Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 677

Sharing Terror Threat Info Between DHS, the Intelligence Community, and Local Agencies

Argument in favor

DHS, the intelligence community, and local authorities need to be in regular communication about the threat of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear terror attacks. This bill provides greater oversight into that process.

kbondee's Opinion
···
01/30/2017
My only question is concerning this clause in the bill:* share information and provide focused analytical support on these threats to state, local, and tribal authorities, plus other national biosecurity and non-defense stakeholders. What/ who exactly are these non-defense stakeholders? Why are they "holding-stakes" in this bill (what do non-defense stakeholders benefit from this bill passing)? Do "tribal authorities" mean native Americans? Please clarify.
Like (138)
Follow
Share
DonNoah's Opinion
···
01/30/2017
As an ex Intel analyst for the military, it is beyond difficult to get info from other agencies. They need to be told to share instead of try to be the best so they can justify better funding.
Like (37)
Follow
Share
Leo's Opinion
···
01/30/2017
Turf wars often impede the flow of critical information to the relevant authorities. This may help alleviate some of that.
Like (23)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Federal and local law enforcement agencies learned their lesson about the consequences of failing to share information after September 11th — they can be trusted to do so in the future without Congress looking over their shoulder.

Alex's Opinion
···
01/30/2017
I'm concerned at how this will be combined with current executive overreach
Like (209)
Follow
Share
Sherri's Opinion
···
01/31/2017
I need more information. Bannon in office. Don't trust him with any intelligence
Like (152)
Follow
Share
Jesse's Opinion
···
01/30/2017
The federal and local branches must have separate means of power. Anymore, I cannot trust the ethical behavior of our federal government. We live in extraordinarily times, unfortunately, and should limit the amount of information handed over to law enforcement branches that can no longer be trusted to act accordingly toward justice for all.
Like (75)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
  • The house Passed January 31st, 2017
    Passed by Voice Vote
      house Committees
      Committee on Homeland Security
    IntroducedJanuary 24th, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    My only question is concerning this clause in the bill:* share information and provide focused analytical support on these threats to state, local, and tribal authorities, plus other national biosecurity and non-defense stakeholders. What/ who exactly are these non-defense stakeholders? Why are they "holding-stakes" in this bill (what do non-defense stakeholders benefit from this bill passing)? Do "tribal authorities" mean native Americans? Please clarify.
    Like (138)
    Follow
    Share
    I'm concerned at how this will be combined with current executive overreach
    Like (209)
    Follow
    Share
    A few weeks ago, I would have said yea. Now, I am concerned about who will be implementing these changes and how they can be used in 'alternate' manners.
    Like (265)
    Follow
    Share
    I need more information. Bannon in office. Don't trust him with any intelligence
    Like (152)
    Follow
    Share
    The federal and local branches must have separate means of power. Anymore, I cannot trust the ethical behavior of our federal government. We live in extraordinarily times, unfortunately, and should limit the amount of information handed over to law enforcement branches that can no longer be trusted to act accordingly toward justice for all.
    Like (75)
    Follow
    Share
    I have no faith in the current executive branch to do this effectively or responsibly. It will be used as another means to abuse power.
    Like (43)
    Follow
    Share
    As an ex Intel analyst for the military, it is beyond difficult to get info from other agencies. They need to be told to share instead of try to be the best so they can justify better funding.
    Like (37)
    Follow
    Share
    Turf wars often impede the flow of critical information to the relevant authorities. This may help alleviate some of that.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    I have no faith or trust in the current executive overreach to support this.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    With the sharing of information, comes the very dangerous threat of mishandling information. I do not believe that local state authorities, who do not have proper training outside their jurisdiction, should be involved in handling this work. Additionally, I do not support increasing spending in this area.
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    With this current administration how can I know this will be executed right????
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Sounds like a common sense thing to do!
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    I do not trust the executive branch right now. It makes it very hard to vote in favor of any more government power until that is sorted out.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Who are the non - defense stakeholders? That sounds suspicious
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Until this Administration shows any indication of presuming innocence until proven guilty, the concept of evidence before accusations, or respect for due process etc, I don't trust Federal v. Local policies to be any more than a witch hunt or lynching in the hands of these treasonous vermin.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    The intent is great, my only concern is the oversight and practical action and implementation of this action. Many organizations seem to already have access, but are not actively reviewing disseminated information. Further, the approach of regulating the sharing of information through oversight seems much more like a parent telling their kids to do homework versus reviewing the overall collection, analysis and dissemination capacity at all levels of threat analysis organizations.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    I am concerned that Trump is preparing to use DHS as his personal military police to enforce his (illegal) Federal laws in states that do not comply with his executive orders.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    It's not really about a balance of power with this one. It's just because this is pretty confidential information for a good reason. The more people that hold this information increases the likeliness of a leak. If the public finds out, panic will spread. If the enemy finds out, then they can work around our defensive strategies. It's best to keep this information little and between few, just like launch codes. I don't think the "trust" gained by spreading this info is worth a possible leak in defensive information.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Why would two separate entities working for the same cause not share information with each other, an obvious yea
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Gosh, who would have through this is so simple. Of course other departments and security agencies need to communicate. Nature provides clues to this subject. Ground squirrels have lookouts, birds keep their eye(s) open, deer scatters over a strange sounds or motion. Therefore, government security agencies need to keep open channels to transfer intelligence. Locally, when a stranger arrives in town, every busybody is passing the word. Being aware is paramount to survival.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE