9 11 Commission Report and its Recommendations

Running Head: Study of Recommendations from the /11 Commission

Study of Recommendations from the 9/11 Commission 5

Recommendations from the 9/11 Commission

Among the US citizens, 9/11 is one of the renowned dates that has remained clear onto their memory calendar following terror incidents. As a result, there was an absolute need for the federal government to develop an extensive security framework as soon as possible. Such a security framework was to protect American residents from any form of external attacks coming from abroad and enable the local, state, and federal to prepare and respond to internal challenges and threats. Subsequently, a commission was put in place to conduct security inquiry and analysis to inform the country’s next step of action. In response to the framework, a critical element that includes creating the Department of Homeland security encompassed 22 different offices and agencies into one cabinet department. The commission was founded with the co-principle of protecting the people of America from threats of terrorism activities. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with other partners and communities across the country, has helped to strengthen the enterprise of homeland security to mitigate any potential threats (Kean & Hamilton 2004).

Consequently, the United States has progressively made substantial efforts to secure the nation from any terror attack from September 11 attacks. However, due to time, the country’s terror threats have evolved over the last two decades. With the emergence of new challenges, the Department of Homeland Security continues to concentrate on minimizing terror risks while maximizing the country’s ability to recover and respond to any form of attacks and security disasters of all forms. As a result, to address some of the commission’s recommendations of 9/11, the country adopted some of the key recommendations that, to date, have effectively contributed to safety and security enhancement within the United States borders. Such recommendations include;

a) Expanding sharing of information; With the creation of a department of homeland security, United States has significantly improved the enterprise of homeland security that included several components like sharing of security information that was not in place as of 9/11. Also, an established 72 fusion centers across the nation serve as the central point of gathering, receiving, sharing, and analyzing any threat-related data between the federal government and tribal, private, local, and territorial sector partners. An established Countrywide Suspicious activity alerting body educates the local and state law enforcers to detect indications related to terrorism and other threats. The body also has the mandate to standardize how such observations are analyzed, documented, and dispatched to the nation’s federal government and other communities. Furthermore, the systems of national terrorism advisory currently provide detailed and timely data about threats of terrorism and recommend various security measures to the government agencies, public, private sector, and transportation hubs (Kean & Hamilton 2004).

b) Creation and adoption of risk-based security strategies on transportation; Department of homeland security has implemented tangible progress in risk-based security as from 9/11 and focused on intelligence-motivated structured security across all the modes of transportation. The approach has heightened pre-screening of cargo and passengers while paying attention to resources on those that present threats to national transportation networks. Some of the measures currently taken include; carrying out security assessments across maritime, surface transportation networks, and aviation sectors. The United States has also come up with new global aviation standards to strengthen global supply chain security. There is also an increased process of gathering and analyzing cargo and passenger data to prevent any potential terror threat (Kahan, 2013).

c) Heightened pre-screening of Airline passengers to target traveling terrorists;

Before 9/11, the screening of passengers making their entry into the United States was only limited to the Visa process and checkups at the port of entry by immigration officers. The provision of advance information relating to the passenger was voluntary. However, to respond to 9/11, the Department of homeland security has significantly improved its capacity to identify any terror threats through multi-structured risk-based systems. As a result, all the airlines moving to the United States from foreign countries must avail advance passenger information, including names and other appropriate identities, before the departure. Also, the government has come up with a watchlist to enhance secure flights. It has advanced trusted travel programs that ensure all passengers have gone through biometric identification and pass through rigorous security checks (Kean & Hamilton 2004).

d) Improved explosive checks. Initially, there was no much security detail given to cargo in terms of screening. However, with the events of 9/11, currently, all-cargo planes and carry-on baggage is screened to detect any explosive. Moreover, there is an increased expansion of the use of new technologies and frontline security experts. Subsequently, the enaction of the annual appropriations and the recovery act has fastened the adoption of new technologies to identify the next generation of threats.

e) Protection of vital physical infrastructure and cyber networks; There is tangible progress by the Department of homeland security towards enhancing the nation’s vital physical infrastructure’s security together with the cyber networks. The United States security agencies have currently implemented the National Cybersecurity Protection System and the communications integration center used as the central hub for executing cyber response efforts (Fong, 2010).

Irrespective of considerable progress, some of the 9/11 recommendations remain unimplemented, leaving the country not as safe as it opts to be. Some unfulfilled recommendations include transforming the intelligence community to enhance information sharing across federal governments, states, and local governments. Even though information sharing has considerably improved since 9/11, there is a need for more progress in sharing information between the military in the field and the IC and other national agencies (Hastedt, 2006).

Also, even though the DepartmentDepartment of homeland security has made significant strides to protect and secure the United States residents since the 9/11 attack, some key recommendations of the 9/11 commission have not fully seen the light of the day. For instance, there was a proposed PASS ID legislation to enhance the security of the driver’s licenses; to date, many states within the US have not fully implemented the requirement. Also, using risk-based security screening to protect against any form of cyber-attacks and implement biometric exit solutions has not been fully adopted by some states (Shea et al., 2007).

In addition, the implementation of the regional approach to homeland security and preparedness response has stalled. For instance, the urban area security initiative program aimed at helping various regions develop integrated regional systems for a response, Protection, recovery, and prevention of terror threats has not been implemented due to funding challenges (Kean & Hamilton 2004). According to the 9/11 recommendations, states were expected to ensure that not less than 25% of the urban area security initiative funds are directed towards encountering terrorism activities like exercise and training, including those activities that promote the operation and development of fusion centers. Subsequently, to ensure that the recommendations are implemented, the homeland security grant funding has consistently been increased (Kahan, 2013).

Notably, some of the 9/11 commission’s recommendations have been considered to be most effective in helping the United States realize the security of its citizens against terrorist threats. One of such recommendations is establishing the DepartmentDepartment of homeland security, which has since enabled the country to detect and neutralize any form of security threat. Also, while responding to the 9/11 commission’s recommendations, an office of the Director of National Intelligence and National counterterrorism center was created to contribute to enhanced intelligence across the communities effectively (Shea et al., 2007). Equally, the Protection of vital physical infrastructure and cyber networks has also brought about tangible progress by the DepartmentDepartment of homeland security towards enhancing the nation’s vital physical infrastructure’s security together with the cyber networks. The United States security agencies have currently implemented the National Cybersecurity Protection System and the communications integration center used as the central hub for executing cyber response efforts (Hastedt, 2006).

Nonetheless, some of the 9/11 commission also have not been very instrumental in ensuring America is secure. For instance, on a personal assessment, the commission’s recommendation of complete safeguard of civil liberties, civil rights, and privacy has not effectively attained its intended purpose. Currently, the DepartmentDepartment of homeland security has opened a private office for all the federal agencies, where the enforcement of civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy protection takes operation. The requirement of the DepartmentDepartment of homeland security to partner with every component of the DepartmentDepartment of homeland security to assess systems, policies, programs, privacy risks, technologies and to recommend appropriate mechanisms of handling personal information has for a long time worked against the interest of securing vital information by the security experts. Protecting individual freedom and personal information is a human right; however, whenever such rights compromise the country’s security and its citizens, the DepartmentDepartment of Homeland security opts to have the mandate to override such freedoms (Kean & Hamilton 2004).