Are civil liberties and homeland security opposing concepts in the united states

October 15, Border Security is national security. It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.

Are civil liberties and homeland security opposing concepts in the united states

With this paradigm in mind, this article describes the approach approved in the DOD-HLS Joint Operating Concept HLS JOC that describes how DOD intends to perform its responsibilities associated with securing the homeland, to include homeland defense and civil support missions, and supporting emergency preparedness planning activities.

As a result, nearly everyone in America now agrees that it is the responsibility of the United States government to protect its citizens. We will not triumph solely or even primarily through military might.

The unprecedented nature of the current threat to the U. What exactly is the threat?

Related Questions

Until these questions are answered, military officers will struggle to clearly understand their role inside domestic society. DOD took a step toward developing the answers to these questions when the new assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense developed the Strategy for Homeland Defense and Defense Support to Civil Authorities June and U.

Work on these two documents by the new assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, the Joint Staff, U. The attacks of September 11 were not only a wake-up call, alerting the U. In assessing these diverse threats, the U.

S is confronted with a spectrum of threats ranging from traditional national security threats e. This is a conceptual spectrum with clear definitions at both ends and less clarity in the middle, where the two ends blend together.

Topics | Homeland Security - Preview

These are traditional threats utilizing military capabilities from hostile and potentially hostile nation-states. These threats are not new — they are well understood, with clear responsibilities within the federal government.

Just as clear to the federal government, and the American people, is the opposite end of the threat spectrum where threats are considered criminal in nature. These hostile actors include international criminal rings and narco-terrorists whose missions, motivations, and methods are criminal in nature rather than political or ideological.

The law enforcement responsibilities for these types of threats are clear. The most dangerous of these groups, the narco-terrorists, are criminal in nature and there is normally no direct military involvement other than traditional military assistance and counter-drug support.

On the periphery of this end of the spectrum are domestic terrorist groups, also dealt with as law enforcement concerns; DOD has little responsibility for these threats, except in the extreme and remote case of fighting insurrection against the government. Because of the nature of this spectrum, a coordinated, integrated, and coherent national effort is essential in securing the U.

This complexity and lack of certainty also challenge any attempt to divide possible hostile threat actors among various agencies with homeland defense and homeland security responsibilities.

In an effort to clarify responsibilities in countering these threats, the U. DHS was created specifically to address the threat of terrorism, bringing together twenty-two federal entities with critical homeland security missions into a single agency with the primary mission to protect our homeland against terrorist threats.

In accordance with U. Historically, this has been an overseas mission and in these forward regions, the role of the American military is clear. While the traditional DOD role continues overseas, the American military has also been given expanded responsibility for some new threats the U.

HSM Survey of Homeland Security and Emergency | Tutor King - attheheels.com

The current embryonic nature of DHS and other agencies with counter-terrorism responsibilities and the demands of providing security for the American people only increase the potential for the president to turn to robust military capabilities during a crisis.

While robust DOD capabilities face historical resistance to their use in domestic operations, even more problems exist for law enforcement and DHS because of the fear that threat capabilities have grown faster than the required legal authorities and operational abilities.

Many state and local law enforcement agencies could potentially be overwhelmed in a direct attack by a terrorist cell using military weapons and paramilitary tactics. This absence of clear lines of responsibility for terrorist threats is not unique to this aspect of American government.

This duplication presents the federal government with options, both military and non-military, during a crisis to address each specific threat See Figure 1. Current National Challenge This absence of a clearly defined border between DOD and DHS, DOJ, or other agency responsibilities, and the overlap of capabilities, is in reality an inherent strength for the federal government; it allows the president to determine which threats are best met by law enforcement and which require military response.

The military will continue to play a vital role in securing U. DOD must prepare for conventional or unconventional attacks by any adversary including, but not strictly limited to, terrorists. When DOD conducts military missions to defend the people or territory of the United States at the direction of the president, this is homeland defense.

As shown in Figure 4, this responsibility rests with the president as commander in chief and chief executive. In many cases, the answer is unequivocal. In clear cases of foreign aggression and threats to national security, DOD will be directed to conduct HLD operations necessary to defeat an attack including, if applicable, actions taken in anticipatory self-defense to preempt an attack before it takes place.

It is also possible for the president to direct the transition of LFA responsibility during a crisis from DOD to another federal agency, or vice versa, should changing circumstances warrant such a transition for example, if law enforcement capabilities are unexpectedly exceeded.

In those situations where DOD and DHS, DOJ, or another on-scene agency have the required capabilities, but lack a formal presidential directive, the on-scene leadership must be empowered to take whatever actions are deemed necessary and appropriate, in accordance with pre-established authorities, guidance, and policies, to ensure the security of the homeland.

Are civil liberties and homeland security opposing concepts in the united states

In this core mission, DOD is responsible for deterring attacks against the U. Should deterrence fail, DOD requires a defense that is proactive, externally focused, and conducted in depth beginning at the source of the threat.Homeland Defense and Homeland Security Paradigm.

A secure homeland is the nation’s first priority and is fundamental to the successful execution of the nation’s military strategy.

It is also essential to America’s ability to project power, sustain a global military presence, and to honor its global security commitments. Sacrificing national security and citizen liberties. Border Security is national security.. The preface of the official government report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel began with the following paragraph: It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country.

Chapter 13 & Domestic Policy & Foreign Policy. STUDY. PLAY. A form of police regulation, civil penalties usually take the form of The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Russia, and.

Chapter4 Civil Liberties and Civil Rights GOVT 50 terms. Chapter 5 Public . The Alien and Sedition Acts of the s were the first example of a federal law believed to have thrown off the balance in favor of security over civil liberties. HSM Week 2 Assignment, Free Speech vs Security Discussion Question 1: The Balance of Civil Liberties and Domestic Security: Are civil liberties and homeland security opposing concepts in the United States?

The United States encounters many controversial issues fighting terrorism and its effects on civil liberties. "United States Department of Homeland Security.".

'Homeland Security' Threatens Constitution