Since the adoption of the Patriot Act 2 on October 2001, strict measures such as the detention of foreigners suspected of a security breach, electronic surveillance of individuals through databases, authentication identities through biometrics, technologization border controls, among others, are presented in political discourse of the USA. The US security and media are the latest techniques in the fight against terrorism. Most Americans feel that these measures are contemporary to the fight against terrorism. In fact, this impression is the product of the effects of language games made by the administration and the media as the rhetoric and imagery rehearsal of emergency there would respond to terrorism with the most sophisticated and exceptional resources. Gradually, this feeling has become a faith through the informational machine communicative rhetoric and implementation by the administration and the security agencies as well as the certification of experts on terrorism and military strategy. Can we say that the politics of security problematics, as well as individuals surveillance measures and border control adopted on September 11, 2001, represent a break with the concepts and security features, border and supervision that existed before the attacks on New York and Washington?
September 11 attacks and the war against terrorism that followed them have considerable implications for security of the United States. Security was erected in main concern of Americans; but above all, and this is the purpose of this article, these events revealed and accelerated a security process started since the end of bipolarity. This process engaged including the strengthening of border controls, use of high technology in surveillance and control, targeting foreigners from southern countries considered potentially hazardous and classification of some States in the group of rogues - a concept involving emotional and moral reactions to designate the enemy on the international scene. 11 September reinforced this process by updating the concept of homeland security, already used by the military and politicians, creating a new Ministry (the Homeland Security Department, HSD), manufacturing a new category of persons at risk (nationals countries of the Middle East and Central Asia), by implementing the Patriot Act an individual monitoring system and making the war against terrorism the engine of domestic and foreign policy. Similarly, it has accelerated the transformation of borders in a differentiated area of electronic filtering of the enemy and allowed the adoption of a device to fight against terrorism, which went from a traditional reactive system to a proactive system based on the most sophisticated surveillance technologies, identification, and intelligence. Arguably its greatest feature resulted in a governmenance by suspicion, and urgency, systematic use of security technologies and transformed the exception rules, such as the violation of civil liberties, in general, standards (Robinson, Liu and Vedlitz, 46).
Thus, will be apprehended techniques and devices adopted in the wake of the September 11 attacks in that they are part of a long process of securing. Also, it should be recalled that the problematization of security and border began in the 1980s years with the war against drugs that have been linked the fight against illegal immigration and transnational crime. It is in this context that the border with Mexico has been transformed into a laboratory of the most sophisticated technologies of surveillance and monitoring with the deployment of about 54 security agencies, including the military as a Joint Task Force (JTF6), which mission was to prevent the entry of persons "undesirable" in the US and monitor mouvements. Similarly, on the defense plan, if the 1990s were years of budget cuts for the military, this does not mean that the Pentagon and the military industry have reduced every effort to research and production in technologies of security. It should be recalled in this regard the developments of the remote electronic monitoring, management information, control of target groups in the context of the doctrine of low intensity conflicts and effort in military robotics accelerated during the first Gulf war, especially with Tomahawk missiles. Efforts continued during the war in Afghanistan, particularly with the use of the Predator drones.
September 11 allowed the acceleration and strengthening of a previously initiated process but by including it in a different world political context, characterized by uncertainty, the unknown and the risk in terms of benchmarks, representations, strategies, and techniques. For the analysis, we propose to examine at first changes the concept of security to show the different meanings it has acquired according to contexts and different issues. We then study the refocusing of the focal subject of security on its territorial component and the search for the enemy infiltrated with the concept of homeland security, updated after the attacks of September 11, and will see how, in interaction with a unilateral projection power, it resulted in a self-referential and performative conception of security (Robinson, Liu and Vedlitz, 48).
How does the United States Department of Homeland Security function and is this agency effective enough? The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS for its acronym), which comprises 22 agencies and about 200,000 employees, seeks greater efficiency in its operations while fulfilling its mission to avoid the tragedies that cause terrorism and natural disasters. To achieve this, the DHS put the trust in the codes and NFPA standards, in order to provide an opinion shared by its Board of Science and Technology, associated with universities, national laboratories and other organizations to promote technological development that supports national security. The Division of Standards and Testing and Evaluation, the Board of Science and Technology works with the Department of Homeland Security to provide support for testing programs and standards department and with other federal agencies. It also serves fortasks assigned by the physics laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where he was responsible for national standards for physical ionization radiation and radioactivity measurements (Flynn, 54).
The goals of the Board of Science and Technology, and Coursey itself, include improving existing rules and developing new rules to ensure a stronger national infrastructure against risks that arise today. A nation that adopts a solid list of codes and standards, while technology for your application generates, promotes a strong national infrastructure to terrorism. By becoming aware of the private sector, universities, laboratories and other knowledge bases needed to be encouraged to develop anti-terrorism products in the restive society today, DHS established the Law on Support for the anti-terrorism by promoting effective technologies (SAFETY , for its acronym) in 2002, which guarantees certified products. This law is created in order to encourage innovation in technology and services that contribute to the protection against terrorism, and the process of development of codes and NFPA standards was one of the first certifications of the SAFETY Act. Let us start with a successful history in the NFPA and DHS involved. DHS works with NFPA 1982 standard, which deals with the PASS devices or security systems alert personnel, firefighters using. If a fallen firefighter is not moving, the device emits an audible alert. We have observed that do not work when temperatures are high, which is precisely when a firefighter more accurate proper operation. The NFPA issued an alert for informing fire on deficiencies in the PASS systems and, in 2007, introduced changes to NFPA 1982, Standard on security systems Personal Alert (PASS), to reflect that these devices should be subjected to further tests under higher temperatures. This is a quick example of how collaborationof DHS actually saves lives now (Review Of The U.S. Department Of Homeland Security's Recovery Act Plan, 69).
The second thing of the equal importance, is to coordinate with all standards development organizations. The Department does this through the Standards Panel for National Security (HSSP), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). In this case, they do the same externally internally, that is to ask the NFPA, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and others, to report on what activities to develop standards are in the process and how they complement. The HSSP has a federal president who is currently Gordon Gillerman NIST, and has a president for the private sector, who is Chris Dubay NFPA. So the NFPA, through the work of Bob Vondrasek (vice president of Technical Projects NFPA) in the development of standards, engages in an absolute way in all our standards-related activities carried out in the DHS (Sylves, 56). Well, DHS is not a regulatory agency. So it does not develop our standards, but we get the maximum benefit from those developed by private sector organizations through the National Transfer and Advancement Act of Technology, Public Law (PL) 104-113 (1995). Through this public law, we promote the use of voluntary standards rather than develop our own standards.
Besides these functions the Department of Homeland Security plays a pivotal role in the development of measures after natural calamities. For instance it participated in the coordimation of rescue efforts after the hurricane Katrina in 2005 in Louisiana.
Paul-Michel Foucault is a "Marx Freudian" French philosopher. Associated with post-modernism and structuralism movement, he met great philosophers such as Claude Levi-Strauss. In 1970 he was elected to the College de France, the most prestigious institution of the academic staff, as history professor in systems of thought. His political commitment was growing and he decided to found the grouping prisons Information. He died in 1984 in a timely disease related to the HIV virus; lies and misunderstandings surrounding his death led Defert, to create the first French association against AIDS. The book Security, territory and population is the 19th book Foucault's work with 24 books. The book of Michel Foucault is a transcript of the courses he gave at the Collège de France; there were thirteen lessons between 11 January 1978 and 5 April 1978. Foucault undertakes the study of what he calls "bio-power". Bio-power is a kind of power exercised on life: the life of the body and that of the population. This is the gradual inclusion through the power of human life, with on one side the body to discipline and side population to control (Foucault and Senellart, 27).
In its political version, bio-power is based on the concepts of security and discipline. According to the author, discipline operates in an artificial space that we will build entirely while the security function is to respond to a reality confronting the hazard and existing material data. Discipline regulates everything and even the smallest things must be raised while security "let do" because there is a level at which the laissez-faire is essential. Discipline complete security, but it also serves to normalize. Disciplinary Standards or "normation" is necessary to ask an optimal model and try to make people, acts according to this model; is part of the standard to distinguish what is normal and abnormal. With security, on the contrary, part of what is considered normal to deduce the norm. This is a real standardization in the strict sense (Kahan, 1-24).
The inclusion of the population is essential in the biopower. Until then, the issue of population was considered a negative aspect quantifying depopulation, especially with mortality tables. The concept evolved in the seventeenth century with commercialism and cameralism not as new economic doctrines that new ways of posing problems of government. At that time, the population is considered not only as an element of sovereignty but also as a power element and wealth of a state because it is its workforce.
Thus, we come to the first stage of eddy reasoning is that of "governmentality". By governmentality, he hears "the group consisting of the institutions, procedures, analyzes and reflections, calculations and tactics that allow exercising this very specific form of power that targets the population, to major form of knowledge the political economy, essential technical tool safety devices" (Kiltz, 117). On this occasion, Foucault develops the Christian pastorate because it represents a new form of power that marks the appearance of specific modes of individualization; it is the prelude of governmentality as it will unfold in the sixteenth century. It will thus make a transition from pastoral souls to the political government of men without witnessing the disappearance of the pastorate: bio-power is both globalizing (the herd of population) and individualizing.
The governmental reason appears therefore when the sovereign will be in charge of a new task which is that of governing men and for which he found no pattern or the side of God, nor the nature side. A new problem appears through the res publica; asked the ruler to do more exercising its sovereignty and the government that's it. A question then is for the sovereign: what is a statecraft? The answer lies in the reason of state. Objectively, the reason of state is what is necessary for the Republic, the four senses of the word "state" (commonly the word "state" can mean a field, a court, an individual status or quality of a thing) accurately retains its integrity. Subjectively, it is a rule or an art which we know how to get the integrity, tranquility and peace of the republic. The population is not included in this analysis because of the state because of the mercantilist policy of the time. The latter will emerge as a central element in the seventeenth century with the appearance of a device that has been set up to operate the reason of state that is the police (Maliszewski, 68).
We come to the second step of Foucault's reasoning; a new governmentality born with economists more than a century after the first. Governmentality policy has given the police that economists will introduce some fundamental lines of modern and contemporary governmentality. The economic reason gives new content to the reason of state and therefore new forms of the rationality of the state. The concept of naturalness reappears in opposition to the artificiality of politics and the population is seen as a reality and on the specific time; it is subject to a number of natural variables that make an escape in part to the active and direct action of the sovereign in the form of the law.
The new governmentality, which in the seventeenths referred to the police, will now refer to a field of naturalness that is the economy, manage populations, organize a legal system of respect for freedom, and give a policy instrument but that will be the police. It is therefore quite possible to make connections with governmentality in its modern form (Cumming, 39).
No doubt that the operation of the Department of Homeland Security can be described as successful. Glancing back, five years ago the US were engaged in two wars of longer duration, with serious danger of returning to the days of the Vietnam War. There was fracture and social protest that could weaken permanently the basis of national power and cohesion of their society. At the same time, during the great recession, the state's deficit had reached the mythical figure of trillion dollars, while unemployment exceeded 10% of the active population. This situation was an explosive cocktail for any state. A hegemonic power like this the USA could have fond itself in the situation which could lead to the entry into a self-destructive spiral. However, the situation presents the new strategy is that of a revived nation that has overcome the massive intervention abroad. With vigorous economic situation and better macroeconomic data from 34 OECD countries, deficit reduction, growth and creating jobs are the main pillars of its strength. The scourge of unemployment is especially primed with the younger segment of society (more than 50% of the world population is below 30 years) encouraging the mass phenomenon that Zbigniew Brzezinski called "political awakening" which stirs in communities with a discouraging future against the most solid and reputable institutions (Wang and Alexander, 59-70). But the USA has declined an unemployment rate that has been reduced 10% in 2010 to about 5.5% today with the creation of more than 11 million new jobs. The new situation that the president opens the strategy: "Today, the United States is stronger and better Positioned to seize the Opportunities of a still new century and safeguard our interests Against the Risks of an insecure world" has been achieved at the expense of what the geopolitical world considered a withdrawal from the international scene. Although it may be considered a withdrawal time, no longer open the geostrategic space inexploradase new possibilities in which new players assess their renewed capabilities. And so the new Strategy of National Security strives to reaffirm the centrality and timeliness of American leadership as indispensable nation against major threats to humanity. The crisis in Ukraine and the advance of terrorism Daesh pose the most significant weaknesses of a strategy, in May 2010, which certainly can be described as successful. But Russian aggression, as is described in the document, contrasts dramatically with the goal of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security "Build Cooperation with Other 21st Century Centers of Influence," where an entire paragraph is devoted to the strategy of cooperation with Rusia. The geopolitical developments in the triangle of China-US-India are of the special interest for the Department because a lot of people try to immigrate to the USA and this issue has to be regulated. While the Strategy of the Department of 2010 maintained a clear proposal of collaboration in which only difference existed between the two Asian giants, the new position of multidimensional leadership is applied very differently (Gane, 353-363).
The Congress is obviously involved in the formulation and implementation of homeland security policy, and in this context two elements deserve attention. The great politico-administrative upheaval of homeland security has had little impact on the organization of the legislature itself, and therefore the institutional effectiveness of the American political system. The movement of centralization and rationalization behind the territorial security policy has largely impeded on the steps of Congress. If the budget appropriation process has been streamlined, about 60 committees and subcommittees of the House of Representatives and the Senate - the fees will be at the heart of the exercise of legislative power in the United States. It is not uncommon for reformers hardly to challenge themselves. The fact remains that this situation hinders the American effort in territorial security. The second noteworthy element is the fund allocation process. The Congress holds the power of the purse. But the budget for homeland security, beyond its importance, has an essential characteristic in the eyes of American parliamentarians: it is likely to generate significant benefits locally - a research institute here, a border security program out - central concerns of any elected official who seeks to stay.
Works cited
Cumming, William R. "Review Of Disaster Response And Homeland Security". Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 4.3 (2007): n. pag. Web.
Flynn, Joseph. "Homeland Security Law And Policy". Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 3.2 (2006): n. pag. Web.
Foucault, Michel and Michel Senellart. The Birth Of Biopolitics. Basingstoke [England]: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Print.
Gane, M. "Foucault On Governmentality And Liberalism: The Birth Of Biopolitics: Lectures At The College De France, 1978--1979 By Michel Foucault, Trans. Graham Burchell Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, Pp. 346 Security, Territory, Population: Lectures At The College De France, 1977--1978 By Michel Foucault, Trans. Graham Burchell Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, Pp. 401". Theory, Culture & Society 25.7-8 (2008): 353-363. Web.
Golder, Ben. "Security, Territory, Population". Radical Philosophy Review 10.2 (2007): 157-176. Web.
Kahan, Jerome. "“One DHS” Revisited: Can The Next Homeland Security Secretary Unite The Department?". Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 11.1 (2014): 1-24. Web.
Kiltz, Linda. "The Challenges Of Developing A Homeland Security Discipline To Meet Future Threats To The Homeland". Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 8.2 (2011): n. pag. Web.
Maliszewski, Paul J. "Interdiction Models And Homeland Security Risks". Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 8.1 (2011): n. pag. Web
Review Of The U.S. Department Of Homeland Security's Recovery Act Plan. Washington, DC: Dept. of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, 2010. Print.
Robinson, Scott E, Xinsheng Liu, and Arnold Vedlitz. "Public Support For The Department Of Homeland Security". Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 8.1 (2011): n. pag. Web.
Sylves, Richard. "System Under Stress: Homeland Security And American Politics". Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 1.4 (2004): n. pag. Web.
Wang, Lidong and Cheryl Ann Alexander. "Big Data In Homeland Security". Journal of Information 1.2 (2015): 59-70. Web.
