Formulating a policy that governs the information of the citizens of a nation has become one of the toughest issues to solve mostly in consideration to the 9/11 terror attack in the United States. One of the most challenging thing when formulating policies is avoiding mistakes that could result in terrorists accessing information that could help them in planning for an attack. If such terrorists could access the public data with ease, it would be disastrous to the lives of the citizens in a country and destruction of property. Constraints on different policies are changing the inconsistent aspects of expanding and restricting various forms of information to the public.
It is rational and undoubtedly essential to check what and how much information is provided to the general public, either by the initiatives of the government or upon request. This act could be a staid risk whenever the state decides to put in place measures to secure secrets that do not need protecting or becoming too open to information that should be kept secret. For instance information about the constitutional responsibilities of the governments or the exchange of scientific discoveries when leaked could result in significant risks of terror to a nation. This paper aims at exploring homeland security policy (HSPD) as well as identifying the legal basis of this policy. The paper will also talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the policy as well as the analysis of the budget used to facilitate the formulation and implementation of the policy.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The 9/11 terror attack transformed the Homeland Security Department from a mere concept to a widely debated subject in Congress. The discussions on how to actively engage and implement the policy of the homeland security gave birth the 2002 Act of the Homeland Security as well as the formation of the Homeland Security Department (Lansford & Pauly, 2016). Over the years, the heated debates on the threats of terrorism have seen an evolution of ideologies of the American people under various leadership forums. As such, the summary of executives came up with reviews in 2014 of the Quadrennial Homeland Security. The summary newly redefined the roles and mission of the Department of Homeland Security. Strengthening the state's resilience and alertness, securing and safeguarding the cyberspace, improving security, and prevention of terrorism are some of the missions that were arrived at for homeland security. Other missions include managing and securing the borders of the United States as well as administering and enforcing the laws of immigration.
The Domestic Surveillance Policy
One of the policies that was formulated courtesy of the 114th Congress was the domestic surveillance policy. The policy came to be as a result of the amendment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The purpose of FISA is to offer a legal outline that regulated how and when agencies of the government would collect foreign intelligence. Such means include the use of physical searches and electronic investigation, pen registers, and identifying the origin of phone calls from a mobile phone that made the calls. Other means of accessing the intelligence needed by the government agencies is by accessing specified records of businesses and the use of additional physical items that may aid the investigations (Noftsinger, 2016).
The consent of these activities usually is acquired through a court order from the FISC (Proctor & Waleford, 2009). Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a unique court that was designed to perform unbiased legal judgements on issues FISA related. Just after the 2011 terror attack, Congress modified FISA to support the government in obtaining intelligence information to keep the nation safe. During this period, Congress came up with three main FISA amendments. These adjustments include the lone wolf provision, the section 215 provision and the roving wiretap provision. The first provision was passed as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2014 while the other two were part of the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001.
The pros of this policy from the three different amendments are one, the roving wiretap provision. This provision allows the government intelligence agencies to tap in the means communication of an individual even when these individuals switch their forms of communication. Secondly is section 215 provision. This provision allows the government intelligence agencies to widen the range of physical items or devices and records that can be accessed by the government through FISA. Lastly is the lone wolf provision. This provision allows government intelligence agencies to observer individuals who do things on their own. The agencies monitor whether these individuals are potentially associated in any way to international terrorists (United States, 2016). This provision is stated for individuals who are neither permanent residents nor citizens of the United States.
The cons of this policy in regards to the three provisions are that one, suppose the roving wiretap is allowed to expire, FISA provisions would need to have separate consent from the FISA Court to tap into each device. Secondly, suppose the provision of Section 215 expires, records of different businesses access will only be limited to rental services, physical storage amenities, public accommodation amenities or common carriers. Lastly, if the lone wolf provision expires, then there will be no provision to monitor individuals who act alone. All these barriers might lead to an insecure nation for both lives and property.
Budget Analysis.
According to the information provided by the Office of Management and Budget, homeland security spent over $560 billion from the government in the first ten years after the 2011 terror attack. These funds are budget defined by the law as funds that facilitate activities that spot, prevent, protect against, and responds to threats of terrorism in the United States and its territories. Such expenses had gone up to about $73 billion in the 2009 financial year. In the financial year 2014 when all the data required was available, the budget was $66.20 billion which is a drop of $6.8 billion. In 2003 the budget of the homeland security was about $31.1 billion. This is in regards to when there was no appropriation for the budget of the Department of Homeland Security. In the financial year 2014 when all data required was available, the budget was $66.20 billion. About $35 billion of the budgeted amount which is roughly 52.8% were reported as the actual spending in the year 2014. In March 2015, a proposed bill H.R. 240 was signed and stated as P.L 114-4. This bill supported the provision of $39 billion in the net adjusted open budget authority and an addition of $0.20 billion for abroad emergency operations (United States, 2016).
Going forward, I believe the environment of the current budget of the United States will most definitely have challenges to the Department of Homeland Security in carrying out its roles. It is evident that the needs of staff, the efforts of the ongoing capital investments, and the demands for the strategies and missions of the homeland security will compete with the rest of the bodies of government for the remaining limited funding to perform its roles of keeping the nation safe. Additionally, even though the amendments in the Homeland Security policy have great significance to the country, if misused it can lead to grave threats to the nation’s security and the world at large.
References
Lansford, T., & Pauly, R. J. Jr. (2016). To Protect and Defend: US Homeland Security Policy . Place of publication not identified: Routledge.
Noftsinger, J. (2016). Understanding homeland security: Policy, perspectives, and paradoxes . Place of publication not identified: Palgrave Macmillan.
Proctor, A. P., & Waleford, J. T. (2009). Maintaining homeland security . New York: Nova Science.
United States. (2016). Worldwide threats and homeland security challenges: Hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, first session, October 21, 2015 . Washington: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
