Talk:Homeland security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can anyone explain or justify the difference (in the U.S. between "homeland security" and "national security")? --Daniel C. Boyer

Yeah; We don't have one departmnt of "national security," we have a Departmet of Defense to maintain the military; anything else is "homeland security."
Actually, we have the National Security Agency. I wouldn't be adverse to a section in this article comparing/contrasting with national security --Babomb
It's simply an artifact of the nationalist sentiment in the wake of 9/11. "Homeland" has become the American equivalent to the Nazi use of "Fatherland" and the Soviet use of "Motherland". I personally despise the term, but it seems it's here to stay. 71.203.209.0 00:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Could there perhaps be a better way to put it than "justified by potential guerrilla attacks or terrorism"? Perhaps there might be some question whether the actions were justified or no. --Daniel C. Boyer

Am I the only person that considers the term "homeland security" somewhat Orwellian? When, before 9/11, have Americans ever refered to the United States as our "homeland"? Although in a loose sense it is, as in it is where I live and where many of us where born, it feels to me like a neologism that the Bush administration concocted to manipulate feelings of "patriotism" (read: Jingoism and nationalism. Under the wikipedia definition of "homeland", a homeland is where people where born, or where historically their ethnic group has lived (i.e. Zionism, etc.) However, the United States is a nation of immigrants from many diverse cultural and religious backrounds. The United States of America is seen as the near-definitive polyglot culture. Further, many americans are naturialized citizens; immigrants who are full citizens but where not born citizens. The Madeline Albright and Henry Kissenger, et al, were not "born here", and no one ethnic group defines america. America, before 9/11, was never truly described as a "homeland", and in my opinion, the phrase homeland security is another attempt by the Bush administration to divide the world into two camps, "us vs. them, in keeping with his statement that "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists".--Ricimer

"Homeland" security seems well intentioned but a poor word choice. It has a sense of pre-WWII German ultra-nationalism. I'd prefer something like "Domestic Security" or perhaps a vague term like "the Department of Support Services and Emergency Recovery."

These are the same ideas are less SWAT-Team and more Soup Kitchen and blankets. There is nothing to prevent a DSSER from doing exactly the same job, just without the harsh connotation.

-K


Contents

[edit] Essentially Wrong

This entry is essentially wrong.

Homeland Security is not a "neologism". While the term has surged in its popular use of late, it's founding traditions go as far back as at least the constitution in this country and further in terms of its use. The concept of "homeland" emerged in the 17th century as a wartime term for the place where vanquished people are forced back to.

The difference between now and the past is that Homeland Security was often thought of as an implied power of local and state governments granted by the 10th amendment of the constitution. As Federal jurisdication has increasingly encrouched upon state powers, so has the responsibility for domestic emergency response.

11 Sep 2001 was the catalyst for changes in regards to homeland security and terrorism. As recently as the Clinton adminstration in 1997, it was suggested that a major reorganization was needed in order to better prepare the country for a growing domestic terrorism danger.

The actions the government has taken in terms of "homeland security" have been numerious. I believe the examples of "New domestic surveillance and spying efforts, particularly with respect to immigration, transportation, military installations, and utilities" and "Secret arrests and detentions" are somewhat misleading "NPOV(?)" and require some substantiation if they are to be used in this context. An authoratative source is warranted if they are to remain as written.

Lets see...what else. The difference between Homeland Security and Homeland Defense. 1)Homeland security is the prevention, preemption, and deterrence of, and defense against, aggression targeted at U.S. territory, sovereignty, domestic population, and infrastructure as well as the management of the consequences of such aggression and other domestic emergencies.2)Homeland defense is a subheading of homeland security. It is the protection of U.S. territory, domestic population and critical infrastructure against military attacks emanating from outside the United States. National Security differs from Homeland security in that it takes on an international element and involves protecting and promoting the United States to the world.

For these reasons, I plan on doing a major edit to this entry in the future after seeing what responses I receive from this discussion entry. As written currently, the entry implies a bias without really explaining the term.

Cavaraba

Linking to the Wikipedia entry for Homeland would be good here.
As long as you cite your sources (no original research), such contributions would be welcome. Remember for this entry that information on prior usage of the term "Homeland Security" is appropriate here and information on the simpler term "Homeland" is not. "Choice of the term" might be better included under "Criticisms of the term", as might any information on any other nations/lack of other nations which use the term.213.86.59.92 15:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article doesn't expain the term very well, but if you're planning a major edit I'd like to see sources. Twilight Realm 07:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong meaning?

Is it just me, or does it seem that the third paragraph is trying to say that either the Department of Homeland Security itself is a hazard or is also trying to be protected?

69.255.122.196 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objectives

I can't say that I agree with this analysis:

It can be argued such calming effect is in fact a positive result, being a natural antagonism of terror, which is presumably the motive of terrorists.

It seems to me that terror is used as a tool by both state and non-state actors ("terrorists") in order to achieve an objective, usually political, not an end to itself. The statement doesn't seem to be sourced very well either. --124.189.122.147 13:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The article seems driven by critique.

[edit] Rather severe, but needed

I have rewritten the criticism section, which seemed entirely too personal and slanted, and I hope this is more neutral. If the author feels strongly about my editing, he is invited to revert portions, subject to review.

[edit] Criticism

Homeland security both as a concept and in its application has been criticized on a number of counts, the more prominent of those being:

  • Conflicts, real and perceived, exist between the Constitution, textually, and its historical interpretation, on one hand, and laws and procedures implemented as part of "Homeland Security", most importantly concerning the rights of citizens to privacy and protection from arbitrary searches and seizures.
  • Conflicts exist between bodies of international law (ratified by the United States or not) and those applied under "Homeland Security". Notable among these are :
 -- The notion of "unlawful combatant". The United States Government has created a new status that would exclude prisoners captured by a military force from coverage under the Geneva Convention. While the United States has only been a signatory to portions of the Geneva Convention, much international law is based upon it. While benefiting from the workings of international laws, the US Government should be bound by the documents on which that law rests.
 -- Undercover action of agents of the US Government in foreign, sovereign countries. Whether with or without the knowledge of the respective foreign governments, this could pose serious legal problems, especially in countries that practice a separation of judicial and administrative systems. Occasionally such undercover agents are held to appear before courts, a situation which the US Government would not prefer.
  • While the costs of "Homeland Security" can be estimated with some accuracy, it is inherently impossible to gauge the benefits incurred. There are those who argue that the entire effort is merely to reassure the populace that security will be improved, and thereby offset the intended effect of terrorism.

Dfoofnik (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else notice that this article states that Bill Cosby heads the Homeland Security Council? That certainly isn't right. -JoelDave

[edit] Casino Security

Does anyone know and can reference in an encyclopedic manner the technology that the the Las Vegas casinos were using decades ago to spot MIT card counters? Doug Youvan (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)