I am not sure what President-elect Barack Obama’s proposed “Civilian National Security force” is supposed to be. It appears to have emerged during a speech he made in the heat of the presidential campaign.
Like Congressman Paul Broun, I find the idea to be disturbing. Unlike Congressman Broun, I do not think it rises to the level of the secret police forces used by the Nazis in Germany or the KGB in the former Soviet Union.
In a July speech, Obama was quoted as calling for “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (as the military).” But we already have a national security force in place. It is the creation of the George Bush administration in response to the World Trade Center attacks.
In general, national security is the job of the federal government, and internal police and safety is the responsibility of state and local officials. However, a number of national police and safety organizations have been developed over time. They include such national forces as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Treasury agency, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency, the Naturalization and Immigration Service and other agencies. Now, all these agencies have been grouped together under the Department of Homeland Security.
Now I and many other Americans find this concentration of police power in a single federal agency to be very disturbing. Anytime you concentrate power in the hands of a few individuals, you create a high risk of abuse of that power. And it already exists. So what additional forces does President-elect Obama have in mind? Do we need a national police force that has powers as strong as our military?
And what does he mean by having such a powerful organization as well funded as the military? That is the part that really bothers me. We spend billions of dollars annually on our military power. Devoting a similar amount of money to a civilian police authority would complete the process of bankrupting our nation.
Every city and county in this nation has a staff of police, fire and medical officials dedicated to our internal safety and security. And that is where the authority to protect our citizens belongs; in the local communities. I can see Congressman Broun’s concern about concentrating this responsibility in a national agency under the direct control of the federal bureaucracy. While such a structure would not likely develop into another KGB or SS force, it would create the potential for political and economic abuse. And it would be totally unnecessary.
The duty to provide safety and security to our communities currently rest in those communities. Let’s keep it that way.
Frank Gillispie is founder of The Madison County Journal. His e-mail address is frankgillispie671@msn.com. His website can be accessed at http://frankgillispie.tripod.com/
Grouping numerous "security" agencies under the Dept. of Homeland Security (gee, sounds suspiciously similar to Hitler's "Fatherland" security) was one of the single largest bungles of the Bush catastrophe.
Here's an idea: Let's actually wait and see what Obama introduces before we go criticizing him. Mr. Gillispie is essentially criticizing a book he hasn't even read; heck, it hasn't even been written yet because Obama isn't in office.
Either way, Obama won in one of the biggest landslides in recent memory and the American people have given him a clear mandate for change. I like the idea of a civilian security force - not funded "in addition to" the wasteful U.S. military ($600 toilet seat anyone? $900 hammer?), but funded "instead of" the military business profit machine.
I am of the opinion that Obama's proposed national security force harkens more to Hitler's Brownshirts and the Clinton's heavy handed internal security measures than the Department of Homeland Security. Remember the pictures of the federal agents apprehending that Cuban boy in the '90s?
Are we in for more of that type thing?
P.S. "Landslide" and "clear mandate" are probably a little harsh. You should refrain from spewing party rhetoric when, in the same letter, criticizing the other party for being ironic.
On a side note, check out the newest "Why We Fight," the documentary, just for fun. You might learn something.
Compare that to the last 2 Republican wins...Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000 (and he had to receive a gift from corrupt Republicans in Florida and the Supreme Coot to steal the electoral vote). Bush squeaked by John Kerry 51 to 49. Obama MORE THAN DOUBLED THAT!
You accentuate your points with "boom?" It is difficult to carry on a one sided intelligent discussion.
You sound like that sports announcer "... he gives it to the man and ... boom goes the dynamite."
OBAMA 365
McCaint 173
Obama MORE THAN DOUBLED McCain's total! That is a L-A-N-D-S-L-I-D-E (as agreed upon and stated in EVERY election analysis...oh, except yours...LOL! hahaha) and a CLEAR MANDATE from the American People who are now UNITED!
Obama kicked some Republican butt and he kicked it good and hard. John McCain embarrassed and shamed himself. Now he won't be remembered as any kind of "war hero" or for any Senatorial accomplishments (if there are any)...McCain will be remembered as the bungling, mean-spirited, selfish candidate who ran one of the ugliest, lie-filled campaigns in history and was SOUNDLY THUMPED by the first BLACK MAN to be U.S. PRESIDENT.
BOOM! Change is on the way!
Maybe it's because Waco led directly to the act by the poster boy of right wing violence, Timothy McVeigh.
If one single instance would have been my point, I would argue that the fiasco at Ruby Ridge was more of a heavy-handed overreaction than Waco.