Is the Department of Homeland Security necessary?

Yes.
No.
Resources for this issue
    Reviews of this issue

    This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.

    Do not use this page to take a stand on this issue.

    This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.

    2/14/2006 12:49:39 PM

    issue revision:

    New version
    Is the Department of Homeland Security necessary?
    Yes
    No

    2/14/2006 12:48:58 PM

    issue revision:

    Old version.
    Has the department been effective?

    1/20/2006 3:12:59 PM

    I like "Is the DHS necessary?" 

    I can't help but get the sense that most of the changes that took place with the creation of DHS probably could have been implemented without it—perhaps not in exactly the same fashion, but the overall effect would have been pretty similar—and the rest really weren't necessary. Not the same PR effect though—now we have a Homeland Security Czar on top of everything, making sure the homeland is secure. With tons more bureaucracy as well, just for the fun of it.

    I'm sure others feel differently though, which is why I think the question is a good one.

    1/13/2006 8:12:51 PM

    "Has the DHS been more efficient and effective than the agencies it replaced?" I kind of agree, though, that I wouldn't have the first clue about how to answer this question. Maybe just, "Is the DHS necessary?"

    12/28/2005 11:52:03 AM

    This seems like a good question.  But, since the department's main goal is to protect the country from attack, it seems like it would be hard to answer 'no,' as long as there hasn't been an attack; and that it would be equally hard to answer 'yes,' if there ever is.  Is there a way to ask something more specific about the DHS?