V

HLS 3302, American Homeland Security 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit V At the end of this unit, you should be able to:

2. Evaluate the effectiveness of homeland security programs in counterterrorism efforts. 2.4 Describe the structure and functions of the Department of Homeland Security and its

component agencies. Required Unit Resources Chapter 12: Intelligence Gathering (ULO 2.4) This chapter explores how information is collected to identify threats before they happen. Alperen explains the intelligence cycle, planning, collecting, analyzing, and sharing, and how it helps agencies detect everything from terrorist plots to cyberattacks. The chapter breaks down how different methods like surveillance, informants, and open-source intelligence are used, and it highlights the legal and ethical challenges involved. It also raises key questions about how to balance national security with civil liberties. This chapter gives you a clear understanding of how intelligence gathering works on the ground and why it is a critical part of protecting the homeland (27 pages). Unit Lesson Lesson: Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Situational Awareness (ULO 2.4) In the post-9/11 homeland security landscape, intelligence has become an indispensable instrument for anticipating threats, mitigating vulnerabilities, and enhancing national resilience. Intelligence is not merely the province of spies or analysts; it encompasses a broad and dynamic process of gathering, analyzing, sharing, and acting on information relevant to national and public safety. This lesson explores the central role of intelligence within the homeland security enterprise, emphasizing its functions, challenges, and ethical implications, while also examining the critical need for effective information sharing and real-time situational awareness.

The Role of Intelligence in Homeland Security

Intelligence within the homeland security context is defined as the timely acquisition and dissemination of information that enables decision-makers to anticipate, prevent, or respond to threats. Unlike strategic intelligence focused on foreign adversaries, homeland security intelligence is frequently tactical and operational, aimed at immediate or near-term threats such as terrorism, cyberattacks, pandemics, or natural disasters. Alperen (2024) identifies that the post-9/11 intelligence apparatus expanded dramatically in scope, marked by the formation of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Office of Intelligence and Analysis’s mission is distinct from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the National Security Agency (NSA). It serves as a conduit between federal intelligence agencies and state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners. This intelligence-to-action bridge ensures that local law enforcement and first responders have access to threat information relevant to their jurisdictions.

Fusion Centers and the Intelligence Infrastructure

One of the most important developments in decentralized intelligence is the establishment of fusion centers. These state-run centers serve as regional hubs for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence.

UNIT V STUDY GUIDE Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Situational Awareness

HLS 3302, American Homeland Security 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title

They are collaborative efforts involving federal, state, and local agencies, as well as private sector entities, and are intended to break down silos between organizations (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2005). Fusion centers help facilitate horizontal intelligence sharing across jurisdictions, and vertical integration between local authorities and federal agencies such as Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Yet their effectiveness has been subject to scrutiny. Alperen (2024) and various government oversight bodies note that while fusion centers hold potential, they suffer from uneven funding, a lack of standardization, and privacy concerns because of broad surveillance practices and unclear accountability.

The Intelligence Cycle and Situational Awareness

Understanding the intelligence cycle is critical. It consists of five phases: planning and direction, collection, processing, analysis and production, and dissemination (Lowenthal, 2023). Homeland security professionals must recognize where their agency fits within this cycle and how their intelligence requirements support decision-making and operational response. Situational awareness, defined as the real-time understanding of evolving events, is a critical output of effective intelligence operations. For example, during the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, fragmented intelligence prior to the attack led to missed opportunities, while situational awareness in the immediate aftermath allowed for a swift, coordinated search (Serino, 2013). This underscores the importance of timely, actionable intelligence in both prevention and response.

Technological Tools and Open-Source Intelligence

Technological advancement has expanded the intelligence toolkit. DHS and its partners now rely heavily on geospatial intelligence (GEOINT), social media monitoring, data mining, and predictive analytics. Open- source intelligence (OSINT) gleaned from publicly available sources, such as news media, social platforms,

Planning and Direction

Collection

ProcessingAnalysis and Production

Dissemination

Intelligence Cycle

HLS 3302, American Homeland Security 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title

and satellite imagery has become increasingly valuable in identifying threats and assessing public sentiment during crises. However, technology presents ethical and legal challenges, particularly regarding surveillance and data privacy. Balancing the need for observation of the constitutional protections enshrined in the First and Fourth Amendments remains a persistent dilemma. For instance, using AI to scan social media for threats must be weighed against the potential for wrongful identification, algorithmic bias, and chilling effects on speech.

Barriers to Effective Information Sharing

Despite significant reforms, homeland security agencies continue to face structural and cultural barriers to effective information sharing. These include classification restrictions, bureaucratic rivalries, incompatible IT systems, and a general reluctance to share what you know out of concern for operational security or interagency politics (Best, 2011). After 9/11, the failure to connect the dots between the FBI and CIA intelligence prompted sweeping changes, including the creation of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE) (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks et al., 2004). Yet more than 2 decades later, major incidents from the Orlando nightclub shooting to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot continue to expose persistent coordination failures. To overcome these limitations, homeland security leaders must foster a culture of trust, transparency, and collaboration. Regular joint exercises, interoperable data platforms, and legally sound information-sharing agreements are among the tools necessary to improve intelligence flow across jurisdictions and sectors. Intelligence, information sharing, and situational awareness are not peripheral to homeland security; they are its lifeblood. In a risk environment marked by asymmetry, unpredictability, and rapid technological change, the ability to turn raw data into usable knowledge can spell the difference between prevention and catastrophe. While progress has been made since 9/11, further work is needed to integrate intelligence systems, align them with civil liberties, and ensure they serve the public good.

Intelligence Failures, Lessons Learned, and Interagency Gaps Understanding the evolution of intelligence operations and the means of interagency information sharing is foundational to grasping how the homeland security enterprise protects the nation. Unit V focuses on evaluating real-world intelligence failures, the implications of poor situational awareness, and the impact of strategic or operational silos. To explore these themes more concretely, we turn to five notable case studies that each illustrate systemic challenges in the United States intelligence and homeland security landscape. The September 11 Attacks (2001) The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, marked the most catastrophic intelligence failure in U.S. history. Despite numerous red flags, including the activities of known al-Qaeda operatives in the United States, intelligence agencies failed to connect the dots in time. The FBI and CIA each had isolated fragments of the attackers’ plans, but institutional stovepipes, legal barriers, and bureaucratic apathy prevented a timely and coordinated response. The 9/11 Commission later identified these communication gaps and cultural misalignments as critical flaws in national security operations. The significance of 9/11 for intelligence and homeland security cannot be overstated. It led directly to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the USA PATRIOT Act, and widespread restructuring of the intelligence community. Perhaps more importantly, it reshaped national thinking about the nature of threats, highlighting the need for agile, cross-jurisdictional, and anticipatory intelligence. The San Bernardino Shooting (2015) The December 2, 2015, terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, involved a radicalized married couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, who killed 14 people during a workplace holiday event. The

HLS 3302, American Homeland Security 4

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title

attackers had embraced violent jihadist ideology but had avoided detection by avoiding online communications with known extremist figures and relying on end-to-end encryption. This case brought the intersection of privacy and national security to the forefront. After the shooting, the FBI sought to unlock Farook’s iPhone to investigate his contacts, but Apple refused to comply with the request, citing user privacy protections (Braziel et al., 2016). The incident fueled national debate over the legal and ethical boundaries of government surveillance and raised questions about how to monitor extremist threats in an age of encrypted technologies. The Fort Hood Shooting (2009) On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 and injuring more than 30 people. Despite known communication with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and behavioral red flags reported by peers, Hasan remained active in his post. Bureaucratic caution, a reluctance to challenge religious expression, and the absence of an effective insider threat program allowed these warning signs to go unheeded. The Fort Hood shooting remains a tragic case of domestic radicalization that evolved within a military environment. It exposed serious deficiencies in the integration of military counterintelligence with broader national threat assessments. Lessons from this event led to calls for the strengthening of insider threat detection protocols across all federal institutions (Zegart, 2016). The Christmas Day Underwear Bomber Plot (2009) On December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate a bomb concealed in his underwear aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit. Though the device failed to detonate, the event raised alarm over missed opportunities. Abdulmutallab’s father had warned U.S. officials of his son's radicalization, and intelligence agencies had knowledge of his extremist connections. However, due to a failure to integrate and escalate this information, Abdulmutallab remained off the no-fly list. The incident prompted widespread reform in watch listing procedures and led to the creation of more integrated protocols for analyzing fragmented intelligence (Rizer, 2011). It also underscored the need to rethink the global dimensions of threat detection, as Abdulmutallab had trained in Yemen and passed through international transit points with relative ease. These five case studies collectively reveal persistent vulnerabilities in the United States’ intelligence and information-sharing infrastructure. Whether because of institutional fragmentation, legal barriers, technological gaps, or ethical dilemmas, each incident demonstrates the challenges of operationalizing situational awareness. Students should recognize that improving homeland security intelligence is not merely a matter of new tools or laws, but one of leadership, accountability, and the ability to balance civil liberties with national security imperatives. The imperative for integrated, anticipatory, and ethical intelligence remains one of the most critical components of modern homeland security.

References Alperen, M. J. (2024). Foundations of homeland security and emergency management: Law and policy (3rd

ed.). Wiley. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781394191611 Best, R. A., Jr. (2011). Intelligence information: Need-to-know vs. need-to-share. Congressional Research

Service. Braziel, R., Straub, F., Watson, G., & Hoops, R. (2016). Bringing calm to chaos: A critical incident review of

the San Bernardino public safety response to the December 2, 2015, terrorist shooting incident at the Inland Regional Center. Office of Community Oriented Policing Service. https://www.policinginstitute.org/publication/bringing-calm-to-chaos-a-police-foundation-review-of-the- san-bernardino-terrorist-attacks/

HLS 3302, American Homeland Security 5

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title

Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs. (2005). Fusion Center guidelines: Developing and sharing information and intelligence in a new era. U.S. Department of Justice. https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/fusion_center_guidelines_law_enforc ement.pdf

Discovery Education. (2004). The cost of freedom: Civil liberties, security, and the USA PATRIOT Act [Video].

Films on Demand. https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?auth=CAS&url=https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPl aylists.aspx?wID=273866&xtid=154722

Long, M. (2022). American covert action and diplomacy after 9/11. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 33(2), 379–402.

https://research-ebsco-com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/linkprocessor/plink?id=5550203c- 7ef2-32c2-ba9a-50f49ec4200e

Lowenthal, M. M. (2023). Intelligence: From secrets to policy (9th ed.). CQ Press. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Kean, T. H., & Hamilton, L. (2004). The

9/11 Commission report: Final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. Government Printing Office.

Rizer, A. (2011). Dog fight: Did the international battle over airline passenger name records enable the

Christmas-Day Bomber? Catholic University Law Review, 60(1), 77. Serino, R. Lessons learned from the Boston Marathon bombings: Preparing for and responding to the attack.

Statement of Richard Serino, Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 113th Cong. (2013, July 10).

Zegart, A. (2016). The Fort Hood terrorist attack: An organizational postmortem of Army and FBI deficiencies.

In M. G. Bunn & S. D. Sagan (Eds.), Insider threats (pp. 42–73). Cornell University Press. Suggested Unit Resources (Optional) Video: The Cost of Freedom: Civil Liberties, Security and the USA PATRIOT Act This video examines the history of civil liberties during wartime and the controversial USA PATRIOT Act, which was passed in October 2001 (57 minutes).

HLS 3302, American Homeland Security 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit V At the end of this unit, you should be able to:

2. Evaluate the effectiveness of homeland security programs in counterterrorism efforts. 2.4 Describe the structure and functions of the Department of Homeland Security and its

component agencies. Required Unit Resources Chapter 12: Intelligence Gathering (ULO 2.4) This chapter explores how information is collected to identify threats before they happen. Alperen explains the intelligence cycle, planning, collecting, analyzing, and sharing, and how it helps agencies detect everything from terrorist plots to cyberattacks. The chapter breaks down how different methods like surveillance, informants, and open-source intelligence are used, and it highlights the legal and ethical challenges involved. It also raises key questions about how to balance national security with civil liberties. This chapter gives you a clear understanding of how intelligence gathering works on the ground and why it is a critical part of protecting the homeland (27 pages). Unit Lesson Lesson: Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Situational Awareness (ULO 2.4) In the post-9/11 homeland security landscape, intelligence has become an indispensable instrument for anticipating threats, mitigating vulnerabilities, and enhancing national resilience. Intelligence is not merely the province of spies or analysts; it encompasses a broad and dynamic process of gathering, analyzing, sharing, and acting on information relevant to national and public safety. This lesson explores the central role of intelligence within the homeland security enterprise, emphasizing its functions, challenges, and ethical implications, while also examining the critical need for effective information sharing and real-time situational awareness.

The Role of Intelligence in Homeland Security

Intelligence within the homeland security context is defined as the timely acquisition and dissemination of information that enables decision-makers to anticipate, prevent, or respond to threats. Unlike strategic intelligence focused on foreign adversaries, homeland security intelligence is frequently tactical and operational, aimed at immediate or near-term threats such as terrorism, cyberattacks, pandemics, or natural disasters. Alperen (2024) identifies that the post-9/11 intelligence apparatus expanded dramatically in scope, marked by the formation of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Office of Intelligence and Analysis’s mission is distinct from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the National Security Agency (NSA). It serves as a conduit between federal intelligence agencies and state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners. This intelligence-to-action bridge ensures that local law enforcement and first responders have access to threat information relevant to their jurisdictions.

Fusion Centers and the Intelligence Infrastructure

One of the most important developments in decentralized intelligence is the establishment of fusion centers. These state-run centers serve as regional hubs for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence.

UNIT V STUDY GUIDE Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Situational Awareness

HLS 3302, American Homeland Security 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title

They are collaborative efforts involving federal, state, and local agencies, as well as private sector entities, and are intended to break down silos between organizations (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2005). Fusion centers help facilitate horizontal intelligence sharing across jurisdictions, and vertical integration between local authorities and federal agencies such as Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Yet their effectiveness has been subject to scrutiny. Alperen (2024) and various government oversight bodies note that while fusion centers hold potential, they suffer from uneven funding, a lack of standardization, and privacy concerns because of broad surveillance practices and unclear accountability.

The Intelligence Cycle and Situational Awareness

Understanding the intelligence cycle is critical. It consists of five phases: planning and direction, collection, processing, analysis and production, and dissemination (Lowenthal, 2023). Homeland security professionals must recognize where their agency fits within this cycle and how their intelligence requirements support decision-making and operational response. Situational awareness, defined as the real-time understanding of evolving events, is a critical output of effective intelligence operations. For example, during the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, fragmented intelligence prior to the attack led to missed opportunities, while situational awareness in the immediate aftermath allowed for a swift, coordinated search (Serino, 2013). This underscores the importance of timely, actionable intelligence in both prevention and response.

Technological Tools and Open-Source Intelligence

Technological advancement has expanded the intelligence toolkit. DHS and its partners now rely heavily on geospatial intelligence (GEOINT), social media monitoring, data mining, and predictive analytics. Open- source intelligence (OSINT) gleaned from publicly available sources, such as news media, social platforms,

Planning and Direction

Collection

ProcessingAnalysis and Production

Dissemination

Intelligence Cycle

HLS 3302, American Homeland Security 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title

and satellite imagery has become increasingly valuable in identifying threats and assessing public sentiment during crises. However, technology presents ethical and legal challenges, particularly regarding surveillance and data privacy. Balancing the need for observation of the constitutional protections enshrined in the First and Fourth Amendments remains a persistent dilemma. For instance, using AI to scan social media for threats must be weighed against the potential for wrongful identification, algorithmic bias, and chilling effects on speech.

Barriers to Effective Information Sharing

Despite significant reforms, homeland security agencies continue to face structural and cultural barriers to effective information sharing. These include classification restrictions, bureaucratic rivalries, incompatible IT systems, and a general reluctance to share what you know out of concern for operational security or interagency politics (Best, 2011). After 9/11, the failure to connect the dots between the FBI and CIA intelligence prompted sweeping changes, including the creation of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE) (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks et al., 2004). Yet more than 2 decades later, major incidents from the Orlando nightclub shooting to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot continue to expose persistent coordination failures. To overcome these limitations, homeland security leaders must foster a culture of trust, transparency, and collaboration. Regular joint exercises, interoperable data platforms, and legally sound information-sharing agreements are among the tools necessary to improve intelligence flow across jurisdictions and sectors. Intelligence, information sharing, and situational awareness are not peripheral to homeland security; they are its lifeblood. In a risk environment marked by asymmetry, unpredictability, and rapid technological change, the ability to turn raw data into usable knowledge can spell the difference between prevention and catastrophe. While progress has been made since 9/11, further work is needed to integrate intelligence systems, align them with civil liberties, and ensure they serve the public good.

Intelligence Failures, Lessons Learned, and Interagency Gaps Understanding the evolution of intelligence operations and the means of interagency information sharing is foundational to grasping how the homeland security enterprise protects the nation. Unit V focuses on evaluating real-world intelligence failures, the implications of poor situational awareness, and the impact of strategic or operational silos. To explore these themes more concretely, we turn to five notable case studies that each illustrate systemic challenges in the United States intelligence and homeland security landscape. The September 11 Attacks (2001) The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, marked the most catastrophic intelligence failure in U.S. history. Despite numerous red flags, including the activities of known al-Qaeda operatives in the United States, intelligence agencies failed to connect the dots in time. The FBI and CIA each had isolated fragments of the attackers’ plans, but institutional stovepipes, legal barriers, and bureaucratic apathy prevented a timely and coordinated response. The 9/11 Commission later identified these communication gaps and cultural misalignments as critical flaws in national security operations. The significance of 9/11 for intelligence and homeland security cannot be overstated. It led directly to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the USA PATRIOT Act, and widespread restructuring of the intelligence community. Perhaps more importantly, it reshaped national thinking about the nature of threats, highlighting the need for agile, cross-jurisdictional, and anticipatory intelligence. The San Bernardino Shooting (2015) The December 2, 2015, terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, involved a radicalized married couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, who killed 14 people during a workplace holiday event. The

HLS 3302, American Homeland Security 4

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title

attackers had embraced violent jihadist ideology but had avoided detection by avoiding online communications with known extremist figures and relying on end-to-end encryption. This case brought the intersection of privacy and national security to the forefront. After the shooting, the FBI sought to unlock Farook’s iPhone to investigate his contacts, but Apple refused to comply with the request, citing user privacy protections (Braziel et al., 2016). The incident fueled national debate over the legal and ethical boundaries of government surveillance and raised questions about how to monitor extremist threats in an age of encrypted technologies. The Fort Hood Shooting (2009) On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 and injuring more than 30 people. Despite known communication with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and behavioral red flags reported by peers, Hasan remained active in his post. Bureaucratic caution, a reluctance to challenge religious expression, and the absence of an effective insider threat program allowed these warning signs to go unheeded. The Fort Hood shooting remains a tragic case of domestic radicalization that evolved within a military environment. It exposed serious deficiencies in the integration of military counterintelligence with broader national threat assessments. Lessons from this event led to calls for the strengthening of insider threat detection protocols across all federal institutions (Zegart, 2016). The Christmas Day Underwear Bomber Plot (2009) On December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate a bomb concealed in his underwear aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit. Though the device failed to detonate, the event raised alarm over missed opportunities. Abdulmutallab’s father had warned U.S. officials of his son's radicalization, and intelligence agencies had knowledge of his extremist connections. However, due to a failure to integrate and escalate this information, Abdulmutallab remained off the no-fly list. The incident prompted widespread reform in watch listing procedures and led to the creation of more integrated protocols for analyzing fragmented intelligence (Rizer, 2011). It also underscored the need to rethink the global dimensions of threat detection, as Abdulmutallab had trained in Yemen and passed through international transit points with relative ease. These five case studies collectively reveal persistent vulnerabilities in the United States’ intelligence and information-sharing infrastructure. Whether because of institutional fragmentation, legal barriers, technological gaps, or ethical dilemmas, each incident demonstrates the challenges of operationalizing situational awareness. Students should recognize that improving homeland security intelligence is not merely a matter of new tools or laws, but one of leadership, accountability, and the ability to balance civil liberties with national security imperatives. The imperative for integrated, anticipatory, and ethical intelligence remains one of the most critical components of modern homeland security.

References Alperen, M. J. (2024). Foundations of homeland security and emergency management: Law and policy (3rd

ed.). Wiley. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781394191611 Best, R. A., Jr. (2011). Intelligence information: Need-to-know vs. need-to-share. Congressional Research

Service. Braziel, R., Straub, F., Watson, G., & Hoops, R. (2016). Bringing calm to chaos: A critical incident review of

the San Bernardino public safety response to the December 2, 2015, terrorist shooting incident at the Inland Regional Center. Office of Community Oriented Policing Service. https://www.policinginstitute.org/publication/bringing-calm-to-chaos-a-police-foundation-review-of-the- san-bernardino-terrorist-attacks/

HLS 3302, American Homeland Security 5

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title

Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs. (2005). Fusion Center guidelines: Developing and sharing information and intelligence in a new era. U.S. Department of Justice. https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/fusion_center_guidelines_law_enforc ement.pdf

Discovery Education. (2004). The cost of freedom: Civil liberties, security, and the USA PATRIOT Act [Video].

Films on Demand. https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?auth=CAS&url=https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPl aylists.aspx?wID=273866&xtid=154722

Long, M. (2022). American covert action and diplomacy after 9/11. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 33(2), 379–402.

https://research-ebsco-com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/linkprocessor/plink?id=5550203c- 7ef2-32c2-ba9a-50f49ec4200e

Lowenthal, M. M. (2023). Intelligence: From secrets to policy (9th ed.). CQ Press. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Kean, T. H., & Hamilton, L. (2004). The

9/11 Commission report: Final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. Government Printing Office.

Rizer, A. (2011). Dog fight: Did the international battle over airline passenger name records enable the

Christmas-Day Bomber? Catholic University Law Review, 60(1), 77. Serino, R. Lessons learned from the Boston Marathon bombings: Preparing for and responding to the attack.

Statement of Richard Serino, Deputy Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 113th Cong. (2013, July 10).

Zegart, A. (2016). The Fort Hood terrorist attack: An organizational postmortem of Army and FBI deficiencies.

In M. G. Bunn & S. D. Sagan (Eds.), Insider threats (pp. 42–73). Cornell University Press. Suggested Unit Resources (Optional) Video: The Cost of Freedom: Civil Liberties, Security and the USA PATRIOT Act This video examines the history of civil liberties during wartime and the controversial USA PATRIOT Act, which was passed in October 2001 (57 minutes).