The Pros And Cons Of Homeland Security

When the topic of Homeland Security is introduced, the first thought that comes to mind is either 9/11 or the Transportation Security Administration, TSA for short. No matter the reference, most Americans know that Homeland Security has something to do with Terrorism. Until an actual attack occurs, or election season begins, the average person may never give any thought or credit to the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security goes far beyond terrorism and terrorism prevention. Homeland Security does not just encompass holding individuals up at airports for multiple hours to intentionally hinder passengers from catching their flight out of the Caribbean. Homeland Security is multiple levels of legislation; law and policy to prevent

In society today many citizens feel violated with the security methods taken by homeland security. “On September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States marked the beginning of the global war on terrorism. The methods used are justifiable as they provide protection against possible threats or attacks. This attack on U.S. soil increased surveillance of both American citizens and foreign nationals” (Andrew, C., & Walter,

Since the founding of the United States of America, freedom has been the basis of the governmental and ruling systems in place. Individual freedoms are protected in both the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, and Schwartz (2009) explains that ‘public liberty ultimately enhances collective rationality—it is a path to heightening our wisdom by increasing access to pertinent information and improving decision making’ (p. 409). However, there have been many times in history when the true freedom of citizens is called into question. There has always been controversy about how much power the government should have, who is keeping the government in check, and if citizens are properly informed about what their elected governed are doing. The passing of the Patriot Act in 2001 was no exception to this controversy. The

One beautiful morning in September 2001 many people went about their day like they have before. Some off to work, or traveling for business, or to visit family, and in a blink of an eye our lives in America changed forever. We were attacked, on our own soil, not once, but four times. That fourth plane didn’t make it to its destination, thanks to the brave souls aboard that sacrificed their lives to save others. On that fateful day 2,753(NYmag) families would never be the same, as well as the rest of us that watch in disbelief. The attacks on September 11th 2001 led to something called the Patriot Act. In the days after 9/11 Congress hurried to pass a bill to give law-enforcement agencies the power to fight domestic terrorism. On October 26, President George W. Bush signed three hundred page USA Patriot Act into law (Crf.org). The USA Patriot Act of 2001 was created to prevent and catch terrorist in the United States and around the world. The contents of it has been one of great controversy in the rights of our privacy and the violation of our constitutional rights. Can we give up too much freedom to keep us safe? Where do we draw the line to keep our Country safe?

In the years since the passing of the Patriot Act, there has been much controversy and debate regarding the positive and negative advantages, and consequences of this bill. As a member of the law enforcement community I have experienced firsthand some of the changes the Patriot Act has brought upon this nation. A result of this experience along with information obtained in the studying of this act and

After the terrorist attack September 11, 2001, the United States government increased their investments in security. Many innocent lives were lost because of that incident, which worried the United States of America about self-defense or Homeland Security. Homeland Security was signed to become a law by the President George W. Bush in November 2002. Their main priority was to secure the country from the threats such as international terrorism. The Department of Homeland security had to focus on five goals such as prevent terrorism, enhance security, secure the borders, enforce immigration laws, safeguard, and cyberspace. In order to achieve these goals a lot of work was needed.

Security, however you may think of it the measures we take for it can never enough. It's like insurance you have it not because you want something to happen but because you know that things do happen. That is the United States Border Patrol and Customs they are our first line of defense to the war on drugs and the war on terrorism, for that they have the illegal immigration policy and the pros and cons (www.kyma.com/news/securing-america/646148044.).

Look around you America. Your world is changing. Suddenly it’s no longer safe to fly in airplanes, attend sporting events, or just open your junk mail. Almost daily, news of threats and security breach’s litter the airwaves, leaving many asking the same question. “How can we make our country safe again?” Unfortunately, there isn’t a simple answer. America is united in the cause, but divided over the methods of preventing terrorism. At this time of uncertainty, many are urging Americans to “give up” some of their freedoms and privacy in exchange for safety. Regrettably, this wave of patriotism has spilled over, and is beginning to infringe on our fundamental liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights. Since the September 11th terrorist

September 11, 2001 sparked many different feelings into the hearts of Americans. People sprang into action to seek revenge and protect America’s precious soils from another deadly attack by reinforcing America’s strength through her government. The men and women of Congress retaliated to the terrorist attacks by drafting and passing the USA PATRIOT Act on October 26, 2001, which stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” The bill was moved through Congress with amazing speed and little hesitation. After the passing, the unsuspecting citizens of America were bombarded with many new rules and regulations that

Later, the federal, state, and local government responses to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina expanded the concept of homeland security to include significant disasters, major public health emergencies, and other events that threaten the United States, its economy, the rule of law, and government operations (2). Homeland security is the combination of law enforcement, immigration, disaster relief, and terrorist activities within the United States’ borders. This would be based on the local agencies and civilian departments to safeguard the people from any threat within while being assisted by the government. In some aspects of terror attacks, there will be a combination of both homeland security and homeland defense. 9/11 is the perfect example as homeland security was responding to the local disasters and threats while the homeland defense, military, was deploying to get to the root of the threats. This is essential to the way homeland security operates because this will stop the attack on the nation’s soil before it reaches the borders and local government agencies are required. The biggest issue with the homeland security aspect is that the

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

The United States border stretches for thousands of miles of harsh desert and forest landscape, between two oceans, over lakes and rivers and deals with the highest amount of immigrant traffic in the world. The U.S. has one of the toughest jobs in dealing with border security and the other issues that arise from economic and political ramifications, to securing the land, sea and air borders from unwanted entry by illegals immigrants, terrorists and contraband. Due to all these aspects, these make it difficult for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to get a handle on securing our nations border. Securing the border from illegal entry falls under the jurisdiction of the Custom Border protection (CBP) and Border Patrol, which both agencies are under the large DHS umbrella. These agencies were both created to handle these types of problems and have increased its work force numbers after the 9/11 attacks. This is actually when the U.S. really started to look at borders and locking them down from unwanted entry. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in March of 2003, the increase in the amount of federal officers on the border has nearly doubled to the sum of over 17,000 (DHS.gov, 2017).

After the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, this country scrambled to take action to provide future protection. New techniques had to be developed to protect the nation from the menace of terrorism. Along with the new techniques came the decision to enact laws that some believed crossed the threshold of violating civil liberties this county and those living in it were guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. “On October 26, 2001, the Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act, was signed into effect” (Stern, 2004, p. 1112). While speaking to Congress,

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the