A Practical Introduction to Homeland Security and Emergency Management

From Home to Abroad

Bruce Oliver Newsome, Jack A. Jarmon

• Publisher: CQ Press
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781483316741
• eBook ISBN: 9781506330839
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: National Security
• Index: Politics & International Relations

"A Practical Introduction to Homeland Security and Emergency Management: From Home to Abroad serves as an extremely versatile, useful and timely addition to the homeland security field."

- Jason Levy, Virginia Commonwealth University

A Practical Introduction to Homeland Security and Emergency Management: From Home to Abroad offers a comprehensive overview of the homeland security field, examining topics such as counter-terrorism, border and infrastructure security, and emergency management. Authors Bruce Newsome and Jack Jarmon take a holistic look at the issues and risks, their solutions, controls, and countermeasures, and their political and policy implications.  They also demonstrate through cases and vignettes how various authorities, policymakers and practitioners seek to improve homeland security.  The authors evaluate the current practices and policies of homeland security and emergency management and provide readers with the analytical framework and skills necessary to improve these practices and policies.

Part I Scope

1 Homeland Security Definitions and Structure

Learning Objectives and Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

• Define security, homeland security, national security, international security, and related domains
• Explain public safety, domestic security, and emergency management
• Explain the difference between homeland security and counterterrorism and intelligence
• Explain how security is described at different levels (international, national, state, local, etc.)
• Describe homeland security in law, popular culture, and practice, incorporating the Canadian primacy of “public safety” and the British primacy of “home affairs”
• Describe the reorganization of the national-security establishment as a result of the events of September 11, 2001
• Describe the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and its transition to a cabinet level department
• Describe the budgeting process as it is proposed by the executive office and moves through Congress
• Describe the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) organizationally, and review the lineup of mission responsibilities and stakeholders
• Describe the coordination effort by DHS with state and local authorities in the areas of intelligence gathering, law enforcement, and emergency management
• Describe the influence of weapon technology as it relates to the nature of warfare and homeland security
• Understand how geopolitics has changed since 9/11 and the end of the Cold War

In 2007, in response to protests for the removal of a statue at a Soviet-era war memorial in the capital city of Tallinn, Estonia suffered persistent cyber attacks. Government ministry websites were defaced and disabled as well as those of targeted political parties, news agencies, banks, and telecommunication companies. A minister of defense in this nation of 1.3 million charged that “one million computers” attacked his country.

Although there was no loss of life, the incident demonstrated the impact such an attack could have. The collapse of tightly networked infrastructure can paralyze a state and make it a helpless victim to a brand of machtpolitik that is prevailing in the post–Cold War arena of conflict.

Investigators tracked the assault back to Russia. Implicated in the attack was a shadowy organization known as the Russian Business Network. It is a known cybercrime organization reputed to have ties with the Russian government, which denies the allegation. Accusations persisted and concerns about issues of collective security were strongly voiced. However, as quickly the alarms sounded, they became muted due to a lack of verifiable attribution (determining the source of a threat or belligerent or harmful action). Adding to the indecision were voids of definition, precedent, framework for resolution, and any clear policy on an appropriate response. Officials offered assurances that such action would not be tolerated but struggled to say how. Despite the pronouncements, policymakers had little recourse.

The above example draws attention to the disorientation experienced by the legacy institutions and cultures since the end of the Cold War. The onset of the new conflict left policymakers and military planners to assess an unfamiliar battle terrain and to reimagine a future of new threats and the new institutions that will have to be built to counter them. The security establishment created institutions and mechanisms to address the problems of an interstate system. Most of the security framework traces back to the time of World War II. During the period of the Cold War, countries across the earth generally fell within one of two orbits. The collapse of that order and the advancement in information/telecommunication technology created a more borderless environment. Taking advantage of the anonymity and ubiquity of the virtual world, new opportunities for criminal and terrorist activity arose and continue to expand. Some of these groups can be state sponsored and have the ability and jurisdictional immunity to wage new wars, resume old rivalries, and make convenient and fleeting alliances. Their groups take advantage of the dynamism of globalization by exploiting the lacunae in global governance and law enforcement as well as the complexities of attribution.

The events of the 2000s exposed a new field of conflict. A new web of international relations, issues of governance, the role of the state, and the organizing elements of politics and economics set a complicated context for security policy. The definitions of national security and threat acquired new meanings. The shift from national security to homeland security signals a break from the past. Adversaries are indistinct and enigmatic. The threats also include natural catastrophes and the overuse of and over-reliance on fragile infrastructures. The homeland security environment and modern technology move ahead of policy. The consequences of these historical times may mean, in addition to creating a homeland security framework of well-defined policies and clearly communicated missions, legitimate society will need to collaborate in nurturing an evolving security environment in a hyperconnected world, which is transforming at a pace never previously known.

In this chapter, we discuss the definitions of homeland security, how various domains implement policy, and the history and structures that have occurred as a result of both events and planning.

What Is Security?

Security is the absence of risks. Thus, security can be conceptualized as the inverse of risk and any risk sources or associated causes, including threats, hazards, exposure, or vulnerability (Newsome, 2014, Chapter 2). Security as a term is often used in combination or interchangeably with safety, defense, protection, invulnerability, or capacity, but each is a separate concept, even though each has implications for the other. For instance, safety implies temporary sanctuary rather than real security, while defense implies resistance but does not guarantee security.

According to semantic analysts, security is “the state of being or feeling secure” (FrameNet, 2012b). The state of being secure means that we are “certain to remain safe and unthreatened” (FrameNet, 2012a). For criminologists, “security is the outcome of managing risk in the face of a variety of harms... [or] freedom from danger, fear, or anxiety” (Gibbs Van Brunschot & Kennedy, 2008, p. 10). For the Humanitarian Practice Network (2010), security is “freedom from risk or harm resulting from violence or other intentional acts” while safety is “freedom from risk or harm as a result of unintentional acts (accidents, natural phenomenon, or illness)” (p. xviii).

Box 1.1 Comparative Perspectives

Different Legal and Official Definitions of Security

NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) describes security as “the condition achieved when designated information, materiel, personnel, activities and installations are protected against espionage, sabotage, subversion, and terrorism, as well as against loss or unauthorized disclosure” (2008, p. 2-S-4). A safe area is “in peace support operations, a secure area in which NATO or NATO-led forces protect designated persons and/or property” (NATO, 2008, p. 2-S-1). The defence area is “the area extending from the forward edge of the battle area to its rear boundary. It is here that the decisive battle is fought” (NATO, 2008, p. 2-D-3). Also central to the NATO mission is the concept of collective security. It is the notion that each state within the alliance agrees to the concept that security of one concerns the security of all.

Cooperative Cyber Defence Center in Tallinn, Estonia

Source: NATO. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pictures/2014_05.

United States

For the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD, 2010), security is “1. Measures taken by a military unit, activity, or installation to protect itself against all acts designed to, or which may, impair its effectiveness. 2. A condition that results from the establishment and maintenance of protective measures that ensure a state of inviolability from hostile acts of influences” (p. 419). The DOD dictionary does not define safety, public safety, defense, or defense area, but admits a safe area is “a designated area in hostile territory that offers the evader or escapee a reasonable chance of avoiding capture and of surviving until he or she can be evacuated” (p. 269). Civil defense is “all those activities and measures designed or undertaken to: a. minimize the effects upon the civilian population caused or which would be caused by an enemy attack on the United States; b. deal with the immediate emergency conditions that would be created by any such attack; and c. effectuate emergency repairs to, or the emergency restoration of, vital utilities and facilities destroyed or damaged by any such attack” (p. 44).

Canada

The Canadian government has no official definition of security but the Policy on Government Security (effective July 2009) defines government security as “the assurance that information, assets and services are protected against compromise and individuals are protected against workplace violence. The extent to which government can ensure its own security directly affects its ability to ensure the continued delivery of services that contribute to the health, safety, economic well-being and security of Canadians” (Canadian Treasury Board, 2012, n.p.).

Public Safety Canada’s internal Security Policy includes an effective operational definition of security; “security implies a stable, relatively predictable environment in which an individual or group may pursue its objectives without disruption or harm, or without fear of disturbance or injury” (n.p.). The Canadian government defines public safety as “the protection of all citizens by implementing measures that safeguard national security, improve emergency management, combat crime, and promote community safety” (Canadian Translation Bureau, 2015, n.p.).

Britain

The U.K. Ministry of Defence (MOD, 2009) uses the term security “to describe the combination of human and national security” (p. 6). The Development, Concepts and Doctrine Center says,

Defence and security are linked, but different, concepts. Defence primarily refers to states and alliances resisting physical attack by a third party. Defence is about the survival of the state and is not a discretionary activity. Security is a contested concept that can never be absolute. It is therefore, to some extent, discretionary. It implies freedom from threats to core values both for individuals and groups. The decline in the incidence of inter-state war and the emergence of transnational threats, especially in the developed world, has resulted in greater political emphasis being placed on security rather than defence. Moreover, security has gradually evolved from the concepts of national and international security to the idea of human security. (2010, p. 76)

Security Domains

Security crosses many domains. A student is most likely to study security in disciplines like public administration; criminology and policing (in courses or fields titled “crime and justice,” “transnational crime,” “public safety,” “public security,” “counterterrorism,” and “homeland security”); health and medicine (“public health” and “health security”); economics, political economy, or development studies (“economic security”); political science and international studies (“national security,” “international security,” “peace and conflict,” “war studies,” and “peace studies”); and ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Publisher Note
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Brief Contents
• Detailed Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• About The Authors
• Publisher Note
• Part I Scope
• 1 Homeland Security Definitions and Structure
• 2 Policy and Law in Homeland Security
• Part II Hazards and Threats
• 3 Terrorism
• 4 Transnational Crime
• 5 Material Hazards and Weapons
• 6 Natural Risks
• Part III Providing Security
• 7 Emergency Management
• 8 Site Security
• 9 Infrastructure Security
• 10 Information, Communications, and Cybersecurity
• 11 Maritime Security
• 12 Aviation Security
• 13 Ground Transport Security
• 14 Border Security
• References
• Index