BACK
President George Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC
15 June 2002
RE: Office Of Homeland Security ~
Dear President Bush:
I am writing concerning the
formation of the cabinet level Office of Homeland Security, and why I, and many
others, are opposed to it. I write this as a registered and voting Republican
and Bush Administration supporter.
I have been steadfastly
supportive of your administration’s response to the terrorist attack of
September 11th. Certainly, with your current approval ratings, so are many
more. Yet, concerning this one issue, I am a little surprised that the
objection hasn’t been more vocal. Our rights and liberty are all that set
America apart from the rest. WWII couldn't destroy them, but a handful of
fundamentalist fanatics can? We already had all the protection from the CIA,
FBI, NSA and Military Intelligence agencies we needed if they just did their
job. After all, isn't what worked in WW II and beyond still effective?
It has been intimated that any
criticism at this time is “counter-productive” and “strengthens
the hands of the terrorists” and those who would harm us. It is grossly
unfair to question the loyalty of those with credible and valid concerns
pertaining to the monumental decisions the administration is making, especially
from its most ardent and committed supporters.
I quote from the e-journal
The Federalist
:
“...Though the reasoning
behind the President's proposal is sound, The Federalist has significant
concerns, foremost being about the effectiveness of centralizing responsibility
for these HomSec measures, as government centralization often produces
bureaucratic mission creep and inertia that is counterproductive and eludes
oversight and accountability. Regarding accountability, we also have serious
concerns, as we noted after the President's appointment of his Homeland
Security Advisor last September, about the potential for civil liberty abuses
by this Department – particularly under a future Leftist administration
similar to the former Clinton regime....”
The Federalist
strikes me as a supporter of the Bush Administration, yet their tone, as well
as those they represent, is grave. Although I have no doubt your intentions
and motives in forming this super agency are genuine and indisputable, what
happens in the future when the terrorist threat is suppressed—and it
will
be suppressed—is very doubtful. The previous restraints on the FBI, for
example, that Director Mueller has been decrying were placed there for
documented reasons. No, I understand the need for the FBI to be able to
utilize every avenue in the war on terrorism; yet the danger to the American
way of life and liberty from a rogue administration in the future—with the
interpretation of a “terrorist” quickly becoming an ambiguous and
arbitrary one—portends its own peculiar and inevitable danger.
Second, “growing the
bureaucracy” is the antithesis of fundamental Republican principle and
doctrine. A qualified veteran retired Federal agent I had opportunity to
interview on an unrelated matter said this:
“...The United States of America is a unique nation with a unique
Constitution. We must resist the temptation to fall into line with other
nations who have abrogated individual rights, become socialistic paternalistic
controllers of thoughts, minds and hearts (!) of their citizenry. Power
corrupts—that is one true fact of society and history. Power must be
decentralized, fragmented, scrupulously examined, and held accountable. The
American law enforcement community has to be a protector of the rights of
citizens against the tyrannies of government even more than it sees its
responsibilities to apprehend criminals ... As long as politicians are using
law enforcement officers to repress democracy—we have a serious problem.
We must look to the politicians first....”
Centralizing the agencies
slated for annexation to the Office of Homeland Security stands in stark
contrast to this, especially with the uncertainty in the future after the
conclusion of your second term. Most people I talk to who tentatively support
this are business administrators and managers, their shrewd and logical minds
understanding the advantage of managerial consolidation and streamlining. Yet,
there are very few forward thinkers in this forum. The American form of
government is peculiar in being first and foremost instituted to protect
liberty and our God-given inalienable rights. This new agency will jeopardize
that. It is not a matter of if, but when.
I believe I speak for many;
these concerns not whimsical or trivial, but filtered through the prism of
national and world history. Careless advancement in this area might buy a
little temporary security now, but the future does not bode well. Government
might be able to 'secure' some property, but it cannot secure the minds and
hearts of men without denying freedom.
Nevertheless, I understand the
intricate complexities and challenges of our times and the formidable tasks
facing your administration. Our sincere prayers and heartfelt support are with
you and Laura, that you may continue to prevail in the national and
international arena in these perilous times.
My Deepest Respects and Regards,
Michael A. Baker
Michael A. Baker
www.salemthesoldier.us
CC:
Vice-President Dick Cheney
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Congressional Representative
Ken Calvert
U.S. House of Representatives
2201 Rayburn House Office
Building
Washington DC, 20515-0001
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003