Also, if anyone wants to promote the FBI, as this type of Oversight agency, just read the Wiki article on the FBI. It sounds no different than Homeland Security from whoever wrote that Wiki entry.

In regards to the OP:

https://reason.com/2020/01/30/house-moves-to-give-homeland-security-more-power-to-snoop/

The legislation—like its companion in the Senate—gives the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) more power to subpoena information from internet and telecommunications companies, including subscriber names, addresses, and telephone numbers.

...

Compelling private information when it involves risks to "critical infrastructure" might sound smart. But it's important to keep in mind that it doesn't take much for CISA to deem something critical infrastructure. The agency's 16 sectors of critical infrastructure extend to such places as casinos, hotels, motels, campgrounds, zoos, shopping malls, self-storage facilities, condominiums, banks, insurance companies, and motion picture studios.

...

Thompson has said the bill will likely be part of a bigger package of "DHS authorization legislation."

I always thought CISA was an NSA branch, as it should be. Yet, Homeland Security gets it, and effectively becomes the most powerful government agency in US history.

What the fuck?

Just connecting the dots here; but, CISA legitimizes the perpetual use of the Patriot Act in effect.

Mother of God.

The DoD needs to step in from a perpetual state of paranoia and insecurity that the above entails.

The "agency of oversight" you are thinking about has already been established.
The Constitution's separation of powers was designed to have the jobs assigned to each of the three not be overturned by one of the others.
So I am all for the DOD doing some things but not to make sure we aren't handing our country to a traveling salesman.

The "agency of oversight" you are thinking about has already been established. — Valentinus

That was the FBI's role, hasn't it, or what agency are you referring to?

The FBI, along with the Department of Defense (along with the other Federal agencies) are under the administrative control of the Executive Branch with the President being the Commander and Chief.

Congress is the agency to oversee what the Executive Branch is doing. If enough people from the Executive Branch corrupt that process, then you have a problem.

The Judicial Branch is supposed to be independent of the other two. If enough people from the Executive Branch corrupt that process, then you have a problem.

Does America need an oversight agency, why or why not? — Shawn

In theory, Congress is supposed to be the oversight committee for intelligence agencies. But, in practice, the dominant party may choose to look the other way, when secret operations are aimed at ends they approve, even when the means are illegal. So, ultimately, I guess we rely on whistle-blowers, as in the Iran-Contra affair. :cool:

You can't do oversight with classified intelligence...

At least, you can't do it well...

The speed,complexity, scope, and sensitivity of most of the goings-on at various intelligence agencies renders comprehensive oversight implausible at best. The compartmentalization that is required in this kind of work basically creates a situation where intelligence agencies cannot even coherently oversee themselves.

One of the main reasons that it has to be this way is that these agencies are locked in existential conflict with every other intelligence agency (they all constantly try to hack, spy, and harm one another, even allies, because they operate as state enforcers/thugs). Deep down they really are trying to benefit their countries, and therein lies their endless and problematic moral justification. The down-shot of this is that they need to operate in vast shrouds of secrecy, lest they be exposed as targets for other state actors.

If you're interested in the subject though, I recommend looking into cyber-security and cyber threat intelligence. There's a really scary but neat-o world that consists of public security firms vs threat actors, where information about known hacking groups is gathered, newly discovered exploits are discussed and addressed, etc, and it bleeds heavily into the world of state intelligence.

I have come to the conclusion that America has too many intelligence and other agencies that are operating in isolation from one another.

It seems to me, that there is a lack of oversight between said agencies. What would be required may be called a return to some unifying central command that would make all these (16) intelligence agencies operate in unison.

I call this 'Project Oversight'. A self-policing type of agency that would control, audit, and monitor the activities of subordinate agencies.

Just recently, Trump authorized Homeland Security to gain new powers beyond belief.

Does America need an oversight agency, why or why not? — Shawn

You would know better than any of us.

I'm sure you are familiar with the term deep state.

To some extent the executive branch does this atleast to a small measure.

But to watch over all the different CIA & CIA clones would require beaurocracy, and who is going to watch that central beaurocracy?

I know i spelled beaurocracy wrong.

...some unifying central command... — Shawn

Once, not all that long ago, they had this; they called it the "President".

Now there's just this slow, incomprehensible train wreck...

Banno
7.2k
...some unifying central command...
— Shawn

Once, not all that long ago, they had this; they called it the "President".

Now there's just this slow, incomprehensible train wreck... — Banno

So very, very true...and sad!

I thought the idea was a tripartite set of watchers watching the watchers, each with the ability to intervene. Not that the President was the single unifying command, except, perhaps in war - which is one way the tripartite structure has fallen, since Presidents can de fact declare wars without Congress and have been using Executive Orders much more than Presidents used to. All by passing Congress. And since the Supreme court touches none of this, but could conceivably, they too have lost notches.

Couple all that with the incredibly power money has over government and we have a mess long before Trump came a long with his circus.

I think the President can't sleep at night, thus, the need for an oversight agency, no?

So I am all for the DOD doing some things but not to make sure we aren't handing our country to a traveling salesman. — Valentinus

Yeah, there's an issue here. The DoD has command over the military; and yet all the other alphabet agencies are under civilian jurisdiction. :chin:

Talk about a debacle for the US. The OPM (database of all government employees) got hacked by the Chinese in 2014.

You do an analysis of (un)encrypted credit and debit card transactions (which isn't hard to do), and all the secrets are out. Crazy...

In theory, Congress is supposed to be the oversight committee for intelligence agencies. — Gnomon

In theory, that doesn't work. Because, the nature of intelligence gathering limits the analysis to a unifying understanding of the scope needed to understand all loose ends and knots. I don't believe this should be handled by a person who has 4 years to get to understand everything and then comment on it. Thus, the need for a central agency to handle the task, that has no time constraints.

The civilian control of the DoD is exerted through the Secretary of the Defense along with the coordinating influence of the NSA.

I think we are in a cultural crisis and that unless we return education to defending our democracy, we will lose it. No branch of government can defend our liberty if all citizens are not educated to do so.

I think we are in a cultural crisis and that unless we return education to defending our democracy, we will lose it. — Athena

The Constitution was meant to instill confidence and security. Now, you have an agency that is monumental, power-mad, and continuously given more and more powers that thrives on insecurity, fear, and paranoia. I'm not sure how long the Constitution will maintain its ethos.

Watch closely what happens in the next 4 years of Trump's favorite agency.

↪Banno I thought the idea was a tripartite set of watchers watching the watchers, each with the ability to intervene. Not that the President was the single unifying command, except, perhaps in war - which is one way the tripartite structure has fallen, since Presidents can de fact declare wars without Congress and have been using Executive Orders much more than Presidents used to. All by passing Congress. And since the Supreme court touches none of this, but could conceivably, they too have lost notches.

Couple all that with the incredibly power money has over government and we have a mess long before Trump came a long with his circus. — Coben

The Eisenhower administration put the Military-Industrial Complex in place and I think we should all heed his warning.

Despite his military background and being the only general to be elected president in the 20th century, he warned the nation with regard to the corrupting influence of what he describes as the "military-industrial complex". ... But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense.
Eisenhower's farewell address - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Eisenhower's_farewell_address — Wikipedia

The Military-Industrial Complex is what Hitler and Bush called the New World Order. It is what we defended our democracy against in two world wars. We are now what we defended our democracy because we adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education, and the general population is clueless and therefore defenseless, emotionally driven and reactionary.

Adopting the German model of bureaucracy was essential because our bureaucratic organization was extremely inefficient and could not manage federal programs such as social security. If we had just retained education of our liberty and democracy, we would not be in the mess we are in now. A man like Trump would be recognized as a tyrant, not the Great Father of our country that many Christians think he is, and we would have managed the pandemic with science, not a man who tells us God whispered in his ear that our social distancing could end by Easter, such a special day. :rage:

We would have the democratic mythology of our democracy, not the Christian mythology of our democracy. Destroying our national heroes was very much about shifting power and authority from citizens to centralized power and authority. The state is God and all must conform to the state. God's will and our will are the same because we are good Christians, right? :pray:

Who reads the constitution? Who is aware of the philosophical foundation of democracy? Who is literate in the classics that are the foundation of democracy?

How about Neitche and Hegel? Superman and the State is God.

We must pay attention to education and culture. If people are turning to the Bible for truth and we stay on the same path Germany followed, what will the result be?

Shawn
10.4k
So I am all for the DOD doing some things but not to make sure we aren't handing our country to a traveling salesman.
— Valentinus

Yeah, there's an issue here. The DoD has command over the military; and yet all the other alphabet agencies are under civilian jurisdiction. :chin: — Shawn

The military is also under civilian jurisdiction...and well it should be.

Unfortunately, at the moment, the control is held by Trump.

How about Neitche and Hegel? Superman and the State is God. — Athena

What about them? As I understand it, most Americans are closet Nietzsche'ians. Hegel only makes sense in America, for the dominant party, which is none, since Democrats and Republicans both are guided by self-interest for their constituents (dot dot dot), which are themselves.

We must pay attention to education and culture — Athena

Well, the issue as I understand it, is some kind of anti-intellectualism dominant in the US. It's a big issue that some astonishingly large percentage of Americans believe wholeheartedly in creationism, like thinking that rain causes frogs to be created or some such loony'ness.

The founding fathers... long mythologised... could not bring themselves to entirely reject the father figure, so they set up a (s)elected monarch with an advisory council. The President, Senate and judiciary are there to make sure the House of Reps does not get to make law.

The separation of the powers is far more evident in Westminster systems.

On dead branches
Crows remain perched
At autumn's end

-- Matsuo Basho

Other systems of democracy are more ad hoc. History smashed and remoulded them, giving the opportunity to tinker in the process.

But the Constitution produced a fossil.

But the Constitution produced a fossil. — Banno

Nah, ethics and morality are timeless. Just the kind of stuff that need to be included in it, the 'stitution.

Hm. Seeing the US constitution as an ethical document strikes me as profoundly misguided; an example of Mythologising; "The tale is finished; it cannot grow further".

As if perfection were achievable.

Hm. Seeing the US constitution as an ethical document strikes me as profoundly misguided; an example of Mythologising; "The tale is finished; it cannot grow further". — Banno

As a foundation it's pretty solid. Everyone is guided by defending it, despite rampant paranoia or insecurity. Humdrum for it's ethical import nowadays with the existence of Chinese viruses or shithole countries.

As a foundation it's pretty solid. — Shawn

Beyond criticism?

That might be the problem, right there.