Academics in homeland security

Universities in Protection (1 of 2)

In addition to the laboratories, DHS collaborates with several universities with centers of excellence in academia in order to secure the nation. These centers are involved in academic research and development regarding homeland protection. DHS centers of excellence bring together the nation's best experts and researchers to examine a variety of threats that include agricultural, chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological, explosive, and cyber terrorism, as well as the behavioral aspects of terrorism. The research on homeland protection varies from analyzing the economic risk of terrorism to developing methods of agrosecurity to dealing with the sociology of terrorism and bioterrorism. The prominent university-based centers of excellence are as follows:

The Homeland Security Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE)

The Homeland Security National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease Defense (FAZD)

The National Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD)

The Center for Behavioral and Social Aspects of Terrorism and Counterterrorism (START)

The Center of Excellence for Border Security and Immigration (COE BSI)

CREATE, established in 2004 and funded by the DHS, began at the University of Southern California. Today, CREATE universities, USC, and the University of Wisconsin are partnering with two new national DHS centers of excellence at Texas A&M University and University of Minnesota. These universities are considered among the country's top engineering schools and pioneers of distance education. CREATE is dedicated to modeling and analysis in risk assessment, economic assessment, and risk management. By developing models, experts are attempting to evaluate the risks, costs, and consequences of terrorism to protect the homeland.

CREATE also provides educational and training programs in homeland security and antiterrorism procedures. The aim of these programs is to augment the number of qualified professionals in the field of homeland security in public and private organizations. The educational programs focus on developing professionals through research, certificate courses, and short-term professional courses. The training programs enhance the knowledge of these professionals and develop homeland security leaders.

Universities in Protection (2 of 2)

In addition to CREATE, the FAZD in Texas is another academic center dedicated to homeland security and protection. FAZD primarily focuses on the threats posed by zoonotic diseases, which are passed to humans from animals and diseases carried into the country by foreign animals. The center also develops new vaccines and new methods of preventing and recovering from disease outbreaks and is involved in educational programs.

Another university-based center of excellence is NCFPD. Located at the University of Minnesota, NCFPD focuses on the prevention of deliberate contamination of the country's food supply. It also contributes to the detection of such contamination. Although the focus of the center's research is towards business or information technology (IT) approaches to supply chain management, it also investigates methods to improve response to public health epidemiology.

START, located at the University of Maryland, conducts research on the sociological perspectives of domestic terrorism. The center is involved in profiling research, which looks into the usefulness of demographic indicators. It also conducts research on developing geospatial, cultural, linguistic, and political indicators. These indicators are used to predict terrorist activity at the earliest point in time.

In 2004, DHS started providing undergraduate and graduate-level scholarships and fellowships to college students.

COE BSI was established in 2007 as a collaborative effort between DHS, University of Arizona, and University of Texas at El Paso. The University of Arizona leads the research component of COE BSI and the University of Texas at El Paso leads its educational components.

COE BSI focuses on technologies such as surveillance, screening, data fusion, and situational awareness using sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other technologies. COE BSI promotes research on the following:

Population dynamics

Administration of immigration, immigration policy, and enforcement of immigration laws

Operational analysis

Control and communications

Civic integration and citizenship

Letter Of Intent

The first time I wrote a Letter of Intent, I looked up samples and hints so that I could write a “correct” letter. The result of following those templates left me with the feeling that I had faked it. Not by adding in any false information or by stretching the truth about myself, but rather by looking at the Letter and feeling that I was not portraying “me”. What I intend to do for this letter is to let the information flow freely: Who am I? What qualifications do I have for a doctorate? Why do I want to pursue a doctorate? What do I intend to do with a doctorate?

I am an older student (age 47). I have kicked about in life somewhat: four years in the Marine Corps, an IT career of eight years, running my own business for eight years, four years of work at a television station, and two years as a security guard. I have to admit of chasing my tail for a few of those years to pay the mortgage, but for the most part, I am satisfied with the work I have done. I took on leadership and management responsibility at most of the companies that I have been employed.

My BA is in Government from the University of Texas at Austin. I was a horrible student, except in the subjects in which I was interested. Twenty years later, I found graduate study to be far more interesting, and I accomplished a 4.0 GPA in a Criminal Justice program with a focus in Homeland Security. I did attend a for-profit, online program at South University, and I understand that there is a negative perception of such schools in the academic community. I did some research and wrote an overview of my experience, to which I will provide a link. A minor research interest of mine is in the quality of criminal justice education, and the difference between traditional and online programs. I did present at the 2015 ASC meeting, but I flubbed the presentation from a combination of over-confidence and under-preparation; I thought I knew the material better than stage fright could prevent me from presenting, and I was wrong.

My presentation, “The Effects Of Hoover's Bureaucratic Tactics On COINTELPRO Operations: A Comparison Between NEW LEFT and WHITE HATE”, should highlight my primary research interest, which is in studying the effects that politics has on national security and criminal justice. In my opinion, national security and criminal justice share the basic goal of government, which is to protect the citizen. The major concepts in this research area include growth complex, corruption. partisan interest, and rent-seeking. My underlying purpose in seeking a doctorate is in learning the processes for identifying and measuring different causal effects. Human, and thus governmental, action is a multi-variate result, and I would like to be able to describe these causes better than I can now.

I intend on working for a research institute after attaining a doctorate, one that works in the areas of national security and/or criminal justice, and one that works in these areas from a Constitutional perspective. This would be the optimum I could contribute to society. I definitely bring a outsider's perspective to the field. On the other hand, if I can not find such employment, I have no problem teaching. Instructional duties have represented a great part of my responsibilities throughout my career.

Thank you for this opportunity, and I have provided links below:

ASC Paper:

http://gradschoolfool.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-effects-of-hoovers-bureaucratic.html

Overview of South University's Program:

http://gradschoolfool.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-masters-of-criminal-justice-at.html

LinkedIn Profile:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevedurchin

Homeland security - final discussion

Identified and described what local law enforcement should be doing to protect U.S. citizens from future criminal attacks or terror attacks.

The sworn duty of public official in America is to protect Americans from these threats. Horwitz argues that the Constitution is a "meta-rule of construction" dedicated to "national self-preservation", he stresses the importance of the Presidential Oath as dedicated to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution (2009, pp. 1069-1070). In America this oath is adhered to at the line level throughout the nation; DeShon contends that a “police officer's oath originates within the United States

Constitution” (2000, p. 6) and Amerson et al reiterate this at the level of sheriff; “ a sheriff should always perform his or her duties in accordance with the Constitution of the United States” (n.d., p.2). They key to the oath is "national self-preservation". To protect the citizens of this country, law enforcement officers must be aware of political interference, and be prepared to counter it. National security should not be allowed to be suborned by political pandering. Note that the oath is to the Constitution, not to any given law that may be unconstitutional, and especially not to any law that threatens national security.

Described how law enforcement agencies can identify terrorists living on the U.S. soil.

Terror suspects can be identified through information sharing from other agencies and through community policing as “The local law enforcement officer is the one the community member sees on a daily basis” (Angeles, 2013, p. 52). The cop on the beat will be the one to notice out of ordinary patterns. One issue that must be considered is that terror organizations often use the crime techniques of organized crime to generate funds. Sanderson states that” Transnational organized crime and international terrorism increasingly share both organizational and operational characteristics, and at times even partner with one another” (2004, p.49). Therefore law enforcement should be aware of crossover activity.

Identified and described the methods to be used to monitor terrorist activities.

LE agencies need to be careful while monitoring terrorists, as “They [terrorists] are on constant alert for people who might be monitoring their activities” (Dyson, 2008, p. 57). Dyson discusses a variety of surveillance tools and techniques (2008). Specific methods include monitoring cell phone calls and visual observation.

Explained how the United States can gain the support of other nations in combating terrorism.

Political entities, including the United States, act for their own survival and benefit. Diplomatic efforts should include the common threat that terrorists pose to all entities. Even in the case of Islam, terror groups are not always religiously,culturally, or politically in line with local communities. One of the factors of success of “The Surge” in Iraq in 2007 was the participation of local Sunni militias hostile to Al Qaeda barbarities One will note that Al Qaeda successor ISIS began taking hold in Iraq after the Iraqi (and Shi'ite) Prime Minister disbanded the local militias.

Analyzed whether foreign suspects should be brought to trial in the same manner as U.S. Citizens.

By the enacted laws of the United States and treaty participation, some would have us do so. However, remembering that the Constitution is an instrument of national self-preservation, there are arguments against doing so. Guiora compares the American, Israeli, Russian, Indian, and Spanish models of terrorist detention and trial (2007), while Elsea defends the American model of trying terrorists under a military tribunal (2001).

I wanted to thank everybody for the discussion, this has been a good class.

I'm on LinkedIn for those interested in networking.

www.linkedin.com/in/stevedurchin

Amerson, L., Champagne, G., Hodson, R., & Weintraub, R. (n.d.). Legal meaning of oath of office. National Sheriff's Association. Retrieved May 18, 2015 from http://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Legal%20Meaning%20of%20Oath%20of%20Office.pdf

Angeles, T. (2013, September). Maximizing intelligence sharing within the Los Angeles Police Department (Thesis). Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School. Retrieved October 17, 2014 from https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/37580

DeShon, R. W. (2000). Police officers oath of office and code of ethics a question of knowledge. Retrieved August, 20, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.dejurerepublicformichigan.org/files/OATH_ETHICS.pdf

Dyson, W. E. (2008). Terrorism: an investigator’s handbook (3rd ed). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis/Anderson Pub.

Elsea, J. (2001). Terrorism and the Law of War: Trying terrorists as war criminals before military commissions. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA452888

Guiora, A. N. (2007). Where are terrorists to be tried. Catholic University Law Review, 56.

Horwitz, P. (2009). Honor’s constitutional moment: The oath and presidential transitions. Northwestern University Law Review, 103(2), 1067–1080. Retrieved May 12, 2015 from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/233344356?pq-origsite=summon

Sanderson, T. M. (2004). Transnational terror and organized crime: Blurring the lines. SAIS Review, 24(1), 49–61. Retrieved April 27, 2015 from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v024/24.1sanderson.html

…..............................................................................................................................

Cole had an interesting point re: treating aliens with full rights.  I was unaware of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights that he asserts the U.S. signed in 1985 (p.372). I would also suggest that any Senator that ratified that treaty should be charged with treason.  Basically, as a signatory, we would have to give due process rights under American law to illegal combatants captured overseas.

On the other hand, were we to establish a legal category for known threats to the security of the country, whther citizen or not, then we would still be abiding by the terms of the treaty.

You are absolutely correct about our political correctness interfering with our security.  When the Clinton Administration failed to target and destroy Al Qaeda after their first attack on the World Trade Center, it created an atmosphere where attacking America was permitted.  Bin Laden stated that "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse" (Ajami, 2011, para. 5).  Writing arrest warrants for people that expect to die in the course of their terror attacks just does not deter their behavior; preemptively destroying their ability to attack, on the other hand, does deter it.

Ajami, F. (2011, May 3). Osama Bin Laden, weak horse. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 15, 2015 from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704436004576299110143040714

that Ernst article suggests there may be from 20,000 to 30,000 known terrorist already within our borders?  That's scary. particularly when you consider that when a terrorist attack occurs, the media brushes it off. Or even worse, suggests it is the victim's fault and that American's should not criticize tyrannical philosophies.

I think the "ring of steel" would be a good idea theoretically, but the budgets of the cities that use it would have to be modified. The major issue people have with this type of system is that they don't understand the issue of public versus private.  People object to public surveillance systems because they think such systems violate their privacy.  Perhaps the easiest way to demonstrate the difference between public and private is the notion that you can't run around naked in public. Another issue is related to efficient use of the systems;  I'll link an article which focuses on how badly the "ring of steel" has been managed in London: Lewis, J. (2010, February 27). Police terror budget cut by millions after Ring of Steel blunder. Retrieved May 20, 2015 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254353/Police-terror-budget-cut-millions-Ring-Steel-blunder.html

Week 5 notes - local police agencies

[Edit: this material is unsourced - it is not my own work.  I do not have the source references.  The information is provided for educational purposes]

The Gilmore Commission is the U.S. advisory panel for terrorism-related issues. The commission was established in December 2003 to study the nation's domestic response capabilities with regard to terrorism. The establishment of the commission has highlighted the fact that sufficient constitutional and legal authority exists for the president to employ military forces inside our borders.

The main function of the Gilmore Commission advisory panel is to assess the capabilities required to counteract terrorist attacks. The panel is responsible for examining counterterrorism capabilities at federal, state, and local levels. The duties and responsibilities of the panel are as follows:

• Examine measures adopted by federal agencies to enhance their capabilities on tackling terrorism-related incidents.
  
• Evaluate the progress of the training programs designed by federal agencies to train local agencies to respond appropriately to terrorism-related issues.
  
• Assess the deficiencies in the programs designed as a response to incidents involving terrorism.
  
• Advise and recommend strategies to ensure effective coordination between federal and local agencies in response to incidents involving terrorism.
  
• Assess whether the funds provided by state and local governments are enough to develop effective local response capabilities.
  

The panel receives support and administrative directives from the National Defense Research Institute (NDRI), which is a federally funded research and development center. NDRI acts as a coordinator between the advisory panel and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
Creation of NORTHCOM
After 9/11, the failure in air defense led to a breakdown in communication between the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 2002, the focus of the DOD shifted to creating a new command called NORTHCOM. NORTHCOM is responsible for defending the land, airways, and waterways of the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, parts of the Caribbean, and Atlantic and Pacific coastal waters.
Role of the Police
The U.S. government uses a number of law enforcement agencies for homeland security. The aim is to gather intelligence at the lowest jurisdiction level and analyze the information to identify, deter, and counter any terrorist activities. Some of the agencies involved in homeland security are the police, highway patrols, the sheriff's office, and special-purpose police agencies.
The state police functions in the same way as local agencies but with statewide jurisdiction and state crime labs. Highway patrols also have crime labs but under a different umbrella structure.
In 35 states, the police have additional agencies with investigative powers. These agencies share power with their respective state police counterparts under an umbrella organization such as the Department of Public Safety (DPS), the Department of Law Enforcement (DLE), or the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Highway patrols are police agencies with the authority to patrol state and federal highways. Although the main function of highway patrols is to enforce traffic safety compliance, they are also being increasingly used for homeland security—they assist the local police in gathering intelligence for homeland security. The crime or accident scene records and photographs maintained by highway patrols can prove to be a valuable source of information for assessing threats to homeland security. Added to this source of intelligence is information gathered through interviewing witnesses. Analysis of the information gathered by highway patrols can help the police understand the traffic crime trends in their jurisdiction, indicating any possible terrorist movements.

There are about 3,100 sheriffs in the United States. These sheriffs are elected officials, who exercise political control and influence. Besides law enforcement, they have additional duties such as running a jail, collecting taxes, serving papers, and ensuring courthouse security. Cities contract with sheriff's offices for police services through a contract system. All counties don't have sheriff's offices. Some large counties have county police departments run by a chief of police. Some counties have both a sheriff's office and a county police department. In fact, in the United States, the association between the sheriff's office and other police departments differs widely from state to state. For example, in the northeastern states, the sheriff's duties are mainly confined to state-level law enforcement agencies, the state police, and the local police.

Role of Special-Purpose Police Agencies
There are over 15,000 municipal police departments in the United States. These are more in number than any other type of agency. This number also includes the transit, school, and housing police. A complete list of all special-purpose police agencies includes the following authorities:

• Animal cruelty
• Beach
• Harbor
• Hospital
• Housing
• Port
• Railroad
• Sanitation
• School
• Transit
• Transportation
  

The majority of municipal departments are small, having 10 or fewer officers. Larger municipal departments with 1,000 or more officers have specialized units such as crime analysis and the occasional profiler unit.
In some states, special-purpose police agencies do more than just providing security. In other states, for example, California, some special district forces are composed of fully-sworn peace officers with statewide authority. These agencies are responsible for protecting government property and can include the transit police, airport police, campus police, park police, and police departments.
Special-purpose police agencies try to cope with hazards created by human and nonhuman agents. With regard to homeland security, these agencies work toward maintaining law and order by preventing behaviors that might disturb others, investigating criminal activity, and referring suspected criminals to courts.
According to the 9/11 Commission report, preventing and responding to terrorism requires the critical involvement of state and local governments. Therefore, these combined law enforcement agencies are an important step toward the protection of U.S. citizens.

Controversy re: the PATRIOT Act

The PATRIOT Act provided a legal framework for counter-terror methods. Banks states that “As framed by legal interpretation, the PATRIOT Act encapsulates the notion of protecting order through law” (2010, p.7). The PATRIOT Act amends several previously existing laws of the United States as well as establishing new law in several areas. However, a concise summary is hard to provide, as “the Patriot Act is very detailed and sometimes difficult to assess” (The Heritage Foundation, 2004, p.7). Keeping this assertion in mind, the Heritage Foundation also contends that the base purpose of the act is removing barriers to intelligence gathering and collation; “the Patriot Act changes adopt as a general principle the rule that any information lawfully gathered during a foreign or domestic counterintelligence investigation or lawfully gathered during a domestic law enforcement investigation should be capable of being shared with other federal agencies” (2004, p.30). However, the PATRIOT Act may not be as effective a tool as it was intended. “According to a recent federal court decision, however, the Patriot Act did not raze the wall; to the contrary, the Act raised, for the first time, a statutory basis for the wall”(Seamon & Gardner, 2005, p. 322). Sales argues that there still intelligence sharing areas in which “walls” still prevent information sharing (2010, p. 1796).

Banks asserts that the Act increased the authority of law enforcement by “expanding statutory definitions of domestic terrorism and increasing punishments for such activities, the law centralizes executive authority by allowing the unfettered capture and prolonged detention of a wider class of citizens or immigrants who have not engaged in terrorist acts (2010. p.8). Sales lists three additional examples of how the PATRIOT Act changed law; by allowing roving wiretaps, by allowing counter- terror operatives to examine business records, and by allowing the monitoring of lone wolves, “even if they haven’t yet found evidence he belongs to a foreign terrorist organization” (2014, para. 3,5,7)

The Heritage Foundation lists fifty terrorist plots that have been prevented since 9/11. In the case of the Lackawanna Six, the Heritage Foundation found that “the PATRIOT Act’ information-sharing provisions were essential”(Carafano, Bucci, & Zuckerman, 2012, p.19). Sales illustrates how Zacarias Moussaoui could have been identified had the PATRIOT Act been in force prior to 9/11 (2014, para.7).

The Act has been a subject of controversy from the beginning. Clarke explains that the ACLU has led the opposition to the Act and that their “ objections center on surveillance of anyone generally, but American citizens specifically. The First Amendment’s free speech and assembly, and the Fourth

Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant,

are several of the constitutional protection items” of concern (2013, p.36). Breinholt argues against this position, “People who are alarmed by such things as the PATRIOT Act should acknowledge that American courts, which operate on the basis of historical precedent, remain available and are willing, when necessary, to redraw the lines between collective security and personal liberty” ( 2004, p.141).

And while the PATRIOT Act is effective, it has been the underlying cause of the most widespread civil liberty violations in American history, the shotgun approach in which the NSA has spied upon the populace at large. A report issued by the Center for Democracy and Technology concludes that some surveillance conducted by the FBI and the NSA has been illegal and such “surveillance is not permitted

by the statute, and was hidden from the public by deception” (2013, p.6). This violation of civil liberty has been so extreme that Jim Sensenbrenner,the author of the PATRIOT Act , had this to say about it, “I stand by the Patriot Act and support the specific targeting of terrorists by our government, but the proper balance has not been struck between civil rights and American security” (Kravets, 2013, para. 3).

Sensenbrenner has the correct sense of the matter when he says that these security provisions must be targeted at specific terrorists. Clarke quotes an Arkansas fusion center director ho said that “they spy

not on Americans, just on anti-government Americans” (2103, p. 32). Perhaps the director would also be correct if he changed “anti-government” to “anti-American”. The concept of protecting America goes beyond the concept of protecting it's government.

Banks, C. P. (2010). Security and freedom after September 11. Public Integrity, 13(1), 5–24. http://doi.org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922130101

Breinholt, J. (2004). How about a little perspective: The USA PATRIOT Act and the uses and abuses of history. Texas Review of Law & Politics, 9(1), 17–61. Retrieved September 10, 2014 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=16272356&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Carafano, J., Bucci, S., & Zuckerman, J. (2012). Fifty terror plots foiled since 9/11: The homegrown threat and the long war on terrorism (No. 2682). Retrieved May 11, 2015 from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/fifty-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-the-homegrown-threat-and-the-long-war-on-terrorism

Center For Democracy and Technology. (2013). NSA spying under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act: Illegal, overbroad,  and unnecessary. Retrieved May 11, 2015 from https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/Analysis-Section-215-Patriot-Act.pdf

Clarke, D. A. (2013, September). Making U.S. security and privacy rights compatible (Thesis). Monterey California. Naval Postgraduate School. Retrieved October 17, 2014 from https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/37603

The Heritage Foundation. (2004). The Patriot Act reader: Understanding the law’s role in the Global War on Terrorism. Retrieved February 14, 2015 from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/09/the-patriot-act-reader

Kravets, D. (2013, September 5). Patriot Act author says NSA is abusing spy law. Wired Magazine. Retrieved May 11, 2015 from http://www.wired.com/2013/09/nsa-abusing-patriot-act/

Sales, N. A. (2010). Mending walls: Information sharing after the USA PATRIOT Act. Texas Law Review, 88(7), 1795–1854. Retrieved September 28. 2014 from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/pqcentral/docview/722437517/1D2F2179446344F0PQ/31?accountid=87314

Sales, N. A. (2014, May 13). Do we still need the Patriot Act? The New York Times. Retrieved May 11, 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/07/do-we-still-need-the-patriot-act/the-patriot-act-is-a-vital-weapon-in-fighting-terrorism

Seamon, R. H., & Gardner, W. D. (2005). The Patriot Act and the wall between foreign intelligence and law enforcement. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 28(2), 319–463. Retrieved October 9, 2014 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=16901261&site=ehost-live&scope=site

…...........................................................................................................................................

I think that essentially that it does not, although it has been "misunderstood" by certain agencies such as the NSA to justify the violation of civil rights. Then again, it becomes an issues of WHO we are spying on: do we want NSA looking at the type of porn we are viewing at the web, or do we want them looking at known terrorists and their communications networks?  I vote for  them looking at the terrorists.

My understanding of utilitarianism was that the overall good has to be balanced by the severity of the harm caused to all the individuals ; "the hedonistic calculus requires consideration of the number of people affected by an act, the seriousness of the effect, and comparision of the long term and short term consequences of the act" (Durchin, 2015, para. 14).

So, by limiting civil rights violations to the individuals that are likely to be enemies of society, we minimize the number of people affect by the government's actions and we limit the negative consequences of the government's actions ( while also potentially limiting the suspected terrorists actions to cause negative consequences).

The hedonistic calculus changes when the government uses a shotgun-effect "bulk collection" model;  the number of people affected is maximized in relation to the preventive consequences; in addition, we add a new negative consequence, the loss of trust in the government by the governed.

So we would use utilitarian theory to show a greater benefit from selectively violating civil rights in the case of an individual terror suspect, while using utilitarian theory to shower a greater harm from violating civil rights using "bulk collection" methods.

Durchin, S. (2015, January 13). “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” . Grad School Fool. Retrieved May 13, 2015 from
http://gradschoolfool.blogspot.com/2015/01/all-that-is-necessary-for-evil-to.html

…...............................................................................................................................................

A decapitation strategy aimed at the leadership and support personnel (facilitators, propagandists, recruiters, etc) of the terrorist organizations.

A clear definition of law to the point of WHO can be considered a terrorist, and HOW terror suspects can be legally treated.

When possible, the capture of and enhanced interrogation of terror suspects.

Retribution against state entities supporting terror organizations.

...........................................................................................................................

There is a mechanism for discretion in the FISA courts.  One of the legal and moral quandaries we run into is that we have traditionally required a foreign source/origination of subversion or terror before we are allowed to act in full;  we need to better define our legal boundaries to include native threats, but we have to be careful that we don't use this mechanism to silence purely political opposition. As an example, in the 60's the COINTELPRO (FBI) programs targeted violent subversive groups including SDS while CHAOS (Army & CIA) targeted everyone opposing the Vietnam War.  You can point to excesses in COINTELPRO, and while some are on the line, the target of the programs was still violent anti-American groups; on the other hand, CHAOS was inherently excessive because it used agencies forbidden to perform the missions they did...the point of CHAOS was allegedly to silence political speech  (I haven't started an in-depth study of CHAOS yet).

Balancing civil rights and collective security has always been a controversial subject.  American society has a history of cyclic overreaction towards both extremes of the issue.

In the 50's the FBI was pretty free to operate against subversives, in terms of aggressive operations and in surveillance.  Over the course of the 60's, the national mood started changing.  By the 1970's, when the public was made aware of the debatable excesses and the actual excesses of COINTELPRO, and the extreme excesses of CHAOS; this caused a backlash against the intelligence services and severe restrictions on their ability to operate. Not much happened in the 80's and 90's that wasn't able to be handled (but not much happened at all, comparatively to other time periods). 

9/11 pushed the pendulum back towards allowing the intelligence services some leeway.  The NSA spying scandal demonstrates it doesn't take too long for that pendulum to swing all the way!  Hopefully, we as a society don't overreact to that situation and hobble our spies again.

…...................................................................................................................................

The arrest of Ali Khalil Mehri

The arrest of Ali Khalil Mehri demonstrates another source of terrorist funding, which is the sale of counterfeit products. Shelley argues that terrorists use such sales due to the “low risks” and “high profits” of the counterfeit trade (2012, abstract). In the case of Mehri, Paraguayan authorities arrested him in the course of investigating two terror attacks, and found Hezbollah propaganda and evidence of foreign money transfers (Arena, 2006, pp. 459-460). Levitt states that Mehri was arrested for “selling millions of dollars in pirated software and funding Hezbollah” (2005, p.9). Hudson notes that Mehri was arrested in the same building in which Paraguayan authorities later found over 4,000 counterfeit CD's and 80 machines capable of creating such counterfeits (2010, p. 30). Hudson also suggests that Mehri was able to escape from Paraguay to Syria based on his contributions to Paraguayan Deputy Angel Ramón Barchini (2002, p. 37).

The arrest of Mehri brings to attention how American authorities may detain a terror suspect within the United States. Should such suspects be held under criminal law, or should these cases be approached as a matter of national security? It must be noted that Mehri was a” a newly naturalized Paraguayan citizen” (2002, p. 37). In a hypothetical question of “how would this be handled in America, had this situation be handled here?”, we note that as an American citizen, Mehri would have had the full range of Constitutional rights had he been arrested in the United States. Of course, USCIS would have fallen short of it's mission if a person like Mehri was allowed to become a citizen. Of course, the younger Tsarnaev brother ( one of the Boston Bombers) had become a citizen (Ng,2013, factoid), so we do see that sometimes USCIS does fail in it's mission.

So why is it important that American citizens be given full protection under due process? Etter says:

“It is through a constitutional prism that American courts view all legal actions in the United States. Thus when those that have attempted to achieve their political and personal ambitions by means of force plotted against the government and their plots failed they were put before the American civil justice system to face trial for their actions” (2008, p.99).

Once we have abandoned our legal system, we are no longer Americans. However, that does not mean we can not set different legal standards for non-citizens , or take better care of who we extend citizenship to.

Arena, M. P. (2006). Hizballah’s global criminal operations. Global Crime, 7(3/4), 454–470. http://doi.org/10.1080/17440570601073186

Etter, G. W. (2008). Prosecuting Domestic Terrorists in the American Court System: A Study of Three Cases. Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies, (8), 99–119. Retrieved May 11, 2015 from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/213962107?pq-origsite=summon

Hudson, R. A. (2002). A global overview of narcotics-funded terrorist and other extremist groups. Federal Research Division Library of Congress. Retrieved May 11, 2015

Hudson, R. A. (2010). Terrorist and organized crime groups in the Tri-Border Area (TBA) of South America. Federal Research Division Library of Congress. Retrieved May 11, 2015 from http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/TerrOrgCrime_TBA.pdf

Levitt, M. (2005). Hezbollah: Financing terror through criminal enterprise. Testimony given to Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC, 25. Retrieved April 13, 2015 from http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/testimony/313.pdf

Ng, Christina. (2013, April 19). Boston bomb suspect became a U.S. citizen on 9/11 last year. ABC News. Retrieved May 11, 2015 from http://abcnews.go.com/US/boston-marathon-bombing-suspected-tsarnaev-brothers/story?id=19000426

Shelley, L. I. (2012). The diverse facilitators of counterfeiting: A regional perspective. Journal of International Affairs, 66(1), 19–XV. Retrieved May 11, 2015 from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/1243043417?pq-origsite=summon

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Considering that Islam is both a political and religious  system, in which community laws (sharia) are the direct word of g*d, it is trickier to make a decision that would be "politically correct"...

and what about Muslims fleeing Islamic tyrannies?  I recognize that not all Muslims are 100% religiously faithful.

It is a hard question.  But I think I would err on the side of caution when it comes to America's safety

…...................................................................................................................................................

Let' suppose you have 3 people; A, B, and C. A is a known terrorist, B & C are not. If A communicates with B; I think we should be able to spy on that communication because A is a terrorist.  But if B then communicates with C, we should not be able to spy on that communication. ...unless the communication between A and B establishes that B is a terrorist as well.

Good point re: Mehri's escape through corruption.  Angel Ramón Barchini was denied entry to the United States due to his ties with Islamist terrorists. It was Barchini all along  (sorry, couldn't help myself lol)

USCIS Strategic Plan 2008-2012

USCIS Strategic Plan 2008-2012

The USCIS Strategic Plan 2008-2012 was created to identify the challenges faced by the United States regarding border protection and to create a framework for addressing these challenges.

Identified and described the significant challenges faced by the United States regarding border protection or illegal immigration.

The Plan identified three challenges formally, and discusses a fourth challenge without formally describing it as such. The three challenges described in the Plan are:

• That entities intent on harming the United States are becoming sophisticated in their methods of gaining illegal entry.
• That the workload is unpredictable and determined by factors outside USCIS control
• That there is variety in the motivations of some entities to exploit our immigration system for nefarious purposes. (2007, p. 7).

The fourth “informal” challenge discussed is that “there is a lack of public consensus on the ideal U.S. citizenship characteristics” (2007, p. 10). This supposed “lack of consensus” is the justification used by the Obama Administration to interfere with the mission of the USCIS, and will be described in more detail as we discuss the efficiency of the Plan.

USCIS has addressed these challenges with the following methods; the creation of the Strategic Plan with it's six goals

• Strengthen the security and integrity of the immigration system
• Provide effective customer-oriented immigration benefit and information

services

• Support immigrants’ integration and participation in American civic culture
• Promote flexible and sound immigration policies and programs
• Strengthen the infrastructure supporting the USCIS mission
• Operate as a high-performance organization that promotes a highly talented workforce (2007, p.3)

In addition, USCIS has accomplished the following; reformed name check processing, established the National Security and Records Verification Directorate (NSRV), created a digitization initiative for immigration records to modernize the way documents are shared with partner agencies , expanded the E-Verify program, incorporated biometric checks , created the Office of Security and Integrity (OSI) , balanced the agency’s workload and personnel among the USCIS field offices, and realigned field management structure into four regions to improve mission performance (2007, pp, 13-15).

There was no summary to the report.

However, the success of these measures is hard to judge considering the roadblocks that the Obama administration has placed between USCIS and the accomplishment of it's mission. A Congressional Digest report discusses the arguments that “nonenforcement policy represents an abdication of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) statutory responsibilities to enforce Federal immigration law” (2015, p.8). Certainly, the integrity of USCIS is open to question under this administration. Border Patrol agents who have done their duty as opposed to abdicating it have suffered from workplace retaliation, as discussed in a Fox News report, Senate probes claims of workplace retaliation for Border Patrol agents not enforcing Obama orders (2015).

As part of the field management realignment, the Central Region is one of four regions that perform the USCIS mission; Central Region adheres to the same Strategic Plan as the other Regions. As discussed previously, the intent of the structural realignment was to balance the agency workload and personnel allocation. USCIS states that this will increase mission performance.

References

Legality of Obama’s immigration initiatives. (2015). Congressional Digest, 94(3), 7. Retrieved May 9, 2015 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=101376882&site=eds-live

Senate probes claims of workplace retaliation for Border Patrol agents not enforcing Obama orders. (2015, April 1). Fox News. Retrieved May 9, 2015, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/01/senate-probes-claims-workplace-retaliation-for-border-patrol-agents-not/

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2007). USCIS Strategic Plan 2008-2012. Retrieved April 15, 2015 from http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/About%20Us/Budget%2C%20Planning%20and%20Performance/USCIS_Strategic_Plan_2008-2012.pdf