Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARTICLES

The study of homeland security is a challenging field of study that requires experts, students, and members of society to understand the underlying reasons for the creation of homeland security systems, as well as the configuration of these systems.  Those who examine homeland security must necessarily study data and theories grounded from a variety of disciplines, including political science, public administration, and the administration of justice.

Federal, state, and local authorities are perennially challenged by the problem of designing homeland security systems which reflect threats emanating from the current terrorist environment.  These challenges are not new, and have historically posed very serious policy questions for all sectors of society.  Unfortunately, these are challenges that are not easily resolved, and which will continue to be at the center of domestic policy.. The possibility of political violence is an unresolved problem, and exists across the nation.  There are no ideal political, national, or social solutions that guarantee immunity from the possibility of being touched by terrorist violence. 

The purpose of this online resource is to stimulate critical discussion about the attributes of homeland security systems and terrorist environments.  This resource is organized into thematic parts which correspond to the textbook’s chapters.  Articles have been selected from reputable scholarly journals, and additional articles are recommended for further study.

TEN CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS

• Does a central cause exist which explains the creation of homeland security environments?
   
• Is it possible to accurately predict the likelihood of terrorist violence?
   
• What are the policy implications of research that indicates an association between homeland security measures and civil liberty challenges?
   
• Do homeland security measures effectively reduce the incidence of terrorism?
   
• Are particular levels of authority within the homeland security enterprise more effective in managing terrorist environments?
   
• Are innovations such as target hardening effective?
   
• How popular is the current homeland security enterprise?  What explains different public opinions in different regions?
   
• What are some of the challenges faced by reformers who sincerely seek to reduce the extent of the homeland security enterprise in order to preserve civil liberty?
   
• How important are international legal institutions and conventions for preventing terrorist violence?
   
• Has enough research been conducted on the sociological and psychological impact of a pervasive homeland security environment?
   

CHAPTER 13.  The Future of Homeland Security

Michael Byers discusses the legal argument proposed by the United States for waging the war on terrorism.  Clauset, Young, and Gleditsch report and discuss research on the frequency and severity of terrorist events since 1968.    Kelly Damphousse evaluates what effect terrorism events have on subsequent prosecution strategies.  Marieke De Goede examines European opposition to the doctrine of pre-emption in the war on terrorism.  De Goede also presents a discussion of the politics of risk and premediation as a security practice.  Dodds explores the contribution of visual artists to public understanding of terrorism and other issues.  Enders and Jindapon compare the “Big 4” game (name, rank, serial number, date of birth) to a two-stage game the “Little Fish” game in which detainees are permitted to reveal lower level information to interrogators.  A longitudinal historical dataset on domestic terrorism in Europe is presented and discussed by Jan Oskar Engene.  Erickson presents an interesting review of how terrofrism is portrayed in U.S. popular culture.   An examination is made of the Bush administration’s pre-emptive strike doctrine by Sanjay Gupta.  Hallsworth and Lea examine the theoretical emergence of the security state as successor to the liberal welfare state.  Huq’s contribution projects the future of counterterrorism.  Martin Innes evaluates the impact of terrorist attacks on counterterrorist strategies among UK police.  Bonnie Jenkins presents the case for focusing on the ambitions of nonstate actors in combating nuclear terrorism.  The debates and evolution of legal responses to terrorism is discussed by Brian Levin.  Kessler and Werner examine extrajudicial killing from the perspective of risk management.  Lankford and Gillespie examine the explanations for terrorist indoctrination to discuss the effectiveness of Saudi Arabia's rehabilitation program.  The moral and ethical aspects of torture are discussed by Douglas McCready.  McGarrell, et. al. recommends an approach and application of the intelligence-led policing (ILP) model for counterterrorism policies.  In his article, Rein Müllerson argues that a human rights perspective is needed when the world community responds to terrorist threats.  Oliverio and Lauderdale suggest avenues for future research on terrorism.  Shields, Damphousse, and Smith present an assessment and analysis of guilty pleas among terrorists.  Important U.S. Fifth Amendment constitutional perspectives on torture are discussed by Geoffrey Skoll.  Brent Steel investigates how the treatment of terrorist suspects affects the American sense of honor and self-identity.  James Stever argues that the new era of terrorism requires a reevaluation of previous models of intergovernmental management.  Patricia Sullivan discusses the question of why seemingly powerful nations lose limited wars.  Geir Ulfstein assesses new legal issues presented by the use of force against terrorists and terrorist governments.

Byers, Michael.  “Terrorism, the Use of Force and International Law After 11 September.”  In International Relations, 16:2 (2002).

Clauset, Aaron, Maxwell Young, and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch.  “On the Frequency of Severe Terrorist Events.”  In Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51:1 (February 2007).

Damphousse, Kelly R.  “The Morning After: Assessing the Effect of Major Terrorism Events on Prosecution Strategies and Outcomes.”  In Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23:2 (May 2007).

De Goede, Marieke.  “The Politics of Preemption and the War on Terror in Europe.”  In European Journal of International Relations, vol. 14 (March 2008).

De Goede, Marieke.  “Beyond Risk: Premediation and the Post-9/11 Security Imagination.”  In Security Dialogue, vol. 39 (April 2008).

Dodds, Klaus.  Steve Bell's Eye: Cartoons, Geopolitics and the Visualization of the `War on Terror'.”  In Security Dialogue, vol. 38 (June 2007).

Enders, Walter, and Paan Jindapon.  “On the Economics of Interrogation: The Big 4 Versus the Little Fish Game.”  In Journal of Peace Research, vol. 48 (May 2011).

Erickson, Christian W.  “Counter-Terror Culture: Ambiguity, Subversion, or Legitimization?”  In Security Dialogue,  (June 2007).

Gupta, Sanjay.  “The Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strike:  Application and Implications During the Administration of President George W. Bush.”  In International Political Science Review, vol. 29 (March 2008).

Hallsworth, Simon, and John Lea.  “Reconstructing Leviathan: Emerging Contours of the Security State.”  In Theoretical Criminology, vol. 15. (May 2011).

Huq, Aziz Z.  “Imagining Counterterrorism’s Future.”  In World Policy Journal, vol. 25 (December 2008).

Innes, Martin.  “Policing Uncertainty: Countering Terror Through Community Intelligence and Democratic Policing.”  In The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605 (May 2006).

Jenkins, Bonnie.  “Combating Nuclear Terrorism: Addressing Nonstate Actor Motivations.”  In The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 607 (September 2006).

Kessler, Oliver and Wouter Werner.  “Extrajudicial Killing as Risk Management.”  In Security Dialogue, vol. 39 (April 2008).

Lankford, Adam, and Katherine Gillespie.  “Rehabilitating Terrorists Through Counter-Indoctrination: Lessons Learned From The Saudi Arabian Program.” In International Criminal Justice Review, vol. 21 (June 2011).

Levin, Brian.  “Trials for Terrorists: The Shifting Legal Landscape of the Post-9/11 Era.”  In Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23:2 (May 2007).

McCready, Douglas.  “When is Torture Right?”  In Studies in Christian Ethics, vol. 20 (December 2007).

McGarrell, Edmund F., Joshua D. Freilich, and Steven Chermak.  “Intelligence-Led Policing As a Framework for Responding to Terrorism.”  In Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23:2 (May 2007).

Müllerson, Rein.  “Being Tough on Terrorism or Respecting Human Rights: A False Dilemma of Authoritarian and Liberal Responses.”  In American Behavioral Scientist, 48:12 (August 2005).

Oliverio, Annamarie and Pat Lauderdale.  “Terrorism as Deviance or Social Control: Suggestions for Future Research.”  In International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 46:1-2 (2005).

Shields, Christopher A., Kelly R. Damphousse, and Brent L. Smith.  “Their Day in Court: Assessing Guilty Plea Rates Among Terrorists.”  In Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22:3 (August 2006).

Skoll, Geoffrey R.  “Torture and the Fifth Amendment: Torture, the Global War on Terror, and Constitutional Values.”  In Criminal Justice Review, vol. 33 (March 2008).

Steele, Brent J.  “’Ideals That Were Really Never In Our Possession’: Torture, Honor and US Identity.”  In International Relations, vol 22 (June 2008).

Stever, James A.  “Adapting Intergovernmental Management to the New Age of Terrorism.”  In Administration & Society, 37:4 (September 2005).

Sullivan, Patricia L.  “War Aims and War Outcomes: Why Powerful States Lose Limited Wars.”  In Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51:3 (June 2007).

Ulfstein, Geir.  “Terrorism and the Use of Force.”  Security Dialogue, 34:2 (June 2003).