Creation of Homeland Security Dept & Special Interest involvement

[sj_hurst]

After reading this, I'm beginning to feel somewhat uneasy about Bush's Homeland Security (its provisions to be more specific). It's full of Special Interest provisions that the Democrats want to gut out. I suddenly find myself supporting Democrats on something.

One provision gives pharmaceutical companies major liability protection on new vaccines. I understand how this could speed up the R&D to market process (go through FDA testing procedures more quickly). However, I see it as nothing more than a guaranteed revenue booster for the pharmaceutical companies. Its main purpose is to protect the big pharmaceutical companies from potential lawsuits that could be filed by people who are adversely affected by new prescription drugs/vaccines. IMO, the current system isn't good enough at screening adverse drug reactions in patients. Based on my reading, way too many people die from prescription drugs. I definitely think that Bush and his buddies took a step in the wrong direction with this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/18/homeland.security/index.html

That's just for starters. There are plenty other provisions in the Homeland Security proposal that we could debate on. Interestingly, my opinion favors the Democrats' (and McCain's) point of view on almost every provision mentioned in the above link. Granted, I've never liked the extensive involvement of special interest groups in government. It leads to increased corruption in politics and business. IMO, politicians are taking money from big business and doing favors (like creating new policies/laws/provisions) for them in return.

[GrimFaceOfReality]

I agree here. WTF did they do to that bill?

This kind of says it all:

This homeland security bill, the bill the president supported, was 35 pages long. The bill that I've been asked to vote on Monday or Tuesday is 484 pages long...

[PaleDuke]

Why Citizens get Disheartened/Disenfranchised 101.

[nextbillgates]

Originally posted by PaleDuke
Why Citizens get Disheartened/Disenfranchised 101.

The amendment to cut out the pork failed, BTW.

[opus512]

Originally posted by nextbillgates


The amendment to cut out the pork failed, BTW.

52-47, what a surprise :rolleyes:

The amendments broken down:

• Enact new liability protection for pharmaceutical companies for the vaccines they make.

• Gut a Senate amendment that would prohibit the government from signing contracts with companies that move their headquarters offshore -- where they don't have to pay U.S. taxes.

• Create a homeland security research center program at a U.S. university. Democrats say the legislation is written in such a way as to create the center at Texas A&M University in Texas, home to some powerful GOP lawmakers and Bush.

• Provide liability protection for airport screening companies.

• Provide liability protection for companies that sell anti-terrorism technologies or products.

• Erect barriers to the Transportation Security Agency for the issuance of some security rules for travelers.

• Allow the Department of Homeland Security to hold advisory committee meetings in secret, a move Democrats say is a gift to corporate lobbyists.

[opus512]

Here's a related story:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Northeast/11/19/ny.airport.arrests/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Federal officials charged at least 118 people Tuesday with using fake Social Security and immigration status cards to obtain jobs that gave them access to high-security areas at John F. Kennedy International and LaGuardia airports.

Many of the defendants, who worked for private contractors, used fake Social Security numbers as a form of identification to obtain airport security badges.

So if one of these people or someone like them helped in a terrorist act or some kind of negligence led to death or injury would the private contractors be exempt from liability?

[msan_msw]

This could actually be an issue that most of us, regardless of party affiliation or political philosophy, can generally agree on. Wouldn't that be a hoot.

...encourage companies to develop new anti-terrorism technologies.

AKA every Republican has some "district pork" stuffed into the package. What I find ironic is that this bill doesn't look like it will pass 'now' but could pass come next year as the Congress shifts toward a Republican agenda... However, they've shown their hand and it will make it all the much more difficult to get this same amount of special interest flab through on a second running (maybe...).

There are a few key things that I don't like about this project. First, it puts too much power in the hands of the Executive Branch (again) and they want to be able to keep far too much of their activities secret, not only to the public, but to oversight and monitoring. That's scary stuff.

Of course I think it's insane to name it "Homeland Security" and really shows the levels of nationalism and unchecked emotion some people are willing to show. I don't need to feel all warm and fuzzy about my "homeland" I need to feel safe and they need to be proficient in their government duties. Office of Interior Security (National Security)... whatever.. would be much more appropriate I think. Homeland??? C'mon now. Are we turning into cold war Russia and will we be calling the U.S. the Fatherland shortly?

[opus512]

It'll pass. The Democrats already failed to strip the added provisions, however, there is this to consider:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/inside.buzz.homeland/index.html

The GOP came close to losing that vote after three moderate Republicans warned their leaders they would vote with Democrats unless they got what they wanted.

What did they want? Assurances that GOP leaders would work next year to eliminate three of the so-called "special interest" provisions when the new Congress convenes.

Unless that happened, Sens. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, both Maine Republicans, and Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, told Vice President Dick Cheney -- the president of the Senate -- and Minority Leader Trent Lott they would buck their party.

So we'll see what they do when the new Congress comes into session and nothing happens in getting them reversed. I just don't see it happening.

Then it would have been 50-49 in favor of taking them out. The White House would have just called them all unpatriotic again though, and they would have backed down, like the chick from Hawaii did after Lott threatened her.

[babystinky]

BIG BROTHER


We are all being Monitored these days, you use the bank machine your taped, video cameras are appearing on Busy Intersections, video recognition technology is being imployed more and more.

The internet is closely monitored, Id cards will be the thing of the future, every transaction you do is monitored, everything goes to a DATA bank, in case of future investigations.

Drug companies, I am not sure if I trust them as much anymore, and I am not so sure about just what the Gov is up to.


Isn't this what many fought against in the past?

[sj_hurst]

Big brother can butt out of my personal business and go to hades. :evil:

I can understand investigating suspects based on leads. But when all citizens become potential suspects (and are placed under intensive scrutiny for no good reason), that's just ridiculous. :mad:

[EG]

*yawn*

[TOXCaturi]

at the rate of incarceration in this country by 2050a full 2/3 of the population will be employed keeping the other 1/3 locked up :evil:

[opus512]

Originally posted by babystinky
BIG BROTHER



http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/20/terror.tracking/index.html

[babystinky]

Here is a Quote from that article from CNN


"This is a program that incorporates all of the 'Big Brother' operations that the American public has feared from its government all these years and that the Constitution has protected us from -- spying, invasion of privacy, you name it," said Peter Kornbluh, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive at George Washington University. "And Admiral Poindexter, of all people, is now in charge of that program."




This is exactly the problem, and it wasn't just recently this has happened. The freedoms are removed, one could argue it is for the protection of Us all, but then someone else can argue, but then who decides to where to draw the lines??

It is very worrying, and I suspect it is going to get worse.

[EG]

/chicken little mode

The sky is falling

/end chicken little mode

[msan_msw]

line
... they better not take my guns though
line

[opus512]

Originally posted by EGhadsGhost
/chicken little mode

The sky is falling

/end chicken little mode

Yeah what do you care, you'll be on the 'watching' end, not the 'watched' :P

[Pier]

Originally posted by msan_msw
This could actually be an issue that most of us, regardless of party affiliation or political philosophy, can generally agree on. Wouldn't that be a hoot.



Hope springs eternal:


Originally posted by EGhadsGhost
*yawn*


See? :D :P

More thoughts from msan_msw
Of course I think it's insane to name it "Homeland Security" and really shows the levels of nationalism and unchecked emotion some people are willing to show. I don't need to feel all warm and fuzzy about my "homeland" I need to feel safe and they need to be proficient in their government duties. Office of Interior Security (National Security)... whatever.. would be much more appropriate I think. Homeland??? C'mon now. Are we turning into cold war Russia and will we be calling the U.S. the Fatherland shortly?

Cold war Russia? Looking more like 1930s Germany to me - the "Fatherland" analogy is appropriate, there, msan :

Lemme see, right wing leader takes over (Hitler) on a wave of nationalist sentiment and outcry over decaying society (Great Depression), begins propaganda campaign of mistrust, an attack on a civic institution (burning of the Reichstag), blame it on evil people who want to destroy the country and all we stand for (Jews, Communists, gays, blacks), begins campaign to "purify" country of said evils by taking away dissent and protest (Kristallnacht) and establishing a homeland security agency (Gestapo). Takes over sovereign nations (Austria, Czechoslovakia) on the pretext of "regime change" (Lebensraum).

But no, it couldn't happen here, now could it? I mean, this is America we're talking about.... :rolleyes: