How do you feel about Clintons views on Homeland Security?

Question

In a speech on December 8, 2004, regarding the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004, Senator Clinton delivered remarks on her approach to homeland security. "[This] legislation calls for dramatic improvements in the security of our nation's transportation infrastructure, including aviation security, air cargo security, and port security. Through this legislation, the security of the Northern Border will also be improved, a goal I have worked toward since 2001. Among many key provisions, the legislation calls for an increase of at least 10,000 border patrol agents from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, many of whom will be dedicated specifically to our Northern Border. There will also be an increase of at least 4,000 full-time immigration and customs enforcement officers in the next 5 years [10]."

Later in the speech, Clinton described her satisfaction with the way in which IRTPA tackles what she views as the root causes of terrorism by improving education around the world and establishing schools in Muslim countries that will replace the current madrassas.

I am also pleased that the legislation addresses the root causes of terrorism in a proactive manner. This is an issue that I have spent a good deal of time on in the past year because I believe so strongly that we are all more secure when children and adults around the world are taught math and science instead of hate. The bill we are voting on today includes authorization for an International Youth Opportunity Fund, which will provide resources to build schools in Muslim countries. The legislation also acknowledges that the U.S. has a vested interest in committing to a long-term, sustainable investment in education around the globe. Some of this language is modeled on legislation that I introduced in September, The Education for All Act of 2004, and I believe it takes us a small step towards eliminating madrassas and replacing them with schools that provide a real education to all children

Clinton voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001 when it was first enacted (as did all but one Senator, Russ Feingold). In December 2005, when a political battle ensued over its renewal, Clinton supported a general filibuster against it, on the grounds that the renewal legislation did not apportion enough money to New York for anti-terrorism efforts. [12]

Regarding the December 2005 NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Clinton stated that she was "troubled" by President Bush's 2002 actions. In a statement, she said: "The balance between the urgent goal of combating terrorism and the safeguarding of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms is not always an easy one to draw. However, they are not incompatible, and unbridled and unchecked executive power is not the answer."

Clinton has sponsored and co-sponsored several bills relating to protecting Americans from acts of terrorism [14] [15] as well as providing assistance to the victims of such acts.

thank you for such an intelligent response! now lets have some answers with some thought.

Answer 1

It's nice to know she's doing somethings right. Even though I'm not sure it's up to our government to pay for building schools in other countries. I'm also wondering about the Northern border thing. I didn't realize we've been having so much problems with our neighbors to the North. Or is it the fact that terrorists have figured out that we trust the Canadians and so were using that border. If that's the case then that makes a lot of sense.

This makes me like her a bit more, but not enough to change my mind about whether she'd make a good president.

Answer 2

It is not a matter of feeling safe. I firmly believe that security is an illusion. While there are things we can do to protect ourselves we can never be safe without sacrificing essential liberty. What distresses me about this is how broadly the report is written. It basically says that if you are against expanding federal government control (i.e believe in the 10th amendment), oppose abortion, oppose illegal immigration or have served your country in wartime that you are in danger of becoming a violent extremist. To some greater or lesser degree this touches a wide spectrum of society, not just right wingers. The simple fact is that the official DHS position is that if you disagree with the administration in any way that you are a potential terrorist. I absolutely have a problem with this concept.

Answer 3

I believe that the Clinton's have forever been more interested in the security of their political position then in the security of our boarders.

I don't want to spend one single tax payer penny on "rebuilding Muslim schools",. Has she never been into an American school to see the need we have here at home?

She is trying to focus on the Northern border for securing when the southern border is the one most vulnerable. This is purely political in nature because Liberal Democrats don't want to be see agreeing with the Republicans that the southern border is unstable.

She is no moral integrity.

Answer 4

Makes a lot of sense to spend more money on security infrastructure and personnel (ports, borders, etc.) instead of wasting it in Iraq.

Bush seems to think that the Iraq War is some sort of magic shield keeping the terrorists out, while our port security is porous as all hell.

Answer 5

She is a liberal nut job. She is almost as good a spewing a continuous stream of lies as her "husband" is. Of course that depends on what your definition of the word is, is.

Proof once again that Liberals hate America and love anything anti-American

Obama = Islam
Hillary = Socialism

Answer 6

I think that she's following the Democratic Handbook. She was for it before she was against it.

Answer 7

Well, there are many reasons why I am voting for her in the '08 primary. That is one of them.

Answer 8

I think she is a phsycho, lesbian Nazi is what I think.