250 word discussion response – Homeland Security/Intel | Coursehero Helper

I’m stuck on a Political Science question and need an explanation.

Responses should be a minimum of 250 words and include direct questions. You may challenge, support or supplement another student’s answer using the terms, concepts and theories from the required readings. Also, do not be afraid to respectfully disagree where you feel appropriate; as this should be part of your analysis process at this academic level.

Forum posts are graded on timeliness, relevance, knowledge of the weekly readings, and the quality of original ideas. Sources utilized to support answers are to be cited in accordance with the APA writing style by providing a general parenthetical citation (reference the author, year and page number) within your post, as well as an adjoining reference list. Refer to grading rubric for additional details concerning grading criteria.

Respond to Kaitlyn:

As we all know, the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2011 transformed our Nations security. In post recovery, our nation has revamped the relationship between federal, state, and local homeland security, law enforcement and intelligence organizations (Steiner, n.d). To help support the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) mission to “prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, and minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery from terrorist attacks that do occur in the United States,” an intelligence component was created (Randol, 2010, pg.1).

It was the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that granted the DHS intelligence component accountability to receive, analyze, integrate law enforcement and intelligence information in order to “identify and assess the nature and scope of terrorist threats to the homeland, detect and identify threats of terrorism against the united states, and understand such threats in light of actual and potential vulnerabilities of the homeland” (Randol, 2010, pg.1). With the notion of the intelligence organization, Congress also mandated that information sharing was executed across all Federal government agencies, as well as agencies of State and local government and private sector entities (Randol 2010, pg.1). Information sharing is thought to assist in “deterrence, prevention, preemption of, or response to terrorist attacks against the United States” (Randol, 2010, pg. 1).

To assist in the efforts to strengthen the nations intelligence and information sharing post 9/11, states and major urban areas established what is known as intelligence fusion centers (Randol, 2010, pg. 11). Fusion centers, defined by congress, are “collaborative effort of two or more Federal, state, local, or tribal government agencies that combines resources, expertise, or information with the goal of maximizing the ability of such agencies to detect, prevent, investigate, apprehend, and respond to criminal or terrorist activity” (Randol, 2010, pg. 11). Intelligence officers who are assigned to fusion centers are responsible for, but not limited to, providing intelligence support, reviewing and analyzing suspicious activity reports and supporting the development of intelligence products at state and local levels (Randol, 2010, pg. 11).

While the roles and expectations of intelligence being clear especially referring to the homeland security enterprise, there are limitations that arise, specifically in regards to violations of civil liberties. Gregory T. Nojeim (2009), provides us with some examples of reports that were filed in response to this matter in his paper published as “Homeland Security Intelligence: Its Relevance and Limitations.” One of those examples is the reporting of lobbying activities and concern about tolerance. According to Nojeim (2009), the North Central Texas Fusion System distributed a Prevention Awareness Bulletin that stated “Middle Eastern Terrorist groups and their supporting organizations have been successful in gaining support for Islamic goals in the United States and providing an environment for terrorist organizations to flourish” to over 1500 staff members within 200 Texas agencies. The bulletin also cited that there were incidents such as footbaths at the Indianapolis airport and that the Treasury Department’s will be hosting a conference entitled “Islamic Finance 101” as there are signs of growing tolerance for “Shariah law and support of terrorist military activity against Western nations” (Nojeim, 2009, pg. 9). This report is thought to have singled out “lobbying activities.” Thus it is important for all entities at federal, state, and local levels are compliant with following principles that enhance both liberty and security.

Thank you,

Kaitlyn M.

Najeim, G. (2009). Homeland Security Intelligence: Its Relevance and Limitations. 1-15.

Retrieved from https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/20090318nojeim.pdf.

Randol, M. A. (2010). The Department of Homeland Security Intelligence Enterprise:

Operational Overview and Oversight Challenges for Congress. 1-57. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R40602.pdf.