HLSS502Wk7

Future Issues in Homeland Security/Homeland Defense

One of the most controversial areas of homeland security con�nues to be the balance between security and civil liber�es. One point of view is that people must give up some individual rights, because the alterna�ve – being defeated by the terrorists – is so horrible even to contemplate, that one simply cannot allow it to happen, whatever the cost in terms of our rights. The other point of view is that one cannot lose their values and civil liber�es in the name of safety, because that is exactly what the struggle is all about, and to give up one’s freedoms is to say that the terrorist wins.

One of the liber�es which many people have claimed has been greatly infringed upon is the right to privacy. It happens in this context: it is known that America has millions of illegal aliens in the country. It is also known that there are homegrown and non-state terrorist actors within the country. How does one get them out, and keep them out? One way to do this is by iden�fica�on.

Biggest problem – and the biggest debate – is what can we use to iden�fy a person? There are many proponents of a na�onal iden�fica�on (ID) card. Will that mean the card is an infallible form of iden�fica�on, or not? Well, there is evidence that it will, and evidence that it won’t. Here’s why: the physical card itself has to be based upon what are called “breeder” documents – things such as a Social Security card, a birth cer�ficate (and/or cer�ficate of live birth), a driver’s license, a state-issued iden�fica�on card, passports, etc. The problem is that these documents are notoriously easy to forge or acquire fraudulently. Even if we can produce some sort of valid na�onal iden�fica�on card, we have no guarantees that this iden�fica�on wouldn’t be stolen by somebody.

Moving beyond the issue of a na�onal ID, the issue many have heard of in regards to privacy and civil liber�es is the passage of the Uni�ng and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, be�er known as the USA PATRIOT Act. The Act was passed a mere 30 days a�er the 9/11 a�acks. As a sidebar, and for be�er or for worse, our federal and state governments passed a flurry of major and wide-ranging laws and Execu�ve Orders, as well as restructuring, in the wake of September 11, 2001 (9/11). If the government had intended for their ac�ons to be seen by the public as “doing something,” they surely succeeded. One li�le known part of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II actually made an expansive list of crimes which do not – repeat do not – require a warrant or court order for monitoring. Some recent addi�ons (and this is because of an increased percep�on and probability of an a�ack) are cyber crime, terrorist-related crimes, the ac�vi�es of hackers, and crimes involving interstate and foreign commerce.

Murphy (2012) observed that over 10 years a�er the a�acks of September 11, 2001, there is li�le indica�on that the homeland security revolu�on is slowing (p. 925). This observa�on is consistent with the findings of Donohue (2009) who noted that laws passed to address terrorism o�en were applied across a broader spectrum of legal issues and such laws were difficult to remove once passed, even if the law contained sunset provisions. The difficulty of re�ring a law can be seen in the con�nua�on of conten�ous sec�ons of the USA PATRIOT Act past their ini�al sunset dates. This difficulty is rooted in the fact that passage (renewal) of the law is normally given as needed to prevent terrorism and when the sunset provisions come up, it is unlikely that legislators can state that the threat of terrorism has passed, and addi�onally, that repealing the law will not have an adverse affect on the chance of a terrorist event or a�ack occurring (Donohue, 2009, p. 372). In other words, legislators are too fearful of liability not to renew the USA PATRIOT Act.

The issue of civil liber�es and security is a con�nuing discussion within the area of homeland security. For example, the Na�onal Security Strategy of 2010 stated that, “Advancing our interests may involve new arrangements to confront threats like terrorism, but these prac�ces and structures must always be in line with our Cons�tu�on, preserve our people’s privacy and civil liber�es, and withstand the checks and balances that have served us so well” (U.S. President, 2010, p. 36). The passage of the USA PATRIOT Act raised a lot of concerns with ci�zens regarding how much civil liberty was being lost and if that signified a win for the terrorists. As the events of September 11, 2001, con�nue to move to the past there will be con�nued reflec�on on whether too many liber�es have been surrendered to ensure a safer and more secure na�on. Hopefully, the future will reflect the observa�ons of Donohue (2009) that “The first and most important step is to do away with the old assump�ons – foremost among them being the need to align security and freedom on opposite sides of a fulcrum that favors security” (p. 390). The Interim Na�onal Security Strategic Guidance (2021) by the Biden Administra�on appears to follow the same pathway in promising to preserve civil liber�es, however, as with any interven�on planned or con�nued by our government via legisla�on, the real challenge remains in seeing the intent put into prac�ce.