Homeland Security of the US - Case Study Example

Homeland Security On September 11, 2001 the al Qaeda terrorist network launched a set of coordinated attacks along the East Coast of the United States, representing the deadliest foreign attack on American soil in history. It introduced the United States to a new type of enemy; an enemy who operates clandestinely, who targets civilians and symbols of democratic power, and who hates the values for which the country stands. This act of terrorism on an unprecedented scale saw the start of implementation of various efforts to strengthen United States Homeland Security: efforts which were immediately initiated as an aftermath to September 11, 2001 and which have ever since been reviewed and strengthened. These measures and efforts are of paramount significance as al Qaeda’s leadership has repeatedly pledged to attack the United States at a time it chooses. An explanation of these efforts and initiatives is provided below. (I) REAUTHORIZATION OF USA PATRIOT ACT The 2001 USA Patriot Act gives the President and federal government broad authority to go after the terrorists, to intercept their communications and stop their plots. The provisions of the USA Patriot Act deal with expanded federal authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).1 In 2002 a key court decision dismantled the legal wall (U.S. Attorney John Ashcroft is credited with breaking the wall erected by former Attorney General Janet Reno in the mid 1990s) separating the FBI’s criminal and intelligence probes, thus making the sharing of information easier; it also contributed to an increase in FISA 1= http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RS22216_20050810.pdf warrants.2 On July 21, 2005 both House and Senate approved proposals to reauthorize sections of the USA Patriot Act due to expire at the end of 2005. They made permanent, without amendment, several expiring sections of the Act. However, two sections’ expiration were postponed. These deal with FISA roving wiretaps and the business records library.3 There is an ongoing debate over renewal of these two sections in view of President Bush’s controversial assertion that he has Constitutional and Congressional authority to conduct surveillance of communications of U.S. citizens within the U.S. (II) NSA SPYING In response to the attacks of September 11, 2001 President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless surveillance on international communications into or out of the U.S. of persons linked to al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. The purpose of this move was to ensure that the U.S. has in place an early warning system to detect and prevent another catastrophic attack on it.4 The debate over renewal of the USA Patriotic Act has fuelled calls on the Congress to make the Act’s provisions very clear and explicit about what is and isn’t permissible, and also for federal agents to provide sufficient cause for conducting surveillance on individuals’ private records.5 U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in his letter dated January 19, 2006 to The Honorable William H. Frist, Majority Leader, United States Senate, confirmed that all 2= http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/1229051.shtml 3= http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RS22216_20050810.pdf 4= http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdf 5= http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/13512977.htm NSA conducted activities, which comprise an indispensable aspect of defense of the Nation, were lawful and consistent with civil liberties in all respects. He gave complete backing to the efforts of President Bush, saying the President has full authority given him by the Constitution of the Nation, by Congress in its September 18, 2001 enacted “Authorization for Use of Military Force” (AUMF), and his actions are in consistence with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and civil liberties protection as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Alberto Gonzales cited the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the AUMF in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S.507 (2004) confirmed that Congress gave its express approval to the military conflict against al Qaeda and its allies, and thereby to the President, use of all incidents of force including warrantless electronic surveillance. Gonzales further cited the tripartite framework set forth by Justice Jackson in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring), claiming that, due to the broad authorization provided in the AUMF, the President’s action falls within category 1 of Justice Jackson’s framework, viz., Presidential authority is analyzed to determine whether the President is acting in accordance with Congressional authorization.6 Gonzales added that even FISA, which generally requires judicial approval of electronic surveillance, contemplates that congress may authorize such surveillance by a statute other than FISA, as the FISA Court of Review itself recognized in 2003 that the President retains constitutional authority to conduct foreign surveillance apart from the FISA network. Gonzales concludes his letter by stating that the NSA activities fall within a well-established exception to the warrant requirements and satisfies the Fourth 6= http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdf Amendment’s fundamental requirement of reasonableness.7 However, there are increasing voices being raised in opposition with even many Democratic and Republican law makers questioning whether the President violated the law in giving such warrantless surveillance authorization to the NSA.8 They claim that the Administration has given only two reasons why it says the criminal law does not apply to the program, and these reasons are insufficient. The first reason is the AUMF authorization: however, for multiple reasons, the AUMF does not provide a legal basis for the NSA wiretap program. The second reason is that the President has inherent authority not derived from statutes: however, while acknowledging this, the current Administration has taken that position to unprecedented lengths.9 The opposing persons state that their aim is not to create barriers in the Nation’s fight against terrorism, but rather to fight terror without inadvertently giving terrorists the victory they cherish most – undermining the democratic values of the United States.10 (III) SECURING U.S. SEA PORTS The mission of the U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) is to prevent terrorist and terrorist weapons from entering the Nation by destroying potential threats before they arrive at U.S. borders and ports. On February 23, 2005 the CBP reported that since September 11, 2001, funding for port security has increased by more than 700 percent, rising from approximately $ 259 million in 2001 to $ 1.6 billion in 2005; new technologies were deployed and additional technologies were being developed; $ 630 7=http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdf 8=http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdfhttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/1229051.shtml 9=http://www.amicanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1389573 10=http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/13512977.htm million was provided in grants to the largest ports which included $ 16.2 million to Baltimore, $ 32.7 million to Miami, $ 27.4 million to New Orleans, $ 43.7 million to New York/New Jersey, and $ 15.8 million to Philadelphia. U.S. ports are secured by the following organizations: a) U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) Before arrival of cargo, the CBP uses intelligence and a restricted strategy to screen 100 percent information on cargo before it is loaded on vessels destined for the U.S. The DHS (Department for Homeland Security) coordinates with the CBP, requiring electronic advance cargo manifests from vessels 24 hours prior to loading in a foreign port. Suspect cargo is inspected using CSI (Container Security Initiative) either at the foreign port or upon arrival into the U.S. Establishing tough procedures to target high-risk cargo before it is loaded on containers destined for U.S. shores, CSI consists of 3 basic elements: establishing security criteria in identifying high-risk containers, pre-screening such containers before they arrive to the U.S., and developing and using smart and secure containers. There are currently 42 foreign ports participating in CSI and the number is expected to rise to 50 by the end of 2006. Using C-TPAT (Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism), the CBP has formed partnerships with nearly 5,800 businesses worldwide, including most of the largest U.S. importers, to work together and improve baseline security standards.11 When cargo arrives into the U.S., the CBP, in coordination with the U.S. Customs Services, uses cutting edge Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII), U.S. Automated Targeting Systems (ATS) including X-Ray, Gamma-Ray machines and radiation detection portals 11=http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/trade/securing_us_ports.xml to screen cargo, thus increasing the likelihood that nuclear and radiological materials and weapons will be detected.12 Presently it operates over 680 radiation monitors, 170 NII devices and 12,400 hand-held radiation detection devices. b) Coast Guard The Coast Guard constantly inspects and reviews the security plans of every port to ensure that all provisions of the “Maritime Transportation & Security Act”, and, “Ports & Waterways Security Act” are adhered to. The provisions of these Acts require that every port has to establish and implement a security plan that includes mainly controlling access to the port, verifying identities of port workers, inspection of cargo for tampering and reporting of all breaches of security.13 Since September 11, 2001 the Coast Guard has carried out over 124,000 port security patrols and 13,300 air patrols. It has boarded more than 92,000 high-interest vessels, interdicted over 9,473 individuals attempting to enter the U.S. illegally, and created and maintained more than 94 Maritime Security Zones.14 c) Terminal Operators A terminal is an area where loading, unloading, transfer of cargo, storage and repair activities take place. The Terminal Operator is a person or corporation given responsibility to operate a particular terminal within the port. d) Port Authority The Port Authority is a government entity which owns, manages and maintains the 12= http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/securing/html 13=http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/trade/securing_us_ports.xml 14= http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/securing/html infrastructure (such as wharves, docks, piers, transit sheds, warehousing, loading equipment) of a port in order to facilitate movement of cargo. There is presently an ongoing controversy featuring UAE-based Dubai Ports World (DP World) which is seeking to enter into a deal worth $ 6.8 billion to operate and manage specific, individual terminals located within 6 U.S. ports (Baltimore – 2 of 14 total, Philadelphia – 1 of 5 total, Miami – 1 of 3 total, New Orleans – 2 of 5 total, Huston – 3 of 12 total, and Newark/Elizabeth – 1 of 4 total).15 The DP World deal has met with strong bipartisan opposition, with both House and Senate leaders threatening to intervene on the grounds that it is unsafe to put management of U.S. ports in the hands of a foreign government-controlled company, especially as that government has had questionable links to terrorists in the past. For example, the money funded for the September 9, 2001 attacks was funded through Dubai, two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, the UAE was only of only 3 countries to recognize the legitimacy of the Taliban as rulers of Afghanistan, and Dubai featured as the transitional point for illegal sale of nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.16 President Bush has questioned whether a double standard was being applied to DP World, noting that foreign-owned companies from China, Denmark, Singapore and Taiwan operate many ports in the U.S., and reminding that the UAE is a key ally of the U.S. in the Gulf region, a frequent stop for U.S. warships and aircraft, and a supply depot 15=http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/trade/securing_us_ports.xml 16=http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/ for U.S. troops in Iraq. Leaders in the House and Senate have drawn up legislation for a 45-day review of the deal, with Senator Carl Levin of Michigan claiming that the President’s threat to veto the legislation shows that the White House is “out of touch” with the public’s concern.17 (IV) SECURING LAND BORDERS The Border Patrol agents patrol nearly 6,000 miles of international land border with Canada and Mexico. Its mission is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the borders of the U.S. The Border Patrol agents encounter harsh terrain difficulties like scorching desert heat and freezing northern winter, including attacks from people-smuggling syndicates.18 There has been a large influx of illegal immigrants, currently estimated at 11 million persons, mainly from Mexico. Each year about 400 Mexicans die during unauthorized border crossings organized by people-smugglers or “coyotes”. In his budget for 2007, President Bush has asked for $ 459 million for the Border Patrol to hire 1,500 new agents, raising the total to 14,000, as well as $ 100 million to spend on surveillance equipment, and $ 410 million to supply 7,000 beds for detainees. The U.S. Senate is considering a legislation making it a crime to aid or employ an illegal immigrant, and a proposal to build a fence along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. The House version of the legislation is expected to be considered by the Senate on March 4, 2006.19 17=http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/ 18=http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/antiterror_initiatives/ guard_air_land_sea_linklist.xml 19=http://nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot1_022206.html (V) AVIATION SECURITY Since September 9, 2001 added requirements of safety and security mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has radically changed the U.S. air transportation network.20 The main safety and security measures put into place are: There are about 48,000 trained Federal screeners at the Nation’s airports who carry out 100 percent baggage screening using sophisticated baggage inspection equipment. All airport personnel must undergo background checks.21 Strict parking laws at airports: unattended cars are towed.22 The Department of State has developed new tamper-resistant visas, extended application review process, enhanced the visa lookout system and improved information sharing among U.S. law enforcement agencies and the Intelligence Community. Since 2003, visa screening requirements were tightened, requiring face-to-face interviews for almost all applicants. The DHS and Department of State suspended the Transit Without Visa (TWOV) program and International-to-International (ITI) transit program, thus eliminating terrorists’ ability to exploit them to gain access to U.S.-bound aircraft or to the United States.23 The Department of State and DHS have developed the Terrorist Interdiction Program (TIP) computer data based system, and they coordinate with other countries to quickly identify people attempting to enter or leave a country. 20= http://www.panynj.gov/aviation/avmain.HTM 21= http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/securing/html 22= http://www.panynj.gov/aviation/avmain.HTM 23= http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/securing/html The U.S. Visitor & Immigration Status Indication Technology System (U.S. VISIT) which has replaced the previous NSEERS program, has implemented biometrically authenticated documents designed to make entry easier for legitimate tourists, business travelers and students, while at the same time making it more difficult to enter illegally. The DHS operates the Student & Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) to track foreign students coming to the U.S. The Federal Air Marshall program has involved thousands of trained air marshals flying on protective missions in commercial aircraft.24 (VI) INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION Since September 11, 2001 great importance has been given to Infrastructure Protection. The main measures taken are elucidated as follows. The National Guard currently has about 330,000 soldiers. Since 9/11, more than 260,000 members of the National Guard have been mobilized for various missions in the war on terror. Guardsmen and women are training the Afghan National Army, are watching over dangerous terrorists in Guantanamo Bay besides rendering invaluable service in time of national disasters (for example, when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, National Guard units from all 50 States, 3 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia provided assistance and together saved lives and helped evacuate over 175,000 people stranded by the hurricane). In his address to the National Guard on February 2, 2006 President Bush praised their efforts, saying: “Your service is vital to the security of the country.”25 24= http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/securing/html 25= http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060209-2.html The National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) of the DHS which was established in June 2003, rapidly convenes technical experts, coordinating with Federal, state and local governments, industry, academia and the international community, to examine cyberspace security incidents (such as the recent spate of internet worms and viruses), and makes efforts to reduce vulnerability and mitigate damages. The NCSD extends guidance and assistance to Federal agencies during virus and worm events through the FedCIRC (Federal Computer Incident Response Center) program. According to the Safe Explosives Act of 2002, persons acquiring explosives are subject to extensive background check before being issued an ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives) permit. The DHS works with the U.S. Chemical industry to identify vulnerabilities and install enhanced safety measures. The DHS also works with the country’s economic and industrial sectors to develop a range of vulnerability assessment tools to meet their unique security challenges. Since September 11, 2001 it has spent approximately $ 2.5 billion to state and local public health agencies, hospitals and other healthcare entities to enhance planning, secure communications, increase laboratory capacity and facilities to detect, diagnose, investigate and respond to a biological terror attack.26 26= http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/securing/html “Project BioShield” of the DHS accelerates development and acquisition of the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) countermeasures and acquisition of next-generation drugs, vaccines and diagnostics of bio-terror agents like anthrax, smallpox and Ebola. The IAIP (Information Analysis & Infrastructure Protection) division of the DHS has established a Critical Infrastructure Information Program Office to handle voluntarily given information about threats and vulnerabilities. The BioWatch Program of the DHS tests samples from detectors in 30 cities in special laboratories to detect biological agents. The Strategic National Stockpile of the DHS has been expanded in 2005 to treat 12 million persons exposed to smallpox, anthrax and other chemicals through pre-positioned 50-ton packages of drugs, vaccine, medical supplies and equipment all over the Nation. The DHS has cooperated with the DOD (Department of Defense) to immunize over 490,000 soldiers and support personnel against smallpox. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) food safety inspectors conduct safety inspections on the food systems inside the country. The FDA, with the FSIS (Food Safety & Inspection Service) regularly examine domestic and imported food for vulnerabilities to terrorist attack. Since 2000 the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) increased personnel by 50 percent to strengthen efforts at 90 ports of entry to keep foreign agricultural pests and diseases from reaching the United States.27 27= http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/securing/html References Cited: * “Another chance to get Patriot Act right,” Miami Herald, December 30, 2005 http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/13512977.htm * “Bush-NSA spying in defiance of Congress, Court”, Truthout, Jason Leopold, December 29, 2005 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/1229051.shtml * “Legal FAQs on NSA wiretaps”, Peter P. Swire, January 26, 2006 http://www.amicanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1389573 * “Legal authorities supporting the activities of the National Security Agency described by the President,” Department of Justice White Paper, January 19, 2006 http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdf * “Passenger security awareness tips”, The Port Authority of NY&NJ Airport Security Bulletin (no date) http://www.panynj.gov/aviation/avmain.HTM * “Ports company will delay takeover”, CNN.com, Jean Meserve, February 24, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/ * “President discusses progress in war on terror to National Guard” White House Newsroom, February 9, 2006 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060209-2.html * “Protecting by air, land & sea,” U.S. Customs & Border Protection (no date) http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/antiterror_initiatives/ guard_air_land_sea_linklist.xml * “Securing the homeland,” White House Newsroom (no date) http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/securing/html * “Securing U.S. ports”, U.S. Customs & Border Protection Newsroom February 2,2006 http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/trade/securing_us_ports.xml * “U.S.-Mexico border woes”, Q&A Homeland Security- NY Times, Ester Pan, February 22, 2006 http://nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot1_022206.html * “USA Patriot Act Reauthorization in brief”, American Law Division, Charles Doyle, August 10, 2005 http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RS22216_20050810.pdf Read More