Senate report slams DHS "fusion centers"

Discussion in 'Civil Rights & Privacy' started by Doober, Oct 3, 2012.

  1. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    I ask again: Why is Napolitano still secretrary of DHS?
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  2. RB

    RB Founding Member

    We have an absentee President who has no idea what is going on around him. He is more interested in the glory of being a president but seems little inclined to do the work of a president. The result of the president's incompetency is people like Napolitano, Holder, Pistole, Sebelius and others who are damaging this country beyond repair.

    Please remember what the real effects of this president's actions have been when voting this year.
  3. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Thank God. Is there any chance our wastrels in the Senate will actually do something?
  4. RB

    RB Founding Member

    We the People can do something!
  5. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Even their own data shows what a flop they are when you do the math.

    Spread out over 11 years and 77 fusion centers, that "some" 0.236 "'pieces of data' that provided 'actionable intelligence'" per year per fusion center. One can't really fault San Diego for buying the televisions -- it's either watch TV or sleep.
  6. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    She is Secretary of DHS because it's a political position and she's the political appointment. Give it a bit more time and the DHS will be attaching "political officers" to all significant Federal, State and Military organizations. They're that creepy.

    It is vital to the future of our Republic that secretary of the DHS be made a professional position, not a political one.
  7. RB

    RB Founding Member

    What professional would take that position?
  8. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Laughingstock of the world, again.

    This is just the last (and best) example in the article. It's a real good read. Image is of a screener checking boobs with another hand almost poised to grab the victim's crotch.

    Gulf News: Low level US intelligence is just that...

    In one intelligence report November 2009, a DHS officer stationed in California reported information relating to the Fort Hood shooting, which had taken place just days earlier in Texas.

    The intelligence report quoted Anwar Nassar Al Awlaki, a US-born radical Muslim cleric, who praised the shootings on his public blog.

    Heady stuff, but the same report was also carried four days earlier by the Los Angeles Times, ABC News and FOX News.

    That prior publication and broadcast, however, did not prevent Homeland Security officials from circulating their own intelligence report on Al Awlaki’s blog to colleagues at the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defence Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Special Operations Command and even the White House Situation Room.

    The intelligence officer who wrote the report was later praised for his efforts — and recommended for promotion!
  9. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Plus department heads are always political appointees. I'm only aware of legal restrictions on who can be appointed for a couple departments:
    • Justice (Attorney General must be a lawyer)
    • Defense (min 10? years since military service)
  10. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    This report states the obvious. I knew this as soon as they started taking data from such lovely places as the Southern Poverty Law Center.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  11. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I think that the Department of Homeland Security is too sensitive a position to be headed by a politician. Politicians have their uses, but given that the DHS has become downright creepy under Nappy's direction, I think we need to take the last 4 years as a warning. Politically motivated idealogues have no business running what is rapidly becoming an army of internal thought police.

    If we can't get rid of the DHS, we need to mitigate the harm it does. One of the reasons regime changes are so deadly and politics are so dishonest in many nations is because regimes in power abuse and murder their opposition. Listening to the guano-psychotic fear mongering coming out of the DHS fusion centers and Obama's insistance on the "legal right" to disappear Americans for thought crimes,, I cannot help but think that we are only a couple bad decisions away from systematic democide.

    Anything that mitigates the risk or slows the progression of events is a good thing.
  12. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Who would you place as head of DHS, a career SES government flunkie? At least with political appointments we have the opportunity to have them changed out every four years. With a SES that ability might be more difficult to accomplish.

    Best bet for DHS is to disband that bastard agency.
  13. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    #1 is in our best interests. Failing that, I'd like to see leadership of the DHS go to a professional. This doesn't mean the (expletive deleted) can't be flushed when s/he starts to stink.
  14. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    1) I'm of the opinion that turds should be flushed as soon as possible. Waiting for stink is illogical.

    2) At this stage, we're past "flushing" and into "pumping out the septic tank that's leaking into the well, filling it with concrete, and building an entirely new septic system according to code" for all of DHS with the possible exception of the Coast Guard, which never should have suffered the dishonor of being placed into any hierarchy that could potentially be controlled by the likes of (expletive deleted) and evildoers like Janet Napolitano.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  15. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

  16. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    And a lot of Coasties I've spoken to quite resent it.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  17. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I have never understood the logic of having the CG under departments other than DOD except in time of war and I don't know if that is still the way it would be done today.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.

Share This Page