A potential problem that might exist with the development of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the notion many of the departments, which fall under the umbrella of the organization, are territorial in that they adhere to an “us against them” mentality. According to Stojkovic, Klinich, Klofas, 2015, management of such critical organization as DHS demands that each element be coordinated, integrated, and utilized to effectively and efficiently achieve organizational objectives. If state and local law enforcement agencies fail to share information and resources at every opportunity, the DHS fails to reach its potential to thwart minor as well as major threats to the nation. Organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) must avoid fragmentation at every opportunity.
Local and state budgeting requests within the Criminal Justice System like in most organizations follows a bottom up approach to demands for resources, (Stojkovic, Klinich, Klofas, 2015). Not withstanding this historic responsibility, the allocation of resources from top to bottom perspective likely falls on the Department of Homeland Security. Furthermore, the responsibility of maintaining security of the United States is a daunting task and creates an enormous imposition on government budgeting as well. As the DHS prioritizes resources throughout it’s different constitutes, more than likely it has to reduce requested funding for some agencies in order to have its own appropriate funding. The development of the DHS has definitely required there be procedural changes regarding resource distribution throughout the state and local agencies. Furthermore, this new agency must work diligently towards facilitating multi-directional communication within the framework of the criminal justice system.
The due process model emphasizes the individual rights of the accused at all stages of the justice process (Masters, Skrapec, muscat, Dussich, Way, Hooper, Gerstenfeld, 2017). The question of how the organization can balance due process while simultaneously protecting the nation is likely a concern for DHS. One would expect this to be an extraordinarily complex challenge for the Department of Homeland Security when considering the enormous responsibility the organization has protecting the entire nation from international and domestic terrorism. A byproduct of America’s war on terrorism is the enemy combatants who engage in nefarious activity throughout the nation focusing on destroying democracy in the United States.
Many Americans continue to have dreadful thoughts of the tragic September 11 events, which changed their lives forever. The plot to disrupt the way of life in the United States by destroying the World Trade Center was then, and continues to be attributed to Osama Bin Laden. The May 2, 2011 assassination of Bin Laden in revenge for his involvement in these events provoked his followers to retaliate against the United States potentially. According to Gollwitzer, Kitka, Wisneski Sjostrom, Liberman, Nazir, Bushman, 2014, this type retaliation is vicarious and may fuel a desire to take even more revenge. Some believe this is what we see and here with anti-Muslim rhetoric. In my opinion, having Bin Laden imprisoned may have prevented the image of him as a martyr. Furthermore, a lifelong imprisonment at the conclusion of a trial may have better shown the world the efficiency and fairness of our judicial system.
In light of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the fight against terrorism the due process questions include whether or not terrorist should stand trial or should they be killed? Does the United States have to provide criminal defense services to the accused? Should American citizens recieved the same harsh treatment upon arrest for terrorism as foreign nationals?
The due process protections matter in the fight against terrorism in my opinion because our criminal justice system calls for fair treatment for the accused. The U.S Supreme Court ruling in Cooper V. Pate gave prisoners access to the courts by granting them the right to bring civil actions against prison authorities for violations of civil rights. Furthermore, in 1974, in Wolf V. McDonnell, the Supreme Court applied Fourteenth Amendment procedural rights to prison inmates, guaranteeing them not only access to the courts but also due process in disciplinary hearings. Clearly due process protections matter in the fight against terrorism.