emergency, effectively declare martial law and send federal and National Guard troops to the nation’s streets to suppress whatever he calls public disorder that may include peaceful demonstrations against wars of aggression and rightful demands for restoration of our constitutional rights now abandoned.
      The new law authorizes a direct role for the Pentagon including use and transfer of state-of-the-art crowd control weapons and technology to state and local responders. It’s intended to militarize them and blur the distinction between those from the Pentagon and local law enforcement agencies – very ominous and clear police state tactical readiness only needing a trigger, sure to come, to make them operational….

      You can also add the militarization of our police force.

      • Luke of the D says:

        They can take my “rights.” They can take my “freedom.” They can take my “country.” They cannot take my soul. And they cannot take my will. I resist. Call me a terrorist.

      • _Jim says:

        re: Gail Combs June 17, 2014 at 8:45 pm
        Given that “Homeland Security” has been accompanied by the the Military Commissions Act …

        This is what appears to be the basis for complaints about the MCA of 2006:

        The MCA eliminates the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. It allows our government to continue to hold hundreds of prisoners for more than five years without charges.

        It also gives any president the power to declare — on his or her own — who is an enemy combatant, decide who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and define what is — and what is not — torture and abuse.

        A little more balanced look at the MCA (of 2006 and 2009) here with the opening excerpt shown below:

        Military Commissions and Due Process

        After the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Administration worked closely with Congress to create a framework to try unlawful enemy combatants before military commissions. Following extensive debate and many hearings on the topic, the Senate and House passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) by large majorities, and the President signed it into law on October 17, 2006.

        Modeled after the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) – the code that the U.S. military uses to try soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines — the MCA provides unprecedented rights to alien unlawful enemy combatants at trial. The MCA balances U.S. international law obligations and the national security of the U.S. while the conflict continues.

        The Obama administration kept most of the rules and procedures contained within President Bush’s MCA 2006, but enacted key reforms. Those reforms include (but are not limited to) how hearsay is to be admitted, the inadmissibility of statements obtained by cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and the right of a detainee to request specific military counsel.

        Those reforms are included in the chart below.The MCA provides alien unlawful enemy combatants virtually the same due process and rights that are provided by the United Nations in their war crimes tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR), hereinafter ICTYR.

        Unless you want enemy combatants to be tried in New York City and allowed the full privilege of ‘discovery’ as in a civilian trial, you should be for the MCAs …


        • Gail Combs says:


          It depends on what the charges are…..

          BTW, Does that mean Bill Clinton can be tried under the the Military Commissions Act of 2006? If so I am ALL for it!

          Chasing the Dragon: Clinton’s China Policy
          …the Democratic party needed a quick infusion of cash to pay for campaign ads. Clinton turned to his Chinese connection, old friends Johnny Chung, John Huang, and Charlie Trie. They headed a shadowy cast of characters that funneled millions of dollars into democratic campaign coffers.

          Bill Clinton took contributions he knew came from China, and played another angle as well. US companies wanted to sell China military technology, but the sales were prohibited by law. Economic sanctions for the Tiananmen square massacre and restrictions on technology exports prevented these companies from selling China the armaments they wanted.

          In return for campaign contributions, the President shifted regulation of technology exports from the State Department to the free-wheeling Commerce department. The administration also relaxed export controls and allowed corporations to decide if their technology transfers were legal or not. When easing restrictions wasn’t enough, Clinton signed waivers that simply circumvented the law. The President’s waivers allowed the export of machine tools, defense electronics, and even a communications system for the Chinese Air Force.

          Bernard Schwartz and Michael Armstrong, the CEOs of Loral and Hughes, each donated over one million dollars to Clinton’s re-election campaign. These companies had an interest in seeing China develop reliable missiles to loft their satellites into orbit. Clinton arranged direct talks between Bernard Schwartz and a Chinese general to improve China’s rocket technology. Michael Armstrong was made head of the Export Advisory Council. Both companies were allowed to upgrade the launching and guidance of China’s missiles.

          Clinton even involved the Department of Energy, caretaker of our nuclear weapons, in his fundraising schemes. In 1994 and ’95 then Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary accompanied Johnny Chung, John Huang, Charlie Trie, and Bernard Schwartz on trade missions to China. Shortly afterward the DOE relaxed security at US weapons labs. Wen Ho Lee, an ethnic Chinese physicist assigned to Los Alamos, illegally transferred data on nuclear warheads to his private computer files…..

        • _Jim says:

          Coat-racking; was there a cogent point in there against the MCA?


        • B says:

          All enforcement is selective. If it wasn’t various people in the federal government would be prosecuted under the laws they’ve passed due to the shifting alliances in the middle east where an enemy in one place is an ally in another but nothing stops them from using the aid in one place to attack in the other.

        • Jason Calley says:

          “Unless you want enemy combatants to be tried in New York City and allowed the full privilege of ‘discovery’ as in a civilian trial, you should be for the MCAs …”

          It is not either-or, not MCA or civilian law. The other possibility (OK, I know this is just a humorous suggestion!) is that the US government follow the law. Have Congress follow the Constitution and declare war. Have captured troops be held or go to trial as per the UCMJ.

          The only justification for the MCA is that the US has entered into a series of wars without the legal standing to do so. (No, having Congress pass a resolution allowing the President to go to war at his discretion is NOT the same as a declaration of war. There are reasons why the power to declare was separated from the power of command. Congress can no more delegate that power to the Executive branch than the Supreme Court can delegate its right to try cases to the President. Each branch has its own job.) Of course, under the UCMJ, the President may not arbitrarily proclaim that a US citizen, here in the US, is suddenly an enemy without Constitutional rights — but under the MCA he does.

          Of course neither the Constitution nor the UCMJ is binding on the President — and the MCA won’t bind him either. Why? Because he refuses to obey the law. Because he is a tyrant. Because he has body guards who protect him regardless of what he does. Because he has a Congress who refuses to remove him. Because the military are more interested in getting retirement and benefits than disobeying unlawful orders. Because average people would rather watch football than watch their leaders.

          If cattle could talk, Rancher Obama would provide some justification to the herd for each cow he hauled to the slaughter house. “Yeah, I had to talk Old Bossie down to the vets for quarantine. You maybe couldn’t tell, but she was coming down with mad cow disease. I had to take her to quarantine for the safety of the herd.” That is what the law is today; just a plausible excuse to allow the Powers That Be to do what they want to whom they wish.

        • _Jim says:

          re: Jason Calley June 18, 2014 at 12:39 pm
          It is not either-or, not MCA or civilian law.

          It would not appear so; notwithstanding objections (and much argumentation on tertiary or non-related coat-racking issues) to the contrary. Also you seem to have missed where the MCA addressed international ‘aspects’ such as war tribunals, to wit: “MCA balances U.S. international law obligations and the national security of the U.S. while the conflict continues.” and “The MCA provides alien unlawful enemy combatants virtually the same due process and rights that are provided by the United Nations in their war crimes tribunals”.

          Other points you raise have been debated elsewhere and I see no need to re-litigate here.

  3. _Jim says:

    I also thought the term sounded retarded, too. Maybe that’s just me …

  4. philjourdan says:

    It really does sound so brown shirt. Even the uniforms remind one of the past.

  5. Robertv says:

    A state of emergency is a governmental declaration that announces that the country is in a state of emergency. This means that the government can suspend and/or change some functions of the executive, the legislative and or the judiciary during this period of time. It alerts citizens to change their normal behaviour and orders government agencies to implement emergency plans. A government can declare a state of emergency during a time of natural or man-made disaster, during a period of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war or situation of international/internal armed conflict. Justitium is its equivalent in Roman law.

    It can also be used as a rationale for suspending rights and freedoms, even if those rights and freedoms are guaranteed under the Constitution.

    The United States is formally in an ongoing limited state of emergency declared by several Presidents for several reasons. A state of emergency began on January 24, 1995 with the signing of Executive Order 12947 [5] by President Bill Clinton. In accordance with the National Emergencies Act, the executive order’s actual effect was not a declaration of a general emergency, but a limited embargo on trade with “Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process”.[45] This “national emergency” was expanded in 1998 to include additional targets such as Osama bin Laden,[46] and has been continued to at least 2008 by order of President George W. Bush.[47] There are a number of other ongoing national emergencies of this type,[48][49] regarding for instance diamond trade with Sierra Leone. Especially noteworthy are the ongoing states of emergency declared on November 14, 1979 regarding the Iran hostage crisis,[50] that declared on March 15, 1995 with respect to Iran,[51] and that declared on September 14, 2001 through Bush’s Proclamation 7463, regarding the September 11 attacks.[52]

    President Barack Obama extended George W. Bush’s Declaration of Emergency regarding terrorism on September 10, 2009,[53] on September 10, 2010,[54] on September 9, 2011,[55] and on September 11, 2012.[56]

    President Barack Obama extended the Declaration of Emergency on November 12, 2013, citing continued conflicts in Iran.[57]


    Understanding Homeland Security

    Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.

  6. Scott Scarborough says:

    I think, every year the Congress has to declare a National emergency to supply funding for the military because such funding is only suppose to be done in case of a national emergency under the constitution. Isn’t that so?

    • James the Elder says:

      No. The Pentagon budget is part of the yearly budget (which we haven’t had for six years now). In case of a national emergency, the Congress can approve more spending without waiting for the next budget cycle.

      • EW3 says:

        The lack of budget for the past 6 years needs to be addressed somehow.
        The house has passed budgets but the senate has failed to act on them. As I understand it they die in committee and never come to the floor.
        The senate is failing to meet it’s legal obligation to act.
        There must be some kind of legal recourse for us.

    • B says:

      There are many ‘laws’ that only give the government powers in an emergency. The people accept this and trust the government. The people don’t know that the country has been in a state of emergency since what? The 1930s or something like that?

      Anyway most of the really bad laws require the government to make declarations of this or that. It’s a ‘national emergency’…. so and so is an ‘enemy combatant’… so forth and so on. Then when the average american is informed of the power grab by someone that well conditioned american will respond by considering the person who told him a “conspiracy theorist”. After all the government can only do these things under certain conditions that ‘can’t happen here’. Never mind these are all arbitrary declarations by the people who run the government. Might as well have skipped the ceremonial and just handed them the powers outright, but americans love the bullshit coating on tyranny so they can say it doesn’t exist.

  7. Gail Combs says:

    There is also the “Declaration of War” So we have the “War on Drugs” the “War on Terrorism” the “War on…”

    I am not sure of the exact ramifications (and right now I am to lazy to go digging) but the “Declaration of War” does have legal meaning.

  8. Jason Calley says:

    Department of Homeland Security: Not YOUR homeland, and not YOUR security!


    I am so sorry… but here is the truth, deal with it as you will. The US Constitution is a dead letter. The US Republic has joined the Roman Republic in the history books. The acting US government is not YOUR government.

  9. Dave in Ann Arbor says:

    Must be part of the ol’ “year of action.”

    I went to my first Detroit Tigers game this year, and now it seems MLB has adopted the TSA-style metal detector BS now. The prisoner training continues to expand everywhere unabated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s