Brief Background
Security has become a critical component of the United States government. The US Congress has enacted a myriad of statutes, which have been proposed for the establishment of security offices at the state, federal, and local levels on American soil. Key among these established offices in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which was established in 2003, with the particular objective of mitigating and managing threats of the security of the American citizens both within and without the country.
Most of the developments that have been made concerning security changes were affected after the 9 /11 terrorist bombing that targeted Americans. The attack resulted in the premature death of a large number of innocent Americans. Besides, it also instilled fear in the hearts of citizens. This attack proved to the government the vulnerability of the state concerning external threats, especially because, prior to the attack, the customary means of attack had been the use of military force as evidenced in the previous world war. The then-President Clinton noted,
“It is increasingly likely that terrorist groups, or individuals with criminal intent, may use unconventional methods to disrupt the Nation’s critical infrastructure or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against our citizens. As these types of threats mature, it is necessary to prepare to deter them, prevent them from occurring, or, if need be, limit the damage to a minimum. Success is dependent upon possessing the capability for an integrated response having public/private partnerships in the case of critical infrastructure protection” (The White House: Office of the Press Secretary- Maryland, 1998)
Consequently, President Clinton as well as other subsequent administrations have rigorously applied themselves to the fight against terrorism at the local, federal, and state level. This paper briefly reviews the current state of security, or rather status of the fight against terrorism, by specifically looking at terrorism from the perspective of security policies for large events.
Key Stakeholders and their Opinion
When considering a strategy of developing a federal security policy to counter-terrorism at large events, it is critical to begin by enumerating the relevant stakeholders and including their opinions on the same. The key stakeholders in the creation and implementation of such a policy would include the president, the congress, law enforcement, judges, and the state’s citizens.
As far as American citizens are concerned, the government should be allowed to tap into the correspondence of people suspected of terrorism. An opinion poll conducted by Karlyn Bowman of AEL in a 2006 Fox poll indicates that, on the matter of the reauthorization of the PATRIOT ACT, 53% of Americans think that it is a good move while only 30% feel it was a bad thing (Rugg, & Bowman, 2013). Jim A. Kuypers is a political communications researcher attached to the NSIS (law enforcement). He stated that, whereas law enforcement is striving to fight terrorism, its efforts are at times watered down to the public in the conveyance of information to the public.
He states in his book, “Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media echoed Bush, but in eight weeks time, it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president’s themes” (Kuypers, 2006, p. 52). He posits that this kind of attitude is demotivational and could lead to false apportionment of blame upon the occurrence of terrorist events(2006, p.67). He adds that the media is sometimes politically biased. Therefore, its miscommunication negatively affects the applicability of well-orchestrated policies, much to the detriment of US security.
Terrorism is a sensitive topic. Thus, anybody wishing to do research on it needs to tread cautiously in order to avoid damaging relationships by false accusations that later prove inaccurate. Consequently, the matter of security or guarding against terrorist attacks is often fraught with landmines in terms of sensitivities. The US-Iran battle for nuclear ammunition is a clear indication of the gravity of the matter.
However, what is important is that security is ensured against terrorism thus preventing any attack or mitigating the damage caused in case of failure to prevent them. The mandate to provide security at large events is bequeathed upon the president by the P.L. 106-544, which is the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000, to direct the United States Secret Service (USSS).
The aim is to ensure the protection of the American people both on US soil and on those that may be acting as plenipotentiaries in other nations throughout the world. However, it is crucial to note that, in the actual statutory provision, the term large events are not used expressly, but can be inferred from context. This provision is very general, as it requires the United States Secret Service to plan, coordinate, and implement security operations that have a crucial bearing on the nation (The Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000, 2000).
Consequently, it is imperative to define ‘large event’ in the context of this paper. Large events could include presidential inaugurations, the conventions for the nominations of presidential candidates, international forums with international dignitaries in attendance, and other relevant functions where the president or senators may attend.
Such events are referred by protocol to as National Special Security Events (NSSE). To understand the level of security that is ensured in such functions, the USSS personnel that are usually deployed to the scene have been specially trained. They are patriotic agents willing to take a bullet for the president. In case of the occurrence of such National Special Security Events, the USSS takes the driver’s seat in ensuring the protection of any participants.
Specifically, the USSS’ role is to “Develop and implement a seamless security plan that will create a safe and secure environment for the general public, event participants, Secret Service protectees, and other dignitaries” (DHS, 2006). The policy proposed by this paper shall mirror what was developed by the Department of Homeland security (DHS) after the 9/11 security attack. Consequently, the main provisions shall cater for:
The Transportation Sector
The sector would cover the pre-screening of all people who shall have access to such events, including any passengers, pedestrians, or cargo (and its handlers). The idea is to use the various advanced technological instruments and intelligence available to do a background check on all people who shall be at the venue at least a month before, during, and after the event. The check includes information on all handy people who shall deal with the lighting from the caterers to the bodyguards of the various officials.
In case of any last-minute replacements on the day of the event, the people who shall be proposed to take over the shift of their indisposed colleagues shall not be admitted with a thorough survey of the circumstances surrounding the replacements as well the new hires’ backgrounds. The effect of this thorough survey, in general, is that, at any specific time, the security personnel on the ground can stop and verify each individual to find a match, failure of which the person in question would be apprehended and interrogated extensively.
The Cyber network and other Networks
Upon considering the authenticity of the records that shall be used to verify the validity of participants’ identification and backgrounds, it is prudent to guard such systems against proliferation or intrusion by unfriendly forces. If they cannot breach the physical perimeter, it is prudent to imagine that they would target the virtual parameters at another time. Consequently, it behooves the implementers of this proposed policy to look into guarding against any attacks on that second level.
At the Department of Homeland Security level, numerous priceless policies have been adopted over the years that could be mimicked at the federal level with the latest of them being the Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative that was announced in February 2011 by the Obama Administration. This particular system was just an idea at the time of this announcement. However, two years down the line, it has been developed to adequately match any threat that may be launched via wireless networking by any other party from whichever nation in the world (Reese, 2009, p. 6).
Expanding Information Sharing
Considering that this policy is supposed to target large events that are carried out at the federal level, a degree of collaboration is necessary to have a form of uniformity across the board. Therefore, it would be critical to require cooperation from all states about the sharing of information about any suspicious activity observed at local and state levels in order to coordinate these observations in an effort to come up with a standard version of what can be categorized as a terrorist plan.
This also includes the setting up of comprehensive training for all law enforcement officials involved to ensure that they understand the nation’s stand and values with regards to terrorist activities. The effect of this would be the avoidance of any instance of the misconception that could lead to a miscarriage of justice and the ruining of international relations. Terrorism, more often than not, is launched from outside the borders of the nation’s soil. Consequently, many international players are involved.
Therefore, any misconception arising from misinformation or the absolute lack of communication could be very costly to the country’s reputation and its moral standing among global peers. Information sharing should also extend to the general public that should be informed about the basic facts to do with terrorism. Nevertheless, it is important to forewarn the implementors of such a policy about the dangers of giving too much-policing power to the public, which comprises untrained civilians that may go too far in the name of preventing terrorism.
Baseline Security Assessments
Currently, there are extensive security checks at each of the 450 airports in the United States. As compared to 2002 when there was only 80 first-cadre level security personnel at the airports to check on incoming travelers and their luggage, now, there is 52000 front line security personnel at the airports (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2011, p. 12). Similarly, the surface transportation sector is well manned. What is of concern, and hence the specific direction that this recommended security policy should take, is the maritime front.
Whereas the US shores are well manned by the marine forces of the US army, a far more important front lies unattended, which is the legal framework of maritime protection. The claim is in reference to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, (UNCLOS III) of 1982. This being the final UNCLOS, the United States was granted primacy in the establishment of the authority, which is the governing body of the Law of the Sea. However, this opportunity was taken away upon continued resistance by the US to conform to some of the new convention’s provisions. The problematic provisions were revised and amended in 1994.
However, the United States still did not join. Whereas the justifications for this reluctance may be valid in the first instance, the repercussions of exclusion from the authority shall be very costly to the United States because such exclusion extends to the very fundamental responsibility of authority in the enactment of maritime legislation for the entire world. Powerful though the United States may be, it cannot afford to rebel against the entire world.
Since the authority established by the UNCLOS III is the organ, which 90% of the world recognizes as the guiding and oversight authority over the sea waters, it would be prudent for the United States to restore its support and/or adhere to the authority’s decrees so that it can be granted the opportunity to participate in the formation and enactment of maritime legislation.
With regards to the above propositions for a security policy for large events at a federal level, it is important to include the possible pitfalls. One such pitfall is that of the exemption from the law of the Sea Convention as other nations in the world shall have the opportunity to reach their full potential in terms of achieving security under a recognized global legal framework with the exception of the United States.
A second pitfall would be the privacy rights and other personal liberties that are established and codified under the Bill of Rights, which could easily be abrogated by such a policy. This security policy seeks to ensure that the nation’s citizens are safe from terrorist attacks both within and without the country.
Consequently, it requires the background information of all persons seeking admittance into the United States’ borders via any interface. While cultivating such information, confidential information could easily be leaked into cyberspace leaving the US government to answer to a myriad of lawsuits. The final risk posed by such a policy is that of racial profiling.
Already, American Muslims are complaining bitterly that they are being targeted by the government and even local citizens for harsh treatment. It is important to warn those who shall implement the policy on the various means of making observations on terrorist activities. They should also be made aware of the fact that anybody of any demographical characteristics can be a terrorist.
Conclusion
This paper has carried out a brief but concise report on terrorism and policy recommendations for security promotion and protection in large events at the federal level. It has looked into four important segments namely transportation, cybernetworks, information sharing, and baseline security assessments. The review included statistics, facts, stakeholder opinions, and background information. It has then concluded by suggesting relevant risk areas, which include privacy invasion and racial profiling.
Reference List
DHS. (2006). National Special Security Events: Meeting the Counter-Terrorism Challenge. Washington: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, Office of Legislative Affairs.
Kuypers, A. (2006). Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Reese, S. (2009). National Special Security Events. Congressional Research Service, 1-7.
Rugg, A., & Bowman, K. (2013). AEI: Politics and Public Opinion Polls. Web.
The Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000, P.L. 106-544, Sec. 3. 114 Stat. 2716.
The White House: Office of the Press Secretary- Maryland. (1998). Presidential Decision Directives – PDD. Web.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2011). Progress Report: Implementing 9/11 Commission Recommendations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.