Terrorism and Homeland Security

...

Furthermore, there has been a recent move by the federal government with the aim of increasing efforts to formalize, standardize and network intelligence centers. This is done at the local, state and regional levels. As a result, it can have access to their intelligence community’s Information Sharing Environment (Davis, 2002). According to me, this is clearly equivalent to creating a new de-facto national domestic intelligence agency. This is because the system is far-reaching and allows for a broad range of personnel from all levels of government, the private sector, and the military to spy on their fellow Americans. One such example is the New York Police Department’s intelligence division. Despite not being a local intelligence fusion center, the NYPD intelligence effort includes liaison officers and analysts.

Balancing Security and Liberty

Despite argument that there should not be situation that forces citizens to trade security for liberty, this trade-off is real and continues to occur even today. This is because over the years civil liberties have been known to be curtailed in times of national security crisis in exchange for perceived greater security. However, the balance and boundaries between liberties and security have always been arguably restored after such crises (Campbell & Flournoy, 2001).

This is because some of the authority and powers acquired during the crises have tends to expand government powers into traditionally private spheres. Some of these powers have then gone ahead and been retained. One such example is the: more intrusive screening at airports that continues to take place for the good of national greater security at the expense of liberty despite the end of such a crisis. Another example is the increased surveillance to the extent that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is empowered to issue warrants for domestic searches and surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA). And some agencies also do this without such an approval. Furthermore, the FBI has been allowed to expand its domestic intelligence and surveillance operations as its agents have been recently allowed to conduct investigations and surveillance such as by searching databases or sorting through a person’s trash. It also uses undercover informants in intelligence investigations (Campbell & Flournoy, 2001).

However, the most controversial aspect of domestic intelligence is the Patriot Act, because it expanded the ability of government authorities to collect information within the US. The Patriot Act is United States federal legislation established after September 11, 2001, when terrorists flew two commercial jets into the world trade center. The Patriot Act, which is also known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, was pushed through the Senate and house of legislation to help aid federal and local law enforcement in preventing another terrorist attack. In my opinion, the Patriot Act was set up in order to offer the American public a sense of security in wake of the attacks. Therefore, Congress passed a law that broadens definitions of terrorism, toughens sentence for convicted terrorists, and generally makes it easier for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to gather and share reams of information, some related to terror investigation and some not. Many have question the government’s scope of power as it pertains to the federal legislation (Patriot Act), and the purpose and benefits it proves to the American citizen. “The stated purpose of the USA Patriot Act: to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. The law is very complex and it modifies several existing laws, including the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, Pen Register and Trap and Statute, Money Laundering Act, Immigration and Nationally Act, Money Laundering Control Act, Bank Secrecy Act, Right to Financial Privacy Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act” (Egen, Dan, 2004).

In examining the Patriot Act it seems to actually violate many of our Constitutional Rights. This legislation allows the government rights to look into any American’s personal life. However, only if the government has enough proof, would the violation of your Constitutional Rights be violated. Although, Patriot Act has hundreds of sections dealing with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Pen Register and Trap Statute, sections 808, 814 and 816 contains several provisions that apply to computer security. “Section 808 adds certain computer fraud and abuse offenses to the list of violations that may constitute a federal crime of terrorism. The new provisions apply to: anyone who knowingly accesses a computer without authorization and obtains classified information; and anyone who knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code or command, and as a result intentionally cause damage to a protected computer” (Rhodes-Ousley, M, 2013). This section essentially allows the government to define numerous existing crimes as a federal crime of terrorism, which influences the conduct of the government by intimidation of coercion.

It provision have been constantly renewed making it possible for intelligence work to take place. The main problem with this is that the agencies allowed to conduct such intelligence have been in most case excuse from oversight or subjected to inadequate oversight. This is seen when these agencies are only subjected to congressional oversight. It is well-known that congressional oversight of intelligence matters is weak and ineffective (Campbell & Flournoy, 2001). This stems from the fact that the Congress has many other roles to perform and may lack the technical know-how to adequately make decision with regards to security matters on time. Therefore a more intensive system of oversight in needed (Lieberman, 2003). To make matters worse, most of the organizations and agencies that participate in intelligence work are organizations such as the National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and agency inspectors general. These are regarded as part of the executive. Therefore, the system that exists allows the executive branch to supervise itself which should not be the case.

Another issue is with regards to intelligence fusion centers at the local and the state level. These local and state are under the control of the respective states and local authorities of the regions that they are located. This is despite the fact that they receive funding from