Jump to content

ACLU calls for dismantling DHS

bernorange

By bernorange
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
Posted
Quote

As an organization dedicated to civil liberties, civil rights and the rule of law, we at the American Civil Liberties Union believe that the government has both the authority and responsibility to enforce its laws — laws that promote justice, equality and the general welfare. In recent weeks, the actions of federal agents have shown us all that the Department of Homeland Security isn’t capable of acting consistently with the Constitution, and should no longer exist in its current state. The scenes unfolding in Portland, Oregon, and elsewhere are a reminder of the red flags many have raised about DHS throughout its history: that its powers are too great, and that it lacks the oversight and management to be effective. We can preserve our freedoms and our security better by dismantling DHS and beginning anew.
...

More:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/08/09/dhs-portland-civil-liberties-abuses-black-lives-matter-homeland-column/3319009001/

Will others echo the call?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15492

Posted
Posted

I'm down.

The department never should've been created in the first place.

But if we do survive the Trump era as a Republic, we need to look at how close we came to dictatorship.  And we need to recognize that all of the tools are there for the next demagogue to make that happen.  And a critical tool is DHS, as reflected in Portland.

We need to take those tools out of the garage and throw them in the landfill.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18656

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Massive government expansion by the Bush/Cheney administration. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be against that.

Republicans love big government if it means the private sector can make obscene amounts of money off of government contracts. Bonus if it hurts poor people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31272

Posted
Posted

This makes a lot more sense than abolish ICE, which I thought was more of a tantrum than a meaningful policy suggestion.

The responsibilities of the "sub-agencies" will devolve on some agencies, presumably the same or similar ones as before, but it's much better that it be decentralized.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31272

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Republicans love big government if it means the private sector can make obscene amounts of money off of government contracts. Bonus if it hurts poor people.

There's that, which is probably the ultimate answer.  But there's also the argument that certain federal functions, like the military and national defense and security are legitimate, while others not so much.  That whole "provide for the common defense" thing, as opposed to "create and prosecute federal crimes and a bloated federal criminal investigation apparatus and prison system."

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15492

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This makes a lot more sense than abolish ICE, which I thought was more of a tantrum than a meaningful policy suggestion.

The responsibilities of the "sub-agencies" will devolve on some agencies, presumably the same or similar ones as before, but it's much better that it be decentralized.

It's like Customs and Border Patrol--those used to be in the Department of the Treasury.  And that's where they belong, because the primary purpose of those agencies is to collect tariffs on incoming goods.

That's part of why ICE should be abolished.  Its customs function is not particularly compatible with its immigration-enforcement function.  Customs agents are at ports of entry; immigration-enforcement officers are not.

Split off immigration, recreate it as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which is what it was called before 2003, and put it back with the Department of Labor, where it belongs.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29243

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Macanudo said:

Yes.  And criminal prosecution of several who worked for the DHS, supported it or helped create it.

Esto. Everyone who committed a crime, even if they were just following orders, needs to go to fucking prison. Everyone. That's even more important than simply breaking up DHS in terms of helping prevent the rise of a future dictator. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Esto. Everyone who committed a crime, even if they were just following orders, needs to go to fucking prison. Everyone. That's even more important than simply breaking up DHS in terms of helping prevent the rise of a future dictator. 

This is a bridge too far. I think GhostLL has the most reasoned and best approach here and fully agree with his take. When you add in the foolishness and nonsense like the above, but do it with seriousness, it is a disservice to the movement and conversation IMO.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32701

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Rougarou said:

This is a bridge too far. I think GhostLL has the most reasoned and best approach here and fully agree with his take. When you add in the foolishness and nonsense like the above, but do it with seriousness, it is a disservice to the movement and conversation IMO.

Oh yes, prosecuting people for breaking the law is a bridge too far.

Thanks to those with attitudes like yours, the next iteration will have the same problems.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15492

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Rougarou said:

This is a bridge too far. I think GhostLL has the most reasoned and best approach here and fully agree with his take. When you add in the foolishness and nonsense like the above, but do it with seriousness, it is a disservice to the movement and conversation IMO.

 

24 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Oh yes, prosecuting people for breaking the law is a bridge too far.

Thanks to those with attitudes like yours, the next iteration will have the same problems.

So on the one hand, I think prosecuting people who formed the DHS is a bridge too far.  There was nothing illegal about DHS, and we don't prosecute people for differences of political opinion.  Likewise, people who followed legal--albeit immoral--orders are above prosecution.

At the same time, there are people who have committed crimes.  Fuckers in Portland who are kidnapping people; fuckers in the desert who slash water bottles so that immigrants will die of thirst--those are illegal orders.

It is easy to say "what's past is past, and let's move forward."  No doubt, that is the politically popular thing to do.  So Rougarou is completely right that talking about prosecutions of government officials probably loses you votes.

At the same time, it's this outlook that allowed the South to win the Civil War.  If you don't prosecute traitors for treason, if you pretend that they're upstanding Americans that can go back to their plantations, then it shouldn't surprise when they change the name of chattel slavery to "sharecropping" and continue on as though nothing changed.  Following the Rougarou path-of-least-resistance makes good political sense today.  But it ensures that slaves remain slaves for another century.

How many of us refuse to be slaves?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

 

So on the one hand, I think prosecuting people who formed the DHS is a bridge too far.  There was nothing illegal about DHS, and we don't prosecute people for differences of political opinion.  Likewise, people who followed legal--albeit immoral--orders are above prosecution.

At the same time, there are people who have committed crimes.  Fuckers in Portland who are kidnapping people; fuckers in the desert who slash water bottles so that immigrants will die of thirst--those are illegal orders.

It is easy to say "what's past is past, and let's move forward."  No doubt, that is the politically popular thing to do.  So Rougarou is completely right that talking about prosecutions of government officials probably loses you votes.

At the same time, it's this outlook that allowed the South to win the Civil War.  If you don't prosecute traitors for treason, if you pretend that they're upstanding Americans that can go back to their plantations, then it shouldn't surprise when they change the name of chattel slavery to "sharecropping" and continue on as though nothing changed.  Following the Rougarou path-of-least-resistance makes good political sense today.  But it ensures that slaves remain slaves for another century.

How many of us refuse to be slaves?

As you've rightly characterized (and can probably surmise from my other posts around issues e.g. Defund Police) I'm a proponent of Capital I Incrementalism as a methodology for transformational changes.

There are negatives and cons for every proposed solution, and you bring up the flaws in incrementalism, but the decision needs to be based on the weights and the net value. I think, and the point of my post, was that if you take a very reasonable (in your words, politically practical and expedient) change and add a bunch of extreme language then you are going to lose support and the goodwill from the pool which we would call "broadly appealling". This is essentially the same reason that progressives, for being so smart, lose (channeling my inner Jeff Daniels here).

But yea sure, go after the kidnappers and those you mentioned, that's understood.

Edited by Rougarou
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20421

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Massive government expansion by the Bush/Cheney administration. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be against that.

DHS and Medicare D disabused me of that notion.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
  • Author
Posted

When I posted the OP, the ACLU did not have anything about this call for dismantling the DHS on their website.  USA Today had published the op/ed from the executive director.  I see this morning that the ACLU has now published it on their website today:

https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/dismantle-the-department-of-homeland-security-its-tactics-are-fearsome/

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23395

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Yeah, 100%, obviously.

Get it the hell out.

I want Big Government that helps people lead more dignified lives. I don't want Big Government that has guns and surveils.

The best way for government to help people live with dignity is to let them live with liberty.  But if the choice is what we currently have versus whatever BT suggests, I'll take his utopia over cluster bombs dropped on school buses full of brown kids, drone strikes, and an index finger two knuckles deep up grandmas ass to board a plane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23395

Posted
Posted
On 8/11/2020 at 11:10 AM, wildcat09 said:

Esto. Everyone who committed a crime, even if they were just following orders, needs to go to fucking prison. Everyone. That's even more important than simply breaking up DHS in terms of helping prevent the rise of a future dictator. 

Hang them all on the national mall and sell tickets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...