How does the creation of the Department of Homeland Security affect resources traditionally designated for local criminal justice organizations?

Original Question:

Topic: Chapter 1 Case Study – The Department of Homeland Security

1. How does the creation of the Department of Homeland Security affect resources traditionally designated for local criminal justice organizations?

2. Are there too few resources to fight both terrorists and traditional criminals?

3. Who should pay the burden for investigating, apprehending, prosecuting, convicting, sentencing, and incarcerating terrorists?

4. Should Osama Bin Laden have been taken alive?

5. What are the due process protection questions in light of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security?

6. Should these due process protections matter in the fight against terrorism?

APA citations/references required


Reply to the following response with *** 300 words minimum, including direct questions to the post ***. (please make response as if having a conversation, respond directly to some of the statements in below post. This is not providing an analysis of the original post. Respectfully address it and even ask clarifying or additional questions.)

Responding to a classmate’s post requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order to move the conversation forward. Reply posts that merely affirm, restate or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous post(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions.

** These responses are to be informative and contribute to advancing the knowledge of the topic **.


The creation of the Department of Homeland Security naturally affects resources traditionally designated for local criminal justice organizations; this is a result of the focus and flow due to the transition of those resources. As the world continues to evolve technologically, we should expect to see the federal government continue to open umbrellas of federal control over more local and state agencies, with law enforcement agencies at the forefront of this defacto acquisition.

Zimmerman summarizes this well by noting, “Many of the department’s personnel have backgrounds in law enforcement, leading to a heavy emphasis on post-attack response … But putting offenders in prison does nothing to protect the public from incidents that might have been prevented with the proper investment in interdiction, interception and intelligence.”[1]

If we are not going to worry about the increased centralization of all American resources, perhaps we should at least be concerned about placing our faith in this increasingly centralized mindset. As resources continue to assimilate to the federal level, what kind of master will we have created? While I understand Matthew 6:24 is referencing a love for money, the analogy is nonetheless just as true. We all inherently know that, “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” (Matthew 6:24 New International Version).


The next most logical issue to survey is the availability and allocation of resources. Whether there are there too few resources to fight both terrorists and traditional criminals is perhaps not the best question to consider. Our collective needs will change as the world grows and becomes more knowledgeable and information based. Therefore, allocating resources for investigating, apprehending, prosecuting, convicting, sentencing, and incarcerating terrorists will become part of the legislative process as agencies morph, combine and transition.

A particular ideal which should never morph is the U.S. ideal  of due process. For instance, taking Osama Bin Laden alive would very much keep in line with what you would expect from the image of the United States. However, in this specific context, the question should be less Should he have been taken alive, and more Could he have been taken alive without endangering personal, national security, etc. Plenty of experts would answer that question with a resounding no. M.J.Gohel expands by illustrating, “Laden may have been wearing a suicide vest, or the compound could have been booby trapped with remotely controlled explosives,” Gohel also said, “Washington could not run the risk of either failure of the mission or major casualties amongst the Navy Seal team.” [2]

This same issue of due process seems to need to be re-established with the creation of each new agency, endeavor and mission.  In the Drone Court and Due Process, McManus illustrates the need for new judicial bodies as technology and world relations continues to shift and expand. She goes on to expand, “there is no official court proceeding, there is a non-judicial body that determines who is placed on the kill list. The non-judicial body consist of an inter-agency group selected by the military.[3] Due process is paramount for humanity to maintain our humanity. It is certainly fundamental for the Christian to be at the forefront of maintain the utmost integrity in each endeavor on which we embark, whether in the private sector, or as a government agent.

[1] Zimmerman, P. D. (2011). Homeland insecurity: in ten years of operation, the unwieldy Department of Homeland Security and its science directorate have seriously underperformed. Nature477(7363), 153+. Retrieved from


[2] Allen, P. (2011, May 5). Should Bin Laden Have Been Taken Alive? CNBC. Retrieved from


[3] McManus, S. (2016). The drone court and due process. Homeland Security Affairs, Retrieved from



The Department of Homeland Security was created under the Bush Administration due to the 911 terrorist attacks.  The United States has had terrorist attacks in the past, but none to the extent of what happened in 2001.  Up until 2001, the attacks came from within the United States.  The attacks of 2001 were from foreigners who infiltrated the United States and access to things that they should not have.  The Department of Homeland Security is a Federal Agency that uses local criminal justice organization resources.  When this department was created its purpose grew to include anything that would affect the safety of the people of the United States.  This would include natural disasters, immigration, and terrorism.  Before the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, other criminal justice departments were tasked with the duties of protecting the Homeland.  Therefore, the creation of this department has affected resources of the local law enforcement organizations.

With the creation of Homeland Security there are grants awarded to local governments to aid in funding for training and procurement of equipment (Walby, & Lippert, 2015).  Some of these grants are the Law Enforcement Terrorism Protection Program, the Port Security Program, and the Emergency Management Performance Grants (Walby, et al.).  There has been an extensive amount designated for funding of for the fight against terrorism.  Even though there has been a fair amount of money, this money only goes to cities with a population of over 225,000 people (Walby, et al.).  In 2005, alone there was 855 million in funds given to localities in the United States, which included 48 million to Chicago, 17.6 million to Detroit, 12 million to Seattle, and 5.1 million to Omaha, NE and Arlington, TX (Walby, et al.).

Since the Department of Homeland Security is a Federal Government Agency, the Federal government should pay for anything related to terrorism which is investigation, prosecution, conviction, and incarceration.  The terrorists should be housed in a federal maximum-security prison after sentencing.

Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist that was the mastermind of the 911 terrorist attacks.  He evaded capture for far too long.  There were many campaigns to capture him, but his fate was death.  I do not think there was any way around anything other than death.  I also do not think he ever had plans to be taken alive either.  In Job 4:8 (KJV) it says, “Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same”.  Osama sowed wickedness and iniquity and reaped the same.  He should not have been taken alive.

Should the terrorists have rights is one of the due process questions related to Homeland Security.  These rights are both civil and political in nature (Guiora, n.d.).  What are these civil and political rights that relate to due process?  There is the question as to whether a terrorist can be deprived of life, liberty, and property.  There is also the detention and interrogation of terrorists.  In the fight against terrorism and traditional crimes, there should be due process.  The due process laws should apply to all criminals, foreign and domestic terrorist or traditional criminals.  “Failure to provide due process to individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism leads a society down a slippery slope from which there is no return” (Guiora, n.d).  Without due process we would be no better than the terrorists.


Guiora, A. N. (n.d.). Due Process and Counterterrorism: Emory University School of Law: Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from

Walby, K., & Lippert, R. K. (2015). The difference homeland security makes: Comparing municipal corporate security in canada and the united states. Security Dialogue, 46(3), 238-255. doi:10.1177/0967010615570109


** Please don’t just rephrase their info, but respond to it. Remember to answer question at the end if there is one. **



Want to boost your grades this semester? Then stop wasting your time and order from UK's best essay writing service today.
Discount code: FREE20