Homeland security: overview and policy implications

Homeland Security

The attacks of September 11, 2001 have necessitated a new awareness of the shortcomings of the American security system. It follows that there also arose the need to reassess this security system and to enhance the measures already in place so that the possibility of future attacks can be minimized. The emotions aroused by 9/11 doubtlessly played a large part in allowing the government to use measures that would otherwise appear outrageous, or at the very least an infringement upon the right to privacy. Some of these measures have come under renewed scrutiny, while others have been deemed acceptable.

Homeland security has become more effective in terms of its structure. It is now controlled by a single dominant agency, whereas in the past several agencies controlled its various functions. The advantage of this is that a better chain of command is established, and fewer miscommunications can occur. Security on American borders has also been tightened, and points of entrance into the country such as airports and shipping docks are more closely scrutinized for illegal activity (American Civil Liberties Union). Few people have disputed the advantages of these measures.

Other measures have however evoked outrage once the storm of emotions after 9/11 has calmed. These measures infringe upon the privacy within the circle of friends and the very homes of innocent citizens. The Patriot Act has for example aroused great concerns among the citizens of the United States. The Patriot Act has been disputed by The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as primarily unconstitutional.

The reasons for this is that measures such as delayed notice of law-enforcement agency searches. This gives the agency in question the right to search any building or indeed home without previously notifying the occupant, if such a building or home proves to be suspect. This search is also allowed in the absence of the occupant, and need only be notified later that the building has been searched. The Act furthermore blatantly ignores the American Constitution by specifically targeting immigrants, and even worse, citizens are encouraged to spy on their neighbors and report anything suspicious.

While it is understandable that every possible measure must be taken to prevent a repeat of the dark day in September, 2001, it should also be recognized that American values should be upheld in the process. If this does not occur, the terrorists have attained their goal. Making citizens report on their friends and locking up innocent people simply because they are of foreign origin is much too close a reminder of the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and other such shameful atrocities of history.

While it is commendable therefore that the government is taking every possible step to prevent terrorist attacks, the Patriot Act defeats its own purpose. The government is supposed to protect its people, and to make them feel safe. The Patriot Act however only succeeds in breeding fear and hysteria. Neighbor is turned against neighbor, and people against their government. Succeeding especially in this is the provision under the Act that Arabs and Muslims should be targeted specifically for searches. In one of his post-9/11 speeches, the president refers to "our Muslim friends." Surely this is a strange way to treat one's friends. It is not only unfriendly, but also blatantly racist, which again violates the constitution, and tends to turn American citizens wanting to abide by the constitution against their government.

If this trend continues, the land of "opportunity" would soon be no more and the American Dream will become a fantasy. Surely this is no way to ensure the safety and security of a nation. Instead, perhaps measures should be taken to find a balance between constitutionally guaranteed freedom and increased security. Currently there exists an imbalance, where security takes precedence over all else.

Institutions such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have been established to find means of balance between the extremes of legislation before and after 9/11. Those who argue for the Patriot Act hold that this is the only way to protect the American way of life, a phrase quoted often by President Bush. Chairman Hatch for example uses Thomas Jefferson's assertion, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," to justify the Patriot Act. However, the very way of life to be protected is threatened by certain of the above-mentioned measures. In this way the American way of life is also threatened by the very leaders within the country's borders. The threat has thus become local. The Patriot Act is not vigilance; it is tyranny of the same kind as slavery and witch hanging.

The Chairman asserts that security and individual freedom are interconnected, and that each should exist to make the other possible (Hatch). This statement is however somewhat oversimplified. Freedom cannot exist without some measure of security; this is true. Yet it is possible for security to be carried to such extremes that individual freedoms will one by one become things of the past. This is what ACLU and others are trying to prevent. Law-abiding citizens should be respected, regardless of their race or religion. Using the terrorist attacks as an excuse to turn the United States into a racist country cannot be justified by any means.

Even the freedom of the press has suffered under the new security measures. Vital information has been withheld from the public by deterring the right of the press to collect relevant information regarding the politics involved in terrorism and security measures. The right of the public to knowledge that affect their daily lives is thus violated. The Supreme Court has however ruled that the constitution is not absolute, and that national security should take precedence over other guaranteed liberties (O'Brien). So the rights of the press are relinquished in the name of political stability.