PDA

View Full Version : federal law enforcement organizations...




Toureg89
01-24-2010, 04:17 PM
which one's are necessary, and which are unnecessary?

should those that are kept have expanded powers, retracted powers, or just a general organization into a structure that is more "constitutional"?

we have:

FBI (imo, we should keep)

DEA (disband)

ATF (disband)

Marshals (keep)

Secret Service (keep)

CBP (no opinion)

FEMA (no opinion)

then there's half a dozen other organizations i can't remember off the top of my head (i believe it deals with federal park protection, and congressional protection, exc.), and another half a dozen, under DHS.

and sorry if this issue has already been posted.

i know i'm not of of the more "senior" members who has been a member since the inception of this forum.

disorderlyvision
01-24-2010, 06:31 PM
none of them are necessary

RideTheDirt
01-24-2010, 07:12 PM
none of them are necessary
This
Throw out the alphabet soup, it's rotten and is worthless.

Toureg89
01-24-2010, 07:25 PM
This
Throw out the alphabet soup, it's rotten and is worthless.
so, you are saying there is no federal basis for upholding citizens rights?

so it should be left up to the states to collaborate to bring down interstate crime organizations? (such as the sex slave trade in the US)

and do you mean, its unconstitutional? or just unnecessary?

Also, the US Marshalls are perhaps as old as our country (1789). you'd get rid of them as well? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service#History

Reason
01-24-2010, 08:48 PM
FBI (keep)

DEA (disband)

ATF (disband)

Marshals (keep)

Secret Service (keep)



Agreed. :cool:

South Park Fan
01-24-2010, 08:52 PM
none of them are necessary

This.

Toureg89
01-24-2010, 08:56 PM
so, you are saying there is no federal basis for upholding citizens rights?

so it should be left up to the states to collaborate to bring down interstate crime organizations? (such as the sex slave trade in the US)

and do you mean, its unconstitutional? or just unnecessary?

Also, the US Marshalls are perhaps as old as our country (1789). you'd get rid of them as well? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service#History


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
care to elaborate further?


This.

South Park Fan
01-24-2010, 09:05 PM
so, you are saying there is no federal basis for upholding citizens rights?

so it should be left up to the states to collaborate to bring down interstate crime organizations? (such as the sex slave trade in the US)

and do you mean, its unconstitutional? or just unnecessary?

Also, the US Marshalls are perhaps as old as our country (1789). you'd get rid of them as well? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service#History

Interstate crime organizations should not be "brought down" by other interstate crime organizations, which is what "federal law enforcement" is.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org

Toureg89
01-24-2010, 09:21 PM
Interstate crime organizations should not be "brought down" by other interstate crime organizations, which is what "federal law enforcement" is.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org
So, you are saying George Washington helped to create an interstate crime organization?

was it always a criminal organization, or does it only now act like one?

congress acts like a bunch of criminals sometimes, but that's not reason to dissolve the institution, merely to reform it by electing other candidates.

South Park Fan
01-24-2010, 10:13 PM
So, you are saying George Washington helped to create an interstate crime organization?

was it always a criminal organization, or does it only now act like one?

congress acts like a bunch of criminals sometimes, but that's not reason to dissolve the institution, merely to reform it by electing other candidates.

Yes:

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

hillbilly123069
01-24-2010, 11:25 PM
We should keep the FBI to investigate ethic violations of politicians.