Presidential Decision Directive ( Nsa )

Despite being the superpower of the world, the United States of America does not enjoy any exception from the global threats and challenges. The people in denial of such global threats finally woke up to the reality on the dawn of September 11th, 2001, when terrorists struck American financial hub in the city of New York. A badly shaken nation shocked by the magnitude of brutality quickly assembled behind its president to pass a legislation, known as the USA Patriot Act, to tackle internal and external threats to this nation on a war footing basis. The haste with which this legislation was passed made it controversial almost immediately. No doubt, the intent was valid and there was an absolute need to tackle threats to the homeland, however,

When one thinks of security, they tend to think of being protected, free from harm or danger. There are various security threats that the world faces today. Threats could range from a series of cyber threats to terrorist attacks. We are incessantly encountered with catastrophic man-made and natural diseases. The Department of Homeland Security measures the nation 's vulnerabilities, meaning it takes initiative in leading and evaluating vulnerabilities and coordinating with other federal, state, local, and private entities to safeguard the most effective response. The creation of the country’s 15th Cabinet Department marked the largest reorganization of government since the Truman administration.

After the 2001 September 11th attacks on the world trade center the nations homeland security policies had to be reinforced. The awkwardly titled so as to unite and Strengthening America Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act, or USAPA) presented a plenty of administrative changes which altogether expanded the reconnaissance and investigative forces of law authorization organizations in the United States. The Act did not, in any case, accommodate the arrangement of balanced governance that generally protects common freedoms despite such enactment. Authoritative recommendations in light of the terrorist assaults of September 11, 2001 were presented not exactly a week after the assaults. President Bush marked the last bill, the USA PATRIOT Act, into law on October 26, 2001. Despite the fact that the Act made critical corrections to more than 15 imperative statutes, it was presented with awesome flurry and went with little verbal confrontation, and without a House, Senate, or meeting report. Therefore, it needs foundation authoritative history that regularly reflectively gives important statutory understanding. The Act was a trade off form of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (ATA), an expansive authoritative bundle planned to fortify the country 's protection against terrorism. The ATA contained a few procurements incomprehensibly growing the power of law authorization and knowledge organizations to screen private

It is essential to understand America’s critical infrastructure and key resources (CIKR) and National Infrastructure Protection Program (NIPP) to ensure survivability of its critical assets, while maintaining security for America. “The plans are carried out in practice by an integrated network of Federal departments and agencies, State and local government agencies, private sector entities, and a growing number of regional consortia (DHS, 2009, p. I).” Several agencies work together to mitigate attacks on CIKR to protect public safety and security of the nation. A terrorist may stop at nothing to carry out an attack on CIKR. If an attack or natural disaster does transpire, each agency working together to restore the damage must be timely. Additionally, NIPP helps to identify hazards associated with the various sectors, and provides necessary security measures to harden resources (DHS,

Fifteen years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks there has been adjustments made since then when protecting the nation from threats that are unknown. In 2001, President Bush proposed a new department that will be in charge along with other government agencies to work together to make sure threats don’t get out of hand (Tom Ridge). This new department,The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and their main job is to protect the people. In order to execute this goal the Department of Homeland Security must “secure the nation against terrorist attacks, to protect against and respond to threats” (Andrew). Eleven days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks Tom

To improve our readiness to combat and battle these threats. In Seattle,there are secure fiber networks being put together to interlink the government and emergency operations. Not only Seattle but many other cities and countries have invested local funds in creating new 911 centers and emergency operation ceters. Worried about these attacks and threats the United States have “hardened” the control networks that manage electricity and water grids. The entire field of cyber security and information technology has a new way of confronting not only terrorist threats but all of the ongoing issues created by hackers and identity thieves. Knowing if America is safer now than in 2001, especially since Bin Laden's death ,the United States will not know. But in not knowing, where, how, or when a threat could be more than just that the United States has become more vigilant and more prepared (Proud To

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296), and Executive Order (EO-13284) formed DHS with the mission of securing the homeland from terrorist attacks. CBP/OAM’s authority to perform its domestic mission is derived from various policies and authorities. The National Security Presidential Directive 47 (NSPD-47)/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 16 (HSPD-16) provides detailed strategic vision for aviation security. Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 18, The National Security Presidential Directive 41 (NSPD-41)/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 13 (HSPD-13) establishes policy, guidance, and implementation actions to enhance U.S. national/homeland security by protecting U.S. maritime interests. The National Drug Control

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.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 was a result of “congressional investigations into Federal surveillance activities conducted in the name of national security” (Intelligence Surveillance Act, n.d.). FISA allows for judicial and congressional supervision of foreign surveillance, while maintaining the “secrecy necessary to effectively monitor national security threats”, and outlines the procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence information (Intelligence Surveillance Act, n.d.).

The Bush administration expanded power in matters of national security to define the threat and attack the enemy after September 1, 2001 terror attacks. The attacks of 911 were coordinated carefully which lead to the President signing into legislation the Transportation Security Administration in November 2001, which federalized all security screeners for airports to safeguard national security. During this period the President made it clear what his goals were succeeding the attacks: not permitting terrorist to restrike, the U.S. embarked a new kind of war, and the need to help recover areas affected by terrorist and ensure the economies did not shut down or split society. The focus was to protect the American population at home and deflate

America’s government protects us from an attack with programs that advance our nuclear systems, defence systems to protect from an actual attack and pacts with other countries to help us fight against someone in a nuclear war. As a result, America has systems ready to defend everyone in the country from a nuclear attack.

The Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) on Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience advances a national unity of effort to strengthen and maintain secure, functioning, and resilient critical infrastructure (The White House Office of the Press Secretary, February 2013). It is imperative for every nation to develop a critical infrastructure protection plan that will provide the essential services to its society. To archive this, a government must be proactive and coordinate its efforts that will reinforce and maintain secure, functioning, and

In the wake of September 11 attacks, everything change, from roles and responsibilities, to the creation of departments. In fact, the September 11 attacks placed attention to the policy design in charge of preventing or mitigating such attacks, which evidently showed they have failed and therefore, new policies will emerge to address the problems revealed

On July 15, 1996, the former President W.J. Clinton issued an executive order for establishing the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP), making them responsible for developing the nation’s strategic plan to address the possible threats against the nation. Within a year the committee selected eight infrastructures which were considered as the most vital to the nation’s economic security. Not surprisingly, water resources systems appeared in the list. Although by that point some of the most important and yet vulnerable aspects of a society were pinpoint, yet surprisingly, the proper logical approach to ensure their safety was not explored as accurately as one might hope (Haimes, 2002). The main issue was that most attempts against hostile radical movements were considered as one unique problem.

Every state in the nation should have a comprehensive IT security policy due to the “growing array of state and non-state actors are compromising, stealing, changing, or destroying information and could cause critical disruptions to U.S. systems” ("Cyberspace policy RevIew", 2016). Because of “ the dual challenge of maintaining an environment that promotes efficiency, innovation, economic prosperity, and free trade while also promoting safety, security, civil liberties, and privacy rights” ("Cyberspace policy RevIew", 2016). It is the responsibility of state and the federal government “ to address strategic vulnerabilities in cyberspace and ensure that the United States and the world realize the full potential of the information technology revolution” ("Cyberspace policy RevIew", 2016).