The new department charged to defend the homeland.
Congress has finally passed legislation, H.R. 5005, to create the new Department of Homeland Security mostly from existing agencies. (*) The bill is no less than 484 pages long. († PDF) Politically, this legislation has wrought disaster on the Congressional Democrats. Instead of voting the legislation through earlier this autumn, when they could have done so before the elections, Senate Democrats stalled until this week. The public reacted and punished Democrats at the ballot box for their striking indifference to the War on Terrorism. Now that the Senate has been lost to the Republicans, the Democrats have voted overwhelmingly in the lame duck session for what is mostly the same bill, only now with several Republican special interest provisions attached. The pork provisions aren’t all inedible, as the Republican Senate leadership has promised to eliminate some of them in the next Congress. (‡) Had the Democrats simply voted for the bill a few weeks ago, they surely would have kept the Senate.
In an ironic twist, Senator Max Cleland of Georgia voted in favor of the bill, despite opposing it during the electoral campaign. The issue was used by his Republican challenger, Saxby Chambliss, as an effective point of attack against the incumbent Cleland. Had Cleland simply voted for the bill earlier, he would surely have remained in the Senate.
The main Democratic objection to the bill is that it does not extend civil service protections to the entire department. The President will have the ability to declare certain employee positions in the department off-limits to union organizing activity. Theoretically, the whole department could be included. The new department will have an intelligence gathering sub-unit, however, and clearly such a sensitive area in particular could not be subject to union work rules. While the lack of a blanket guarantee does create room for abuse, later legislation can remedy any such abuse that President Bush or a successor might foment. Legislation that reintroduces reasonable protections could be achieved even in the absence of any abuse. The bottom line is that the Democrats strategized poorly regarding homeland security, and were cornered on the issue right before the elections by Bush. What then is the Democrats’ response? Mostly it is whining that Bush was playing political games with the issue. There is an aspect of politics in all things Washington, of course. The real problem has been the lack of seriousness by Democrats on the now-critical issues of foreign policy and national defense.
The Homeland Security Act will bring momentous change, but we just don’t know what the end result will be. Declan McCullagh rightly questions the potential privacy vortex the new department might create. (§) Yet, such concerns could be overstated. One interesting part of the bill is that it does not place primary responsibility for prosecuting terrorist suspects in the new department. That role will still be handled by the Justice Department. This separation between homeland security investigation and prosecution could be an important link in the chain to prevent abuse of authority. Another interesting part of the bill is that it officially bans the proposed Operation TIPS; the plan to get every American to spy on his neighbor is rightly dead.
Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia has made the excellent point that this homeland security department will not be fully consolidated for years, and thus the change will likely not help in our immediate efforts against Al Qaeda. (**) With hope, by the time the new department is fully in motion, we will have exterminated Al Qaeda. The longer war against terrorism will continue for years past that date, however. In this longer war, especially, the new department will play a key role in the defense of the homeland. Thus, despite Senator Byrd’s concerns, there is a need to press ahead now.
The philosophic approach of the bill is to put the federal government in charge of homeland security, and in a coordinating if not supervisory role for most if not all homeland security operations. Yet, as David Carr points out in an Atlantic essay, there is just no way for the federal government to defend every citizen and every building. (††) The country is too big, too wide, and too open for ironclad security. There is talk among private citizens of the need to be vigilant in our own defense of the homeland. It is against us civilians that the Enemy has first taken aim, after all. I believe this civilian aspect will be critical to the long-term vitality of any successful homeland security strategy. Glenn Reynolds argues a similar point. (‡‡) I would disagree with Reynolds slightly, however, and say that at this stage, there is no particular need to arm more civilians with guns.
One type of response that is needed is the growth of non-centralized community watchdog groups. Ultimately, to win this War on Terrorism, Americans will have to become friendly with their immediate neighbors again. Maybe this is why communitarians like Amitai Etzioni have so fervently supported the War effort. (§§) (***)
We will need a strong Department of Homeland Security to successfully fight the War on Terrorism. The landmark legislation has passed, and now the real work begins.