Is it really neccessary to have the FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, Border Patrol, Secret Service and whoever else? Wouldn't it make more sense to have just one big agency cover everything?
2007-03-15 12:33:19 · 3 answers · asked by bugs280 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
You bring up a very interesting point coragryph. Food for thought.
2007-03-15 12:44:36 · update #1
Each is created by a separate law, and each has separate specific areas of authorization.
It may be more efficient to have a single federal law enforcement agency. But that would require massive changes to the current administrative laws, and that would likely also incur significant disruptions in the operation of these agencies while the merger was taking place.
So, the question is, which is worse -- the overhead inefficiency of different agencies, or the months or years of disruption caused by trying to merge them.
2007-03-15 12:41:35 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I actually oppose both having multiple Federal law enforcement agencies AND having on big agency. Most Federal laws could be enforced as well or better by allowing state and local law enforcement to handle them. I consider Border Patrol and exception to that rule.
2007-03-15 20:54:11 · answer #2 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not really, some of thes multi-agencie's duties overlap with each other.
2007-03-15 20:25:34 · answer #3 · answered by WC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋