Comments on: Posner: US needs an MI5 http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/15/posner-us-needs-an-mi5/ News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security today. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:05:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Brian http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/15/posner-us-needs-an-mi5/#comment-11697 Brian Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:55:41 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/15/posner-us-needs-an-mi5/#comment-11697 Not being constitutional lawyer, it seems to me that the critical point we should never cross is to link intelligence collection with law enforcement, which we are unfortunately doing on a limited level. We have to separate and divest any intelligence collection from the FBI, or we will witness a Soviet style GRU. It would be at that juncture that would we would truly have a Big Brother atmosphere. Besides the terrorist, the problem is that Congress truly lacks courage and statesmen, and this is on both sides of the aisle. We all know something has to be done, but Congress would rather stick their collective heads in the sand. Not being constitutional lawyer, it seems to me that the critical point we should never cross is to link intelligence collection with law enforcement, which we are unfortunately doing on a limited level. We have to separate and divest any intelligence collection from the FBI, or we will witness a Soviet style GRU. It would be at that juncture that would we would truly have a Big Brother atmosphere.

Besides the terrorist, the problem is that Congress truly lacks courage and statesmen, and this is on both sides of the aisle. We all know something has to be done, but Congress would rather stick their collective heads in the sand.

]]> By: Left Flank - Post details: The MI5 Obsession http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/15/posner-us-needs-an-mi5/#comment-11542 Left Flank - Post details: The MI5 Obsession Wed, 16 Aug 2006 02:26:48 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/2006/08/15/posner-us-needs-an-mi5/#comment-11542 [...] Setting the civil rights issue aside (and I agree with the Georgetown blog’s author, that it is important not to trample all over them in the haste to propose bad ideas), those “institutional hangups” reflect the emphasis on decentralization inherent in the US Constitution, not a bad thing on a sunny day, or even a cloudy day. As a commenter on Decision ‘08 remarks about the last “solution”, the Department of Homeland Security, “Coordination and collaboration can be accomplished without having to put all these agencies under one cabinet level official (who cant possibly direct, monitor, and manage such a beast).” So why doesn’t it? How would a new bureacracy change the probability of the same sort of problem? Christian Beckner does a disservice when he argues: [...] […] Setting the civil rights issue aside (and I agree with the Georgetown blog’s author, that it is important not to trample all over them in the haste to propose bad ideas), those “institutional hangups” reflect the emphasis on decentralization inherent in the US Constitution, not a bad thing on a sunny day, or even a cloudy day. As a commenter on Decision ‘08 remarks about the last “solution”, the Department of Homeland Security, “Coordination and collaboration can be accomplished without having to put all these agencies under one cabinet level official (who cant possibly direct, monitor, and manage such a beast).” So why doesn’t it? How would a new bureacracy change the probability of the same sort of problem? Christian Beckner does a disservice when he argues: […]

]]>