Redefining the Future of the Department of Homeland Security

Redefining the Future of the Department of Homeland Security
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Redefining the Future of the Department of Homeland Security
Abstract
The American Department of Homeland Security was established over twenty years ago following the September 11 terrorist attacks. The roles and functions of the department have continually evolved to counter emerging security threats ever since. Even though the department still plays a vital role in protecting the country from attacks from within and outside the country, there has been increased criticism on its workings, particularly concerning its intelligence function. In addition, criticism has been aired regarding the department's involvement in violating states' and civil rights. More importantly, questions have been raised regarding the collection, storage, and use of public data by the department in its efforts to provide security. While acknowledging some of these concerns, supporters have argued for a redefinition of the department's functions and missions to avoid overlapping duties and mandates with those of other organizations. The following discussion seeks to examine the future of the Department of Homeland Security by first examining existing criticisms and how these can be addressed to ensure its future viability.
Key Words: Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Civil rights and Liberties, Intelligence, Homeland security.
Redefining the Future of the Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created following increased terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. More specifically, the 9/11 terrorist attack brought to light the government's need to reassess and reorganize homeland security to better protect the country from emerging security threats (Givens et al., 2018). In line with this, the DHS was established to cooperate with other executive departments and existing agencies to establish and implement a comprehensive strategy to secure the country from terror attacks. Since the DHS was first established, the department's principles have continually evolved to make it the professional and concrete institution it is today. Despite this, there has been unrelenting criticism of the department based on several issues. Some critics have viewed the institution as a vehicle used by the government to apply military force on American soil. In contrast, others have cited infringement of civil and state rights as some of the shortcomings of having such an institution in the country (Brody, 2020). On the other hand, some hold a strong opinion that with the current incidents of security threats, there is a need to develop a good model for detection, prevention, and defense against increased terror threats. This school of thought believes it is necessary to strengthen the DHS's mission and goals to ensure effective domestic security. Arguably and in the light of increased security threats facing the country, there is a need to strengthen the goals of DHS while ensuring that by doing so, the government does not compromise on the rights and liberties of its people.
Currently, there are concerns that the government has been using DHS to apply military force on its people. The American constitution prohibits military force inside the country (Givens et al., 2018). Critics argue that the government, through the department, is using military force on American soil, which is against the foundation of the country's constitutional and legal foundations. On the other hand, the functions of DHS that include intelligence gathering, law enforcement, and other security-related functions are not militaristic. Notably, jurisdictions and authorities guiding DHS operations define its goals as those related to intelligence and law enforcement clearly within the country's borders. According to Bickelman (2020), authorities and resources that drive DHS operations are largely drawn from agencies and organizations that existed before its formation. Included here are organizations such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is charged with coordinating disaster relief efforts at the federal level. Even though such organizations have their roots in the military, they are largely concerned with maintaining homeland security. In line with this, the DHS should be viewed as a fusion of homeland security, law enforcement, intelligence, and state militia combined to form a single cohesive unit.
Another concern regarding DHS is that it oversteps states' rights by allowing the federal government to expand its authority when creating new policies. There are those concerned that by expanding the scope of security policies to empower DHS, the federal government is knowingly infringing upon the rights of states to develop their security policies. However, Johnson and Hunter (2017) argue that the DHS merely represents the unification of several related and interrelated agencies, departments, and functions into a single restructured entity that has increased efficiency regarding the execution of duties. In this context, DHS should not be viewed as a vehicle for power expansion but rather as an amalgamation of tested and existing federal powers to deal with issues relating to security.
The increased focus on civil liberties and rights has also raised concerns over the importance and viability of the DHS as a vehicle for addressing security issues while guarding civil rights. This issue is specifically related to the intelligence function of the department, with many raising concerns that the organization has been using private data and information in its intelligence-gathering activities. Issues such as phone tapping and email screening have surfaced prominently in discussions relating to civil rights and the federal government's role in upholding them. However, it is important to note that the DHS was formed from preexisting entities with jurisdictions and authorities related to intelligence gathering (Johnson & Hunter, 2017). Accusing the DHS of infringing upon civil rights would imply that such organizations and agencies were also liable for such accusations. Notably, definitions accorded to civil rights, liberties vary among parties, including political and public actors, and this may be a point of disagreement between civil rights activists and the government. Preventing and protecting the public comes with increased demands on the side of the ...