Homeland Security and the Introduction of Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Law of 2004

Homeland Security and the Introduction of Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Law of 2004

HomelandSecurity and the Introduction of Intelligence Reform and TerrorismPrevention Law of 2004


HomelandSecurity and the Introduction of Intelligence Reform and TerrorismPrevention Law of 2004

Homelandsecurity used a strong network to secure its information that is usedto enforce the lawmakers and other governmental operations. As aresult homeland security used collaborative means with law enforcersand security partners across the jurisdictional boundaries to ensurethat the security of both the government and that of the citizens isup to mark (Bullock&amp Haddow, 2006).As a result, strong laws has being enforced through Homeland securityinformation Network (HSIN) that focus on issues such as narcoticstrafficking, weapons smuggling, and gang mitigations. On the otherhand, professionals in the law enforcement employ HSIN to share anddistribute information such as BOLOs (be on the lookouts) alert, RFI(request for information), and FYIs (for your information) that aresensitive information communicated to the law enforcers (Seifert,2007).As a result, a number of laws have been developed in homelandsecurity to meet the demand of distributing large messages to missionteams or contact list provided in the network. Consequently, there isa secure and rapid exchange of information that makes the lawenforcers to face critical intelligence as they working on the field.Due to this demand, the law enforcers introduced the intelligencereform and terrorism prevention law in 2004.

Accordingto this law, the president is the one who is supposed to appoint thedirector of national intelligence through consent and advice of theSenate. One of the strengths of the enforced Act is that any personwho is nominated by the President for the position of director ofnational intelligence is supposed to be scrutinized and meet thelevel of expertise required for extensive national security.Additionally, the law denied that the director appointed should notbe holding any executive office within the presidential arena. Moreover, the law has been use to outline clearly theresponsibilities of the various stakeholders in the security docketmaking its operations easy to understand. For example, theindividuals manning the national security in a country are supposedto be the principal advisers to the national security council, thenational government, the president, and the homeland security council(Odom,2004).

Onthe other hand, the law prohibits dual services when serving in thenational intelligence and terrorism prevention. The law states thatany individual working for national intelligence and security shallnot serve as the director, agency or as the head both in the centralintelligence and community intelligence. These restrictions in thelaw are very crucial because it makes individuals to be committed totheir assigned duties (Maxwell,2004).

However,I feel there is a weakness when it comes to accessing theintelligence that concerns the security of a country. This is becausethe law states that the director of the national intelligence shallhave full access to all intelligence related and overall nationalintelligence that relates to national security. Here, I criticallythink that it should be the mandate of the president to direct thedirector of the national intelligence. Additionally, I feel thefederal government should also take part in matters that relate tothe national intelligence and control of terrorism threats.

Onthe other hand, one decade after the 9/11 terror attack, the nationalintelligence and security have been reshaped especially on the life’sfacets in the United States. However, most of the changes thatoccurred were temporary thus, creating more concern on issues thataffect people’s safety. However, the 9/11 attacks have contributedto lasting transformation in the Americans’ way of life. Forexample, the American lexicon changed drastically few months or yearsafter the attack. Consequently, I am convinced that more changes willcontinue to be experienced in areas such as language and way of life.

Lastly,during the 9/11 time, the patriot act was established as a law duringthe 107thcongress one year after the attacks. During the implementation of thePatriot law 48 bills and several resolutions were approved this wasdone along with transportation and aviation security law that wasmeant to promote security on the borders and visa security(Brattberg,2012).For this reason, both the immigration department and the statedepartment were required to share their information. Here, I feelthere are no changes that are required on the law because it enhancessecurity and intelligence in the homeland security and other securityagencies. Consequently, I support the bill where soldiers benefitfrom educational funding to promote their performance in the securitysector.


Bullock,J., &amp Haddow, G. (2006). Introductionto homeland security.Butterworth-Heinemann.

Brattberg,E. (2012). Coordinating for Contingencies: Taking Stock of Post‐9/11Homeland Security Reforms. Journalof Contingencies and Crisis Management,20(2),77-89.

Maxwell,B. (2004). Homelandsecurity: A documentary history.Cq Pr.

Odom,W. E. (2004). Fixingintelligence: For a more secure America.Yale University Press.

Seifert,J. W. (2007, December). Data mining and homeland security: Anoverview. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCHSERVICE.