Homeland security is a vital department in the whole of United States, and it requires the involvement of the federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The three bodies need to work for hand in hand to enable efficiency and also because every American citizen’s security is essential irrespective of the state of residence. Another reason for a need for cooperation is that all the law enforcement bodies have a common aim of keeping the public safe and hunting down lawbreakers and terrorists. The coordination has however not reached a high level that we all expect knowing the benefits such cooperation brings into our security. Information sharing among the law enforcement bodies has dramatically improved after 9-11, but it can be argued that the lack of coordination was exposed after it; after the damage had already been done. One of the reasons for lack of coordination is the feeling of one agency feeling more superior than the other one, and such a case was reported by local police who complained about so long of being considered inferior by FBI agents (Geller & Morris, 1992). J. Edgar Hoover described any law that would render a state law enforcement agency subservient to federal jurisdiction as disastrous (Keller, 2014). Even without such a devastating act, there could be a superiority battle going on within our law enforcement agencies that if not addressed it will sabotage all the reasonable efforts made towards countering terrorism and securing the country.
Information-sharing is a crucial aspect of coordination. A research conducted on the level of information-sharing in the homeland security found out that the goal of creating a culture of information-sharing and openness in the department is still an uphill task characterized by enormous hurdles (Bean, 2009). Some security-related information sharing systems were established by both the homeland security department and department of justice to help overcome the challenge. Besides, financial, human and technological resources have been directed into creating information flow in the department. However, there is still another challenge of humans’ resistance to information sharing. Lack of trust and superiority battle is one such cause of humans’ resistance to openness. Organizational differences are another hindrance to free flow of information in that one agency has its procedure for handling information which may clash with the method of the other agency. Florida local police complained in 2013 that the FBI failed to give them information about Omar Mateen, a suspected terrorist they were investigating on. The terrorist later committed mass murder in the area. Such a story is saddening and compels us to consider the best solution to the information flow barrier. Can use of force to obtain information from another agency be a good solution?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Taking the case of terrorist Omar Mateen who committed mass murder because the FBI could not share information to the local police, one can agree that it could be justified if the police had forcefully obtained the needed information. The measure, however, could cause more harm than good. Maybe the mass murder could have been stopped had the police used force, but the relationship between the two legal bodies could inevitably turn ugly after that. It is a fact that the overall performance of law enforcement agencies is determined by many factors and not information sharing alone even if it is a vital aspect of it. It is not therefore wise to obtain information forcefully and jeopardize the performance of the agencies by starting a battle between them. Unity in different agencies is so paramount that one aspect such as openness can be compromised for the sake of overall result. Once the agencies start fighting each other, terrorists and lawbreakers get the green light to turn the country back by breaking what has been built for years. The military also should not use force when obtaining information about a suspect both within the United States and in foreign nations.
An amicable solution to the problem thus has to be established. The use of unmanned drones to fight terrorism looks like an unbiased means and the desired resolution despite it being controversial. It seems like a practical solution because the problem of humans’ resistance to information sharing is eliminated. A drone has no self-interest in its line of duty and apparently has no way of revealing information to some people and concealing it from others. Regarding effectiveness, it has been proved to have excellent qualities such as automated tracking system and multiple fields of view that enable it to have a high success rate (Haffa & Datla, 2014). Drones are also slower in execution than jet fighters which are an advantage in that it reduces its chances of attacking an innocent individual. Since there are two flaws in humans, it is okay for the US to use unmanned drones for both surveillance and attacks of suspected terrorists despite small challenges facing it. In that way, some of the flaws exhibited by humans such as concealing of vital information will be eliminated.
References
Bean, H. (2009). Exploring the relationship between homeland security information sharing & local emergency preparedness. Homeland Security Affairs, 5(2).
Geller & Morris (1992). Relations between federal and local police. Crime and justice, 15, 231-348.
Haffa Jr & Datla, (2014). Joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in contested airspace. Air & Space Power Journal, 28(3), 29.
Keller (2014). The Liberals and J. Edgar Hoover: Rise and Fall of a Domestic Intelligence State. Princeton University Press.
