Homeland Security of the USA - Term Paper Example

Homeland Security: Post 9/11 Challenges 0 Introduction Homeland security has undergone significant changes since September 11, 2001, as the government, stakeholders, and citizens have become more security conscious and more ready to adapt to emerging security threats. Securing the country against the threat of foreign and domestic terrorism has been an ongoing process that has fundamentally changed the way we view security, and has mandated the reassessment of the potential for threats and security risks. The consolidation of agency responsibilities under the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provided a framework for inter-agency cooperation, a sharing of knowledge and intelligence, and a more clearly defined role of each agencies responsibility in regards to national security. Almost any weakness in our infrastructure, social composition, institutions, or economy may be perceived as a threat to out national security. Substandard education, an economic recession, or an aging electrical grid can all place our collective security at risk. However, for the purposes of this discussion, and this paper, the risk to our nation's security will be limited to the threats posed by organized groups and their acts of terrorism. Coordinating this challenge has required the cooperation of the DHS, local communities, industry, and all levels of law enforcement to reduce the risk of an attack, and also to mitigate any potential for damages. In addition, it has required a massive reorganization of the emergency preparedness system to assure that agencies and responders have the resources and the planning necessary to confront an unpredictable act of terror. The purpose of this paper is to examine the trends and challenges Homeland Security has faced since 9/11, define the perpetrators of terrorism, evaluate the current status of security in the US, and analyze the existing weaknesses in our security system. 2.0 Nature of the Threat One of the initial challenges that faced the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the days immediately following 9/11 was to identify the nature of the terrorist threat. Suddenly, everything became a target and scores of known terrorist groups became potential enemies threatening imminent attack. Nuclear generating plants, chemical industries, water systems, the electrical grid, the food supply, and the information network all have value as a potential terrorist target. In general, terrorists will target "high-value symbolic targets" such as the world trade center, "high-value human targets with the goal of assassination", and "deliberately lethal attacks specifically targeting the public" (Hoffman, 2006, p.167). Delivery may come from airplanes, vehicular bombs, planted explosives with a remote control detonator, or individuals carrying a bomb in a vest or backpack designed for manual detonation (Hoffman, 2006, p.166). The device may be a weapon of mass destruction, nuclear, biological, or chemical. This illustrates the comprehensive concerns that security had to focus on and attempt to reduce to a workable security policy. Over time, security agencies have been able to make certain facilities more secure, such as airports, but have also been met with some resistance in other industrial settings. Perpetrators that threaten the security of the US may be foreign terrorists, foreign governments, or groups of US citizens that commit domestic terrorism. One of the important trends that has characterized the face of foreign terrorism in the past 20 years has been the increasing role that private groups, rather than governments, have played (Pillar, 2001, p.ix). Many of the terrorist groups that have their origin in the Middle East are privately funded and have no direct governmental involvement, instead drawing their recruitment and support from the religious aspect of their cause. This motivational factor has become more pronounced in the post Cold War era, as ideology became less important and the preponderance of terrorist acts began to have a more significant religious dimension (Hoffman, 2006, p.87). The growing trend of the international community's right to try the supporters of terrorism in any court in the world has led to the concept of "universal jurisdiction", and has further eroded the ability of rogue nations to engage in official acts of state sponsored terrorism (Menjivar and Rodriguez, 2005, p.342-343). In addition to the foreign component of terrorism that threatens our nation's security, domestic terrorism has also become a greater focus of the government's counter terrorism efforts. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines domestic terrorism as "the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction, committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (Jarboe, 2002). Domestic terrorism primarily targets environmental, social, or political issues and the facilities and personnel that are instrumental to the issue, and have no foreign connection whatsoever. Traditionally, there has been some difficulty in the separation of domestic terrorism and criminal activity. These are the myriad challenges that have confronted homeland security in the changing face of terrorists and terrorism acts. 3.0 Securing the Nation in a Post 9/11 World 3.1 Assessing Motivation In today's world of electronic communication, instant media coverage, and fast paced life styles, keeping abreast of security risks has gained a heightened sense of urgency in the security picture. Single-issue organizations can crop up almost instantly with the goal of inflicting harm on the US and its citizens. In many parts of the world Christianity has become a target, and a motivation, for religious zealots to engage in terrorism. The US presence in the Middle East has prompted numerous organizations to become more active in their fight against the US and its interests. As the political landscape changes, or our foreign policy is altered, a group's degree of risk may also change. The recent trend has been to gather greater intelligence on these organizations and continuously assess and update information in regards to security risks. 3.1 Inhibiting the Freedom to Operate It has been a significant challenge for homeland security to diminish the ability of terrorist organizations to plan, operate, and execute a terrorist act within the borders of a country that has a great deal of freedom of communication, expression, and mobility. One of the points of focus for homeland security has been to identify and isolate potential terrorists from the law abiding citizen, while respecting the rights granted by the constitution. The Patriot Act of 2001 gave broad and sweeping powers to the government to intercept communications, seize personal records, and interrupt the activities of foreign agents operating both within and outside the US's borders (Doyle, 2002). The Act further enhanced the ability of government agencies to share intelligence, gain access to grand jury testimony, and dissolve the line between a terrorist and a criminal investigation (Pillar, 2001, p.xliii). The federal government has devoted substantial resources in an effort to facilitate the sharing of information between the larger federal agencies and the local law enforcement departments (Hickman and Reaves, 2003, p.26). This has been a critical component in the system meant to identify, monitor, track, and intercept potential terrorist activities. Because the expanded powers granted to the police under the Patriot Act have given them the capability to find a potential threat and share the information on a national basis, a routine traffic stop, or drug bust, can be a significant impediment to the workings of a terrorist network. 3.2 Identifying High Value Targets A major trend that presents a significant challenge to homeland security is the expansive base of high value targets that are available in the 21st century. Terrorist targets are no longer limited to airliners, government facilities, weapons storage locations, or culturally symbolic buildings or events. The list of sites that can inflict major economic loss and massive numbers of fatalities can include nuclear power plants, petro-chemical processing plants, major shipping harbors, sporting events, information networks, and almost anywhere that people congregate. The targets include facilities that manufacture or store toxic chemicals, as well as research facilities that may have some political or social meaning. Transportation systems have increasingly become a terrorist target and have gone well beyond the hijacked airliner of 40 years ago. Attacks on these systems have more than doubled in recent years and have targeted increasingly smaller systems, which has prompted the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to allocate large amounts of funding for the purposes of improving security on our nation's subways, bus systems, train systems, and airlines (Fries, Chowdhury, and Dunning, 2008, p.2). The agencies responsible have been significantly challenged in their efforts to secure these facilities and systems, while maintaining easy access and a free flow of goods and services. In addition to the value of a specific site as a target, terrorists also require resources to operate, and financial gain may be the goal of a terrorist act. In addition to the focus on increased security at high value targets, law enforcement has additional tools, such as the Patriot Act, designed to fight the criminal activity that terrorists require to support their operations. While the DHS can advise on the general types of targets that a terrorist may find attractive, it is ultimately the responsibility of the community and local government to specifically identify and secure a security risk. 3.3 The Role of the Local Community A major trend in the post 9/11 world of security has been a shift in responsibilities from the federal government to the local level. While the federal government has the resources and expertise to respond and recover from a large-scale terrorist attack, it is the responsibility of the local community to prepare for the eventuality of an attack, and mitigate any potential for damages. Regional hospitals have assumed the responsibility of preparing for an act that may result in massive fatalities, a large chemical exposure, or an outbreak of a biological agent. This has necessitated dedicated personnel that are familiar with federal procedures, as well as training for the hospital staff. Nearly all mid-sized communities have a department of emergency management that continuously assesses risk, prepares for a wide variety of contingencies, and plans for the coordination between local agencies and federal officials and agencies. In fact, this may be one of the weak links in our nation's security as experts have warned that an indifferent public has failed to commit the resources and focus necessary to comprehensively plan for a terrorist attack (Canton, 2007, p.66). While the federal government will be instrumental in responding to a terrorist attack, the local fire department, police department, and public safety workers will be the first personnel on the scene. In today's world of security they are expected to play a much larger role than they have in the past. 3.4 Domestic Terrorism and the Protection of Civil Liberty The erosion of our nation's freedom and civil liberties due to enhanced security has been the issue that has generated the greatest amount of public debate since 9/11. In almost all cases these involve organizations that are engaged in the protest of social issues such as abortion, logging, pollution, or gun control. Critics have maintained that the Patriot Act has inhibited the long-standing tradition of peaceful protest and civil disobedience that has been a hallmark of American grass roots movements. The Act gave the government significant new resources in their ability to electronically monitor suspects, implement wiretaps, and disrupt the activities of US citizens engaging in domestic terrorism (Doyle, 2002, p.2; Comey, 2005, p.7). In addition to substantially enhanced sentencing, the Patriot Act "allows the confiscation of all of the property of any individual or entity that even plans an act of domestic terrorism" (Doyle, 2002, p.4). These possibilities have greatly curtailed the law abiding American citizens who may wish to protest the building of a Wal-Mart, or the construction of a prison in their community. While there is a need to eliminate the violent domestic protests that involve organizations that have extensive resources and the same capabilities as foreign terrorists, law enforcement may be abusing the intention of the Act based on media exaggerations of a group's intentions and capabilities (Wekerle and Jackson, 2005, pp.35-36). The end result is that "a long-standing form of repression that is now normalized under the guise of protection from terrorism is limiting permits for public gatherings, or limiting access to public spaces" (Wekerle and Jackson, 2005, p.38). It is a difficult challenge to balance freedom against security, but the trend against the expression of domestic protest needs to be re-examined. The definition of domestic terrorism is currently so broad as to encompass almost all forms of objecting to public policy on any issue. 4.0 Conclusion The nature of the threats to the security of the US has changed substantially since the 1970s, when an airline hijacking was the sole form of terrorist activity within our borders. Today, almost any place, facility, or institution can be construed as a target having terrorist value to any one of a long list of terrorist organizations. The consolidation of the myriad agencies responsible for security under the DHS has made the government more responsive and able to keep abreast of the current security threats. Still, as the political and social environment changes, targets and risks change also. It is a constant challenge to stay ahead of the enemy set on inflicting harm to America and its citizens. While the restructuring of our security systems, interagency cooperation, and the Patriot Act have been valuable tools to aid everyone from the CIA to the local police department, there is a danger that a complacent public may let down its guard. After all, the local community is on the front lines and will be the first on the scene in the event of a large-scale terrorist act. These local officials should concentrate on the biggest targets and risks, and keep the potential of domestic terrorism in a proper perspective. Americans treasure their civil liberties and curtailing them in an over-reaction against perceived threats will only serve to create a backlash to public security policies, and may further fuel the public's indifferent attitude towards community responsibility. References Canton, L. G. (2007). Emergency management: Concepts and Strategies for effective programs. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Comey, J.B. (2005, June 8). Statement of James B. Comey Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Doyle, C. (2002). The USA PATRIOT Act: A sketch. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Fries, R., Chowdhury, M., & Dunning, A. (2008). Transportation security framework for a medium-sized city. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 8(1), 1-16. Hickman, M. J., & Reaves, B. A. (2003). Intelligence gathering and networking. In R. L. Kemp (Ed.), Homeland security: Best practices for local government (pp. 23-27). Washington, DC: ICMA Press. Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside terrorism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Jarboe, J. F. (2002, February 12). The Threat of Eco-Terrorism. Retrieved October 4, 2007, from http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm Menjivar, C., & Rodriguez, N. (2005). When states kill: Latin America, the US, and technologies that kill. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Pillar, P. R. (2001). Terrorism and U.S. foreign policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Wekerle, G. R., & Jackson, P. S. (2005). Urbanizing the security agenda: Anti-terrorism, urban sprawl and social movements. City, 9(1), 33-49. Read More