Every new administration begets its share of policy buzzwords. At the moment, "homeland security" is very much in vogue. An important concept saddled with an ill-chosen moniker (it's hard not to detect a whiff of the worst kind of retro-nationalism), the fundamental notion is finally incarnate in the form of the newly created Office of Homeland Security.
Its chief, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, has an office mere stepsaway from his boss and close friend, George W. Bush. For Ridge and the wholeHomeland Security initiative, this is about as ideal as it gets. If true powerand success are defined by proximity to the president, Ridge's position is hardto beat. For those intrinsically opposed to government, it's also hard toattack--no sprawling new bureaucracy, just Ridge and a staff of about 100.
In theory, Ridge's office will coordinate the efforts of dozens of agenciesspread through multiple departments, somehow finding a way to craft acomprehensive national strategy that will supersede traditional rivalries, turfwars, redundancies, and intransigence in the name of a truly effective,cooperative effort. In practice, it's likely to be a study in marginalization.Once you are appointed "czar" of anything in this country, you're immediately ona course as perilous as that of your Russian royal forebears. Like his fellowU.S. czars of past and present, Ridge has no actual fiscal power; and despite hiscloseness to the president, his influence can easily be diluted in the wash ofagencies he's supposed to coordinate.
Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican SenatorArlen Specter of Pennsylvania see a potential train wreck up ahead. Consequently,they've produced one of the few truly sensible pieces of post-September 11legislation: the Department of National Homeland Security Act, which would takedomestic-security-related agencies out of their existing departments andreconstitute them under a new cabinet-level agency, making Ridge a full-fledged department secretary operating with a charter and money of his own. "Thecoordinator position is simply not very powerful as such--it's not statutorilyauthorized and has no budget authority; and lacking a homeland-securitydepartment, the president really doesn't have anyone to give marching orders towhen something needs to get done," says Lieberman staffer John Tagami. "We'd liketo see an actual agency that has people, a budget, and a statutory mission toprotect our nation. And Congress is part of the equation, too. There's been sometalk about creating a homeland-security committee."
But after the rapid passage of legislation that grants the federal governmentexpansive if not invasive powers in the name of the war on terrorism, some in thecivil-liberties community aren't expecting Congress to take an active role inaggressively watching for excesses. "Congress just massively surrenderedauthority to the executive branch, and I don't see why anyone would thinkCongress would do anything but more of the same," says Jim Dempsey, deputydirector for the Center for Democracy and Technology. "The growing trend in thisadministration is to withhold information. It is blowing off the existingoversight committees, and I don't see how creating another would make things anybetter."
But according to Steve Aftergood, director of the Project on GovernmentSecrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, the Bush administration hasactually been fairly good on homeland-security-policy disclosure so far--perhaps apoint worth exploiting vis-à-vis a new department. "A new department iswell worth considering, in that we plainly have a problem with a whole range ofsecurity policies that ought to be addressed consistently, cohesively, andeffectively, " he says. "And it's vital that these policies be formulated andimplemented above board, with full transparency and congressional oversight.
"What's interesting," he notes, "is that the Bush administration generally hasbeen reluctant to release any of its presidential directives--and has eveninaugurated a new category of directives called Presidential Directives onNational Security, only one of which was released after it leaked. However,there's another new set of directives, dubbed Homeland Security PresidentialDirectives, and the administration released the first two as soon as they weresigned. And the whole question goes hand in hand with the re-examination of theFBI and the intelligence bureaucracy. If homeland defense is pursued in an openand productive way, it could hold much of the solution to the long-deferredreforms necessary for the FBI, CIA, and other agencies."
Others, mindful of American intelligence operations' history, remainskeptical. Hussein Ibish, communications director for the American-Arab AntiDiscrimination Committee, says that no matter what its status, Ridge's office islikely to follow the path of the CIA, "going from an umbrella coordinating groupto a bureaucracy with imperatives of its own."
