Ch 1.docx

Homeland Security Chapter One: Defining and introducing HLS Outline Introduction Homeland Security Defined Agencies and their roles Discussion questions Suggestions for further reading Test bank Vocabulary 24-hour news cycle Anthropogenic Conflict versus consensus models Emergency management Hom...

Homeland Security Chapter One: Defining and introducing HLS Outline Introduction Homeland Security Defined Agencies and their roles Discussion questions Suggestions for further reading Test bank Vocabulary 24-hour news cycle Anthropogenic Conflict versus consensus models Emergency management Homeland security Homeland Security System Infrastructure Insurrection Legitimacy Mandate NGO Objective reality Process Risk management Stakeholder Symbolic interactionism System/open system Introduction Homeland Security Defined According to the standard rules of common English, the term ‘homeland security’ is a common noun and therefore neither word in the phrase should be capitalized unless in reference to a specific government agency or in reference to the Homeland Security System. The US Department of Homeland Security defines homeland security as: Homeland security is a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur. https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nat_strat_homelandsecurity_2007.pdf Most web-based definitions are similar; specifically referencing terrorism. Although such narrow definitions of homeland security may accord with the intent of the United States Congress when passing the Homeland Security Act and the USA PATRIOT ACT in the wake of the 911 terror attacks, as the 21st Century has progressed, public perception based on events has suggested the need for an expansion of the term, concept, and practice of homeland security to include mass causality events in general, including natural and human caused disasters, rather than terrorism, alone. In other words, consider homeland security is much more than counter-terrorism. Rather, homeland security should be seen as a much wider concept, referring to public safety during extraordinary events including terrorist acts. Government agencies have specific response capabilities and missions relevant to homeland security and the expansion of these capabilities and missions over the past 20 years has been in large part driven by public perception for the need of such expansion. Public perception is driven by mass media and increasingly, social media. In a world of social media and a 24-hour news cycle, perception often has greater impact on agency missions and actions than facts. Indeed, there are those who argue objective facts either do not exist or if they do exist, are less important than ‘truth’; truth apparently being perception of facts filtered through one’s biases and fears. Driving social media are Smart phones and other technology that make everyone a news reporter capable of instantly posting videos seen by millions of viewers. Objective reality, that is reality based on science-based research, in a practical sense, may not be relevant to the actual practice of homeland security. Thus, millions of dollars and countless other resources may be spent where not actually needed to solve or mitigate a problem that may not even exist; so long as the public perception is that the problem is a problem and is being dealt with by government agencies, actual solutions to real problems may not occur. The forgoing paragraphs are not intended to create or reinforce cynicism in the reader, but to assist the reader in recognizing that the practice of homeland security is based in perception tempered by fact. That is, perception and reality are essentially a single entity. If one believes something is real, it is real in terms of motivating one’s actions regardless of factual reality. Symbolic Interactionism Most simply put, the sociological theory of symbolic interaction states that all human interactions are based on preconceived notions based on our prior interactions with individuals as individuals and as members of groups. This includes what we have merely heard regarding individuals and groups. In short, our behavior when interacting with others is based on stereotypes and personal biases. For example, if a police officer has holds certain stereotypes of street gang members, interactions with persons who fit the officer’s stereotype (profile) of a gang member will be treated by the officer as a gang member based on those stereotypes rather than the actual facts. The person so treated also carries stereotypes of police officers and will interact with the officer based on stereotypes. Another way of understanding the concept of symbolic interaction is that our interactions with others are based on scripts based on personal experience and the stereotypes taught to us by others. The result is that if a person or group believe that something is real, they will act based on what they believe is real, regardless of the actual reality. The practice of making public policy, and maintaining public safety and social order are in large part dependent on public perception of need; which may or may not be reality based. In a free society based on representative government, such as ours, public opinion drives public policy. In other words, the practice of homeland security is inherently political. But whose politics? Not everyone or every group’s political influence carries the same weight in terms of developing government policy. Consensus versus Conflict Models of Society Is government policy based on widespread societal agreement or just agreement among the most powerful segment or segments of society? Does justice (and homeland security) policy serve the rich and powerful, or society as a whole? Consensus models state that public policy, including homeland security policy, is based on widespread agreement among the groups that form society; that is, the policy put into operation is what society as a whole want based on agreement that the policy provides greatest benefit to all groups concerned. Conflict models state that society is made up of competing interest groups seeking dominance, or at least the greatest share of available resources. Conflict models conclude that government policy and operations disproportionately benefit a specific group or small number of allied groups. Among the questions arising within the debate between these two models of society is whether homeland security policy in the post 911 United States serves all Americans more or less equally or primarily serves the needs of urban residents; specifically, those living in and around the 10 largest urban areas of the country. Another question arising from the consensus conflict debate is whether persons of stereotypically Middle-Eastern appearance are disproportionally subjected to law enforcement surveillance. This opens the issue of profiling and the ethics of profiling which comes down to ‘inconveniencing’ the few for the perceived benefit of the many; a topic discussed in the closing chapter of the book. Systems and Processes As stated, homeland security is a system. A system is a grouping of parts interacting to achieve a specific goal or goals; that is, a system is a collection of goal-oriented components and processes. In our case, a collection of agencies, persons, policies, laws, and actions intended to protect the United States from the effects of terrorism, and natural and human caused disasters. Open systems evolve in response to events; closed systems do not. For example, the overall government response to Hurricane Katrina during August-September 2005, was perceived by the public as very poorly done. Public criticism led to evaluation by government officials of the response of government agencies to natural disasters of this scope causing a reevaluation of agency mandates and the actual capabilities of first and second level responders to such events which led to a more expansive definition of homeland security to include natural and anthropogenic (caused by human action) disasters. Thus, the system evolved as a result of external inputs. Homeland security is an evolving system of agencies and processes, evolving in reaction to public perception of need and filtered through multiple layers of government. For purposes of this text, homeland security should be seen as a systematic process, just as the Criminal Justice System (used in this context as a proper noun and thus capitalized) is a systematized process. That is, components working in a more or less specific progression or order. More specifically: Homeland security is all of the agencies and practices intended to mitigate the effects of and respond to natural and human caused disasters as well as to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism or other mass casualty events caused by human beings. Although nothing can be done to prevent natural disasters, the role of the Homeland Security System in such cases should include timely warning as well as measures for the protection of life and property during and after an event. In all cases, homeland security includes individual agency mandate and mission, planning, capability, response, and response assessment. The latter, assessment, is critical to more effectively direct resources to improve preparedness, including training, technology, and operations. In short, agencies must be learning organizations, growing and adapting abilities as stakeholders’ needs, or perceived needs, change. Homeland security, is, therefore, an open system reacting to and adapting to inputs from stakeholders. In terms of a systematic process this would look like this: Planning would include development of organizational structure, policy formulation, and budgeting. Implementing would include recruitment and training of personnel, as well as purchasing, deployment and maintenance of material such buildings, vehicles and other equipment and actual operations before, during, and after an incident. Assessment is just that; how well did the organization perform when called upon, whether in a training scenario or actual event? Assessment would analyze and report the results of training, equipment/technology performance, policy outcome, etc. Assessment should lead to further planning based on success or failure of implemented actions as well as anticipating changing threats and needs thus developing and growing response capability (implementation). Homeland security stakeholders, that is, persons with a vital interest, are the general public, but there are some constituent groups requiring a special relationship to agencies of homeland security. Such singular stakeholders would include government and private businesses related to infrastructure, hospitals, schools, and even jails and prisons; each representing a set of very different needs related to mass causality/mass destruction events. Government agencies involved in homeland security include law enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical services; and in most areas government agencies responsible for water and sewer and roadways. In some areas, provision of electrical power is a government service. Organizations with a role in homeland security would include non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as private security companies and hospitals, as well as charities such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army. Also included are the National Guard, and perhaps the regular military (the role of the regular military will be discussed in Chapter 2 under posse comitatus). Under our broad definition, homeland security would include not only the agencies themselves, but agency mandates and operational capabilities based in training and equipment; documentation, including mutual aid pacts, training and policy manuals, and tables of organization. We should also include access to and ability to utilize technology. Yes, there is a lot more to this enterprise than just counter-terrorism. Closely associated with homeland security is the academic and applied discipline of Emergency Management. Emergency Management is the science of dealing with risk and risk avoidance. Risks include natural and man-made disasters as well as terrorist attacks. Emergency management encompasses much of our discussion thus far; it should, however be seen as a separate field of study and practice from homeland security, criminal justice or fire science. Emergency management is more applicable to executive and managerial functions with homeland security as executive and managerial as well as very operational with both disciplines heavily involved in planning. Consider homeland security as a more related to what should be done and emergency management more concerned with why it should be done. Homeland security may be agency specific and emergency management more holistic. Homeland security may be seen as proactive and reactive with emergency management as predictive and anticipatory. Constitutionally, emergency management; that is, risk and risk avoidance are primarily a state concern with the federal role relegated to supporting state governments should they become overwhelmed and then usually when assistance is requested from state officials. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution provides: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Since federal emergency powers are based in statute and somewhat loosely in the Constitutional clause limiting federal responsibilities to ‘…cases of invasion or insurrection’, homeland security processes would fall primarily to the states with the states being empowered to request federal assistance if the governor of a state felt such assistance was needed. These issues will be further discussed in Chapter 2 which is devoted to law and homeland security as the emergency powers of a president are deserving of further discussion as their application to homeland security is of importance. The responsibilities of the individual states in cases of natural or disasters caused by human action are legally and operationally at least fairly clear, legally. In regards to terrorism, the federal government has assumed responsibility for intelligence collection and analysis, direct intervention, and international interfacing. As stated, the states are still primary in dealing with health and safety and risk and risk avoidance for all other aspects of homeland security. Federal responsibility falls under the previously quoted ‘in cases of invasion or insurrection’. Acts of terrorism, although criminal in common usage of the term, can be easily interpreted as acts of invasion or insurrection depending on the operational base and ideology of the actors. An act occurring on United States soil that originated outside the US could be seen as an invasion, at least of sorts; while an act perpetrated by a group within the US could be seen as an insurrection, although the citizenship of the actors as well as their goals or the goals of their organization, if they have an organization could define the act. Notably, the term insurrection seems to have been expanded from its common definition for political purposes. In practical terms, however; local first responders are always the first responders, group base and ideology being less an issue in the event than protecting life. In terms of process in cases of natural or anthropogenic disasters, local officials would request assistance from the state government as needed. If necessary, the governor would request federal assistance. Theoretically, unless terrorism is the cause, the federal government may not be allowed assist unless asked by the governor of the affected state. However, exceptions exist. For example, although a school shooting would primarily fall under local first responders, state law enforcement officers, having state-wide jurisdiction would no doubt become involved in both first response as well as longer term issues related to investigation and recovery whether their assistance was desired by local officials or not. The use of a firearm would give jurisdiction, at some level, to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) and perhaps other federal agencies. Incidents such as the 2013 explosion in West, Texas would local and state agencies and the BATFE, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and other federal agencies claiming jurisdiction over work place safety. What do you know about homeland security? Our use of the term ‘knowledge’ refers to knowledge of objective reality as well as opinions and beliefs; your own opinions and beliefs as well as what you know about the opinions and beliefs of others. For example, what do you really know about profiling? What do you think others think about the same topic? What do you really know about homeland security? For example, what resources are applicable to the homeland security process and who most benefits from those resources? Who is really responsible for the security of the homeland? Stop here and make a list of government agencies you believe are involved in homeland security. How does your definition of homeland security coincide with the definition given a few pages ago? How much federal money do you think goes to your local area to provide resources related directly to homeland security? How is that you know these things or believe what you believe? Is what you currently know adequate to understand what you need to understand as a voter, first responder, student, or just interested person? All knowledge begins with asking questions; not only asking questions but knowing the correct questions to ask. Note that the sentence said nothing about correct answers, but only correct questions. As an informed member of a free society, who should also be a good student, you must look beyond your current, personal knowledge and ideas of homeland security and dig more deeply into the topic than what may be found in traditional and social media. Learning starts with questioning what you think you already know. Are you certain you are asking the right questions? The Unknown, Unknowns Donald Rumsfeld served as US Secretary of Defense under Presidents Gerald Ford and George Bush, Jr as well as serving three terms in the House of Representatives. During a press briefing during February of 2002 he famously stated: Reports that say something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me because as we know, there are known knowns: there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns: that is to say we know there are some things [we know] we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult one. (https://papers.rumsfeld.com/about/page/authors-note) If you are a traditional student, you may already know your knowledge is limited. As a practitioner and a student, your knowledge may be considerable, but it may be limited to your agency or type of agency. And then we all share the unknown, unknowns. A wholistic knowledge can only enhance one’s specific or limited knowledge as nothing exist independently of anything else. Again, consider what you already know and consider what you may not know. You should also speculate as to your unknown, unknowns. It is hoped by the author, that the reader will approach the academic discipline and practice of homeland security with the view that the role of the student, whether a traditional student or a student as well as an experienced professional, is to question and not rely on assumptions; to take nothing, including the words on this page as a given. Admittedly, this, often is not the way that college textbooks or college classes are framed. Rather, students (and professors) may see classes and textbooks as sources of answers, only. In an evolving process such as homeland security, the questions may be more important than the answers as reality may change quickly making existing answers detrimental to quick decision making and new questions may form a sound basis for decisions. Sometimes the same questions must be asked repeatedly as the progress of events change answers; many questions persist and out-of-date answers are a poor basis for action. There are few simple explanations (answers) of phenomena as complex as mass causality events and events of mass destruction. It is the author’s hope that the reader will finish this book understanding the complexity of homeland security and a clear idea of the right questions to ask both during and beyond a single class/course. As part of the process, let’s consider the level of danger posed to you by terrorism, and other mass causality events. Consider the Risks The odds of being the victim of terrorism or other mass causality events caused by human action are low; probably quite low and very much dependent on where one lives and works. The Cato Institute, a private research organization or ‘think tank’, states the odds of being killed by a foreign-born terrorist are about 1 in 4.3 million; the odds of being otherwise murdered is about 1 in 20,000 (cato.org). The odds of dying from a natural disaster are a bit higher, although the statistics are difficult to pin down. That said, you are far more likely to die from a drug overdose than a terror attack, criminal homicide, or natural disaster. You are most likely to die from heart disease or cancer, the odds of which are largely in your own control based on lifestyle choices. Injury and property loss from natural events are higher than those for terrorism or other human action; again, fairly low and highly dependent on where one lives. If one is a first responder, the odds of injury and death from such events are of course higher as one’s job is to go in harm’s way. Still, the odds are largely dependent on type and size of agency where one is employed as well as the agency’s location and other factors, such as training, shift assignment, and equipment. Large urban areas are currently more likely the targets of terrorism due to their high density of population and property and proximity to media; the terrorist wants drama and drama is created by a high body count and well publicized destruction. Likewise, the number of causalities and value of property damage from natural events and events causes by human negligence or recklessness is higher where people and property are most densely concentrated. Notably, many of the world’s largest urban areas are coastal, riparian (river side), or located along fault lines all of which effect the probability of naturally occurring catastrophic events. Additionally, industry is concentrated in these areas and such areas are transportation hubs; both of which are associated with large scale disasters. In short, life in urban settings increases the odds of death, injury, and property loss from terrorism, weather related phenomenon, and human action related to infrastructure, production of goods, and delivery of services. However, the probability of personal death or loss from such worst-case scenarios is low. New York City or Los Angeles may be at higher risk for mass causality events than Grand Forks, North Dakota or Stephenville, Texas, but the risks for individual New Yorkers or Los Angelinos is only marginally higher than for residents of less urbanized areas. However, please note that individual risk of falling victim to terrorism, crime, or other bad things is very much based on one’s overall lifestyle; choice of residence being only one of many factors related to personal security. Routine Activities Theory The routine activities theory of crime causation and victimization was developed by criminologists Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in 1979. Their theory stated that in order for a criminal victimization to occur, motivated offenders and ‘attractive’ targets must converge at a time and location when capable guardians are absent. The terms ‘attractive’ target and capable guardian are rather loosely defined. An attractive target would include anyone walking and texting while oblivious to their surroundings and a capable guardian could be a closed-circuit TV camera obvious to even a casual passerby. A motivated offender is simply that; a motivated offender. A major factor in the theory that is of relevance to homeland security is the lifestyle or routine activities of potential victim and in terrorism, a potential offender. As such, your lifestyle; for example, residence, employment, leisure activities will make you more or less likely to be a victim of a flood, earthquake, industrial accident, terrorist act, or a crime. For that matter, lifestyle effects your probability of vehicle accidents, falling off ladders, or being gored by a bull; the latter very rarely occurring in Manhattan. All that said, bad things happen; sometimes seemingly at random. Therefore, advanced preparation for worst case scenarios is critical for public safety agencies as well as individuals such incidents will leave little to no time to form and implement an ad hoc response. Agencies, and individuals therefore need to expend resources preparing for incidents that will in all probability never occur; low probability does not mean impossible. Prepping is a major part of homeland security. The Buffy Paradigm Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a television series, “…about a teenage vampire slayer who lives in a world of unpredictable threats where each series of crises only becomes predictable when it is over and is followed by a new and unfamiliar one. While uncertainty is the dominating motif, the “Buffy paradigm” has the following additional characteristics: • What expertise there is consists largely of bad or uncertain advice and old, flawed, and confusing technical data. • The importance of any given threat changes constantly, past threat behavior does not predict future behavior, and methods of delivery keep changing. • Arcane knowledge is always inadequate and fails to predict, detect, and properly characterize the threat. • The more certain and deterministic an expert is at the start, the more wrong they turn out to be in practice. • The scenarios are unpredictable and have very unclear motivation. Any effort to predict threat motivation and behavior in detail before the event does at least as much harm as good. • Risk taking is not rational or subject to predictable constraints and the motivation behind escalation is erratic at best. • It is never clear whether the threat is internal, from an individual, or from an outside organization (sic). • The attackers have no firm or predictable alliances, cooperate in nearly random ways, and can suddenly change method of attack and willingness to take risks. • All efforts at planning a coherent strategy collapse in the face of tactical necessity and the need to deal with unexpected facts on the ground. • The balance between external defense, homeland defense, and response changes constantly. • No success, not matter how important at the time, ever eliminates the risk of future problems. If this is the “Buffy paradigm, the “Buffy syndrome” is different. The characters in Buffy constantly try to create unrealistic plans and models, and live in a world where they never really face the level of uncertainty they must deal with. They do not live in a world of total denial, but they do seek predictability and certainty to a degree that never corresponds to the problems they face. In short, they behave as if they could create and live with the kind of strategy and doctrine that is typically developed by the US joint chiefs, could develop and implement an NSC decision memorandum, or solve their problems with the equivalent of a Quadrennial Defense Review. Cordesman, A. (2001). Biological warfare and the ‘Buffy Paradigm.” Center for Strategic and International Studies. Washington, DC. In short, emergency preparedness is not a science in that there is a very low level of predictability in terms of numbers of personnel needed, or their training, organization, and equipment. What is actually prepared for may be in reality the least likely scenario to occur. The operational philosophy based on the philosophy of, ‘We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it” may make more sense in the event than training for what will probably never occur, but then, “…crises only become predictable when it is over and is followed by a new and unfamiliar one (Cordesman).” And yet, government is charged with protecting the health and safety of citizens and that requires planning, acquisition of personnel, their equipment, and their training. The West, Texas Explosion Wednesday April 17, 2013 the West Fertilizer Company located in West, Texas, a small community south of Dallas, caught fire and the fire caused the explosion of several hundred thousand pounds of ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonia. As a result, 15 people were killed and some 200 injured. Most of the fatalities were volunteer firefighters as well as two non-firefighters who had volunteered to assist first responders. Involved in the incident and the subsequent investigation were the local volunteer fire departments, the McClennan County Sheriff’s Office, the Waco Police Department, local EMS and hospitals, private air ambulance services and Army medical evacuation helicopters from nearby Ft Hood (now designated Ft Cavazos), the Texas Department of Public Safety, including the Texas Rangers; the Texas Fire Marshall’s Office, Texas Task Force 1 and 2 Urban Search and Rescue, Texas A&M University Forest Service, Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences; the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and doubtless others! We will further discuss the West incident in another chapter. Utilization of the United States military for law enforcement related purposes is problematic, although the Armed Forces do have a role. As noted, involvement of the military in homeland security is Constitutionally limited, but also limited by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. In short, the Posse Comitatus Act significantly restricts the role of the regular military in civilian law enforcement. This will be discussed further in the chapter covering law and homeland security. Although the legal restrictions limiting the role of the regular military have been relaxed in relation to homeland security, the military has not notably been active in this sphere. Counter-terrorism and Homeland Security Homeland security has been broadly defined in this chapter and considering the scope of the concept, such a broad definition is satisfactory for our purposes. In relation to terrorism, in terms of law, policy, and operations; we need a narrow definition. A disaffected student who perpetrates a school shooting is not the same type of person who perpetrates a mass shooting to advance a social, religious, or political agenda. Motive affects intelligence collection, prevention, and intervention as well as investigation and prosecution. Assuming there is someone left to prosecute; another difference between terrorism and ‘mere’ criminal activity is that the terrorist may not intend to survive the attack. That is, the terrorist should be seen as fundamentally different from the criminal, however heinous the act or contemplated act of the criminal as compared to the terrorist. In short, the terrorist engages the criminal justice and homeland security systems differently than the criminal engages the justice system at least partly due to motive. For our purposes, terrorism will be defined as the use or threat of the use of force to advance a political, social, or religious cause. This would include the radical environmentalist as well as the radical religionist. Our definition would include hate crimes, at least in some cases. It would not include a school shooting motivated by retaliation for bullying or a mass shooting outside a bar related to gang rivalry. An incident such as the Beslan School Massacre is quite clearly terrorism; the shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida is a mass causality event and related to homeland security but it is not an act of terrorism, even if such events do cause feelings of terror. An angry ex-employee committing a mass shooting at their former workplace is not terrorism; the San Bernardino, California workplace shooting in 2015, is terrorism as it was perpetrated as an act of jihad; an attack on the enemies of Islam. Why need we specify a difference? Most simply, the motivation is different and the difference requires different investigative techniques and among other concerns, the state is burdened through investigation to prove motivation in court. Actor motivation may also require different response by law enforcement and other responders. In many cases of terrorism, the terrorist has no escape plan preferring suicide or to die fighting; actors acting under the influence of mental illness may meekly surrender to police or even an armed citizen. Additionally, the definition matters as the definition may bring different agencies into the mix in terms of response as well as the role of each agency in the response process. The terrorist may have had outside support which may require a lengthy and perhaps international investigation. Related to that issue, the terrorist may have had accomplices acting in concert; an example of both international support and concerted accomplices were the 911 hijackers. An example of accomplices acting in concert were the attacks surrounding the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris Agencies and Their Roles Generally speaking, if a terrorist act occurs within the United States it is primarily a problem for federal law enforcement agencies in terms of long-term investigation with local first responders responsible for immediate reaction. If an act of terrorism occurs on US soil overseas (embassies and military installations, for example) it seems to be the problem of numerous agencies, both civilian and military, both from the United States and the host country. Point of fact; lines of responsibility are blurred in such cases. The United States Constitution grants the executive branch of government expanded powers in cases of ‘invasion or insurrection’ (rebellion). Many state constitutions grant the same expansion of powers to their governors’ offices under similar circumstances. This concept has been statutorily expanded to expand executive powers in cases of national emergency or disaster, and again, some states follow in granting their governors greater powers in events such as severe storms, flooding, or as recently seen, epidemics/pandemics. For example, in addition to the ‘stay-at-home’ orders during the recent COVID-19 emergency, in Texas, the governor has the legal authority to order people to evacuate coastal areas in the event a major hurricane is approaching the particular area. In cases of invasion or insurrection, at the national level the president would declare that such a condition existed and would then declare martial law; similar circumstances may be built into a state’s constitution. Again, citing Texas as an example, Governor Abbott recently (2022) declared the influx of illegal border crossings to be ‘an invasion’ (https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-orders-dps-tmd-to-use-every-available-strategy-to-combat-border-crisis). In cases of national emergency, the president would declare the existence of state-of-affairs, then claim the expanded powers legally granted, and circumscribed, under such circumstances. The scope and restrictions on presidential declarations of national emergency fall under Chapter 50 United States Code § 1601-1651 and will be discussed a bit further in the chapter regarding law and homeland security (Chapter 2). Jurisdiction and Bailiwick The terms ‘jurisdiction’ and ‘bailiwick’ are often used interchangeably although such use is technically incorrect. Jurisdiction means one has legal authority to act, and to act within the boundaries of a particular bailiwick; bailiwick being a set geographic area or area of expertise; or, to act within one’s legal mandate. In the event of occurrences not clearly related to federal jurisdiction, the governor or governors of the affected state (or states) would make a formal request to the president for a declaration of martial law, emergency, or disaster at which point federal resources could be supplied to the state. So, a bombing, which would violate federal and state laws, would fall within the jurisdiction (and bailiwick) of local law enforcement, fire and EMS, the state fire marshal, state police or highway patrol, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), the FBI, and perhaps other agencies at the federal level. A chemical spill on a highway would involve state and local agencies as well as the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on federal law and the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) of the Constitution. All the agencies listed have an existing legal mandate and jurisdiction to act in such cases. The involvement of federal agencies in the event of a natural disaster is not quite so clear as in the previously discussed situations. Think in these terms, if an incident clearly falls under invasion or insurrection, or a violation of federal law, federal agencies may become involved without first being requested to do so by local or state authorities in that order. Otherwise, the issue is related to another constitutional provision, the Interstate Commerce Clause which gives the federal government precedence in inter-state relations. This clause has been increasingly interpreted broadly allowing greater involvement by the federal government in the states without formal request from the states under some circumstances. That said, as set by the 10 Amendment to the Constitution, the primary responsibility for the safety and health of citizens belongs to the several states, individually, thus in most cases requiring the governors or affected states to formally request the assistance of the federal government. Please note, however that ultimate responsibility for your health and safety belongs to you. The United States and the states individually claim sovereignty, an English common law concept related to the supposed divine right of royalty. Under English common law, all crimes were against the peace and dignity of the crown whereas in the United States crimes are against the peace and dignity of the United States or the individual state. County governments are subdivisions of state governments and states and their counties are sovereign, as is the federal government. From the concept of sovereignty comes the concept of sovereign immunity simply meaning governments cannot be charged criminally, or sued without their permission, because governments can commit no civil or criminal illegality (rex non potest peccare; the king can do no wrong). Local (city) governments are corporations and thus have the same legal status as an individual, that is a person; giving cities the same criminal and civil liabilities as any one of us. A foundation of American government is separation of powers into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Law enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical services are part of the executive branch of government, carrying out the mandates of the legislative branch under the supervision of the judiciary. From legislative mandates are derived the mission and goals of the components of the Homeland Security System; specifically, law enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical services. Sheriffs and their deputies derive their authority from their state’s constitution. Police derive their authority from a city charter or articles of incorporation and/or state law. The office of sheriff is a ‘constitutional office’ in that the authority of a sheriff is specified in a state’s constitution. Police authority is derived from statute and based in the particular city’s charter or articles of incorporation. In terms of accountability, sheriffs have to be impeached, recalled, or fail in re-election. Police chiefs can be fired, usually by vote of the city council or order of the city administrator. State law enforcement officers are technically appointed by the governor, and thus serve at the governor’s pleasure dependent on civil service or other legalities. Fire service and EMS personnel are usually city or county employees and serve under similar terms as law enforcement officers. Federal law enforcement and other agency personnel, such as OSHA and the EPA, are members of the executive branch of the federal government and derive their authority ultimately from the president through the US Constitution. Their mandates, as well as jurisdiction and tenure of office, are regulated by federal law, including civil service laws. The role in the Homeland Security System of the regular military, military reserves, and National Guard is a bit more complicated than that of civilian agencies. In short, the Army, Navy and Air Force (the Marines are part of the Navy) are full times services under the executive branch of the federal government; the reserve component of each service are ‘part-time’ but under the same rules as the ‘regular’ forces. The National Guard and Air National Guard are paid for by the federal government and trained by the federal government, but ordinarily fall under the direction of the governors of their states. Guard units can be called into federal services (called up or federalized) and thus fall under control of the regular armed forces; the National Guard under the Army, the Air Guard under the Air Force. The Reserves can be activated to full time service by order of the president. In terms of homeland security, these difference matter as the Posse Comitatus Act limited the role of the military and reserves in civil operations; the Guard is not so constrained. And then there is the Coast Guard. Currently, the Coast Guard is a para-military law enforcement agency under the United States Department of Homeland Security. In time of war or under presidential order, the Coast Guard would come under the control of the Navy. As a law enforcement agency, the Coast Guard is responsible for law enforcement on navigable waterways as well as ensuring the safe navigation of those waterways. Posse Comitatus Act 18 US Code § 1385 Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. The Posse Comitatus Act, which became federal law in 1878, was one result of the contentious presidential election of 1876 between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden. Tilden won the popular vote while Hayes won the Electoral College by a single vote amid countless accusations of fraud, voter intimidation, and every other form of electoral cheating imaginable. A few of the states supporting Tilden were still under martial law under the Reconstruction Act of 1867, a left over from their status as former ‘Confederate’ States during the Civil War. A deal was struck in Congress, ostensibly to avoid the threat of another civil war, which among other things led to the Posse Comitatus Act prohibiting the use of federal troops for police duty. The Act has been modified to allow some sharing of equipment from the military to civil law enforcement agencies and does not apply to the National Guard. The final component of homeland security is private organizations or non-government organizations, usually referred to as ‘NGOs’. NGOs range from relief organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army to open source intelligence collectors and ‘think tanks’ such as the Rand Corporation. All organizations making up the Homeland Security System are limited in their role by: Constitutional provisions State and federal statute International law Jurisdictional issues Expertise and training Personnel Other resources As a result, each agency has a specific mission in regards to natural disasters, terrorism, epidemics, etc. In many cases, however, these missions overlap leading to duplication and waste. In at least some cases, needs are not covered. Overlap in missions combined with competition for resources and the often, strong personalities of agency leaders may cause battles over “turf,” for example the rivalry of Hoover’s FBI and Donovan’s Office of Strategic Services during WWII. The Rivalry of J. Edgar Hoover and William J. Donovan J. Edgar Hoover served as FBI director from May 1924 until his death May 2, 1972. William J. Donovan was a war hero, lawyer, diplomat, and creator of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during 1940-41 and served as the agency’s director from 1942 until the end of World War II. Among other responsibilities, the OSS was a central authority for intelligence collection and analysis during the War. Donavon was a strong advocate of continuing the existence of the OSS after the War, but was opposed in this by Hoover, and for a time President Truman. Truman objected to the existence of an agency that could be used to spy on Americans. Hoover believed, before and after the War, that the intelligence function of the OSS, and later, the CIA, could best be performed by an expanded FBI. On a personal level, Hoover and Donovan were from very different spheres of life and this produced feelings animosity that carried over into their professional relationship and affected the relations of FBI and OSS personnel during WWII. Hoover was from the lower middle class and always had a sensitivity about that; Donovan came from a privileged background, something he made a point of reminding Hoover. Each man left a strong mark on the organizational culture of their respective agencies; in the case of Donovan, even the CIA even though he chose not to serve in a direct capacity with that agency. The personal jealousy between the two men affected the long-term culture of their respective agencies leading to competition over resources, sometimes harsh criticism of their opposite agencies, and a lack of cooperation between members of the FBI and OSS during World War II and the FBI and OSS during the Cold War. Although turf battles may drive healthy competition among agencies, inter-agency politics are mostly detrimental to the public good as agencies fail to utilize resources, focus on areas that are undeserving of focus, and frequently, agency mandates are not optimally fulfilled as the goal of besting the competition becomes more important than the mission of the competing agencies. In short, agencies may become too busy fighting each other to fulfil their actual purpose. Law enforcement The role of law enforcement agencies in homeland security follows from the traditional police mandate as formalized with the creation of ‘modern’ policing based on the British Model of Sir Robert Peel. As understood then as well as now, that mandate is to protect life and property and keep the peace. Although the protection of life and property should be clear, the peace keeping function of law enforcement has never been particularly clear and has continually evolved over the past, nearly 200 years. Although ‘keeping the peace’ originally referred to specifically keeping ‘the king’s peace’; in our terms this has always meant the peace of the community with at least some emphasis on the recognition of community standards. Enforcing community standards is a key part of the philosophy of community-oriented policing and means far more then merely enforcing the law as applied to a particular neighborhood. American policing has always contained at an element of what we should with greater or lesser accuracy, call ‘social work.’ This interpretation of peace keeping includes a variety of services many officers dismiss as not being ‘real police work’; but then the definition of real police work changes as society and policing have evolved. That said, the homeland security function of law enforcement agencies is protection and peace keeping; the peacekeeping role exemplified from a need to actively work with all groups in a society that values multiculturalism. In fulfillment of the protection and service mandate as applied to homeland security, the police are limited by: Constitutional provisions pertaining to the role of the executive branch of government Federal and state statute applicable to the police mandate such as definitions of arrest, surveillance, and searches Case law (judicial interpretation of statute) applicable to the police mandate such as the constitutionality of specific arrests or categories of arrests, surveillance, and searches Operational philosophy of individual agencies as developed over time to meet community needs within the available resources Public need and public opinion (See media influence). See also, legitimacy. Personnel and other resources including: Training Equipment Police Legitimacy Recent demands to ‘defund the police’ are a symptom that some segments of society do not see the police, or the criminal justice system as legitimate. Most simply defined, legitimacy of the criminal justice system means that one voluntarily recognizes the authority of the system based on the idea that one has more to gain than to lose by recognition of that authority. In the case of police legitimacy, one obeys the officer voluntarily because one believes the officer’s conduct is beneficial overall to both themselves and to the community as a whole. Notably, personnel and their training and equipment are money based. Availability of funding is always political and therefore strongly dependent on public perception of need and agency operational philosophy (again consider the concept of police legitimacy). Operational philosophy is driven by public need and public opinion. For example, the recent ‘defund the police’ movement is based on the belief of some members of society that money used for police training and salaries would be better spent on mental health care for the poor as a more legitimate means of enforcing social order than police backed coercion. Other members of society believe that increasing police salaries and improving training would solve many of the problems in police operations by producing a ‘better’ officer; this is often argued by those who view officer quality as the barrier to legitimacy. Despite media attention, many members of very different communities and backgrounds see no particular problem with the way policing functions as is. To reiterate, protecting life and property is fairly straightforward while keeping the peace is much more political, complex, and uncertain. Referring to an earlier point in this chapter, agency funding is a prime example of conflict theory affecting agency operational abilities. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Funding of the fire and emergency medical services is less controversial than funding for police operations, although in practice that does not seem to make funding for fire and EMS more generous. The fire and EMS mandate is more straightforward than that of the police and rarely creates conflict or controversy. These services are mandated to protect life and property from threats posed by fires, severe weather, hazardous materials, accidents, and medical emergencies. In terms of their role in the Homeland Security System, this mandate includes epidemics, severe storms, industrial accidents, and terrorist acts including use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Notably, in most areas, fire and EMS are specializations within a single agency. That is, generally, ambulance/paramedic units are operated within a fire department rather than from a separate EMS agency. Paramedics and emergency medical technicians may or may not also be fire fighters in such agencies; but regardless of any special training or function, they operate within a fire department. However, in some areas, especially large urban areas, fire and EMS may be separate entities. In other areas, especially smaller cities and towns, EMS may be privately operated and not a government agency at all. In fulfillment of their mandate, the fire service and EMS are limited by: Statute (Especially laws related to hazardous materials) Government regulators/regulations (OSHA, for example) Operational philosophy Public need and public opinion (never forget media influence). Personnel and their: Training Equipment The Coast Guard In ordinary circumstances, the Coast Guard operates as a federal law enforcement agency under the same terms and restrictions as other federal law enforcement agencies, albeit with a somewhat different set of responsibilities. Military and Naval Forces The mandate of military and naval forces is to protect the borders from foreign invasion, suppress insurrection and civil disorder, protect US property overseas, and engage and defeat identifiable enemy forces in time of war. In time of war the mission may narrow to taking and holding territory, destruction of enemy forces, and destruction of the enemy’s capacity to wage war. Constitutionally, only Congress may declare war, however, the Constitution names the president as the commander and chief of the armed forces; Congress and president have not always agreed on where the military should go and for what purpose. A result of President Johnson’s commitment of US forces in South Vietnam was Congress’ passage of the War Powers Act limiting the ability of the president to make such commitments. Additionally, international law defines ‘war’ as well as who is and is not a combatant. This issue will be further discussed in the chapter on law as international law relating to terrorism is not the same as international law related to war. The law of war relates purely to armed conflict between recognized nation-states whereas many acts of terrorism are perpetrated by non-government actors whose legal status is not always clear; that is, are terrorist soldiers or criminals? As noted previously, the Army and the National Guard are not the same. In addition to the National Guard, a few states have a state guard or state militia whose role is to supplement the role of the National Guard within a state and substitute for the regular function of the National Guard should the Guard be called into federal service. State guards or militias would have a role in homeland security although a limited one as such organizations have limited mandates and generally minimal funding. Within those limitations, the role of the National Guard and a state guard would be to supplement local agencies with personnel and equipment. In effect, they would be secondary responders supporting the first response of police, fire, and EMS. Summary Homeland security is inherently complex. Homeland security is inherently political. Homeland security is resource intensive. Homeland security is constantly evolving. The Homeland Security System is perhaps not a system at all as agency roles are fragmented resulting in some needs being duplicated while others are left unfulfilled. Additionally, threats to homeland security are not always well defined and both threats, countermeasures, and agency roles are constantly evolving. In short, problems and agency responsibilities are not always clearly defined nor are definitions set in stone. As a result, agencies are called upon to solve problems that are not clearly related to agency responsibility and for which agencies lack resources for effective response. Agencies must be able to make ad hoc decisions and improvise. In addition to direct incident response, response requires long-term planning for operations management over time including response pre-event, post event, and long-term post event. The terror attacks on 911 did not change the way the world operates not usher in a new world of criminal justice; rather, it was a long delayed ‘wake-up’ call to the post World War 2 era and the ensuing changes in conflict and disaster management. Questions for discussion/questions for review: Explain the concept of the ’24 hour news cycle’ and its relationship to homeland security. Explain the mandate of law enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical services as applied to homeland security. Why is it important to students of homeland security to understand the theory of symbolic interaction? Is American society more accurately described by a consensus or a conflict model? Explain the Buffy Paradigm. Explain the difference between and open and closed system. Is homeland security a true system? Explain the difference between terrorism and ‘ordinary’ crime. Why is it important to differentiate between terrorism and ordinary crime? Explain ‘turf’ fights. Overall, is such interagency competition positive or negative for the American public? Why has the military’s role in law enforcement been restricted? Should these restrictions be relaxed in light of social changes since the 1800s? Test bank development is in progress