The Department of Homeland Security - Research Paper Example

The Department of Homeland Security The Department of Homeland Security United response to the terrorist attack that shook itsfoundation in 2001 led to the formation of Department of Homeland Security. DHS mandate was to avert any attempt by terrorist to invade or commit their activities in the United States. The damage caused by acts of terrorists do not only lead to life lose, but also leads to psychological problem, trauma, and lose of property among other effects. These effects influenced the government to constitute DHS and define its role among other agency that provide security and protection of life and property of the Americans. 1. Changes in DHS When Congress identified the need to share information among the department involved in the homeland security mission, it created an act in 2002 (Randol, 2010). The act defined the relationship between the departments concerned. Critics observed that the mandate of the Department of Homeland Security could be susceptible to challenge if the congress did not constitute an act, which protected the operation of the department. The act passed by the Congress defined the framework of activities, which were relevant to the promotion of interest of the America people. The legality of the organization must have a backing from the constitution. This explains the move made by the Congress to initiate an act, which could support the mandate of the organization in full. DHS has developed various changes in activities that it discharges to the society from its inception to date. The inception of the DHS defined its mandate, which included being a member of the Intelligence Community. This mandate subjected the organization to liaison between other relevant organizations in fighting the menace of terror attacks. However, major adjustment has occurred in the organization, which includes the following. The establishment of Intelligence and Analysis department within the organization in 2003 led to the reorganization of duties performed by the organization. The mandate of the Intelligence and Analysis department was to fuse, coordinate, and analyze the information received by the organization (Randol, 2010). The idea that propelled the move was to create a common picture in the operation of the organization. The intelligence and Analysis department acted as a bridge between the Intelligence Community and the DHS. The ability of the firm to discharge its mandate effectively depended on common operation idea, which involved the support of the state, private sector and the local partners. The commonality in handling the information of the DHS was very crucial for its growth. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 2004 spelled more influence to the activities of DHS by imposing requirement within the Intelligence and Analysis department. DHS developed the changes in order accommodate intricate activities which influenced its mandate. For instance, provisions that defined the content of information through internet were not subject to regulations. The fear about such loopholes was that a crime could pilfer through the gap created by lack of legislation, which extended the mandate of DHS within similar line. In 2005, DHS embarked on a move, which sought to improve its management of information as well as sharing the same information with the organizations concerned. The changes observed in 2005 included the initiation of the Assistance Secretary for Information Analysis. The move also influenced the mandate of Intelligence and Analysis department whose responsibility was to fuse and connect DHS with the Intelligence Community. The central idea, which the change sought to create, was to create room for blending the non-traditional information and the traditional information with an aim of reporting averting any course that would or promoted terror activities. The Congress activities that led to the Implementation Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Act 2007 is another important instance where DHS integrated changes to better its activities (Department of Homeland Security 2008). The act passed in 2007, expressed interest in the following areas; support to local, state, and tribal governments, integration of intelligence bodies within a wide scope and sharing of information. Information sharing and protection is a vital aspect of winning the terrorism war. It is important to note that the government identified this element and acted at appropriate time in order to strengthen the activities of Department of Homeland Security. The move prioritized the following: it defined modalities of improving intelligence across board within the department. Secondly, it integrated DHS and IE, third, it developed modalities of strengthening local, state, and private sector or tribal authority, fourth it developed a mechanism, which defined the activities of DHS IE within IC, lastly, it addressed solidification of Congress and DHS relationship, and it addressed concerns in responsiveness and transparency. DHS issued a report known as QHSR in February 2010, which outlined the activities of DHS in relation with other law enforcement agencies, which included non-governmental agencies, federal, local, state, tribal government agencies. The report did identify five key areas of law enforcement that fell in the docket of DHS. The five dockets included averting terror activities, boarder security, law enforcement in immigration department, enforcing cyberspace security and response to disaster. In July 2010, the department released the BUR (Bottom Up Review). BUR sought to align DHS activities with the recommendation of QHSR. 2. Relationship between the other Law enforcement and DHS Prior to the formation of DHS, FBI and CIA did not share information freely with an aim of protecting the US. However, the 9/11 incident proved to the people of US that the two department and other agencies in the security department failed to discharge their mandate effectively. Thus, DHS has created a window, which offers information sharing between the security agencies, as well as analysis the intelligence information received. The intelligence and analysis wing of DHS receives and analyses information that it has gathered from other departments which enforces security in nation. DHS has linked its intelligence and analysis department to the foreign and domestic wing, thus offering an opportunity for DHS has a huge structure that brought several departments together to ensure they offered security to the Americans. Reports on the functions of DHS in relation to other agencies that enforce law has indicated that the relationship between DHS and other agencies mandated to offer security services has not been easy. Analysts have observed that the relationship of other agencies with DHS has faced challenges because of the undefined information exchange program between DHS and these agencies (Randol, 2010). Critics have observed that coordination between the DHS and FBI was poor thus influencing the mandate of the organization (Office of the Press Secretary. 2011). This condition led to the creation of fusion center where information received from any agency could pass through for processing. DHS has stepped forward to avert the confusion that existed whether to transmit intelligence information to DHS office, Intelligence and Analysis, DHS National Operation Centre or to submit the same to FBI JTTF. The Congress realized the need to create a smooth system of information sharing. ISE’s mandate is to coordinate both horizontal and vertical information sharing between agencies. ISE is a department within DHS. 3. Analysis of the current structure of DHS and other law enforcing agencies The current structure of DHS has 22 departments. Consolidation of these departments under DHS has attracted criticism from analysts who believe that some departments should not belong to DHS. The Congress added some agencies that fell in department of justice, transportation, treasury, and defense (Department of Homeland Security. 2008). Such criticism indicates that Congress proposal on possible bureaucracy and means of averting it have failed to yield good fruits because of robust functions, which DHS should discharge. Critics have blamed the government for the 9/11 event sitting bureaucratic channels as avenues that influence information dissemination. However, the Congress developed a framework that sought to avert similar challenges from occurring between DHS and other agencies. The following recommendation about the DHS structure is worth consideration. Federal government should decongest some departments reporting to DHS. This would promote efficiency in information processing and action that would follow. It is important to note that failure of FBI to avert the terror attack in 9/11 occurred due to ignorance at the headquarters. Second, the structure has several spans of control, which renders its activities ineffective. Large spans of control created due to robust organization may fail to utilize information reported in time. If such an instance occurs, it will expose the lives of Americans in danger. Third, DHS cannot house its department within a single place. Thus, the government should create ways of putting a new of office, which can house selected departments. This option will not only save the agency from spending much money, but will also increase effectiveness of the organization. 4. Characteristics of homeland security Prevention of terrorism and improving security is an issue that United States must address today and in future. United States has averted several terror attempts in the past. This condition is likely to feature in the future. Critics believe that the position of United States in the world politics exposes it to attacks from terrorists. Terrorist have thought of almost all possible means of conducting the ill activities in the United States. For instance, the aborted Christmas bombing in 2009 is an indication that terrorists have not dropped their terror activities (Marion, 2009). Security of the nation is paramount adventure, which the government must observe. In response to the above conditions, the government has to continue spending its resources in addressing mechanism, which will improve security in the country. Coordination among the agencies concerned is major factor that homeland security must improve. Previous incidences of terror attack in the US social have been due to inefficiency in coordinating the security agencies to avert the threat within the specified time. The economic stability of the nation depends of security of the nation. Investors tend to bank their hopes on countries, which advanced security system. Several arguments tend to support factors that contribute to such situations. Some of these factors include social relationships which largely depend on the security services offered in a given states. Protection from criminal activities such as robbing is evident in societies with security systems, which can assure the citizens that they are safe. In most cases, issues of individual, community or state security states from the community level stemming up to the national level. Federal government would not only address this factor today but also in the future. The current trends used by the United States to accord security services to its citizens is likely to change in the future due to emergence of new strains of crime. Homeland security has been championing for methods, which will improve the existing security provision system. For instance, threats of terror observed in the past led to the invention of body scanners, which could help in identifying bombs (Lewis, 2002). Such trends indicate that security is a factor that US has to address today and in the future. Technological advancement has opened loopholes for criminal activities. Averting these challenges demand innovation, that would incorporate modern technology in tracing criminals or preventing criminals. Surveillance cameras and involving the community in addressing any possible criminal activities are some modern ways, which the government has identified in improving security. The second characteristic of homeland security is administration and enforcement of immigration laws. The vetting process of people immigrating into the United States does not only promote security interests but also averts possibility of accepting aliens with other criminal intentions. Terror threats are not the only challenges that homeland security must address. Other challenges include drug trafficking which would be rampant when the US boarders are porous. The department of immigration must vet persons entering the US soil as well as informing the government about their intentions in the country. The 9/11 terror perpetrators had purported to be students in American colleges. Their intention was to attack as evident through their activities that led to September terror attack. Enforcement of immigration law is relevant today as well as in the future. The immigration department meets overwhelming application from people who intends to visit United States. Researchers have noted that many immigrants fail to comply with immigration rules upon expiry of their term in United States (Department of Homeland Security. 2008). Such unlawful activities are bound to happen in the future because of the nature of complexity involved in tracing immigrants. The increasing demand for job opportunity has exposed United States to threats of housing illegal immigrants. The activities of these immigrants span from trafficking of drugs as well as joining factions. These activities do not promote the interest of America. Some critics believe that enforcement of immigration laws would boost America economic competitiveness in the international scale (Marion, 2009). The idea behind this argument has sited inadequate qualification of immigrants who are currently serving in the United States. Third characteristic of homeland security is to manage and secure US boarders. This function is very critical to economic progress of the nation. Boarders act as entry points of people and goods. However, activities happening at the boarder demand government intervention. For instance, cash trafficking, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, illegal trade and other illicit activities occur in the in the boarder. The mandate of homeland security stretches to the borders. It is important to note that effective security measures at the border promote the interest of the government, protect civilians from intruders from external forces as well as promoting peaceful coexistence between states. Unsecure boarders acts as routes for smuggling drugs and weapons. Some countries that suffer from internal war site unsecure borders as a source of weapon smuggling. The illegal cash and other trades which include drug trafficking is a common menace that homeland security is likely to meet in the future. United States has to improve its fight against crimes, which penetrate the boarders. Training homeland security on emerging technology applied by traffickers and other people who engage in illicit activities at the bodies is very essential. For instance, homeland security has adapted new technology in scanning and coordinating activities at the boarders. This mover has improved security provision at the boarders. 5. Roadblocks that hampers DHS functions Some critics have identified relationship problems between state fusion centers and DHS as a great concern to service delivery. DHS relationship with private sector is very critical to its function because it would integrate the information acquired to its components for action. Homeland security has observed that sharing information between DHS and private sectors has not proved effective. This hampers the functions of DHS because it denies it the opportunity to achieve its mandates. Another factor is the inconsistence in the information flow. Critics of the 9/11 terror attack believe that inconsistency in information flow messed the peace and lives of Americans. Data obtained from private sector is as important as information obtained from other security agencies. Successful integration of such information would not only improve the activities of DHS but also ensure it succeed in discharging its duties. Civil liberty protection is a challenge to activities of DHS because it risks violating laws stipulated in the constitution. For instance, scanners drew criticism from the public sector and civil movements. These movements argued that electronic scanners violated the rights of the citizens because it exposed their privacy unwillingly. The possibility of data misuse is a reason that the civil society has mentioned alongside other factors. The consequences of these arguments might contribute to clumsy service discharge by DHS. Blatant violation of individual liberty is not acceptable by law. However, the escalating conditions, which have threatened the security of the nation, have necessitated such actions by DHS and other law enforcement agencies. Information treatment is a challenge that DHS has to address. A leak in information from DHS offices might create tension in the public or hamper the mandate of the organization. Some critics have argued that DHS should not leak or express terror threat information because they cause unnecessary panic to the public. Training of the personnel is very crucial to DHS mandate (Marion, 2009). The inception of DHS brought many units together. Effective discharge of duty by these departments requires special training of the personnel. This will improve service delivery and promote good relationship between the departments. Coordination between the fusion centers is very important because it assist the agency to realize its mandate. The central factor, which creates a lot of concern, has been effectiveness of the information that flow from one agency to the other. Instances of collapse communication transmission would deter effective response of DHS. It is important to note that Congress identified the above challenges thereby allocating a budget for training and development of other areas, which are essential to DHS functions. Funding is another factor that can influence the activities of DHS. The allocation of funds by the federal government influences the operation, which DHS conducts. Complain about salary emanates from the budget that the government has allocated for the organization. The public have directed concern about the government budget directed to DHS. This concern might hamper the functions of DHS in the future if the government does not address funding. Critics believe that a mechanism for sustainable for funding for the agency should be in place. This will ensure that the agency achieves its objective effectively. It is important to point out that the government has demonstrated concern by showing interests in creating an office for DHS outside Washington DC. Effective discharge of activity depends on infrastructure, which the agency has in carrying out its activities. Inadequate infrastructure spells doom to the agency’s success. Management of DHS activities is a roadblock to effective discharge to its mandate. Critics have acknowledged the operation of DHS activities, but have demonstrated concern in coordination of departments if the agency seeks to achieve better results in future (Marion, 2009). These critics observed information sharing as concern, which dictates the effectiveness of DHS. This means that the secretary to the agency has to link operation of various departments with an aim of integrating their functions within the framework of DHS. 6. Role of cyber terrorism Homeland security analysts believe that cyber terrorism could influence future attack in US (Steiner, 2009). Cyber terrorism exposes information about a nation, department an individual to illegal hands. Terrorists have advanced their methods of conducting their terror activities by investigating security activities of countries by hacking their websites. Protection of the websites is very crucial to the security of United States because it deter terrorists from accessing information about security or any other information from the government of an individual without his or her consent. Cyber terrorism could create an avenue for future attacks because it will influence terrorist’s activities in relations to homeland security function (Steiner, 2009). The fear about cyber terrorism is information leakage, which would make US and its allies suffer from attacks. Once the terrorists have identified lope holes in the security system, they are likely to devise mechanism of escaping security surveillance and carry out their attacks. The largely cyber threat in the nation is the hacking of security information. When cyber terrorist access security information, they would make the fight against terrorism very difficult because they will be monitoring trends used by homeland security (Lewis, 2002). Protection against cyber terrorism is a vital aspect that homeland security must address. In conclusion, the 9/11 terror attack exposed United States to the ills of terrorists. This dreadful activity led to the formation of DHS whose mandate was to deal with issues relating to security. Since the inception of the agency, it has undergone numerous transformation following recommendations, which seek to improve its effectiveness. The structure of DHS in relation with other law-enforcing agency is quite wide. The wide structure makes coordination between various components that create DHS difficult. However, Congress identified the threat thereby devising mechanism that improves information coordination among the law enforcement agencies involved. DHS has met the following challenges at it handles its activities. The challenges include funding, robust departments, friction with the preexisting liberty laws among others. The agency has managed to avert and recommend various changes that would promote the effectiveness of the agency. References Department of Homeland Security. 2008. Interaction with State and local Fusion Centers. Concept of operation. Retrieved on 8 May 2012 from http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dhs/conops.pdf Dorado, L. G. 2010. Progress Made and Work Remaining in Implementing Homeland Security Missions 10 Years after 9/11. Retrieved 8 May 2012 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11919t.pdf Lewis, A. J. 2002. Assessing the Risks of Cyber Terrorism, Cyber War and Other Cyber Threats: Retrieved on 8 May 2012 from http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/021101_risks_of_cyberterror.pdf Marion, N. 2009. Law Enforcement Responses to Homeland Security Initiatives: Office of the Press Secretary. 2011. Secretary Napolitano Highlights DHS Progress in 2011. Retrieved on 8 May 2012 from http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/20111222-dhs-progress-2011.shtm Randol, A. M. 2010. The Department of Homeland Security Intelligence Enterprise: Operational Overview and Oversight Challenges for Congress. Retrieved on 8 May 2012 from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R40602.pdf Steiner, E. J. 2009. Improving Homeland Security at the State Level. Retrieved on 8 May 2012 from https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol.-53-no.-3/improving-homeland-security-at-the-state-level.html The Case of Ohio. Retrieved on 8 May 2012 from http://utsa.edu/swjcj/archives/6.1/3%20SWJCJ%206%281%29%20Marion_Cronin.pdf Read More