Civil Liberties and Rights

The relationship between liberty and security is a tense one, as retaining or bestowing some liberties will lessen security. This claim, while it holds for some liberties, does not hold for all. Some liberties have a very low relationship with security, and some have no relationship at all. The tension in the relationship between liberties and security is caused by an attempt to strike a balance between the two by compromising one for the other. Both liberties and security have competing interests, which can be sentenced as commensurable values to provide a means of comparison to justify sacrificing one for the other. This allows the gain or loss of either liberty or security to be measured relative to each other to determine either event's advantage. The complication in deciding which to keep, liberty or security, exists due to the varying importance attributed to each concept. Each one's advantage is a subjective opinion as the weight attached to each concept by different persons is considerable. Thus, the political process weighs up the benefits and infringements of both liberty and security before enacting policies. In achieving this, security benefits are balanced against the losses to liberty by attributing values to the advantages each one offers (Allhoff, 2018).
Domestic Security and Disaster Response
Emergencies that are large or significant enough to be considered Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) incidents are generally multijurisdictional, state-wide, or multistate incidents that usually involve various governmental authorities at the local, regional, state, or federal levels. To address such emergencies, widespread coordination is required between intrastate, interstate, and federal level authorities. The nature of the incident can require other agencies such as private healthcare system entities to assist in the planning on how to address a CSC and execute the developed plan. Cooperation among various agencies is required to address a CSC level incident as no single agency or authority can handle such an event alone. Examples of such CSC level incidents are the tornado in Joplin, Missouri, which occurred in 2011 in the United States, the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and the earthquake in New Zealand.
In implementing a Crisis Standards of Care, the committee set up to address the situation to develop detailed templates that describe each agency's function to respond to the situation from the planning stage to the implementation. This includes all state and local governments, hospital and acute care facilities, emergency medical services (EMS), and out-of-hospital and alternate care systems. The Crisis Standards of Care defines the approach to planning for CSC incidents and implementing the plans. The CSC also addresses all legal issues, ethical issues, mental health issues, and palliative care any agency involved in response to any CSC event might encounter. The state emergency management agency (EMA) plays an essential coordinating role in any large-scale emergency. The EMA directs the overall state response by creating the state emergency operations center (EOC) and supporting all state emergency response efforts while cooperating with all response activities occurring at the local and regional levels. This also includes an administration of government agencies focused on emergency medical services necessary for responding to specific aspects of a CSC incident in which patients require medical attention (Institute of Medicine, 2012).
Evolution of Homeland Security
After 9/11, the scope of law enforcement criminal intelligence expanded to include terrorist threats, which was previously not the division's concern. This law enforcement division's focus was previously focused on specific crimes such as white-collar crimes, organized crimes, and gangs. To effectively strike a balance between criminal intelligence and intelligence on terrorist threats, law enforcement authorities created an improved Information-sharing network which includes counter-terrorism units. Before 9/11, specific crime-related units such as the narcotics unit or the organized crime unit were dedicated to dealing with certain types of crimes. After 9/11, many urban law enforcement authorities created counter-terrorism units to collect and analyze all terrorist-related intelligence. To ensure that gaps don't exist in the federal government's anti-terrorism operations, several local and state governments established fusion centers to enhance information sharing on all terrorist intelligence. Existing intelligence networks such as those dedicated to monitoring crimes such as High-intensity Drug Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] were also expanded following 9/11 to focus on all crimes addressed by the fusion center model (Davis et al., 2010).
Leadership Skills and Homeland Security Agency
An emergency response agency's leadership skills vary greatly between when emergency management is required and when emergency response is needed for a situation. The set of requirements are very different after the situation has ended as the task environment changes. But still, preparing for a disaster is just as important as responding when a disaster occurs. This creates an important relationship between hazard mitigation, disaster preparedness, disaster response, and disaster recovery. Managing each of these task environments successfully necessitates a flexible leadership approach. Due to the changing nature of situations handled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Charles Wise (2006) suggests a reduction in the DHS's limitations to take this into account. Even though a restructuring of the command and control structure will occur, the DHS will have more flexibility and ease in handling the department's varying task environments. Wise concludes that implementing adaptive management in the DHS will foster organizational learning and facilitate adaptation by advancing collaboration and information sharing.

References
Allhoff, F. (2018). Liberty and security: A balanced approach. Journal of Law and Public Affair, 3(1), 53-82. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=jlpa
Davis, L., Pollard, M., Ward, K., Wilson, J., Varda, D., Hansell, L., & Steinberg, P. (2010). Long-term effects of law enforcement's post9/11 focus on counter-terrorism and homeland security. U.S. Department of Justice, RAND Corporation.
Institute of Medicine. (2012). Crisis Standards of Care: A systems framework for catastrophic disaster response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Waugh, W., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Administration Review, 131-140. Retrieved from https://www.csus.edu/indiv/s/shulockn/executive
Wise, C. (2006). Organizing for Homeland Security after Katrina: Is adaptive management what's missing? Public Administration Review, 66(2), 302 –18.