Fort Hood: More government, less security?
In Old Media’s rush to find an explanation for the Fort Hood tragedy, nobody has asked the most important question: Did the government fail to protect us?
Brief history lesson
After the 9/11 terrorist attack, then-President Bush proposed a
new federal agency to coordinate and oversee investigation and prevention of domestic terrorism:
The changing nature of the threats facing America requires a new government structure to protect against invisible enemies that can strike with a wide variety of weapons. Today no one single government agency has homeland security as its primary mission. In fact, responsibilities for homeland security are dispersed among more than 100 different government organizations. America needs a single, unified homeland security structure that will improve protection against today’s threats and be flexible enough to help meet the unknown threats of the future. [emphasis added]
Bush created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) because the existing intelligence structure was deemed to be ineffective in fighting domestic terrorism.
Congress budgeted $37.4 billion for the DHS in 2003, along with this promise: “There would be future savings achieved through the elimination of redundancies inherent in the current structure.”
Reuters reported that by 2008, this budget had grown to $47.5 billion.
Had this budget grown to reflect
inflation, Congress would have allocated $35.3 billion, $12.2 billion less.
By 2008, the
DHS budget grew to $46.4 billion (24.1%). Had the budget grown to reflect inflation, Congress would have budgeted $43.8 billion, $2.6 billion less.
The
FBI considers protecting America from terrorist attack its first priority. In 2003, its budget was $4.3 billion. By 2008, its
budget grew to $6.4 billion. Had the budget grown to reflect inflation, Congress would have budgeted $5.0 billion, $1.4 billion less.
In fairness, some of the Aggregate Intelligence Budget may be due 9/11. However, there appears to be no “future savings” from the new DHS bureaucracy, which didn’t make Fort Hood’s soldiers safer.
Important points to remember
The United States Supreme Court consistently rules against the idea that government agencies are responsible when tragedy hits:
About Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan
The Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood warned a roomful of senior Army physicians a year and a half ago that to avoid "adverse events," the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims.
He was supposed to give a talk on a “medial topic,” but instead lectured peers–complete with slide show–on how Islam conflicted with Army deployment to Muslim countries. He made points that clearly indicated the potential for internal terrorist attacks by Muslim military personnel.
If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the “infidels”; i.e. enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary i.e.: suicide bombing, etc.
We love death more then you love life!" [sic]
U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with an individual associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
The Army was informed, but apparently took no action to neutralize a threat forewarned by Hasan himself.
In the real world, when somebody fails to perform their job, they lose it. DHS was created to prevent the Fort Hood tragedy. But the DHS, with over 169,000 full-time employees, failed to prevent what looks more and more like a terrorist attack.
We are paying more than ever for government services which were supposed to protect us from these events, but all we have to show for it is a burgeoning budget, a broken promise to save money by making the federal security bureaucracy more efficient, and Fort Hood.
For in-depth analysis of the issues discussed here, read Howard’s book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense. Autographed copies are available from the author.