Essay On Domestic Preparedness

Many of the current differences we see today between the federal, state and local law enforcement intelligence stemmed from prior to the September 11 attack. Prior to this attack many states lacked a robust intelligence capability, as it was the primary role of federal agencies to protect the United States from both foreign and domestic terrorist threats. In an attempt to mitigate future attacks of this nature state, local, and

While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is one, centralized agency, securing the homeland involves the cooperation and collaboration of many, different agencies and organizations ranging from local law enforcement to national agencies such as the NSA, CIA, and FBI. Each of these agencies contributes to the development of homeland security intelligence. By carefully analyzing and commenting on the objectives, tasks, strengths, weaknesses, and roles of each agency, a larger picture emerges regarding the capabilities and limitation of intelligence in supporting homeland security efforts.

September 11th catalyzed a major revival in the American public’s concern for domestic national security, which had dropped off following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The attacks, which were the first on American soil since Pearl Harbor, prompted American leaders to respond with swift and ambitious military action. At this time, the public perceived security of American territory against “terrorism”–an intentionally broad and emotionally charged term– as its chief national interest. Following the attack, President Bush announced the launch of a “global war on terror”, an international effort to combat terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them–prompting him to establish the Department of Homeland Security later that year.

There has been much less consideration in the role of state and local government, which play a major role in preventing and responding to a terrorist attack. Community policing and other federal agencies can share many strategies such as transforming the agencies to take on new mission should be part of the homeland security strategy because fighting local crimes is the more effective approach in dealing fear and social disorder. When law enforcement are being trained toward a national role in homeland

In the aftermath of the worst terrorist attacks in American history, the September attacks of the world Trade Center in 2001, Americans are obligated to look at the mistakes that were made before and after the attacks, especially in recent lite of increased acts of terror globally. A critical mistake made before the attacks was the neglection of terrorism as a top priority in President George W. Bush’s administration. And after the attacks, inaction would also have been viewed negatively by the public, and so the government acted swiftly in retaliation to the attacks, resulting in the death of many brave American soldiers and a huge cost to the American taxpayer.

Terrorism has become a serious issue since the 9/11 attacks. Local, state, and federal law enforcement has been working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Counterterrorism efforts are in full effect and have priority. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has the responsibility of trying to predict and prevent terrorism attacks. For the FBI to be able to do this they collect, analyze, and share information with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

State and local law enforcement have a very big role to play in homeland security intelligence. They are the front line offense and defense since the climate in the United States changed on September 11, 2001. It could be suggested that the key for state and local law enforcement to be successful in the homeland intelligence game is to be employed more frequently and to be kept better informed of what the federal agencies are aware of with regard to intelligence and threats.

After the tragic event of 9/11, Bush wanted to make sure that another incident similar would not transpire, and he had a duty to keep America safe. To complete that assignment, Bush signed a law, known as the “Homeland Security Act”, to create the “Department of Homeland Security” (DHS) to combat the possible threat of terrorism. The strategic plan for the DHS is for an intergovernmental interaction; federal, state and local, to cooperate with one another and divulge any information that would be deemed a terroristic act. Any information that is shared will go to the office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP), a single point department for the DHS, for the intention of exchanging information with personnel associated with all subnational governments. The ultimate goal of the DHS to have better communication with all intergovernmental entities to prevent another 9/11 attack from occurring.

Subsequent to 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon which compelled the U.S. to imagine the unconceivable. That day things went really wrong, because that was the day that terrorist decided to make their presences know by attacking us. They evolved from using bombs to using airplanes to deliver as there attack weapon because it would cause lethal fatalities on U.S. soil. This was never done before and we were not prepared to handle such a massive attack. This paper will investigate what went wrong before and after 9/11, the effects of post 9/11, surveillance surge on state and local policing, what was the problem why the C.I.A. and the F.B. I. did not communicate with each other, analyze our current and past laws in regards to the dissemination of information between state, local authorities, and federal authorities, and to recommend changes or reforms to policies that are obsolete. We understand that local law enforcement and state agencies will bring specific advantages (there strength) from there organizations, and they will also bring their inherited weaknesses. Thereby, they will bring one important thing to the table which is how they collect local intelligence; as well as them being able to address some of their weaknesses. For example, lack of analytical capacity in order to fully use the data they collect. This paper builds and contributes to how things were before and after 9/11, and the types of changes that were made within law

Terrorism is a common term used in the media and news everyday, especially in the United States. We are in a constant battle against ‘terrorism’, “Counterterrorism has to be woven into the everyday workings of every department. It should be included on the agenda of every meeting…” (Kelling & Bratton, 2006).

The intent of this policy memorandum is to propose that policy on counterterrorism in the United States of America be manufactured. Defining counterterrorism in a Western democratic sense is extremely difficult. This is due the uniqueness of each terrorism case. According to Jason Rineheart, what makes this defining process so difficult is that these democracies must take into consideration certain civil liberties and the rule of law. As stated by the U.S. Army Field Manual, counterterrorism can be defined as offensive actions taken in efforts to “prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism.” What is most important when defining counterterrorism is the focus on its offensive nature. It is also necessary to focus on the nature

Since the deadly terror attacks of 9/11, intelligence gathering for homeland security has improved immensely. One of the most important developments in our law-enforcement structure that has enhanced our intelligence is the creation of fusion centers. Fusion centers are “state and major urban area focal points for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information between federal; state, local, tribal, territorial (SLTT); and private sector partners” (Department of Homeland Security, 2016). These fusion centers are "owned and operated by state and local entities" and are supported by federal partners in its many aspects which include personnel deployment, capacity building, and important and crucial connectivity to federal systems (Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), 2012, para. 3). For example, the DHS provides over 70 fusion centers access to the Homeland Secure Data Network or HSDN which allows these fusion centers to receive federally generated classified threat information.

State and local law enforcement should play a key role in homeland security intelligence because state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) law enforcement agencies are in a position where they can collect and analyze from a different perspective raw data that could be beneficial for the intelligence community (IC) at the state and federal level. Moreover, by giving law enforcement a proactive role in homeland security intelligence, it also enhances the capabilities and effectiveness of the IC because at a time when budgets are shrinking, it is very difficult for the IC to allocate sufficient resources at the state or local level (ODNI, 2016, p. 8). However, there are many barriers, such as operational, financial, and legal barriers, that

The first argument supporting the statement that national security is more important than protection of individual rights is the increased threat of terroristic attacks, which are very dangerous, carefully planned, locally targeted and generously funded

Intelligence collection and apprehension of criminals have occurred for many years; however, with the exception of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, these actions were performed by different organizations. Nonetheless, roles and responsibilities have changed since the attacks on September 11, 2001. Intelligence-led policing and the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing program were incorporated, and fusion centers were established to help gather intelligence from different levels of the government. Although law enforcement at the local, state, and tribal levels aid in intelligence collection, it is important to ensure that intelligence gathered to protect national security and law enforcement