Talk:Homeland security/Archives/2015

[Untitled]
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)


 * It is not only an "artifact of the nationalist sentiment". Homeland Security (HS) and National Security (NS) have in the US very different organisational structures and different missions. In the US case, the NS strategy states that the main way America protects its National Security interest is via the "projection of national power" (ie. making the defense of the US interest and away game).


 * On the other hand, HS is in the US context a very clear internal policy to defend the territory (something national security in the US doesn't do!). But you're right that it does sounds similar to the german heimatland, traditionally associated to the tectonic love for the "local" (think of heidi ;) ), and sounds weird in the context of this "nation of immigrants", this "melting pot" with a highly mobile population.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalfy2k (talk • contribs) 11:25, 5 October 2009 (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

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)

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.

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.

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:

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

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

TrixieKat (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC) One could argue that the unlawful combatants would fall under homeland defense rather than homeland security (HS) because it deals with people captured outside of the country. So, the people living within the U.S. scooped up by the FBI immediately following 9/11 would be part of HS policies, but the "unlawful combatants" scooped up in Afghanistan and then brought to Guantanamo would be categorized as homeland defense policy. Following that argument, the section should not even appear in this article. What does everyone else think?

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)

External link cruft
There are at least four "value added" vendors in the external links section that do little more than blog about the news and sell ad space. What's the best argument for keeping some or all of them? Thanks! - JeffJonez (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Use In Other Countries
From the page "The term [homeland security] is currently not in use in any other countries [than US]". This isn't true it is definitely a term that is "floating around" in the UK. Marketing people use it it the communications sector. Type "homeland security uk" and see how many hits you get. There's a book. --Salocin-yel (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Use In Popular Culture
Why does the page redirect to "4chan"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.7.91 (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At the time of your writing it was undergoing a series of attacks by a group of vandals (or a single vandal posing as a group). Redirection the page to 4chan was caused by one of the attacks. Peasantwarrior (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dangers or a watch of actions
Is it incumbent on wiki to be a free and objective observer of HS? To note and record actions taken by this entity, observable verifiable actions? HS actions with Occupy Wall Street protests seem a likely source.

Dwaink (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Added rest of the World section.
Added Rest of the World section, where the undelying entendre of the term, the phrase, the conjunction of affairs, are in direct relation to the form and manner that the SS Gestapo at the beginning of the last century started, ´homeland´ security, and each and every other instance off extreme right and ultra communist, all under a lable of, ´homeland security´. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.189.225 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This needs to be supported with reliable sources, and probably does not fit under the US heading anyway. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One option for broadening this article could be to look at the content in the interwiki-linked German article, de:Innere Sicherheit (roughly Internal Security), which covers largely the European take on it. --Delirium (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)