Does Homeland Security in the United States need increased funding?
With current circumstances and on-going terrorist threats around the world, does the national security of the United States need more funding to protect its civilians? This paper argues that financial support of homeland security in the United States is of high importance and any necessary funds should be made for the cause.
In 2016 alone, there have been multiple terrorist attacks, including the recent bombings in Brussels, Belgium. In addition, two attacks on Paris last year shook the world. The United States is no stranger to terrorist threats and attacks, in September 2001, the 9/11 hijackings brought New York City, one of the most powerful cities on earth to a …show more content…
In spite of the fact that the Homeland Security’s main priority is to protect the civilians of the U.S, many worry that the funding is not necessarily used in the correct manner. It is understood that some believe that the expenditure is used to frequently obtain information on citizens and many feel this is a breach of privacy rights.
Opposing parties believe that homeland security strategies can, and do, break regulations centred on human privacy rights. According to Kevin M. Keenan, eight states financially supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security began experimenting the total information Multistate Anti-terrorism Exchange, also known as MATRIX. The funding, however, came with multiple clauses. Keenan cites Samuel Walker’s book In Defense of American Liberties: History of the A.C.L.U. stating that in the contract, it is written that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security would “maintain managerial oversight and control.” For many people, there is a frightening factor to this testing strategy. For example, in an extreme hypothetical scenario, it could be contested that almost anything anyone says or does outside of their home is in some regards public. This opens up the conflict of safety over …show more content…
Many also believe that the way in which the homeland security spends the tax funded money is habitually erroneous.
According to Schmidt, S. Shelley, M. and Bardes, B. Detractors state that dubious projects and plans have repeatedly been funded and argue that homeland security finances should not be wasted on “pork barrel” spending. Stemming from this, it is understood that in 2005, the state of Kentucky was granted $36,000 to safeguard bingo halls from terrorist infiltration. Furthermore, on the 20th of December 2004, the US government broadcasted a $153 million homeland security grant to supply food and accommodation for the homeless. (Schmidt, Shelley, and Bardes, 2008)
These opposing views have some validity, however, Schmidt, S. Shelley, M. and Bardes, B discounted other instances of evidence to support their claims, in terms of possible misspending of homeland security funds. In John Emison’s book Lincoln Uber Alles: Dictatorship comes to America Emison cites The Wall Street Jourmal writing that the “Department of Homeland Security plans a $15 billion domestic spy satellite.” (Emison,
With current circumstances and on-going terrorist threats around the world, does the national security of the United States need more funding to protect its civilians? This paper argues that financial support of homeland security in the United States is of high importance and any necessary funds should be made for the cause.
In 2016 alone, there have been multiple terrorist attacks, including the recent bombings in Brussels, Belgium. In addition, two attacks on Paris last year shook the world. The United States is no stranger to terrorist threats and attacks, in September 2001, the 9/11 hijackings brought New York City, one of the most powerful cities on earth to a …show more content…
In spite of the fact that the Homeland Security’s main priority is to protect the civilians of the U.S, many worry that the funding is not necessarily used in the correct manner. It is understood that some believe that the expenditure is used to frequently obtain information on citizens and many feel this is a breach of privacy rights.
Opposing parties believe that homeland security strategies can, and do, break regulations centred on human privacy rights. According to Kevin M. Keenan, eight states financially supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security began experimenting the total information Multistate Anti-terrorism Exchange, also known as MATRIX. The funding, however, came with multiple clauses. Keenan cites Samuel Walker’s book In Defense of American Liberties: History of the A.C.L.U. stating that in the contract, it is written that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security would “maintain managerial oversight and control.” For many people, there is a frightening factor to this testing strategy. For example, in an extreme hypothetical scenario, it could be contested that almost anything anyone says or does outside of their home is in some regards public. This opens up the conflict of safety over …show more content…
Many also believe that the way in which the homeland security spends the tax funded money is habitually erroneous.
According to Schmidt, S. Shelley, M. and Bardes, B. Detractors state that dubious projects and plans have repeatedly been funded and argue that homeland security finances should not be wasted on “pork barrel” spending. Stemming from this, it is understood that in 2005, the state of Kentucky was granted $36,000 to safeguard bingo halls from terrorist infiltration. Furthermore, on the 20th of December 2004, the US government broadcasted a $153 million homeland security grant to supply food and accommodation for the homeless. (Schmidt, Shelley, and Bardes, 2008)
These opposing views have some validity, however, Schmidt, S. Shelley, M. and Bardes, B discounted other instances of evidence to support their claims, in terms of possible misspending of homeland security funds. In John Emison’s book Lincoln Uber Alles: Dictatorship comes to America Emison cites The Wall Street Jourmal writing that the “Department of Homeland Security plans a $15 billion domestic spy satellite.” (Emison,