4 ms·

The Coast Guard was placed there for financial gerrymandering. The idea that they are part of DHS is a horrible joke. Same with most of what you mentioned. Bus

The Coast Guard was placed there for financial gerrymandering. The idea that they are part of DHS is a horrible joke. Same with most of what you mentioned. Bush/Obama has shoved everything in there to create a psuedo military branch so it can't be declined in the future. Disgusting actions, honestly.

tptacek 14y ago
USCG isn't part of TSA; they just happen to report to the same cabinet secretary. I'd guess that the boating run-in here was with CBP.
- homosaur 14y ago
  Perhaps my understanding of the USCG is underinformed then, I was under the impression that they were moved from the command of the Marines into DHS years ago. Are they simply an independent police organization then?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Yes, more or less. Remember: DHS exists because after 9/11, politicians got a bug up their ass about how many different federal agencies there were with missions that involved interior security, and decided there should be one cabinet-level authority managing all of those functions. It was not a well-thought-out thing; it is literally a meatball of different security, law enforcement, safety, military, and even scientific agencies. Which makes it an odd subject for directed contempt.
    - homosaur 14y ago
      Makes that they did that instead of addressing the actual security issue of 9/11 which was lack of intelligence sharing between FBI/CIA/etc I guess. Or maybe that's what the de facto merger of military and CIA is supposed to accomplish.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Intelligence sharing was indeed one of the key reasons they thought it would be smart to make the DHS meatball.
    - yukoncornelius 14y ago
      Not even close the USCG was under the Dept of Transportation not the Marines before being merged into DHS in 2002. Also, in time of war the Navy can annex the USCG.
ajross 14y ago
The Coast Guard is part of DHS, not the TSA. The point is that DHS is a big organization with many parts that have long-existing structure and control systems. It's not just the yahoos looking at full body scans at airports.
- homosaur 14y ago
  That was just a mistype from looking at previous post, I'm halfway through a bottle of whiskey here after being snowed in the house all day, so be lenient.
rayiner 14y ago
Bush/Obama shoved everything in there because people it was a national outrage after 9/11 that we had different departments for these things. We got what we goddamned asked for. It's not Bush's fault, or Obama's fault, but your fault and my fault.
- adventured 14y ago
  Speak for yourself. I didn't ask for that.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Why should everyone accept collective blame for decisions they didn't make or support in any way?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Because we live in a society where we've empowered the majority to make decisions like this. We reap the benefits when it turns out well, we should share the blame when it turns out poorly.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      That seems like a non sequitur. There is a linguistic symmetry to your suggestion, but I don't think that is a good argument for agreeing with it. Basically, I don't see any practical value to feeling like it's my fault that a bunch of other people made a decision that affects me negatively, nor would I take credit for other people's decisions that affect me positively when I originally disagreed with them.

tptacek 14y ago

USCG isn't part of TSA; they just happen to report to the same cabinet secretary. I'd guess that the boating run-in here was with CBP.

homosaur 14y ago
Perhaps my understanding of the USCG is underinformed then, I was under the impression that they were moved from the command of the Marines into DHS years ago. Are they simply an independent police organization then?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Yes, more or less. Remember: DHS exists because after 9/11, politicians got a bug up their ass about how many different federal agencies there were with missions that involved interior security, and decided there should be one cabinet-level authority managing all of those functions. It was not a well-thought-out thing; it is literally a meatball of different security, law enforcement, safety, military, and even scientific agencies. Which makes it an odd subject for directed contempt.
  - homosaur 14y ago
    Makes that they did that instead of addressing the actual security issue of 9/11 which was lack of intelligence sharing between FBI/CIA/etc I guess. Or maybe that's what the de facto merger of military and CIA is supposed to accomplish.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Intelligence sharing was indeed one of the key reasons they thought it would be smart to make the DHS meatball.
  - yukoncornelius 14y ago
    Not even close the USCG was under the Dept of Transportation not the Marines before being merged into DHS in 2002. Also, in time of war the Navy can annex the USCG.

ajross 14y ago

The Coast Guard is part of DHS, not the TSA. The point is that DHS is a big organization with many parts that have long-existing structure and control systems. It's not just the yahoos looking at full body scans at airports.

homosaur 14y ago
That was just a mistype from looking at previous post, I'm halfway through a bottle of whiskey here after being snowed in the house all day, so be lenient.

rayiner 14y ago

Bush/Obama shoved everything in there because people it was a national outrage after 9/11 that we had different departments for these things. We got what we goddamned asked for. It's not Bush's fault, or Obama's fault, but your fault and my fault.

adventured 14y ago
Speak for yourself. I didn't ask for that.
nitrogen 14y ago
Why should everyone accept collective blame for decisions they didn't make or support in any way?
- rayiner 14y ago
  Because we live in a society where we've empowered the majority to make decisions like this. We reap the benefits when it turns out well, we should share the blame when it turns out poorly.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    That seems like a non sequitur. There is a linguistic symmetry to your suggestion, but I don't think that is a good argument for agreeing with it. Basically, I don't see any practical value to feeling like it's my fault that a bunch of other people made a decision that affects me negatively, nor would I take credit for other people's decisions that affect me positively when I originally disagreed with them.