Abstract Show The findings from the study fall under five areas: (1) the evolution of law enforcement's counterterrorism (CT) function. Nine years after 9/11, law enforcement agencies' information-sharing networks have evolved to include CT and the adoption of an all-crimes approach, with the intent to strike a balance between criminal intelligence and intelligence related to terrorist threats; (2) organizational adjustments, personnel and training issues. To create CT and homeland security (HS) units and to staff fusion centers, law enforcement agencies made a number of organizational adjustments. The focus of training shifted from response to large-scale emergencies involving man-made or natural disasters to also include those involving terrorist threats; (3) framework for estimating the potential costs associated with CT and HS efforts. An analytic framework was developed for estimating some of the financial cost implications of CT and HS efforts at the local level; (4) funding issues. A trend has occurred for HS grants to adopt a regional approach to HS preparedness and response, which is illustrated by the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). The UASI assists participating jurisdictions in developing integrated regional systems for prevention, protection, response, and recovery; and (5) benefits associated with the long-term focus on CT and HS. A number of benefits are identified as associated with the long-term focus of Ct and HS, such as specialized tactical response units, fusion centers, equipment and technology, and relationship building with local community. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the need for increased CT and HS efforts at the Federal, State, and local levels has taken the spotlight in public safety efforts. Tables, appendixes, and references
The Office of SAFETY Act ImplementationAs part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, Congress enacted the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act (SAFETY Act) of 2002. The SAFETY Act provides incentives for the development and deployment of anti-terrorism technologies by creating systems of risk and litigation management. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that the threat of liability does not deter potential manufacturers or sellers of effective anti-terrorism technologies from developing and commercializing technologies that could save lives. SAFETY Act makes 1,000th Award!More than 1,000 anti-terrorism technologies have now been approved for coverage under the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) celebrates a milestone in public safety advancement with recent Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technologies including the Bloomberg Corporate Headquarters Security Program, the Soldier Field Security Program for SMG and the Chicago Park District, and Boeing’s Wave Glider. Watch our video highlighting this accomplishment now! Contact UsPlease visit our website to find application forms, recent award notices and previous webinar videos and audio recordings, among many other resources. Help Desk:
or 1-866-788-9318 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WASHINGTON -- At first glance, the anti-terrorism legislation recently signed into law by President Bush appears to only be a means to give law enforcement officials the necessary tools to find terrorists and prevent future attacks. But in reality, the USA Patriot Act continues an alarming trend known as court-stripping-removing authority from the judiciary-in times of crisis. The origins of this trend are examined in Upsetting Checks and Balances: Congressional Hostility Toward the Courts In Times of Crisis, a report released today at a forum hosted by the American Civil Liberties Union. "While we all want our government to prevent future tragedies, we cannot allow our outrage to serve as justification for laws that trespass on our rights under the Constitution," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "As it has done in times of past tragedy, the government responded by passing legislation that reduces or eliminates the process of judicial review and erodes our civil liberties." Upsetting Checks and Balances chronicles the history of assaults on civil liberties through laws aimed at increasing our collective security. The report focuses specific attention on the legislative response to the Oklahoma City bombing. In the aftermath of the bombing, several measures were signed into law that significantly stripped the Federal judiciary of its authority to enforce the Constitution. Recent enactment of the USA Patriot Act, in response to the events of September 11, provides new urgency for considering the role of the judiciary in curbing the excesses of executive authority in pursuit of politically popular goals. "In treating the judiciary as an inconvenient obstacle to executive action rather than an essential instrument of accountability, the recently passed USA Patriot Act builds on the dubious precedent Congress set five years ago when it enacted a trilogy of laws that, in various ways, deprive federal courts of their traditional authority to enforce the Constitution of the United States," said Ron Weich, Esq., a partner with Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and author of Upsetting Checks and Balances. Like this year's anti-terrorism bill, the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act granted the government new powers while at the same time insulating certain enforcement actions-notably death sentences-from meaningful oversight by federal judges. Within months of the passage of the 1996 anti-terrorism bill, Congress enacted two other laws-the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Prison Litigation Reform Act-that also shielded from review by neutral judges executive authority over disfavored minorities. Some of the provisions in the 1996 court-stripping laws flatly deprive courts of the authority to hear cases. In others, lawmakers have left only a hollow review, under which federal judges may hear the claims of disfavored litigants but are deprived of the legal means to help them. The result is no due process for some, and distorted process for others. "The series of 1996 laws examined in Upsetting Checks and Balances have produced tragic stories of unintended victims," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU's Washington National Office. "In passing laws aimed at protecting our security, the government must consider the harm that such laws can and will cause-families torn apart by deportation, long-time legal residents deported to a country they have never known and the execution of innocent people-are just a few examples of the consequences." Laurie Kozuba, Founder and Director of Citizens & Immigrants for Equal Justice, personally experienced the consequences of these dubious laws. Laurie never planned on being an activist. But when her husband, a long-time legal permanent resident from Canada, was ordered deported under the 1996 Immigration Acts, she was compelled to start asking questions and demanding answers about laws, passed in the wake of tragedy, that tread heavily on civil liberties. "I am just the average American citizen, formerly a housewife, now an activist, who cannot stand quietly by while my government enacts and enforces laws that are unfair, unbalanced and just plain mean," Kozuba said. The new
ACLU report is attached, and additional information about the anti-terrorism laws can be found on the ACLU's website at: Why was the Patriot Act passed?The USA PATRIOT Act was enacted in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and became law less than two months after those attacks.
What does Patriot Act stand for?The act, USA PATRIOT, is an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” The law requires the financial industry to report suspicious customer behaviors to prevent terrorism-related money laundering.
Why is the Patriot Act good?The Patriot Act Reauthorization Safeguards Our Nation
This will allow the Justice Department to bring its national security, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and foreign intelligence surveillance operations under a single authority.
What was passed after 911?Hastily passed 45 days after 9/11 in the name of national security, the Patriot Act was the first of many changes to surveillance laws that made it easier for the government to spy on ordinary Americans by expanding the authority to monitor phone and email communications, collect bank and credit reporting records, and ...
|
What is considered the most important counterterrorism law ever passed by congress?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 paraquee Inc.
