How Over-Zealous and
Overly Aggressive Homeland Security Policies Can Backfire
In
response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. federal government created new
departments, gave more power to and expanded existing ones, and wrote into law
new acts. These include creating the Department of Homeland Security, (DHS),
passing the Patriot Act, (and later, passing the National Defense Authorization
Act, NDAA), and augmenting the size, force, and power of local police forces.
The government claimed to take these measures to combat terrorism. However
reports from news agencies, human rights organizations, think-tanks, and
scholarly research have shown that terrorism has never been and is not a major
threat to Americans, certainly, there are at least a dozen other causes of
death that have caused more American deaths than terrorism. The first part of
this paper will analyze the threat and death rate of terrorism against
Americans, compared to the threat and death rate of the government against the
American people. It will also go into how Homeland Security policy makers dealt
with these issues. The second part of this paper will analyze the rights of the
American people taken away or being taken away from terrorism, compared to the
rights taken away or being taken away by the government, from a Homeland
Security perspective. Lastly, this research paper will explore a case study of
Homeland Security in action.
Before
delving into the topics, first it is necessary to identify the actors in this
issue. The principal actors are government agencies, as they are the ones that
enforce the policies. These include DHS, the National Security Agency, (NSA),
the Department of Justice, (DOJ), Customs and Border Protection, (CBP), FBI,
and all local and state police and sheriffs offices.
The two
main concerns that privacy advocates and human rights organizations have in
relation to federal agencies and local police forces’ actions in Homeland
Security is the militarization of police, and the taking away of peoples’ human
rights. The first one is important when
talking about the threat and death rate of terrorism against Americans,
compared to the threat and death rate of the government against the American
people. Here are some statistics that will illustrate this concept:
·
Americans are 8 times more likely to get killed by police
than by a terrorist. All emotions and political slants aside, strictly
statistically speaking, the American police is more of a threat to the American
people than terrorists are, (www.huffingtonpost.com). Not counting 9/11, that statistic
jumps to Americans are 29 times more likely to get killed by police than by a
terrorist.
·
The number of police raids has jumped from 30,000 in 1995
to 45,000 in 2001, (same source as the one above).
·
DHS will purchase 450 million bullets over the next 5
years, including 75 million in 2014 alone, (www.businessinsider.com).
·
DHS also purchased 2,500 mine resistant APCs.
DHS coordinates with the FBI and state
and local police forces to achieve its goals of stopping terrorist attacks and
disaster response. Some of DHS’s mission statements that pertain to this topic
are as followed: prevent terrorism and enhancing security; secure and manage
our borders; enforce and administer our immigration laws; and ensure resilience
to disasters. Behind the statistics are the policies that result in the
statistics. The problem is that current homeland security efforts undermine
preparedness every bit as much as they support it. Homeland Security officials
and local and state police chiefs also involved top-down management systems and
military-style command and control strategies in planning and implementation, often
focusing on a doctrine of offense and preemption, (Bach). They are so focused
on offense that they lose hindsight of the main goal of homeland security: to
protect citizens’ lives and human rights.
This leads to the first of two
articles that form the backbone of looking at the actors’ approach to Homeland
Security. Robert Bach and David Kaufman say in the very first sentence of their
article that federal, state, and local authorities must work with citizens to
achieve security. Constantly attacking citizens, taking away their guaranteed
human rights, and ultimately creating a narrative or implying that they are the
enemy is not working with them in any sense of the definition. That is why Bach
and Kaufman say security has eluded us since the “War on Terror” started.
So focused on offense that policies
set by agencies such as the FBI and DOJ can break trust between the government
and its citizens, the fundamental concept that Homeland Security relies on.
Citizens cannot trust a government whose policies can be seen as making the
citizens the enemy of the government. Such a policy would be the FBI’s and
DOJ’s guidelines as what actions could be done by a “potential terrorist”:
Ø
Purchasing anything with cash most of the time instead of
a credit or debit card.
Ø
Opposition to war.
Ø
Opposition to abortion.
Ø
Frustration with the two main political parties.
Ø
Buying a large amount of bullets, (doesn’t say what a
“large amount” qualifies as).
Ø
Being concerned about your privacy from the government.
Ø
Complaining about the quality of tap water.
These
actions are what ordinary, non-terrorists do every day. These are actions that
many FBI and DOJ employees do. Is the FBI and DOJ calling their own employees
potential terrorists? If government agencies want to protect Americans and
their rights, a peaceful engagement of communities in collaboration would be
much more effective in enhancing the resiliency and security of the nation,
(Frazzano).
This
is what the second article talks about: government agencies redefining their
cultural and operational identities to accurately combat new and emerging
threats. It also introduces a concept called “The Whole Community,” in which “shared
understanding of community risks, needs, and capabilities leads to an increase
in resources through the empowerment of community members.” Nowhere in the
article or in this concept does it suggest that the large majority of American
citizens are potential terrorists due to doing ordinary tasks. DHS policies
must incorporate the concept of The Whole Community, as this shows that DHS is
working with the communities, not against them.
In
comparing the amount and severity of the American people’s human rights taken
away by terrorists and taken away by the government, the only right the
terrorists took away have been the 3,000+ peoples’ right to life that they have
killed since 9/11 to the present. The rights that the government has taken, is
taking, and has the power to take away if it wants to, are:[1]
§
Freedom of speech. For example, protesting certain
government policies is called “terrorism,” for which the government can kill
U.S. citizens for. Talking against certain police actions or simply asking a
police officer questions is called “assault,” or “resisting arrest.” There is
no need for the government to convict a person of terrorism, they only label
them a “suspected terrorist” and then kill them.
§
Freedom of the press. There have been 7 instances in
which a government official has been criminally charged with leaking classified
information to the news media, the most during any U.S. presidential
administration in history. In comparison, it has only been used 3 times before
Obama took office. It has stolen emails, phone records, and tracked the
movements of journalists, (Fox News reporter James Rosen, for example), it secretly
seized records for telephone lines and switchboards used by more than 100
Associated Press journalists, and prosecuted sources of journalists with felony
charges, (Zongker).
§
Second Amendment. The Obama administration, and many past
administrations, has repeatedly infringed on American citizens’ right to bear
arms. While it is not DHS policy that affects this right, the police forces are
the ones that enforce states’ laws relating to this amendment. Whether it has
been trying to ban magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, or trying to
reinstate the 1994 “assault weapons ban,” (www.whitehouse.gov), Obama has made it clear, through
his actions and words, that he does not believe that the second amendment means
that Americans can own guns.
§
Fourth Amendment. From allowing home invasions by police
and SWAT teams without a warrant, to having the NSA steal personal information
from customers of many U.S. companies, to stealing emails and phone calls from
ordinary American citizens who haven’t committed terrorism, nor committed any
other crime. Some statistics related to this would be, for example, that the
NSA surveys 75% of all American Internet traffic, (www.reuters.com), and collected near 100% of American
phone calls in 2006, down to 30% today, (www.digitaltrends.com).
§
The Fifth Amendment: The Patriot Act, and later, the
NDAA, gives the government to hold an American citizen in prison indefinitely,
without charges, or access to an attorney. That effectively destroys the 5th
amendment.
§
Sixth Amendment: Those same two pieces of legislation
also takes away an American’s right to a trial, nullifying the 6th
Amendment.
Examples of some of these rights being
taken away from American citizens can be seen in the case study of this paper,
which is the case of Sarah Abdurrahman. Sarah, her family, and some friends
were returning from Canada to the United States through the Niagara Falls
border crossing on September 2nd, 2013. Sarah, and everyone in her
party, are American citizens. They had been attending a wedding of another
family member in Toronto, Canada, and now were returning home on Labor Day.
When they got to the border crossing, they were immediately detained by CBP agents, with no explanation. They were held in a freezing cold room without bathrooms for six hours. Sarah repeatedly asked an agent why they were being held, but he answered “It is not your right to know.” Then they took all of their cellphones after demanding they unlock them. They didn’t get their cellphones back. After about five and half hours in detainment, one of the detained men, Khaled Ahmed, was put into handcuffs, without warning, taken from his family and put into a jail cell. The officers did not inform either Ahmed or his family why he was being taken. The rest of the family was soon released but CBP refused to tell them where Ahmed was. Eventually, they told the family that another “agency” was coming to pick Ahmed up. The agency ended up being the Michigan State Police, picking up Ahmed for an unpaid ticket for a crooked license plate (i.e. not screwed on right) from 2006. After Sarah got home, she tried to contact CBP and DHS to demand an explanation, but they never picked up the phone. Since CBP never gave Sarah a reason for doing all of this, she can only assume it was because of her and her party’s religion, (Sarah wears a hijab), (Reuters).
Sarah Abdurrahman |
When they got to the border crossing, they were immediately detained by CBP agents, with no explanation. They were held in a freezing cold room without bathrooms for six hours. Sarah repeatedly asked an agent why they were being held, but he answered “It is not your right to know.” Then they took all of their cellphones after demanding they unlock them. They didn’t get their cellphones back. After about five and half hours in detainment, one of the detained men, Khaled Ahmed, was put into handcuffs, without warning, taken from his family and put into a jail cell. The officers did not inform either Ahmed or his family why he was being taken. The rest of the family was soon released but CBP refused to tell them where Ahmed was. Eventually, they told the family that another “agency” was coming to pick Ahmed up. The agency ended up being the Michigan State Police, picking up Ahmed for an unpaid ticket for a crooked license plate (i.e. not screwed on right) from 2006. After Sarah got home, she tried to contact CBP and DHS to demand an explanation, but they never picked up the phone. Since CBP never gave Sarah a reason for doing all of this, she can only assume it was because of her and her party’s religion, (Sarah wears a hijab), (Reuters).
It is illegal for law enforcement
officers to perform searches or detentions based solely on your race, national
origin, religion, sex or ethnicity. The CBP officers infringed on Sarah’s
Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. CBP and other Homeland Security officers are
allowed to conduct stops and searches with no probable cause or arrest warrants
at the border, under what is known as the "border search exception." The
exception allows for routine searches. However, once you start holding citizens
for prolonged detentions, it falls under non-routine searches. For that, the
officer needs a particular and objective basis for suspecting that person of
illegal activity, (Reuters).
There are a number of conclusions and
observations that can be made from this story. One is that the rapid expansion
of and the lack of oversight over CBP contributed to Sarah being treated the
way that she was. CBP has grown so fast in the decade that it has existed that
government oversight has not kept pace. CBP had 10,817 in 2004. Today, it has
63,560. Therefore, there is no logical reason for CBP to not treat Muslims like
they did Sarah. None of the CBP agents in the example even got a harsh comment
from any supervisor. Nothing bad happened to them, so in their minds, they are
thinking: why should we change our behavior?
This is not the only time something
like what Sarah experienced has happened. Human rights groups, such as the
ACLU, have seen that these human rights abuses happen regularly, i.e. it is not
an isolated incident that can be blamed on just a few bad CBP agents. No, they
infringe on Americans’ human rights daily, meaning it is a DHS policy; the
policy makers at DHS and CBP, along with training instructors, are teaching the
CBP to act this way. That means certain DHS policies run contrary to the
Constitution. There is no other reason why this problem is so widespread and
across agencies, not just in CBP. This case study could not capture an agency
breaking more Amendments than the Fourth and Fifth. But that doesn’t mean that
at other times, in other situations, that DHS and local police forces are not
breaking the other Amendments listed on the fifth and sixth and pages.
CBP’s actions run in line with the
narrative and training that DHS’s approach has to Homeland Security. An overly
aggressive Homeland Security doctrine saw Sarah and her party as potential
terrorists, hence, their human rights being broken. Citizens are the first line
in Homeland Security. Many terrorist attacks have been stopped because
concerned citizens report what they heard/saw someone doing to police. That is
the vital link between authorities and the communities that Bach and Kaufman
talked about. If that link is broken by human rights abuses, and aggressive and
rude behavior by the authorities, then the nation as a whole will not be as
effective in stopping terrorist attacks and achieving security.
Works
Cited
“American
journalist and family detained and harassed at US border.” September 24th,
2013. http://rt.com/usa/abdurrahman-npr-border-detain-291/
Bach,
Robert and David Kaufman. “A Social Infrastructure for Hometown Security:
Advancing the Homeland Security Paradigm.” Homeland Security Affairs, Volume V,
NO. 2 (May 2009).
Balko,
Radley. “How did America’s police become a military force on the streets?” ABA Journal,
1/8/2013.
Erman,
Michael. “NSA surveillance covers 75 percent of U.S. Internet traffic: WSJ.”
Reuters. 8/20/2013.
“FBI
“Communities Against Terrorism” Suspicious Activity Reporting Flyers.” February
1st, 2012. https://publicintelligence.net/fbi-suspicious-activity-reporting-flyers/
Frazzano,
Tracy, and Matthew Synder. “Hybrid Targeted Violence:
Challenging Conventional “Active Shooter”
Response Strategies.” Homeland Security Affairs, Volume 10 Article 3 (February
2014).
Johnson,
Robert. “The Department Of Homeland Security Is Buying 450 Million New Bullets.”
Business Insider, 4/5/2014.
Nield,
David. “New reports say NSA phone tracking covers 20-30 percent of calls.”
Digital Trends. 2/8/2014.
Whitehead,
John. “Vigilantes With a Badge: The War Against the American People.”
Huffington Post, 2/26/2014.
White
House. “Now is the Time to Do Something About Gun Violence.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence
Zongker,
Brett. “Report: Obama brings chilling effect on journalism.” The Associated
Press. 10/13/2013.
[1]
The following bullet points are merely quick summaries of the rights the
government has taken away from us, as a whole paper can be written just one of
these bullet points.