Category: Homeland Security

Introduction

The original homeland security organization was characterized by uncoordinated responses amongst its respective agencies and cooperation was a difficult aspect to achieve. Consequently, the paper will look at how operations were carried out before and after the change was instated in homeland security within the country.

Analysis of the homeland security before and after coordination of responses

The original homeland security was primarily regarded as a military affair that rarely incorporated all stakeholders involved in the defense of US territory. At that time, the roles and influences of the common citizenry, the private sector, local governments, federal agencies, and departments were placed on the periphery. Their actions need to be synchronized in a manner that was in tune with international patterns of terrorism. (Hughes, 2002) Before the reorganization of homeland security, it was generally asserted that defense resources used for civil missions were primarily focused on external efforts. Lots of attention was given to military immediate responses to disasters and support to civil authorities. However, all this changed when coordinated responses were embraced. At this very time, homeland security was not given a lot of precedence in resource allocation as foreign missions often took center stage. Most of the time, the countrys budget would only contain about two percent worth of spending for the protection of the USs resources against chemical, information, biological and nuclear attacks. This implies that the kind of actions that homeland security was capable of carrying out was very minimal as intentions needed to be backed with financial capabilities. Prior to the reorganization, most emergencies were handled on a local front and there was definitely a lack of national scope in antiterrorist efforts. Because unity was deeply lacking, resources were employed poorly and there was general inefficiency in the manner in which security for the US population was guaranteed or enforced. (Carafano, 2006)

Coordinated responses ensured that the missions, objectives, and aims of most of the agencies and stakeholders involved in homeland security were harmonized. In this regard, nongovernmental organizations were placed on the same level as federal agencies, and local governments were considered just as much as other important stakeholders. In this regard, homeland security now has a strategy that they can work with those points them in the right direction. In other words, some critical aspects such as the deployment of military force can be done in a manner that conveys the national strategy. Unity of command was also another achievement made after instating coordinated responses for interagency operations. This implies that all the concerned units were placed under one command where they could be directed by a single authority. The effect was that issues of national interest could take precedence over the specific objectives of the units involved. Generally speaking, there were three areas that were improved and they include threat detection, protection against threats, and response in the event of threats. Measures for protecting infrastructure were streamlined, immigration issues and threat detection were smoothened and local & state actions could then be well-coordinated through state and local contributions of parties and homeland security could then take charge. (Homeland security, 2002)

Conclusion

The reorganization of homeland security created a situation in which interdepartmental and interagency operations could enhance and support actions and decisions that are critical in protecting US citizens from any potential disasters in the future.

References

Carafano, J. (2006). Missing pieces in homeland security. Heritage foundation Memorandum 1013; 456

Homeland security (2002). Guidance for interagency operations. Web.

Hughes, D. (2002). Homeland security  so little time and so many details. Aviation week and space technology 157(23 ), 71

Countering Terrorism and Threats

Modern counterterrorism activities are based on efficient criminal justice processes with respect to the fundamental principles of human rights and the supremacy of law to provide a legitimate response to any threat. At the same time, this response from criminal justice helps mitigate and even avoid the risk of unlawful and unreasonable use of force against people outside procedural guarantees and protections. In addition, it may reinforce the commitment of society to the rule of law and improve its trust in criminal justice authorities, even if terrorist threats are serious and life-threatening on a constant basis.

However, the role of criminal justice in countering terrorism may be regarded as a challenging one. First of all, the primary goal of any counterterrorism strategy is the prevention of threatening incidents. Thus, law enforcement agencies may prevent terrorist attacks in some cases; however, not all criminal justice practices that currently exist are highly efficient in relation to terrorist conspiracies, peoples safety, and their civil rights. In other words, the criminal justice system does not have enough available resources to manage an extensive terrorist threat or address the reality. In addition, already existing practices do not fully address rising domestic terrorism. That is why it is essential to consider the efficiency of counter-terrorism efforts in the field of criminal justice to ensure peoples safety without the violation of their rights.

For its prevention, work with citizens is highly essential. However, a lack of community cooperation with police and other criminal justice agencies may be observed. Thus, as a result, due to the absence of clear and well-elaborated policies and practices, counter-terrorism efforts are complicated by the violation of human rights. It goes without saying that the system requires efficient, well-funded, and forward-looking preventative strategies against terrorism, targeted violence, and threats. They should include the improvement of investigative techniques and powers, evidentiary rules, and a substantive offense system in general.

General Background

The history of counter-terrorism in the United States started in the 1940s. However, terrorism was regarded in a completely different manner. Since 1945, the country has seen the Soviet Union as a rising global competitor and a threat to American well-being (U.S. counterterrorism since 1945, n.d.). As a result, during the Cold War, the government elaborated on multiple security policies and regulations to confront its main rival. To be precise, policymakers persuaded people that communism was the main threat to the United States. In addition, the Soviet Union was blamed for increased terrorist attacks that occurred in the 1970s-1980s (U.S. counterterrorism since 1945, n.d.). Along with international terrorist attacks, domestic terrorism, on the basis of various ideologies, started to grow. Moreover, influential extremists aimed to affect the countrys criminal justice system by attracting law enforcement and military personnel in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s (Jones et al., 2021). At the same time, terrorism was not regarded as a serious problem that affected national security, and terrorist attacks were perceived as the consequences of the Soviet Unions ideology.

The situation dramatically changed on September 11, 2001, when the United States entered the global war against terrorism. In addition, this tragic day has marked the escalation of more destructive terrorism that had never been seen before. This incident, peculiar to new trends, such as highly indiscriminate targeting, suicide attacks, and the participation of loosely affiliated extremists, demonstrated the vulnerability of the countrys security system. It demonstrated the necessity to consider the seriousness of terrorism and elaborate on new counter-terrorism efforts. They should include the strengthening of judicial capabilities and law enforcement, the expansion of border and aviation security, counter violent extremism and terrorist financing, more deep global information sharing, and the improvement of crisis response.

However, in two decades since the devastating 9/11 attacks, the sources of terrorist threats have substantially changed to be completely disconnected from their traditional understanding. To be precise, The United States may be currently regarded as a hard target for international terrorism  since 2001; there was only one case of a foreign terrorist organization coordinating an attack inside the country (What is the threat to the United States today? n.d.). At the same time, the main threat currently emerges from the political spectrum, including political polarization, ubiquitous firearms, and other factors. Using the power of social media in combination with online communication, complex domestic terrorism is generated on the basis of various ideologies.

The number of terrorist attacks caused by ideological reasons demonstrates the necessity to reconsider already existing preventative strategies. In general, since the 9/11 attacks, 107 people have become victims of jihadist activity in the United States (What is the threat to the United States today? n.d.). However, this death toll may be compared with that caused by far-right terrorism, including white supremacist, anti-government, anti-abortion, and militia violence  it has killed 114 people (What is the threat to the United States today? n.d.). Moreover, the country has faced attacks inspired by nationalist and black separatist ideologies, far-left views, and ideological misogyny. Thus, in the present day, the United States terrorism issues are also homegrown, and they are not related to any particular ideological perspective or group. This situation should be considered in the paradigm of counter-terrorism efforts as they address citizens and American society in general, as well.

At the same time, since the 9/11 attacks, counter-terrorism efforts have been the governments response to peoples fear as well. In other words, multiple law enforcement agencies aimed to create a well-structured set of measures to ensure the public that the situation was under control. In general, people keep being afraid of terrorism, and their fear did not decline substantially during the last twenty years (Mueller & Stewart, 2018). However, in the present day, promoted by technological progress that provided access to information and its rapid dissemination, a lack of trust in law enforcement agencies in relation to counter-terrorism exists. It is majorly connected with public concerns that under the aegis of counter-terrorism and the power of the law, authorities violate peoples civil rights through excessive and biased control.

Theoretical Basis

Public attitude to counter-terrorism efforts and homeland security partially corresponds with the principles of radical criminology. Radical theories view criminal law as a specific instrument of control under the population. According to them, criminal justice policies promote violence rather than aim to mitigate it. In the present day, although people keep being afraid of terrorism, the erosion of this fear may be observed due to the time passed since 9/11 and the absence of mass media propaganda. At the same time, counter-terrorism efforts started to be perceived as a threat to citizens rights and freedoms. Thus, all branches of the criminal justice system affected by public attitude should prove the expediency of their activities and elaborate on counter-terrorism efforts to make them more efficient, though just and unbiased.

Efforts of Homeland Security

The Department of Homeland Security of the United States was created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and in the present day, this organization is responsible for the unification and coordination of all homeland security efforts. In 2019, it updated and introduced the Strategic Framework for Countering Terrorism and Targeted Violence, which addresses not only terrorism but targeted violence as well (Department of Homeland Security, 2019). The improvement of the departments efforts to counter terrorism is connected with the nature and character of threats that have substantially changed since the 9/11 attacks. As previously mentioned, domestic terrorism is currently on the rise, and countering it is challenging as attacks are not tied to one specific ideology or factor. The next change is related to new ways of communication across the globe that may facilitate the organization of attacks. In addition, extremists and terrorists have more developed weapons in comparison with means that were available twenty years ago (Department of Homeland Security, 2019). Thus, existing counter-terrorism efforts of Homeland Security may be divided into several sections:

1. The prevention of terrorist attacks. This goal presupposes the implementation of practices designed for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of terrorism information, cooperation with other agencies for an efficient and time-sensitive response, the strengthening of transportation security, and countering violent extremism through cooperation with communities and local law enforcement.
2. The prevention and protection against the use of biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological weapons for mass destruction. First of all, it is necessary to identify what kind of materials may be referred to as the weapon, where it is stored, and how it is transported internationally and domestically. This information is essential for the detection, location, and prevention of its hostile use through cooperation with law enforcement agencies and other counter-terrorism departments.
3. The strengthening of transportation security, migration system, and border control. Although domestic terrorism has already become a serious issue, international terrorism should be considered as well. That is why counter-terrorism efforts aim to prevent illegal import and immigration and provide peoples safety while traveling.
4. The expedition of lawful travel and trade. These efforts presuppose the establishment and enforcement of security standards, risk management related to goods and people transit, and the maximization of compliance with the countrys legislation.
5. The disruption of transnational criminal organizations. These efforts also address cooperation, data collection and sharing, and the time-sensitive response of criminal justice agencies in the United States and other countries.
6. Mitigation of vulnerabilities and raising public awareness and preparedness. These efforts include educational programs, community empowerment, and the building of the nations core capabilities in order to teach people how to detect potentially threatening activities and inform law enforcement agencies.
7. Development of strategies for a fast recovery and quick response in the case of terrorist attacks. It includes the financial support of authorized disaster support activities and reconstruction projects.

Efficiency of Efforts

In general, it is possible to state that counter-terrorism efforts of the Department of Homeland Security have multiple positive outcomes and generally ensure safety for citizens. However, at the same time, there are gaps connected with a lack of standards, legislation, and the performance of law enforcement agencies. To be precise, in some cases, counter-terrorism efforts may violate peoples basic civil rights. For instance, data collection on the Internet may violate peoples privacy even if it aims to improve protection against targeted threats and detect the organization of terrorist attacks,

In addition, counter-terrorism efforts may be regarded as less efficient if they are not connected with reality. Thus, cooperation between criminal justice agencies, especially the police, and communities is essential for the detection and prevention of attacks. However, in multiple cases, there is a lack of such cooperation due to multiple factors that led to the absence of trust in the police, such as ignorance, racial prejudice against citizens, or discrimination. Moreover, stereotyped thinking and racialization, in combination with strengthening counter-terrorism efforts, may lead to violence against particular population groups on the basis of race or ethnicity.

In the present day, peoples privacy is partially protected by the Fourth Amendment, that protects persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures (Días, 2020, para. 13). In addition, the police, as the main stakeholder in relation to this issue, aim to establish contact with communities through training to raise awareness concerning the benefits of such cooperation. However, in relation to discrimination, no substantial actions were taken, and the non-White population still faces the criminal justice system at disproportionately high rates.

From a personal perspective, already existing measures need to be improved to raise peoples awareness in relation to the expediency of counter-terrorism efforts. From a short-term perspective, the police should address communities through training and information dissemination. In general, people should understand that criminal justice authorities process information only to detect suspicious activities to prevent crime. From a long-term perspective, racial discrimination should be abolished for all branches of the criminal justice system. Changes on the basis of proposed measures will be observed through data received from public surveys dedicated to the attitude to counter-terrorism efforts.

References

Department of Homeland Security. (2019). Strategic framework for countering terrorism and targeted violence. Web.

Días, Á. (2020). When police surveillance meets the Internet of Things. Brennan Center for Justice. Web.

Jones, S. G., Doxsee, C., Hwang, G., & Thompson, J. (2021). The military, police, and the rise of terrorism in the United States. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Web.

Mueller, J., & Stewart, M. G. (2018). Public opinion and counterterrorism policy. CATO Institute. Web.

U.S. counterterrorism since 1945. (n.d.). World101. Web.

What is the threat to the United States today? (n.d.). New America. Web.

I. Differences between the following elements:

a) International security and national security

Worldwide security additionally refers to the worldwide security of the United States and the remainder of the world. Accordingly, universal security refers to the measures taken by nations including the US, the UN, the EU, and other pertinent bodies to guarantee the shared survival of mankind and human progress. Moves made by nations incorporate confirmed military and political estimates that guarantee shared security, for example, the military settlements, and show understanding. Then again, national security alludes to the well-being of the US as a sovereign country with respect to its kin or natives, its economy, establishments, normal assets, raw vitality, cybersecurity, and its ecological security. The legislature relies upon its political, monetary, and military forces to guard its national interests.

b) National security and homeland security

National security refers to the well-being of the United States economy, money-related security, ecological, military security, and political security just as the country’s basic foundation and regular assets. National security subsequently ensures the nation, its assets, and privileged insights from any dangers of assault by having enough military to keep up its existing conditions (Doe, 2012). National security is along these lines foremost if the United States is to exist as a country. Then again, country security is a subset of national security and it is worried about the insurance of the American country and guaranteeing well-being, and strength against dangers, for example, fear-based oppression, the American lifestyle, American interests, and the nation’s yearnings. Accordingly, country security’s fundamental targets are anticipating fear-monger assaults, diminishing the nation’s helplessness to psychological militant assaults, and limiting the effect of the assaults on the off chance that they happen inside the US homeland. The Department of Homeland Security is accused of guaranteeing that satisfactory measures in regard to readiness and reaction against catastrophic events and terrorism. Domestic and worldwide guard abilities fall inside this division together with ensuring basic framework, human dealing, fringe control, guaranteeing safe transportation, and biodefense security.

c) Preparedness and Mitigation

A country’s readiness thus implies a nation’s capacity to react to a crisis or a cataclysmic event adequately. Readiness is the present moment and may include having the ability to conjecture characteristics and fake debacles and having adequate cautioning systems (Gillespie, 2016). An urgent piece of readiness is a refinement of general society, preparing and creating viable correspondence channels to have the option to clear defenseless populations in the event of a crisis or a disaster. Then again, relief is all the more long haul wanting to counter fiascos and crises. Mitigation is a noteworthy piece of pre-calamity arranging, and it is normally set on guaranteeing anticipated hazard is sufficiently routed to guarantee well-being when the catastrophe occurs. Therefore, readiness is a piece of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are created after dangers are distinguished, and vital assets are distributed to help in relief and preparedness.

II. Challenges of national security, homeland security, international security, and human security

a) National security

Issues that are of worry for the US with respect to national security incorporate the circumstance in Syria, where the Trump organization has chosen to haul out around 2,000 troops. This circumstance will put the US in a dubious position with Turkey officially moving troopers into Syria to manage US partners who happen to be the Kurds. Russia and Iran will have a free turn in deciding the eventual fate of Syria just as empowering their military may. Also, the Iran arrangement is displaying a predicament for the US. The help of Iran’s bargain with significant US partners combined with the pullout of troops from Syria has influenced the loss of certainty on the US capacities to support endeavors in the Arab district and past. Consequently, the US needs to restore relations with its key partners, for example, France, Britain, Canada, and Germany. Thirdly, the rise of world powers in China, Iran, and Russia has caused worries for the US national security endeavors (Jordan, William, Meese, and Nielsen, 2011). The obstruction of Russia on US decisions, cyber-attacks just as China’s exchange strategies just and Iran’s developing impact in the Arab peninsula are dangers to US national security.

b) Homeland security

The ongoing shootings in the US have been a huge territory of worry for the FBI with radical Islam’s impact focusing on enlisting warriors to complete fear assaults on US soil. Late storms and the California rapidly spreading fire are a portion of the cataclysmic events that posture as dangers to the US. In addition, the most recent fringe stream of outsiders from Mexico keeps on representing a risk to US national security.

a) International Security

The rise of China as a nuclear power just as the infringement of Russia to hold fast to the weapon multiplication settlement has caused huge worries on the global stage. The US-China relations have likewise gone under sharp examination because of the proceeded exchange war with the US. The rise of Iran after the Obama-supported Iran bargain and their psychological warfare-supporting action is a genuine security issue for the US. The conciliatory relations between the US and its allies are at an unsurpassed low because of the Iran bargain. China’s militarization of the South China Sea has likewise inspired genuine strategic clashes between Beijing and Washington.

b) Human security

Human security is consistently tormented by dangers, for example, psychological oppression, and common clashes in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, and the Central African Republic. Furthermore, the danger of sorting out wrongdoing and the spread of little arms have caused a rise in groups of thugs and exercises over the world, for example, tranquilize dealing and human dealing. In reality, medication dealing has been on the expansion in Latin nations, for example, Mexico and Colombia where drugs keep on exacting fear on guiltless regular citizens (Jordan, William, Meese, and Nielsen, 2011). Environmental change remains a danger to present-day civilization as the world assets are getting to be scarcer and the environment has been degraded causing broad clashes and cataclysmic events.

III. Identify security examples of avoidance and Transference

a) Homeland security

The Department of Homeland Security uses hazard evasion and hazard transference methodologies in guaranteeing the well-being of American individuals. The characterization of touchy national data is a hazard evasion procedure. This is a procedure that goes for dispensing with dangers totally and henceforth a fundamental resource in the battle against dangers to the national debacle. A case of the hazard transference procedure is the point at which the FBI requires remote nations to share insight on conceivable dread cells and to give the fundamental capacities to counter the dangers. The cooperation of the US with Mexico to advance border security is a hazard transference methodology that empowers to ensure US outskirts against the penetration of drugs, weapons, and criminal activities.

b) International Security

On the worldwide front, the United States has utilized hazard transference methodology along the Russian fringe in nations, for an example, Romania, Georgia, Latvia, and Germany to make a support zone against the Russian danger. The US outfitted the nations that are under threat against undesirable Russian animosity. The US has likewise outfitted Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia to empower them to keep and a dependable balance of happenings in the Arab world and thus make a support zone against nations like Iran (Jordan, William, Meese, and Nielsen, 2011). Hazard evasion has additionally been utilized on the global stage by totally closing down the correspondence framework at whatever point the US president visits the combat areas, for example, Iraq. This is done to guarantee that the President is sheltered from any potential damage.

IV. Analyze the obstacles and vulnerabilities of the critical infrastructure key resources (CIKRs) of each domain

a) Homeland security

Cyber threats can destabilize the entire nation. To be sure, there have been community-oriented impediments in the countering of digital dangers between the US government and the private party players inside the nation, and this has undermined efforts to help critical national security infrastructure. This has been aggravated by hacking attempts and the steady absence of trust. The absence of coordinated effort in relieving dangers on the vital national framework has made the US powerless against outside assaults and impedance, for example, the decisions affected by Russian state on-screen characters during the 2017 elections.

b) Human Security

Human security is a delicate issue for most nations and furthermore for the US. In fact, there have been defenseless focuses that have undermined the US war against fear just as composed wrongdoing. The connection between Israel and the US has caused incredible vulnerabilities and security dangers for the US. The addition of Palestinian land by Israel has made a dependable clash and powered psychological oppressor exercises from wronged Arab nations in the Middle East and has caused the state support of fear exercises. The war on dread is today a worldwide war with assaults occurring in all landmasses around the globe and consequently security powerlessness and a human danger for the US population, and its allies just as nations around the globe.

References

1. ICCWS 2018 13th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security. (2018). Academic Conferences and publishing limited.
2. Talking Points for the Top National Security Issues of 2018? Third Way. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.thirdway.org/talking-points/talking-points-for-the-top-national-security-issues-of-2018
3. Doe, J. (2012). Avoiding the Next Holocaust: Preserving Our Democracy. Pittsburgh, PA: Dorrance Publishing.
4. Gillespie, P. (2016, March 23). A Good Cybersecurity Risk Management Strategy. Retrieved from https://inhomelandsecurity.com/cybersecurity-risk-management-strategy-for-the-consumer/
5. Jordan, A. A., William J. Taylor, J., Meese, M. J., & Nielsen, S. C. (2011). American National Security. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.

It was a very tragic event. On September 11, 2001, a group of terrorists from Al Qaeda launched a large-scale attack on the United States. About 3,000 people died that day. The US government responded quickly to these attacks by creating the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The DHS is responsible for border security, immigration, and preventing terror attacks. You’d be surprised to hear that the DHS is also responsible for the criminalization and mistreatment of immigrants. Following 911, the government used ‘national security’ to provide an excuse to deport and incarcerate a large number of immigrants.

Foreigners were considered threats after 911, and they were arrested on immigration charges that did not require the same level of proof as a criminal investigation. Although most 911 policies primarily targeted Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians, the ‘war on terror’ has affected all immigrants, regardless of legal status or race. There were more than 88,000 deportations in 2004 alone due to the post-911 policies created. (AIC, 2015) Some of these policies are the US Patriot Act of 2001, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, and the Homeland Security Act of 2001. These policies increased the criminalization of immigrants as a whole.

Operation Streamline, which began as a joint DHS program in 2005, takes a ‘zero-tolerance’ attitude to illegal border crossing by punishing individuals who perpetrate it. Over the last decade and a half, this initiative has spurred a boom in immigration prosecution. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, there were 97,384 immigration protections in 2013. (TRAC, 2013) CBP facilities became overcrowded and intolerable as a result of a large number of immigration prosecutions. In a study conducted by the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), more than 50 percent of those polled suffered overcrowding in the U.S. Customs and Border Control (CBP) custody while waiting for their court hearing for re-entry and entry charges. (NIJC, 2020) Immigration prosecutions reached an all-time high as a result of Operation Streamline, resulting in overcrowding at CBP border facilities.

Secure Communities, a DHS program, was launched in 2008. As people were being detained, Secure Communities employed biometric data to search for deportable immigrants. If they were apprehended, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would place a detainer on the immigrant, instructing the jail to hold them until ICE arrived. However, the majority of the immigrants detained had no criminal record. In a study by TRAC, 77.4 percent of immigrants detained by ICE had no criminal record and the other 22.6 percent had criminal offenses but 8.6 percent of those only had level 1 criminal offenses. (TRAC, 2013) A DHS program called Secure Communities deported a huge number of immigrants who had little to no involvement with local law enforcement and had never committed any major crimes.

The events of 911 made the government realize they needed to make big changes to national security. In response, the government passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which created the DHS. As a result, the DHS created several policies that would deport and incarcerate large numbers of immigrants. They created the Open Streamline program which caused immigration prosecutions to be at an all-time high and the Secure Communities program which would deport a huge number of immigrants who had no contact with law enforcement in the past. The government used “national security” to provide an excuse for the mass incarceration and mistreatment of immigrants.