Terrorism Prevention Act Of 2004 (IRTA)

Ever since 9/11 when both World Trade Center buildings were attacked by an Islamic Group, attacks by Islamic Terrorist on U.S. soil have been less of a threat than Domestic Terrorists. Domestic Terrorism has been shown these passed for years but yet again most of these cases have not been classified as acts of Domestic Terrorism they most likely fall into the category. Now the definition of Domestic Terrorism is basically "the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator 's own country against their fellow citizens". Now personally I don 't know how our government is working with these popular cases like Charlottesville, Las Vegas, and a new that just happened recently actually two but I 'll just say one, the New York attack that

The Patriots Act has become a huge part of the community and some people do not even realize it, though plenty of the time they are using this Patriots Act to defend their idea of spying on the citizens around the world. In order for the community to feel safer, they must first take away the Patriots Act due to safety issues people tend to feel less secure when they know they are being watched for their every move. People have to understand that not only is this something that is pointless, but it makes people more aware of what they send. This act will not prevent terrorism in the world, due to the amount of damage that has been done in the world they have not found terrorist by seeing whom the contact when they contact and most of the time

Perhaps the most important change in how the federal government was reorganized after September 11th is the creation of both the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) position and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in 2004 with the passage of the same IRTPA that created TSA. This concept had been first suggested in 1955 after a study by Congress then and was recommended time and again but only became a reality after the September 11th attacks drove the need for major intelligence reform home and the 9/11 Commission continued the push for the creation of such a position (ODNI, n.d., paras. 1-5). As one can see from the mission and vision of the ODNI, the importance cannot be overstated. The mission includes leading intelligence integration while having the IC produce the most insightful intelligence products possible and the vision is fully integrating the IC thus making the nation more secure (ODNI, n.d., paras. 1-2).

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks was among the agencies that associated the 9/11 attacks with lack of coordination among agencies (Best, 2015). This prompted the Congress to enact a legislation that established a centralized intelligence leadership, popular as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). However, the legislation only helped to increase tension between different agencies, especially on how to approach funding. The legislation was not clear regarding the boundaries between the activities of the DNI, and their interaction with the mainstream intelligence agencies. The congress debated these concerns and later established the framework for the working of the DNI and relationship with different intelligence agencies. Most importantly, this legislation focused on one element of reorganization, which was enhancing coordination of activities between different

There was identified problems within the intelligence community overall. The intelligence community struggled through the 1990s It struggled with an overwhelming amount of priorities, lack of and shrinking budgets, outdated equipment, and, of course, bureaucracy. It was not that we did not know about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, it was that the CIA struggled with engaging proxies to disrupt and engage Al Qaeda. The CIA was not the only problem. The FBI has their share of struggles as well. During the 90s, and since the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers, the FBI was concerned about international terrorism, but they were and organization with most of their assets devoted to “after-the-fact” investigations. “The FBI attempted several reform efforts aimed at strengthening its ability to prevent such attacks, but these reform efforts failed to implement organization-wide institutional change,” (9/11 Commission, n.d.). The report also identified our permeable boarders, and aviation security issues. The report identified that the State Department’s consular officers nor the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s inspectors and agents were ever to be considered full partners in the counterterrorism effort. Also the protection of our boarders not a national security issue prior to 9/11. When it came to the hijackers of 9/11, they studied the publicly made material for aviation security. They decided to use weapons that had considerable less metal in them, like box cutters, than guns. While two of the hijackers were on the US TIPOFF watch list, aviation security did not use TIPOFF. This led to the terrorist only needing to beat one level of security, and that was the checkpoint. Also during the security process, several of the hijackers were identified for extra screening by the CAPPS system. This system only meant that their checked baggage was further

The USA Patriot Act also known as "Uniting and Strengthening America Act by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act” is an official record that was ratified by congress and signed into law by former President George Bush. This law was passed to prevent another event of terrorist attacks such as the ones that took place on September 11, 2001 in New York City and Washington, D.C. In less than two months of the 9/11 attacks, this act was released to inform citizens of the United States that their freedom from interference would soon come to an end. Ever since the Patriot Act was put into effect it has violated the American’s civil rights by allowing for invasions of privacy, permitting illegal searches and seizures, and legalizing racial profiling.

Even when the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, told the FBI that al-Mihdhar and other Bin Laden related individuals were in the United States, the FBI refused to open a criminal investigation because at that time it was illegal to share information among the agencies. If this case had been opened, the investigation of al-Mihdhar could have given key evidence regarding the participants of the 9/11 attack beforehand, helping to prevent the attack (Kyl 140). The delayed notice and “sneak and peek” warrants that the USA PATRIOT act allows are just as crucial as the information sharing between intelligence and criminal investigators. As Attorney General Gonzales explains,

The United States for over a decade now has been attempting to find appropriate routes of compensating and protecting their citizens from terrorism. After the attacks on September 11, 2001 the legislature has made it one of their top priorities. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) was introduced in the Senate as S. 2040 by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) on September 16, 2015. The bill was passed through the Senate on May 17, 2016 by a voice vote, passed through the House of Representatives on September 9, 2016 by a voice vote, then vetoed by President Barack Obama on September 23, 2016, only to have that veto overridden by the United States Senate on September 28, 2016 by a margin of 97-1 and overridden by the United States

Homeland and counter-terrorism programs outlines the policies needed to improve U.S. and global security in the 21st century. The policies analyze how the U.S. and foreign allies will work together toward goals by combating terrorism and their organizations. According to Joint Publication 3-26 (2014), joining with other key partners and allies to develop strategies and theater campaigns plans, helps protect U.S. interest in a common security agenda. This approach not only strengthens the U.S. but it also expands the international multilateral counter-terrorism agenda. For instance, U.S. policies heighten conversation on homeland security and counter-terrorism because it aims to serve globally and nationally. After the twin towns were attack, the department of Homeland Security created a policy called Homeland Security ACT 2002. This act covers multiple areas that needed improvement but it also gave an understand what is expected for security and the future of the country going forward. Science & technology, immigration, emergency response, and bioterrorism, are some of the policies that were created under the Homeland

SRA 211, Threat of Terrorism and Crime, the topic is interesting for me and I learned lots of things from this course. The first thing that I have learned is that, how to critically think before approaching a problem. Unit 1 this course had lots of terminology in regards to terrorism and the psychology of a terrorists and a criminals, before coming in the class I did not know all the material that was taught in Unit 1. The readings in each Unit that were assigned, were also helpful in understanding the material that was being covered in the class. After covering Unit 2, I had a better understanding of what terrorism is and its precise definitions. I have also learned the history of terrorism, different organizations and their motives. One last

But Bin Laden, the object of the military campaign in Afghanistan, remained at large.” Many promises were made by the government that this terrorist would be found in no time. However, instead of finding their enemy, the government ended up killing several civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq just to make it look like as if they were working hard on their mission. What is even harder to believe is the fact that nearly seven years after the World Trade Center attacks, millions of civilians have been killed, but Osama has yet to be found.

The Testimony of Cofer Black, the Director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center from 1999-2002, greatly affected my thinking about the domestic intelligence ‘failures’ which led to the inability to foresee or prevent the 9/11 attacks. His testimony, paired with both concurring and clashing views from the 9/11 Commission Report, gave a persuasive ‘defense’ of the intelligence community’s actions and capabilities before September 11, 2001. Three of Black 's ‘agreements’ were particularly influential towards my understanding. First, Black presented a strong argument that the inefficiency of counterterrorism had much to do with pre-9/11 domestic priorities, which left those involved with fighting terrorism, including those acts

The Patriot Act comprises of communication tools against terrorism such as information sharing across law enforcement agencies in the United States, and new investigative tools used to find and prevent terrorism. These tools provided in this act aid to national security by finding, and terminating terrorists and terrorism conspiracies. Information sharing between Federal agencies, and state and local agencies allows state and local law enforcement to understand what terrorism entails and how to prevent and look for terrorism acts in their communities. In the same sense intelligence officers can discuss anti-terrorism efforts with federal law enforcement. They can now improve the way they coordinate how to prevent terrorism and how to appropriately stop a known plot.

Before the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 in the United States, the CIA was very aware of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups who’s aim was to target the United States. The CIA became aware of Al Qaeda when they were tracking Osama Bin Laden in 1991 for financing terrorist attacks. As previously discussed, the CIA followed Bin Laden to Afghanistan where they eventually declared war on him. In 1999 the CIA was aware of and defeated Bin Laden operatives planning a series of attacks against the US alongside the FBI. The CIA broke up a large terrorist cell in Jordan that was planning to blow up the Radisson Hotel, holy sites, and Israeli tour buses, and had plans to use chemical weapons. During this time, Ahmad Ressam was arrested coming into the United States from the Canadian border, which provided the CIA with knowledge that Bin Laden was planning to attack the United States. In 2000 there was an increase in Ramadan related threats in which the CIA, in conjunction with a number of foreign governments, was able to thwart planned attacks, including one against US interests. During the spring and summer of 2001, the CIA noticed a substantial increase in the amount of threats being reported. While working with the FBI and foreign liaison services, the CIA prevented attacks against US facilities and people in Europe and the Middle East. The CIA considered themselves to be at war with Al Qaeda since 1998 and for the most part was on the

Bill C-51 also known as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, is a bill that was first tabled in Parliament in January 2015. It was introduced to enhance Canada’s original anti-terror laws which were created shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 in the United States of America. Moreover, the need to revise and amend these laws became even more evident after recent attacks both in Canada and abroad. In doing so the government recognized the need to adopt a more preventative approach to dealing with internal and external threats. However, there are a large number of individuals, groups and institutions which opposed this bill. This was evident in March of 2015 when political protests were held and over fifty-five rallies took place across Canada (Lepore, 1). The majority of those opposed to the new anti-terror legislation expressed concerns with three major components of the bill and the vagueness; to privacy concerns with the new information sharing between agencies, new amendments to the Criminal Code surrounding terrorism offences and the increased powers provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); specifically their perceived lack of oversight. Although this piece of legislation is crucial to the safety and security of Canada against acts of terrorism it requires some amendments in order to ensure proper oversight and respect for Canadian values. This paper will argue that changes need to be made to the CSIS act, specifically regarding