this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2026

164 points (98.2% liked)

News

36994 readers

1524 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

164

Not just ICE: Do we need DHS? (www.salon.com)

submitted 3 days ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

No we don't.

Considering that TSA, a part of DHS, let more than 90% of guns get through when tested speaks volumes. The new statistics on that have been classified so I guess we just trust then when they say they've caught as lot of guns.

Know why you go through this scanners at the airport? Because a former congressman owns (owned?) a large stake in the company that produces them.

Our intelligence knew all about 9/11 before it happened. A whole new agency wasn't necessary, just new rules.

Considering all of the laws ICE is breaking in the name of punishing what amounts to a misdemeanor, I think we could go back to not having them.

But you know what we COULD use? How about some healthcare?

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, that's what the FBI is for.

They saw a problem after 9-11 (government agencies not communicating), and decided to solve it by adding further government agencies, all of which compete with each other for budget.

BRILLIANT

[–] pigup@lemmy.world 52 points 3 days ago

[–] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 38 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Have they found ANYTHING in the 13 YEARS they have been in operation?

That one guy with a shoe was stopped by a customer, not DHS.

We could have fed children in schools. Think of the children.

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Only 13? I thought it started after 9/11.

[–] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began operations on March 1, 2003, after being established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

911 was September 11 2001. Government works slow. They are STILL trying to figure out if freeing the slaves was a good idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That's 23 years, not 13

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago

Sshhh... I was basking in the relative calm of the Obama years for a moment.

[–] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

Sorry, you are correct. Pre-coffee typing.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

When it's an agency that's about prevention, the lack of terrorism incidents is not really a failure on their part. All the security theatre nonsense is obviously wasteful but that is a different point.

[–] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Prevent WHAT?

Something that already happened? The FBI knew about the hijackers. They LET it happen.

We've already fixed the problem with secure cockpit doors. There is no need to pat down grandma on her way to Disneyland.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Prevention of terrorist attacks is the point. Having no terror attacks doesn't mean there would be none without them. As I said , security theatre, patting down grandma, is not the success. I'd be inclined to listen to the experts. However, I'm worried this administration no longer has any.

[–] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So we agree that anything can be used for good or evil and this is now being used for evil.

I can live with that.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

I don't disagree. My point is about how we measure success. For a state apparatus that is meant to prevent terrorism, the lack of airplane based terrorism is not necessarily a sign that it's not needed. It can also be a sign of it's success.

However, it's a giant organization with lots of useless parts, too. Like parting down grandma, or more likely abuela.

[–] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

DHS was created in direct response to the 9/11 attacks. It is an agency that was created with the goal of coordinating efforts and information sharing between multiple other agencies so that we don't miss the signs of a terror attack again. But, as many people predicted at the time, that mission has been blurred and subverted. We now have a massively bloated and over-funded agency that acts like it is in control of all the other agencies it was meant to coordinate, without any real mandate to give them such authority. I'm in favor of getting rid of them altogether.

[–] blackbearjesus27@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

John Oliver, who has his own problems, does a really good breakdown on how the original idea got spun so far out of the intentions. Essentially its exactly what you said below in a nice 20 minute video. Good stuff.

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What are John Oliver's problems? I haven't heard any controversies as of late. Other than the Paramount Skydance thing, of course.

[–] blackbearjesus27@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No no its more that he does a really good job of trying to present “both sides” (understanding some of those arguments are complete bullshit) but sometimes doesnt spend enough time either debunking or recognizing valid arguments.

I say that agreeing with his general point on a lot of stuff.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

Any specific examples? Asking out of legit curiosity

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No, not really. Their name "homeland security" has always been a little too nazi-1984-ish sounding for me. The Federal Emergency Management people and programs are sometimes useful though.

[–] gnate@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Only when it's properly funded. But we can do that.

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Make an exception for FEMA and throw out the rest.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

FEMA predates DHS. It got rolled intoit post 9/11.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The Coast Guard also got moved under DHS.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago

Which is weird since you'd think it'd be under the national guard.

[–] dkppunk@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago

I’d add some aspects of CBP as well, but drastically reducing their scope to strictly export control of goods. They do important work with shipping, licensing, and trade with other countries. This can be very important to researchers and universities working with international organizations or in international waters.

I know they have a very well deserved bad rep, however, some of the things they do are important. Maybe even just peeling away their export control and agricultural work to a separate entity then chucking the rest of it out.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 5 points 3 days ago

We never needed DHS, it was always a Conservative surveillance program.

[–] Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Typical Republican playbook. Infiltrate all government institutions, run them into the ground, and point at their failures and say the government can't do shit.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Are you trying to defend DHS? You do realize it was created by Republicans right? George W. Bush created it taking advantage of the panic following 9/11. It's an entirely redundant organization whose function can be met by the existing institutions that were doing the various jobs prior to it being formed. ALL of the legislation that was passed as a result of 9/11 needs to be repealed, and that includes the creation of the DHS.

[–] Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Not exactly defending it, just stating the Republican playbook. It's why we can't have nice things.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Yeah but in this case they weren't actually trying to starve the beast. They just really suck that much at governance.

[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago

No. It was always pork and did absolutely nothing to make us "safer"

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

[–] TheHighRoad@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Not JustICE is the most accurate headline ever.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

“You don’t need it, WE need it.”

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago

Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

Someone Lemmy hates.