Security Operations in the United States since September 11, 2001 - Term Paper Example

Running head: SECURITY OPERATIONS POST 911 Security Operations in the United s since September 11, 2001. Are we safer now or then and at what cost? Abstract The September 11, 2001 attacks led to the implementation of various security policies by the government. These policies were meant to improve the apprehension of terrorists and the prevention of more terrorist attacks and activities. These security measures have provided safety and security for Americans, ensuring that authorities can carry out security measures efficiently. However, these changes have caused various negative elements into play. Firstly, entry and migration into the US has become tighter and more difficult. Secondly, these security measures have caused violations of rights, especially those which relate to the rights of privacy, rights of the public to be informed about government actions, and the rights to due process. Finally, these security measures have caused racial tensions in America. In effect, although we may be safer now after the 9/11 attacks, we have become less secured in our civil rights. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 4 Body 4 Overview of security operations post 9/11 4 Impact of security operations 6 Security Trade-off post-9/11 attacks 15 Conclusion 18 References 20 Security Operations in the United States since September 11, 2001. Are we safer now or then and at what cost? Introduction In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the government immediately implemented strict security control measures, especially for ingress into the United States. As a result, border patrols have tightened and the government has enforced strict policies against immigration and against terrorism. Moreover, additional airport security measures have also been implemented. New laws have also been passed in order to implement additional measures to increase security operations in the US. This paper shall discuss the security operations in the United States since the September 11, 2001. It shall consider if these operations have made us safer now, and at what cost these operations have been implemented. It is being carried out in order to evaluate security operations in the US and the impact these measures have had on the US in general. Body Overview of security operations post 9/11 The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks triggered legislation and policy-making from the government. It also prompted military action and retaliation against Afghanistan which was harboring Osama bin Laden, the terrorist responsible for the bombings (Dillingham, 2003). Surveillance operations on various fronts have been increased with higher funding directed towards policing and security services, including purchases of high technology tools to prevent any form of terrorist attack from being perpetuated yet again (Blalock, Kadiyali, and Simon, 2007). Surveillance itself is an act which is rife with problems, especially in terms of liberties and privacy concerns for most Americans. Nevertheless, these surveillance measures have already reached widespread implementation in terms of iris scanners at airports, close circuit television cameras on most streets, and strict border control policies (Lyon, 2001). These security measures have caused changes in political control and the in the implementation of people’s rights and liberties. Arguments have been forwarded on the impact of security operations. The strong indications of changes in surveillance include both legal and technical elements (Heyman and Ackleson, 2008). The US and other countries have passed laws in order to tighten their borders and to allocate more power to the police and intelligence services; laws have also been passed in order to ensure faster political retaliation and actions against terrorist attacks and terrorist groups. Limitations on wiretaps have also been lifted in an apparent attempt to arrest and find individuals linked to terrorist activities (Lyon, 2001). Surveillance of these suspected terrorists have also been eased and extended to allow the interception of emails and to secure internet monitoring. The USA PATRIOT Act, which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, the restrictions for law enforcement agencies in gaining intelligence against terrorists were reduced (Inge and Findley, 2006). Moreover, the discretion of law enforcement authorities and immigration officials in confining and deporting immigrants with suspected terrorist ties have also been broadened. Other countries have also implemented legislative changes in order to be more adept in fighting terrorism. Some countries have implemented new national identification cards which involve biometric devices or programmable chips (Lyon, 2001). Issues on the new technologies being applied have been raised by various interest groups; questions have been raised on the policies which have been fast-tracked since the September 11 attacks. Concerned groups argue that intelligence gathering contracts between the UK and the USA as well as the message interception system called the CARNIVORE have long been in place before the 9/11 attacks (Lyon, 2001). Now, concerns on the period of enforceability of these laws have been raised, especially with some of these laws having no expiry dates. Various high technology corporations also saw anti-terror actions as opportunities for the launch of their technologies (Lyon, 2001). Various security firms have found themselves at the forefront of these security operations. Some, like Michael Cherkasky, have suggested the use of a national identification system through the Smart Card. Cherkasky’s bid however was not successful as he failed to declare the price to be charged for accessing their database (Lyon, 2001). Iris scans have also now been used in various airports; CCTV cameras have also been installed in almost all public places. Facial recognition capabilities have also been included in these monitors (Lyon, 2001). Impact of security operations Some negative consequences have been seen with these security developments following the September 11 attacks. Some negative effects have been seen in terms of the technologies which may have been tried but not tested (Lyon, 2001). In effect, the specificity needed for the technologies and policies have not been guaranteed before they were implemented. As a result, the results may not be the outcomes expected or these outcomes may exceed the goals intended (Gill, 2006). Moreover, these policies imply unintended effects which only seem to lead to more social divisions. The new technologies adopted by government authorities also imply a major shift in surveillance which may not even match the technologies used by actual terrorists. Technologies also seem to be based on various databases which pre-empt and prevent terrorism (Gill, 2006). The commitment to technologically-augmented security measures prescribes a strong relevance towards improving anti-terrorist capabilities. Before the September 11 attacks, the surveillance trends leaned more towards conventional methods coupled with bureaucratic processes and power relations (Cohen, 2002). In these instances, surveillance was seen as a means to gain centralized power. After the attacks, attempts towards spreading the coverage of surveillance were sought. However, these attempts presented with various issues, some of which have been and will be mentioned in this essay. One of the issues in the application of surveillance measures arise from the concept of the unseen observer or the invisible electronic methods of surveillance, as well as the intrusive nature of the CCTV systems (Barry, 2011). The response to the September 11 attacks have created greater possibilities for racial profiling, especially among Muslims and Arabs. This current surveillance has been assessed using newer models including that of Deleuze and Guattari which suggest that the current proliferation of assessment systems is likened to a creeping plant with tree trunks and spreading branches (Lyon, 2001). Others view surveillance in such situations as a loose and flowing process; and not centrally controlled. In these cases, the surveillance process extracts various elements, splitting them into various details to be reassessed as data-doubles (Lyon, 2001). As a result of these processes, personal and group data often navigate through systems which used to be less porous. In effect, after the 9/11 attacks, the surveillance information from various sources were now used as tools for monitoring terror activities days or hours before the attacks. Searchable mediums have now ensured the use of commercial records which used to be unavailable to police and intelligence services, thereby drawing all types of data, including innocent ones (Carter, 2004). In other words, the model of centralized informational control dominated by government systems has now been challenged by social and technological advancements. As a result, various models also include the growth of data and communication technologies which seek to implement a larger network for surveillance (Carter, 2004). These networks however have yet to present with favorable results in terms of securing improved outcomes for security operations. Before the September 11 attacks, border security was a rarely used term (Barry, 2011). At present, it has become one of the bases of our security operations. Border security includes an extensive single line item under the budget of the Department of Homeland Security. However, the DHS has not successfully developed a border security measures that support US domestic and national security goals (Barry, 2011). The DHS has also not established specific standards that would assess the security of the border or determine the extensive border security for increased homeland security. Under its plan, the DHS declares that they are seeking to reduce the risk of terrorists entering the US by strengthening border security and controlling the borders (Gimenez-Salinas, 2004). Recent declarations by Obama also indicate that the Southwest borders have become more secure than ever. Since 2003, the Homeland Security as well as the Justice Department has increased funding for the implementation of various border security operations (Barry, 2011). Increased funding has included the construction of 18-foot steel fences, state of the art surveillance, unmanned aerial surveillance units, and increased civil and criminal charges against illegal border crossers (Barry, 2011). However, the government’s expressed commitment to border security has only served to trigger opposition to the long-overdue government measures on immigration reform (Barry, 2011). In the wake of the attacks, securing the border seems to have become a battle cry for most interested citizens. Government reformers also point out that the illegal crossings by immigrants as well as drug traffickers have been rampant before the government decided to control border crossings after the 9/11 attacks (Barry, 2011). Border sheriffs as well as legislators have also considered making strong strides towards securing the borders. After the attacks, the border patrol has evaluated its goals for homeland and border security. The term border security also gained prominence and importance soon after the attacks. Border control has now been improved as a mission for securing national security (Barry, 2011). The Customs and Border Protection declare that it is prioritizing on measures which would keep terrorists away from the US. The Border Patrol also declares that they are guardians of the borders and would safeguard the country against those who may have terrorist intents (Barry, 2011). The current military protection for border security and for implementing security measures include the deployment of National Guards, the training of civilian border law enforcers, and the increase of presence in the borders (Barry, 2011). For those living near the borders, their status is often a liability and another issue in the security operations. Their closeness to the border has become a source of outrage and resentment because of concerns on spillover of violence, threats, and immigration flows (Davis and Silver, 2002). These incidents and issues build inflammatory opinions, mostly triggering fears, resentment, prejudices, and uncertainties. The spread of immigrant prisons along the border and border vigilantism have highlighted the inadequacy of border patrols as well as the poor implementation of drug and immigrations measures (Barry, 2011). The 9/11 attacks have made the government overly vigilant to the point of making unrealistic expectations on how to seal the borders. For which reason, complete control over the area bordering Mexico has never been reached (Heyman and Ackleson, 2008). Still, illegal entry into the US remains a part of border life. The border patrollers have also been prompted by vague annual claims on arrests and seizures in order to justify budget increases (Heyman and Ackleson, 2008). In instances when the number of illegal crossers increased, the border authorities were quick to claim success of their policies; however, when numbers were lower, the authorities still claimed success, declaring that they were able to reduce terrorist entrants by implementing strong border control policies (Heyman and Ackleson, 2008). Reports of success in some aspects of border control are not complete because these reports do not indicate or offer explanations on how illegal migrants have gained their status. The border patrollers also do not explain how various new categories of criminal have been created and have led to the deportation of drug dealers and illegal migrants (Heyman and Ackleson, 2008). In other instances, they have also established criminalization of domestic abuse in order to ensure legal remedies for border crossers. Nevertheless, despite strong policies on border patrol, the vagueness of ICE and Border Patrol’s drug seizure arrests and the apprehension of border crossers open risks for manipulation and for skewed evaluation processes (Fuentez, et.al., 2007). Instead of border control, the US and immigration measures have become major elements in the persistence of illegal crossings. Effective border control measures must acknowledge the basic policy shifts and consider possible remedies. Moreover, they must evaluate the impact of failed strategies through traditional solutions including strict immigration enforcement, strengthened barriers and increased Border Patrol deployment (Fuentez, et.al., 2007). The elevated status of border security has effectively considered national focus on the border and on the increase of funds (Jordan, 2005). However, the new commitment to border security has not led to more focused border policies. In fact, the most dominant element of border security is on how accommodating the meaning and the use of the term has been since the attacks (Barry, 2011). Border security seems to have become a big avenue accommodating the post-9/11 border security initiatives, but also the basic elements which target illegal migrants carrying illegal goods and drugs (Johnston and Shearing, 2003). As a result, the efforts towards border operations have also included the entry of illegal products into the US. Concerns have not specifically focused on protecting borders against terrorists. The various security measures mentioned above have been evaluated and found wanting. An analysis by Chishti, et.al., (2003) indicates that harsh measures against immigrants have not successfully made the people of America safer. Their 18th month review of post-September 11 security and immigration measures have established that the US government has overly focused on the use of the immigration system (Chishti, et.al., 2003). They also declare that as an anti-terrorist measure, enforcing immigration has had limited efficacy, and arresting various citizens on the basis of domestic security has only given people and the country a false sense of security (Chishti, et.al., 2003). In various instances, the government only used immigration measures as a means of enforcing criminal laws, while also circumventing constitutional liberties. In other instances, the government has often acted expeditiously, often creating an appearance of effectiveness without having to consider the cost of their actions (Chishti, et.al., 2003). The success of the government in post-9/11 security measures seem to come from international intelligence measures, law enforcement cooperation, and arrests made abroad (Chishti, et.al., 2003). Some arrests of noncitizens have qualified as terrorist arrests, however most of the charges eventually brought against them were on routine immigration violations. Some of the government’s immigration policies have been inadequately planned and have even compromised their overall objectives (Chishti, et.al., 2003). For one, the aims of the special call-in registration program have been counter-productive. The aims of the special call-in have been geared towards gathering data about non-immigrants seen in the US, and then deporting those who had immigration violations (Chishti, et.al., 2003). Various non-immigrants have been concerned about deportation and as a result have not registered in the program. One of the primary issues which relate to post 911 security measures relates to the civil liberty concerns. The government has implemented various immigration policies which seem to be based on totalitarian government structures (Lutterbeck, 2005). There have been various instances where US residents have been denied their freedom without the due process of law; some of them have even been detained without the appropriate charges, others have been denied counsel or have been subjected to closed court sessions. These actions violate the US constitution and its related civil liberties. Chishti, et.al., (2003) cite the case of an Egyptian student Tarek Mohamed Fayad who was arrested for violating his student visa. He was detained for the first 10 days without being allowed to take or to make telephone calls. After 10 days he was allowed to make legal calls and one social call for each month (Chishti, et.al., 2003). Difficulties on securing his release were encountered by Fayad’s lawyers. In this case, instead of focusing on intelligence-driven and discerning measures, the government used the nationality origins of the noncitizens in order to establish apparent risks to security. By highlighting specific ethnic groupings with various new policies, the government has already violated the Equal Protection Clause (Lutterbeck, 2005). The government has also been determined in its efforts to conceal the whereabouts of these detainees, thereby violating the right of the public to be informed of government actions. This right is one of the basic foundations of democracy and is important in securing government liabilities to the public (Lutterbeck, 2005). The government’s response after the 9/11 attacks indicate a persistent pattern of action which includes the rounding up of immigrants when threats to the national security are seen. This was apparent after the Pearl Harbor bombing when Japanese-Americans were rounded up and deported; and in 1919-1920 when Eastern-Europeans were also rounded up in the midst of the so-called Red Scare (Chishti, et.al., 2003). These actions indicate inconsistent actions which do not necessarily pertain to vigilance in the interim period. As a result, vulnerabilities of the US are clearly apparent to the potential risks on their security. The US has also targeted Arab and Muslim-Americans in their desire to secure the country’s security (Lyon, 2003). Their actions have effectively alienated the hard-working legitimate Arab communities in the US. After President Bush visited a Washington mosque after the 9/11 attacks, the image of the Arab community indicated a favorable picture. However, the failure of the government officials to express their opinions against discrimination, and their aggressive efforts towards immigration of Arabs and Muslims actually increased discriminatory practices against the Arabs (Chishti, et.al., 2003). These practices even made it acceptable to be discriminatory against Arabs. The fact that the Justice Department conducted closed session for detainees also made Arabs and Muslims even more suspect. As a result, they were often automatically associated with terrorism. Arab-Americans also believed that US measures and responses are ineffective against terrorism and these measures are only being implemented for political expediency; and these Arabs have been made to pay the price for the government’s misplaced vigilance (Markle Foundation, 2003). They further declared that the actions of the government have also been carried out in order to provide a false sense of security to the people. Although these Muslims have criticized American security policies, most of them have developed strong positive relations with law enforcers in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks (Markle Foundation, 2003). Many of these law enforcers have taken the effort to protect the Muslim mosques from any aggression and attacks. However, in other quarters, the general attitudes against Muslim-Americans have been negative. Workplace discrimination against them increased to a significant extent. Various complaints have been made to employment commissions with complainants mostly being Middle Eastern Asians, Muslims, and South Asian workers (Lyon, 2003). Many of these incidents have also remained unreported. Many employees have also been detained after 9/11, others have been fired. The status of the Muslim-Americans after 9/11 pictures fear and victimization; however, since then, these Muslims have sought to assert their rights (Lyon, 2003). Registration for citizenship has increased, including voter registration; and their experience from other Americans has triggered their Muslim consciousness, prompting them to make new alliances beyond their communities and to carry out interfaith dialogues (Lyon, 2003). The negative image and perception which the Muslim-Americans have felt actually strengthened the Muslims political organizations and prompted them to focus on their civil rights protection, their social services, economic development, and relations with the government (Lyon, 2003). This is the image of the new American Muslim, one which seeks to assert their distinct identity from their foreign counterparts, especially the Muslim extremists. In this regard then, the American security operations have actually had a positive impact on Muslim-Americans and their quest for improved civil liberties. Security Trade-off post-9/11 attacks The improved security operations in the post 9/11 attacks seems to indicate a contestability of rights where commitments to civil liberties conflict with constitutionally protected values (Sniderman, et.al., 1996). This conflict not only contrasts with how individual civil liberties, however, it also accounts for why commitments to democratic rights are difficult to secure. Although Americans believe in free speech and of association, they also seek to secure society from those who use these freedoms to carry out criminal activities (Davis and Silver, 2002). The protection of civil liberties has not been assessed within a particular construct. “The exercise of rights generates costs, and these costs are sometimes so substantial that conflict ensues” (Davis and Silver, 2002, p. 3). In effect, although security measures have been implemented throughout the years, these measures have also presented challenges for the American people; and these are the tradeoffs which have been necessary in order for security measures to be implemented. The Department of Homeland Security was created in response to the 9/11 attacks; it is mainly tasked with the protection of the US and its territories from terrorist attacks, natural disasters and man-made accidents. The DHS has been given various rights and liberties in the implementation of its policies, and these actions have often violated the civil liberties of the people. The study by Chishti and colleagues (2003) indicate violations of due process rights of people, both citizens and noncitizens, as well as nonimmigrants. Since the September 11 attacks, about 50 individuals have been detained in connection with the attacks, apparently as material witnesses (Davis and Silver, 2002). Legal provisions after 9/11 allowed the authorities to detain these witnesses for prolonged lengths of time without even charging them for any offense. Some of these witnesses were even detained as high risk inmates while also being made to endure harsh prison conditions under detention. The material witness statute actually resulted to the application of preventive detention, which is actually unconstitutional (Chishti, et.al., 2003). And yet, since the concerns of the people were on their security, little protest or little effort to ensure the protection of due process for these material witnesses have been made. About 600 immigration hearings were also carried out by the government, declaring that the detainees were of special interest to the government authorities (Chishti, et.al., 2003). The fact that these detainees were mostly Arabs or Muslims, made the discriminatory process less of an issue among the government authorities. Even as detainees had the legal right to counsel and to contact legal counsel as well as family members and consul representatives, the actions of the government authorities hardly leaned towards securing these rights for the detainees (Hembroff, 2002). For ordinary citizens, both Muslims and non-Muslims who are suspiciously regarded for any terrorist action, they are at risk of being detained without the guarantees of due process or the protection of their civil liberties. The government has specifically implemented immigration laws unfairly on the basis of nationality since the September 11 attacks (Hembroff, 2002). Although the government has been quick to express that it has included other elements or factors in its implementation of security laws, the basis of application has always reverted to an origin nation based evaluation. Along with arrest and detention measures, nationality based enforcement include the voluntary interview program for immigrant and non-immigrants (NORC, 2001). In some instances, the FBI has managed to secure strong relations with the community, and has managed to carry out a strong program in non-threatening ways. However, issues have been apparent with poorly-trained officials implementing the program where they often ignored civil rights, due process, and carried out their tasks in intimidating ways (Davis and Silver, 2002). With tighter security at the borders and ports, the risks to the nation’s security have been reduced, however it has also meant major inconveniences for travelling with some delays taking up to days (Krishnamurthy, 2001). Tighter security measures have also implied major intrusions into people’s lives, often causing loss of privacy due to spot searches and continued monitoring. More tedious identification systems, including facial recognition, have also led to an easier identification of terrorists entering the borders. However, this system has been prone to errors and individuals declared suspect under this system often suffer from illegal detention (Krishnamurthy, 2001). Increased surveillance of communications has also led to risks of all forms of communication – public or private – subject to monitoring. Surveillance has also caused access to personal and business records even without evidence of any crime. The risk of sensitive private information being shared with various agencies have also appeared as a danger from current surveillance systems. The security operations also provide broad and sweeping policies in relation to personal property and data (Krishnamurthy, 2001). In relation to rights lost in the implementation of security measures after 9/11, the right of privacy has been severely violated, mostly in relation to intrusive searches, access to personal records and secret searches (Krishnamurthy, 2001). Potentials for abuse have also been seen, especially with sweeping provisions on actions not even related to terrorism. Although the risk of these provisions being made permanent is being guarded by concerned libertarians, the risk is ever present. Rights against injuries have also been violated by strict security measures post 9/11. The actions of profiling groups of society seem to present a risk that ordinary citizens may carry out harmful acts against them; as a result, racial tensions between these groups have increased. Entering into private contracts have also proven to be complicated undertakings for Americans as the security operations post 9/11 has forced businesses to carry out their decisions based on issues of national security (Krishnamurthy, 2001). These measures have also interfered with existing contracts between businesses and their customers; it has interfered with the rights of employees under existing employment contracts, especially as far as immigrants, non-immigrants, and other foreign nationalities are concerned. Conclusion Since the September 11 attacks, various security policies have been passed by the government in order to improve the apprehension of terrorists and the prevention of more terrorist attacks and activities. These security measures have provided safer conditions for Americans allowing the government authorities to carry out security measures with minimal legal interference. However, the price for these security operations has been and is being paid for by the American public. Firstly, going into and out of the ports has become a very difficult and tedious process. Secondly, these security measures have also led to the violations of liberties and rights, especially those which relate to the rights of privacy, rights of the public to be informed about government actions, and the rights to due process. Lastly, these security measures have also led to racial tensions among Muslim-Americans and citizens who view these Muslims as constant threats to their security. Although these security operations have made us feel safer from terrorists, we are paying the high cost for their strict implementation. References Barry, T. (2011) Border security after 9/11: ten years of waste, immigrant crackdowns, and new drug wars share on Facebook share on Twitter share on email share on print more sharing services. Retrieved 06 May 2012 from http://www.ciponline.org/research/entry/border-security-after-911-ten-years. Blalock, G., Kadiyali, V., and Simon, D. (2007). The impact of post-9/11 airport security measures on the demand for air travel. Cornell University. Retrieved 06 May 2012 from Available at: http://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/gb78/wp/JLE_6301.pdf Chishti, M., Meissner, D., Papademetriou, Peterzell, J., and Wishnie, M. (2003). America’s challenge: domestic security, civil liberties, and national unity after September 11. The Chicago Council. Retrieved 06 May 2012 from http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/Conferences/Atlantic%20Conference%202007/S2-Meissner.pdf Cohen, M. (2002). Transparency after 9/11: balancing the “right-to-know” with the need for security. Vanderbilt University. Retrieved 06 May 2012 from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/vcems/papers/post9-11.pdf Davis, D. and Silver, B. (2002). Civil liberties vs. Security in the context of the terrorist attacks on America. Michigan State University. Retrieved 06 May 2012 from http://www.apsanet.org/~polcomm/news/2003/terrorism/papers/davis-silver.pdf Dillingham, G. (2003). Transportation security post-September 11th initiatives and long-term challenges. General Accounting Office. Retrieved 06 May 2012 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03616t.pdf Fuentes, J. L‘Esperance, H., and Pérez, R. (2007). Impacts of US immigration policies on migration behavior. In Impacts of Border Enforcement on Mexican Migration: The View from Sending Communities, eds. Wayne A. Cornelius and Jessa M. Lewis, 53–73. La Jolla, CA: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies. Gill, P. (2001). Not Just Joining the Dots But Crossing the Borders and Bridging the Voids: Constructing Security Networks after 11 September 2001. Policing & Society, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 27-49 Gimenez-Salinas, A. (2004). New approaches regarding private/public security. Policing and Society, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 158-174. Guihong, Z. (2003). US security policy towards South Asia after September 11 and its implications for China: A Chinese perspective. Strategic Analysis, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 145-171. Inge, J. and Findley, E. (2006). North American defense and security after 9/11. JFQ, 40, pp. 23- 28. Hembroff, L. (2002). The Civil Liberties Survey, 2001: Methodological Report. Institute for Public Policy and Social Research. Michigan State University. Heyman, J. and Ackleson, J. (2008). U.S. Border Security after September 11. Forthcoming in Transforming Borders in the Al Qaeda Era, eds. John A. Winterdyk and Kelly W. Sundberg. London: Ashgate. Retrieved 06 May 2012 from http://frontier.k-state.edu/ResearchAndAnalysis/Publications/US-BorderAfter9-11%208-15pre-publicationDraft.pdf Johnston, L. and Shearing, C. (2003). Governing Security. Routledge: London. Jordan, L.J. (2005). Homeland Security Faces Massive Overhaul. San Francisco Chronicle. Krishnamurthy, B. (2001). Privacy vs. security in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Santa Clara University. Retrieved 06 May 2012 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/briefings/privacy.html Lutterbeck, D. (2005). Blurring the line: The convergence of internal and external security in Western Europe. Security Dialogue, vol. 36, no. 1. Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance after September 11. Polity: Cambridge. Lyon, D. (2003). Terrorism and surveillance: security, freedom, and justice after September 11 2001. Queen’s University. Retrieved 06 May 2012 from http://privacy.openflows.org/pdf/lyon_paper.pdf Markle Foundation (2003). Creating a trusted information network for homeland security. 2nd Report of the Markle Foundation Task Force. Retrieved 06 May 2012 from www.markle.org/downloadable_assets/nstf_report2_full_report.pdf . NORC (2001). America Rebounds: A National Study of Public Response to the September Terrorist Attacks: Preliminary Findings. NORC. University of Chicago. Shearing, C.D. and Stenning, P.C. (eds). (1987). Private policing. Sage: London. Sniderman, P. Fletcher, J., Russell, P. and Tetlock, P. (1996). The Clash of Rights: Liberty, Equality, and Legitimacy in Pluralist Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Read More