Following the 9/11 2001 attacks on the US homeland, a commission was set up to investigate the attacks and the response by the US security agencies to the attacks. Known as the 9/11 Commission report, one of the recommendation sections of this report touched on communication as a response to such attacks in the future. According to this National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, one of the lesson’s learned in the aftermaths of these attacks was the lack of proper communication channels among the then existing security agencies and authorities. As a matter of fact, it is this rather lackluster performance of these agencies in handling the situation that forms one of the main reasons behind the establishment on the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. However, the full and effective implementation of the commission’s report has been a herculean task that calls for the development of a new policy adhering to the information set out in the USA Patriot Act to increase inter-agency communication in times of such disasters. This paper seeks to develop a policy proposal that would specifically address the line of communication that needs to occur if a terrorist act is committed within the state.
Line of Communication
Firstly, in order to improve the line of communication, it is important for us to have a communication system that links all the relevant security agencies such as the FBI, DHS, NTSA and other state agencies. Such a line of communication should be one that is devoid of unnecessary protocol procedures that would delay effective response to a terrorist attack in future. According to Mayer, Carafano and Zuckerman (2011), for example, the over centralization of the security agency operations , the complacency and bureaucracy involved in communication systems are to blame for the 9/11 attacks. Title VII of the USA Patriot Act recognizes that increased information sharing among security agencies is important for protection against future terror attacks. It gives the US law enforcement officials that ability have cross-boundary jurisdictions in terms of information concerning terror threats. Thus, the current policy proposes a line of communication that flows directly from the US Pentagon to the President and down to the security agencies in the individual states. By improving communication with the local security agencies, the ability to thwart major terror threats will be tremendously increased as compared to a situation whereby all communication operations are centralized with a Federal agency like the DHS.
Further, as Witkowsky (2010) argues, given that thwarting terrorist attacks cannot be successfully done by s single state, there is need for national cooperation among states and internationally. Such communication system should, according to this writer, be based on intelligence and anti-radicalization programs. This author argues that since terrorist organizations are now using the internet to communicate, train and plan its activities hence the need for a communication system that monitors online interactions. However, at the same time, in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the author suggests that a balance must be struck between individual liberties or freedom of speech and the need to protect Americans. Further, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (2002), there is need for a pre-planned command and control structure that has an incident command system and based at the site to ensure consistency and stability in operations (p.5). Additionally, there should be in place interoperable communication standards and equipment at all levels of government that would allow for effective communication among first responders in case of an attack.
Response Strategies
Response to terror attacks in future will need a more effective system and policy that encourages initial first response. Acceding to the recommendations by the post 9/11 commission, there should henceforth be a more responsive emergency response services consisting of firefighters, civilians, police officers, emergency management professionals and emergency medical technicians. While the report notes the significant role played by the response team during these attacks, it claims that “effective decision making in New York was hampered by problems in communication and control and in internal communications” (Kean et al., 2004, p. 15). There were serious communication challenges, for example, within the New York Fire Department due to lack of radios and standard operation procedures that would enable different commands to effectively respond to the incident.
Thus, under the proposed policy, communication between commanders or police chiefs and their units on the ground should be enhanced so as to ensure a fast coordinated response and accountability for personnel in case of attacks of such magnitude. However, to ensure that this response is as effective as possible to help save lives and deal with such a tragedy, it is important for there to be a proper line of communication that is more flexible and less protocol oriented in nature. Further, as Marion and Cronin (2009) argue, there is need for mandated changes in local policing in terms of communication, police training and clear definition of police responsibilities during such disasters for effective response.
Moreover, this should also involve a proper evacuation procedure that ensures that victims are safely removed from the danger zone and rushed to safety within the shortest time possible. Additionally, this policy proposes the setting up of command centers fully equipped with modern communication equipment that would enable security agency officials to coordinate response and evacuation operations from a central place. An example of such a center proposed by the 9/11 commission is the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center that would ensure that the US stays a head of terror organizations. The USA Patriot Act is instrumental in achieving this goal as it makes information sharing among law enforcement agencies at various governmental levels easier than before. It requires local state and federal agencies to share information on individuals who seek to enter the US that would help in identification of potential terror threats. Section 508, for example, requires the disclosure of information from the NESA survey s that would help security agencies to track terrorist suspects. It also now gives the security agencies wide latitude in accessing crucial secret private information that is then communicated to all the relevant agencies and departments for action and processing for potential terror threats.
Rationale for Policy Implementation
The policy change proposed in this paper is justified by the fact that lack of clear and certain communication protocols and procedures were partly blamed by the 9/11 commission on the aftermath of the attacks. Therefore, this policy change in emergency response management and communication among various security agencies will go a long way in ensuring that in case of attacks, there are fewer lives lost. Further, the rationale behind such a change in policy is to ensure that the post 9/11 report’s recommendations on communication on and response to terror threats are fully implemented to reduce casualties likely to be caused by lack of proper communication procedures and standards. Moreover, expansion of information sharing among various agencies and fusion centers is recognized as being one of the best strategies for improving communication on terror threats (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2011, p. 2).
References
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2002). Summary of post 9/11 "lessons learned": Cross-cutting analysis of post 9/11 report "key recommendations" for improving the nation's preparedness. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Retrieved June 17, 2016, from https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=448479.
Kean, T. H., Hamilton, L. H., Ben-Veniste, R., Kerrey, B., Fielding, F. F., Lehman, J. F., . . . Thompson, J. R. (2004). The 9/11 commision report: Final report of the National Commision on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Washington, DC: National Commision on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Retrieved June 17, 2016, from www.npr.org/documents/2004/9-11/911reportexec.pdf
Marion, N., & Cronin, K. (2009). Law enforcement responses to homeland security initiatives: The case of Ohio. The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice,, 6(1), 4-24.
Mayer, M. A., Carafano, J. J., & Zuckerman, J. (2011). Homeland security 4.0: Overcoming centralization, complacency and politics. Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved June 17, 2016, from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/homeland-security-4-0-overcoming-centralization-complacency-and-politics
U.S. Deopartment of Homeland Security. (2011). Implementing 9/11 commission recommendtions: Progress report 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Deopartment of Homeland Security. Retrieved June 17, 2016, from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/opa/highlights-of-our-progress-implementing-9-11-commission-recommendations-progress-report-2011.pdf.
Witkowsky, A. (2010, October 14). Preventing terrorism: Strategies and policies to prevent and combat transnational threats. Homeland Security and Multilateral Affairs OSCE Expert Conference. Retrieved June 17, 2016, from http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/rm/2010/150068.htm
