A CRIMINAL JUSTICE PERSPECTIVE HOMELAND SECURITY

DEFINITIONS Homeland Security  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 (Fagin) May involve issues indirectly or even unrelated to terrorism, but for the most part not the case Terrorism  Premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non- combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine (secret, covert) agents usually intended to influence an audience (international terrorism – involves citizens or the territory of more than one country) (Title 22, US Code)

TERRORIST ACTIONS Actions used by terrorists may include bombings, assassinations, destruction of buildings or critical assets/infrastructures (e.g., bridges, communication networks, etc.) Three most common terrorist actions  Acts of violence committed by militias and extremist groups or individuals in protest against government policies, laws, or authority  Violence by single-use extremist groups  Eco-terrorism – similar to single-use groups, but focus on environmental issues/animal rights

US CJS AND HOMELAND SECURITY CJS usually stays out of political debates, including those surrounding the cause(s) of terrorism Focus on criminal nature of terrorism – public protection, responding to crime/threats, catching perpetrators, assisting victims CJS lacks the resources, training, intelligence- gathering capacity, and coordinated programs that are necessary to deal with (prevent and respond to) international terrorism

FEDERAL (CJS) AND HOMELAND SECURITY For years, limited to Stafford Act (but many changes over the past years, especially since 9/11) Creation of the Department of Homeland Security  Consolidation of a number of agencies/personnel  Also, works with other agencies not in the DHS  GAO reports – inefficiencies; somewhat ineffective Transportation Security Administration  New (not an existing agency that was consolidated  GAO reports – no more effective/efficient than prior system

ROLE OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT First responders in a disaster Few mechanisms in place to facilitate cooperation between local LE and federal agencies and between local LE and other local entities (e.g., Fire Dept.) Can (and often do) have battles over control, duties Operational problems (e.g., no compatible communication devices) Cultural problems (not a culture of cooperation)

OTHER RESPONSES TO 9/11 Creation of other new agencies (e.g., Terrorist Threat Integration Center) Joint local-federal counter-terrorism task forces to counter the threat of terrorist attacks  Additional personnel to focus on counter-terrorism activities  Many local departments critical of these task forces Fusion centers (state-level)  Set up to deal with criticisms of task forces  Run by state and local authorities  Deal with terrorism, criminal, and public safety matters  Produce actionable intelligence (see details in Fagin)

OTHER RESPONSES CONT’D Threat advisory system  Color coded (green, blue, yellow, orange, red)  Not well-received by public or by law enforcement  Warnings vague and inadequate  People unsure whether and to what degree they were in danger  Did not know what protective measures to take  Expensive (OT costs, extra security costs)

OTHER RESPONSES CONT’D HSAS replaced in April, 2011 by New Threat Advisory System (NTAS)  Elevated and imminent threat levels  Elevated – no specific information about threat  Imminent – threat is impending or very soon  Alerts not issued unless there is a specific threat  Disseminated to press and through DHS social media (FB, Twitter)  Advisors provide concise summary of specific threat, information about actions being taken to ensure public safety, and recommended steps for the public and governments to take in response to the threat Concrete and other physical barriers in cities Increased use of checkpoints

LEGAL RESPONSES USA PATRIOT Act  Greater surveillance powers to federal law enforcement  Expands federal jurisdiction over terror-related crimes  Removes some civil liberties protections for individuals suspected or accused of crimes under this legislation  See Fagin for summary

CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND HOMELAND SECURITY Diminished 4 th Amendment rights (search and seizure) Citizens – fewer expectations with respect to right to privacy (increased government access to bank accounts, credit reports, medical records, etc.) Report by the Justice Department – FBI bused its intelligence-gathering powers made possible by non- court-approved search warrants called National Security Letters Denial of due process – detaining people excessively and without evidence (facilitated by use of military tribunals)

USSC AND HOMELAND SECURITY 2008 – USSC ruled that terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have constitutional right to challenge their detention in US courts 2009 – USSC ruled that enemy combatants held in military prisons on US soil have the right to sue in civil courts regarding their imprisonment and interrogation Racial profiling – Guidelines issued by Justice Department do not ban racial profiling; federal agents not allowed to use race/ethnicity in their routine investigations, but exemptions made for investigations involving terrorism and national security matters Use of torture – “torture memos” exchanged b/n Bush and Justice Dept suggest that Bush administration operated on premise that in a time of necessity, president and military could disregard torture conventions, international treaties, and law.