The new Sicherheitsdienst

[markomalley]

Its been a while since I've been on this board, so this may have been discussed already. If so, my apologies. But, if not, here's something I did up a couple of days ago...I hope you like it:

Well, I hope they are happy. Both sides have created a National Intelligence director. You know what I see? I see a new Sicherheitsdienst (SD).

CNN says,
the legislation establishes a new director of national intelligence to oversee the nation's 15 military and civilian spy agencies and make sure they work together...


It's too long to quote, but check out the description of the SD in the Wikipedia. Sounds chillingly familiar.

What aggrevates me here is that both sides let the cause of freedom and individual liberty down here. Although some would prefer I blame Bush, I can't lavish all my disgust in his direction. There is plenty to go around to the other side of the aisle here, as well. The vote in the Senate was 89-2...one dem and one repub voted against it.

Folks, if you supported this abortion, I hope you recognize what your support has done. Unfortunately, the paranoids appear to be more and more correct...its doubtful we'll recognize this country when its all said and done.

Let's take a look at specifics. I don't have the time to go through all 563 pages in the new law. (You can look up S. 2845 on
The national security act (50 USC 401a) has been modified to strike the word "foreign" from the "national foreign intelligence prorgram."

Oh, here's a good one. You know that television signals are transitioning from analog to digital, right? (Would apparently have nothing to do with intelligence, but it is in this act...). Well, there is now a deadline for this: 2007. Why is there a deadline? Because some of the frequencies currently used for television are going to be turned over to DHS for their use. And so they are going to place a deadline on making all existing televisions obsolete in order to accomplish that.

Another really important feature of this bill: it prohibits passengers from carrying butane lighters aboard aircraft. (Flicking your bic is a threat to national security, apparently).

There's a bunch more. I just don't have the time to go through all 563 pages. Sorry.

Here's the bottom line: there are significant structural changes that have just been made to the Federal government. A whole bunch of power has just been consolidated into the hands of one man and the agency he will run. This man (or woman) has been given the power of the pursestrings over all intelligence resources within the Federal government. Anybody who has ever worked within the government should realize that this is a HUGE amount of power. (I want you to recall, for example, when the Feds raised the drinking age from 18 to 21...they don't have the power to do so, so how they did it was by threatening the states to withhold their federal highway funds if the states didn't raise the drinking age. Same thing with lowering the DUI limit from .1 to .08. That's how you exert influence in the government is by controlling the money)

I am not so paranoid about this power being abused.....yet. But, after this becomes the norm in a few years and everybody forgets about it, then that power will be able to be exerted. Here's the neat part of it: because it involves intelligence information, you and I will not be able to monitor it and have oversight. Most of Congress won't be able to do so either...the only ones in Congress that will have full oversight are those who are assigned in senior positions on the correct committees. And we can all see how good a job of oversight Congress does. So, this agency will be essentially able to operate without any of the normal checks upon which government agencies have to operate. Because it will all be secret (Ok, well Top Secret/Codeword).

The implication is that rumors will abound. The dems will have rumors floating around whenever a repub president is in office. The repubs will have rumors whenever a dem president is in office. We won't be able to check on those rumors because there won't be any reliable information available. It's not like you have one agency now keeping tabs on the others (turf wars resulting in press leaks). The vast majority on both sides of the aisle have supported this bill. I hope they will be happy with it in 10 years.


My only question is, who is going to be our version of Heydrich?

[Dzimbowicz]

1. I sorry that I cannot answer your question

but have you noticed that the personal protection organizations for both the US President and Hitler have/had the same initials?

Secret Service and Schutzstaffel are/were both abbreviated SS (although the Germans used the runic version of the letters, it was still pronounced SS).

I can also point out some changes made to the US Army uniform which make it strikingly similar to the uniform worn by the German Army of the past two world wars.

[PurityOfEssence]

2. The first time I saw that new helmet was during the coverage of Grenada

For many of us at the time, that was the Rubicon of unscrupulous imperialism, and the news footage showed soldiers wearing what looked like old Wehrmacht helmets. I'd had no idea of the equipment changes before this, and seeing that was quite a symbolic hit.

The Reagan Years destroyed this country, changing our expectations and feelings of entitlement in ways that are hard to estimate. Kerry was right: it was a time of great moral darkness, and he should have stood up for that statement.

[Dzimbowicz]

4. The helmet is not the only item

The fatigue (Army) or utility (USMC) uniform up until the 1970s required that the shirt (or blouse as per USMC terminology) be tucked in. With the new Battle Dress Uniform, the shirt is worn out which was how the former German Army wore it. The Germans had a belt (at all times with this uniform), which can be compared to the utility belt worn at times by US military personnel.

Also, the positioning of one's rank insignia on the new Army uniform is similar to how the former German Army wore theirs. In the past, an enlisted soldier (US) wore the chevrons on the sleeve. Today it is worn on the collar, the exceptions being for the full dress uniform (Class A) where it is still on the sleeve of the jacket. However, on the dress uniform shirt an enlisted soldier's rank can now be either gold chevrons on the collar or (as the Germans wore it) on their shoulder. Officers, on the other hand, do not have this option with their dress shirt, the rank insignia must be worn on the shoulder.

[markomalley]

7. Is this a matter of practicality or a matter of philsophy? n/;t

[Dzimbowicz]

11. I can see practicality

with the field uniform (the helmet could have retained the same M-1942 pattern, but be made of kevlar without sacrificing protection), but the dress uniform leaves me with questions. As someone who served in both the USMC and the National Guard (Army), I did not like the way in which the new Army uniforms were designed. The Marine dress uniform is still the same, but, if I remember correctly (this was twenty years ago) the Army stated that it was trying to make their uniforms less martial in appearence. I much preferred the old khakis; they actually looked like uniforms. Once again, that is just my opinion.

[markomalley]

5. I hadn't noticed the resemblence between the SS and the SS

but don't particularly think it relevant, as the Secret Service has been around since the time of Lincoln. Long before the Schutzstaffel. Maybe they were copying the formation of the Secret Service?????

[Dzimbowicz]

6. True

about the origin of the Secret Service. However, they do have the same initials. I was only trying to follow what I perceived as a trend you were outlining.

[peacetalksforall]

3. If we do find that the practice of the closed information is against the

constitution and anyone takes it to court, we're going to find right wing ss/pnac courts the way it looks as a result of this past theft = because important and mainstream dems don't care that the election was stolen or don't get it. In becoming a debtor nation with gross unemployment and hunger, who will be able to afford a lawyer or get a legal education. Dim look?

(The above assumes that the constitution won't be overhauled according to the song and dance the right wing wants.)

[markomalley]

12. The scary part about this is that we won't know

because of secrecy rules...

[not systems]

8. hematland == homeland

This type of thing appeals to stateists and most in
both parties are for centralization of state power.

The very force that caused the USSR to fail.

The stazi had 35% of East Germans of informers...

Americans can do better.

I agree that 50 years down the line it will be
obvious that we took the fork in the road that
leads to totalism.

[markomalley]

13. The really scary part about this is that

nobody seems to give a rats ass about it. Are we all that stupid or that asleep at the switch?????

[neebob]

9. Thank you for your post

Very thoughtful and informative. I'm not sure I want to know about Heydich and the Sicherheitsdienst, but I've always suspected nothing good would come out of the intelligence reform bill. Now I'm sure. Intelligence isn't the problem. It's the criminals, and now they've consolidated their power.

I'm curious about the TVs becoming obsolete. Could you elaborate on that, please?

[markomalley]

10. The TV standard is going from analog to digital

Which means that all currently used TVs will be obsolete, as they won't be compatible with the new standard (sort of like using an AM radio to receive an FM station, or using a REALLY OLD analog cellphone on a new GSM cell network). Now, they are supposed to have assistance for people with convertor boxes (like the digital cable boxes that are out there now that make regular TVs compatible with digital cable), so, if you believe the government, the impact will be minimal.

The interesting part of this is the driver, though...the driver behind this is that the frequencies are needed for DHS!

[neebob]

14. Maybe I need the remedial class

but I don't understand why all the signals have to be digital if they're only turning a few frequencies over to DHS. And I don't like the idea of having to get a box from the government - or is it provided by the cable operator? - to watch TV. Sounds like they want to control all the signals FOR SOME REASON.

[markomalley]

15. You could be right about that...

I think it was just that the government was funding it. But you can't tell with this bunch.