**Session No. 1**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Course Title: Homeland Security and Emergency Management**

**Session Title: Introduction and Orientation**

**Author: William L. Waugh, Jr. Time: 2 hours**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Course Objectives**

This is an advanced undergraduate/graduate level course in Homeland
Security and Emergency Management. The focus is on U.S. policies and
programs to address the hazards posed by international and domestic
terrorism since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
on September 11, 2001, particularly the risks associated with "weapons
of mass destruction." The connection between the nation's Homeland
Security programs adopted in response to the September 11^th^ attacks
and its traditional emergency management programs developed over the
last quarter century largely in response to natural and technological
disasters, is a central element in the discussion.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

# 

# Note

This course builds upon and updates the material in the *Terrorism and
Emergency Management* Instructor Guide (2001). It may be used as a short
stand-alone course, an expansion of the *Terrorism and Emergency
Management* course, and/or as an expanded course using
instructor-developed materials or sessions from other Higher Education
courses (e.g., *Hazard Risk Management*).

The 2001 course focuses on the nature and risk of political terrorism,
ranging from low-level acts of threats and acts of violence to
large-scale acts of violence using "weapons of mass destruction." That
course addresses:

-   The nature of terrorism and its many forms;

-   Policies and programs to reduce the risk that terrorism presents to
    society, including mitigation strategies and preparedness programs;

-   Policies and programs to manage terrorist events; and

-   Policies and programs to manage the consequences of terrorist
    violence. The course also uses the 1995 bombing of the Murrah
    Federal Building as an example of response and recovery operations.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Session**

**Objectives:** At the conclusion of this session, the students should
be able to:

1.0 Discuss the course content and objectives

1.1 Describe the course requirements

2.  Define Homeland Security, terrorism, international terrorism,
    domestic terrorism, and "weapons of mass destruction"

3.  Describe and discuss the domestic terrorist threat to the U.S. in
    general terms

1.4 Describe and discuss the international and transnational terrorist
threat to the U.S. in general terms.

1.5 Describe and discuss the threats posed by "weapons of mass
destruction" in general terms

1.6 Describe and discuss the impact of the September 11, 2001 attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on the national emergency
management system

1.7 Describe and discuss the impact of the U.S. intergovernmental system
on the development of Homeland Security programs

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Scope**

> Introduction of professor and students; review of course objectives
> and content; discussion of student assignments and course
> requirements. Definitions of Homeland Security, terrorism,
> international and domestic terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction.
> Brief overview of domestic and international terrorist threats to the
> U.S. violence to encourage students to begin thinking about the threat
> of terrorism, particularly the threats posed by so-called "weapons of
> mass destruction" and the changes that have taken place since the
> attacks on September 11, 2001. Brief overview of U.S. policy regarding
> domestic and international terrorism prior to September 2001. Overview
> of the major intergovernmental issues that arise in dealing with the
> threat and incidence of terrorist violence in the U.S.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Requirements:**

1\. Professor:

> a\) Course syllabus, including: an outline of topics with dates;
> required and suggested readings on each topic; a list of relevant
> journals available in the library; student assignments and course
> requirements (such as examinations, quizzes, and papers); instructor's
> office hours, telephone number, and email address; and policies
> regarding late papers, paper formats, and plagiarism.
>
> b\) Instructor guide.
>
> c\) Required readings for course:
>
> Sidney D. Drell, Abraham D. Sofaer, and George D. Wilson, eds., *The
> New Terror: Facing the Threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons*
> (Stanford, CA: Hoover Press, 1999).
>
> Juliette N. Kayyem and Robyn L. Pangi, eds., *First to Arrive: State
> and Local Responses to Terrorism* (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003).
>
> William C. Nicholson, *Emergency Response and Emergency Management
> Law: Cases and Materials* (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas
> Publishers, 2003).
>
> Claire B. Rubin and Associates, *Terrorism Time Line: Major Focusing
> Events and U.S. Outcomes (1993-2005)*
> \<http://www.disaster-timeline.com\>. Recommend instructors use
> narrative report to supplement timeline.
>
> William L. Waugh, Jr., "The Global Challenge of the New Terrorism,"
> *Journal of Emergency Management*, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring 2003): 27-38.

2\. Students:

> a\) Course syllabus.
>
> b\) Required course readings:
>
> Sidney D. Drell, Abraham D. Sofaer, and George D. Wilson, eds., *The
> New Terror: Facing the Threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons*
> (Stanford, CA: Hoover Press, 1999).
>
> Juliette N. Kayyem and Robyn L. Pangi, eds., *First to Arrive: State
> and Local Responses to Terrorism* (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003).
>
> William L. Waugh, Jr., *Terrorism and Emergency Management* (New York:
> Marcel Dekker, 1990).
>
> William C. Nicholson, *Emergency Response and Emergency Management
> Law: Cases and Materials* (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas
> Publishers, 2003).
>
> Claire B. Rubin and Associates, *Terrorism Time Line: Major Focusing
> Events and U.S. Outcomes (1993-2005)*
> \<http://www.disaster-timeline.com\>. Recommend instructors use
> narrative report to supplement timeline.

c)  Course bibliography (see bibliography in appendix).

d)  List of Selected Homeland Security and Emergency Management
    websites.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Requirements** None

**Note** The organization of the Department of Homeland Security and the
role and function of the Federal Emergency Management Agency are being
debated in Congress. The Congressional Research Service report by Keith
Bea and Henry Hogue (see reference in required readings list below)
provides a detailed analysis of the legislation proposed and its status
as of July 2006. How (or whether) the department will be reorganized and
FEMA's status changed are discussed in Session 7, but reform legislation
should be discussed as it passes through Congress and is acted upon by
the President. The implications of such reforms for state and local
agencies should also be addressed.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Supplemental**

**Considerations**

*Professor and*

*student introductions*

Explain why you are interested in Homeland Security and emergency
management as a professional field and terrorism as a teaching and
research topic. Identify your specific research interests and your
personal experience with Homeland Security/emergency management research
and disasters in general. Ask students to describe their own interests
and experiences to find out whether any of them have special information
to contribute to class discussions and special topics that they would
like to see covered in the course. Students who are recent veterans of
the U.S. military or have first responder experience may have received
antiterrorist training and may even have been involved in terrorist
incidents and/or counterterrorism exercises. Their participation in
class discussions will broaden the perspective of the course and
illustrate the differences in how public organizations and individuals
view terrorism and how to deal with it.

Outline course requirements, office hours, office location, telephone
and fax numbers, email address, and appointment policy and encourage
them to seek advice and assistance.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

*Modes of Evaluation* While professors may choose a variety of
evaluation modes, this instructor's guide is oriented toward the
following:

1\. Mid-term examination - 45%

2.  Final examination - 45%

3.  Class participation - 10%

Sample discussion questions are provided in each session.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Required Session Readings:**

Keith Bea, *Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security:
Issues for Congressional Oversight*, Congressional Research Service,
December 17, 2002.

Keith Bea and Henry Hogue, *FEMA Reorganization Legislation in the
109^th^ Congress*, Congressional Research Service, July 7, 2006.

William L. Waugh, Jr., "The Global Challenge of the New Terrorism,"
*Journal of Emergency Management*, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring 2003): 27-38.

William L. Waugh, Jr., and Richard T. Sylves, "Organizing the War on
Terrorism," *Public Administration Review* (September 2002). Reprinted
in Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw
Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp. 32-40.

**Suggested Session Readings:**

Steven Brill, "A Watchful Eye," Newsweek (February 24, 2003). Reprinted
in Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw
Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp. 23-24.

*Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation*, "Homeland Security
Funding Primer: Where We've Been, Where We're Headed" (May 1, 2003).
Reprinted in Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions*
(McGraw Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp.51-57.

Paris Glendening, "Governing After September 11^th^: A New Normalcy,"
*Public Administration Review* (September 2002). Reprinted in Thomas J.
Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw Hill/Duskin,
2004), pp. 81-83.

Siobhan Gorman and Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., "A Burnt-Orange Nation,"
*National Journal* (March 1, 2003). Reprinted in Thomas J. Badey,
*Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw Hill/Duskin, 2004),
pp. 87-91.

Frank Keating, "Catastrophic Terrorism---Local Response to a National
Threat*," Journal of Homeland Security* (August 2001). Reprinted in
Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw
Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp. 76-80.

John Machacek, "Bush Meets with N.Y. Mayor and Promises More Aid for
Cities," *USA Today* (March 19, 2003). Reprinted in Thomas J. Badey,
*Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw Hill/Duskin, 2004),
pp. 84-85.

National Journal, "The Experiment Begins" (June 15, 2002). Reprinted in
Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw
Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp. 9-22.

Romesh Ratnesar, "The State of Our Defense," *Time* (February 24, 2003).
Reprinted in Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions*
(McGraw Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp. 25-29.

*USA Today*, "States, Cities Step Up Security and Squabble Over Costs,"
(April 6, 2003). Reprinted in Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05:
Annual Editions* (McGraw Hill/Duskin, 2004), p. 86.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Preliminary Class Discussion:**

**Objective 1.0 Discuss Course Content and Objectives**

Read the course description to the class.

Suggested preliminary questions might be:

1.  How serious is the threat of terrorism to the U.S. and to Americans
    today?

2.  Is the threat of domestic terrorism more or less serious than the
    threat of international terrorism?

3.  What agencies should be responsible for dealing with domestic and
    international threats of terrorism?

4.  How should communities deal with the threat of terrorism?

5.  Who should pay for counter-terrorism programs? The federal
    government? State governments? Local governments?

> \[These questions might be revisited at the conclusion of the course
> to see how student perceptions of the threat of terrorism have
> changed.\]

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Objective 1.1 Discuss Course Requirements**

> Read the course requirements -- midterm and final essay examinations
> and class participation. Describe the examination process -- take-home
> or in-class exams and the approximate number of questions. Describe
> instructor's expectations concerning class participation, including
> attendance.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Objective 1.2 Define Homeland Security, terrorism, international
terrorism, domestic terrorism, and "weapons of mass destruction"**

> Homeland Security and domestic preparedness were the principal terms
> used to describe the efforts to deal with terrorist threats in the
> late 1990s. Domestic preparedness was the term used in the Department
> of Justice and law enforcement agencies and homeland security became
> the term used in the Department of Defense and its related programs.
> As the international threat took on greater importance after the
> attacks on September 11, 2001, "homeland security" became the dominant
> term (although "domestic preparedness" is still used).
>
> Today, **Homeland Security** principally refers to the constituent
> programs of the Department of Homeland Security. DHS includes programs
> that focus on border security, transportation security, and national
> preparedness to deal with natural and technological hazards and
> disasters (i.e., emergency management).
>
> Nonetheless, Homeland Security still is associated primarily with
> counter-terrorism programs because that is the central mission of DHS.
>
> Terrorism is certainly not a new political phenomenon. It has been
> used in political and nonpolitical conflicts since humans were cave
> dwellers, if not longer.
>
> Terrorism is distinguished from other forms of violence or threats in
> terms of its intended psychological impact (meaning "terror") and its
> intended victims.
>
> Terrorism is also a matter of perception. It may be perceived
> differently by different people and groups.
>
> Defining terrorism precisely has been a serious problem because, as
> the cliché goes, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom
> fighter." If you agree with the cause, you don't tend to call them
> terrorists, in other words.
>
> Definitions of **terrorism** most frequently include the following
> elements:
>
> a\. the use or threat of extraordinary violence;
>
> b\. goal-directed or rational behavior;
>
> c\. the intent to have a psychological impact broader than the
> immediate victims; and
>
> d\. the choice of victims for their symbolic, rather than their
> instrumental, value (Waugh, 1990, p. 50).
>
> Terrorism may be politically motivated, but it may also be
> religiously, criminally, or even economically motivated. The subject
> here is political terrorism.

According to Title 22 of the United States Code - "The term
'**terrorism**' means premeditated, politically motivated violence
perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or
clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." This is
the definition used by federal agencies (Department of State, 2003, p.
xiii).

Attacks on military personnel who are on duty would not qualify as
terrorism under the federal legal definition, although the impact may be
terroristic.

> By both definitions, terrorism is goal-directed or rational behavior
> and not just the acts of crazy people. There is a purpose, although it
> may be difficult to discern.
>
> Terrorism has been used as a means of demoralizing opposing military
> forces and civilian populations, eliminating and discouraging
> political opposition, changing government policies, causing economic
> losses, and so on.
>
> Terrorism is often conceptualized as part of a continuum of violence
> ranging from terrorism to guerrilla warfare or insurgency to civil
> war. In this conceptualization, civilians are the chosen targets
> because terrorist groups are inherently weak and cannot engage in
> sustained attacks on police and military personnel. The capacity to
> attack law enforcement and military personnel permits antigovernment
> groups to escalate the level of "warfare."
>
> A central assumption in this view of terrorism is that the violence,
> if not stopped, will escalate and ultimately jeopardize the survival
> of the state. Use of the term "insurgents" to describe those who
> attack U.S. troops in Iraq is a reflection of this view.
>
> \[*Terrorism and Emergency Management* (2001) provides a discussion of
> the justifiability of revolution and terrorist violence\]
>
> **International terrorism** involves violence or threats of violence
> for political purposes by groups supported by a foreign government.
> The support may be overt or covert. An example is the Libyan
> terrorists who used a bomb to destroy Pan Am Flight 103 over
> Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.
>
> **Transnational terrorism** involves violence or threats of violence
> by groups acting independently or largely independently of foreign
> governments. An example is the Al Qaeda organization which may well
> have received funding and other support from foreign governments, but
> has acted largely on its own.

Foreign political groups may wish to attack American government
facilities, military installations, businesses, tourists, missionaries,
and other individuals because they oppose American foreign policies or
American business operations or they see Americans as symbols of Western
culture or capitalism.

Americans may also simply be targets for kidnappings, robberies, or
other violent action because they are accessible.

> Terrorism has been a common tactic throughout human history, used in
> wars and insurgencies to demoralize civilian populations and influence
> political decisions.
>
> Terrorism was a central feature of the Cold War between the U.S. and
> its Western allies and the Soviet Union and its allies.
>
> The term **weapons of mass destruction** is defined in law, but it is
> also ambiguous in practice.
>
> The Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (also
> known as the Nunn-Lugar-Dominici Act) defined "weapons of mass
> destruction" as "any weapon or device that is intended, or has the
> capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant
> number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of

a.  toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;

b.  a disease organism; or

c.  radiation or radioactivity" (Section 1403).

> The act cites the potential transfer of devices, materials, and
> information on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons from the
> former Soviet states to terrorist organizations and hostile nations as
> a major concern of policymakers.
>
> The act also provided for the federal response to actions involving
> "weapons of mass destruction."
>
> Chemical, biological, and nuclear or radiological weapons or
> materials, also called NBC or CBR depending upon the agency, still
> tends to be the interpretation of "weapons of mass destruction"
> although there is increasing use of broader definitions, such as CBRNE
> or chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive weapons.
> The latter component, explosive weapons, was added because the use of
> fertilizer bombs in Oklahoma City and in the first World Trade Center
> attack in 1993.
>
> Some analysts prefer using the term "mass casualty weapons" to include
> military explosives, automatic weapons, and essentially any other
> weapon that can kill or injure many people.
>
> Other analysts prefer using the term "weapons of mass effect" to
> differentiate between weapons and materials that might kills or injure
> many people or cause great destruction from small amounts of chemical,
> biological, or radiological material that can have only limited
> effect.
>
> Whether the biggest threat is from chemical, biological, or nuclear
> "weapons of mass destruction" or from the kinds of weapons that
> terrorists have used in the past and to which they have greater
> access, including military explosives and automatic weapons, is
> extremely important to the design of effective anti- and
> counterterrorist policies and programs.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Objective 1.3**

**Describe and discuss the domestic terrorist threat to the U.S. in
general terms**

> The U.S. has had a long history of political violence including racist
> and anti-Semitic attacks (i.e., hate crimes), anti-abortion attacks,
> anti-tax activity, anti-war activity, labor conflict, environmental
> extremism, and, recently, anti-globalism activity.
>
> The principal forms of terrorism found in the U.S. now are associated
> with racist groups and individuals and with extreme anti-abortion,
> animal rights, environmental, and anti-tax groups/anti-government
> groups (see DOE, 1997; FBI, 1997; Waugh, 2003).
>
> In recent years, the violence has become more diffuse and less
> identifiable with specific extremist organizations (DOE, 1997; Lesser
> et al., 1999: 9).
>
> Individual terrorists or small groups of terrorists are much more
> difficult to identify and apprehend than larger groups.
>
> The availability of automatic weapons and explosives, including
> assault rifles and hand grenades, has concerned law enforcement
> officials. Weapons ranging from hand held anti-aircraft missiles
> (e.g., Stinger missiles) to C-4 explosive, have been unaccounted for
> on military bases.
>
> White supremacists, and anti-abortion groups are generally identified
> as the most violent and active.
>
> "Patriot" organizations include militias and "common law courts" and
> have been most active in the Pacific Northwest, Southwest, Midwest,
> and Florida. The activities of such groups range from verbal
> confrontation to very violent action. Their political philosophies are
> often a mix of religion and politics.
>
> The major events that have mobilized the "patriot" organizations have
> been

(1) the Ruby Ridge shootout in 1992 that resulted in the deaths of the
    wife and son of Randy Weaver, a white supremacist, and a federal law
    enforcement officer, and

(2) the siege, shootout, and fire at the Branch Davidian compound in
    Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993, which resulted in the deaths of four
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and 92 members of
    the Davidian group.

> The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April
> 19, 1995, by anti-government terrorists, Timothy McVeigh and Terry
> Nichols, was a response to the events in Waco, likely targeting BATF
> and other federal law enforcement offices in the building. The bombing
> killed 168 people, including children in a daycare center on the first
> floor.
>
> Militia groups have become less active since the bombing of the Murrah
> Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, although it is
> believed that one or more domestic groups or individuals were
> responsible for the anthrax attacks on government offices following
> the World Trade Centers and Pentagon attacks by international
> terrorists in September 2001 and more recent attacks using Ricin, a
> poisonous agent made from beans.
>
> The white supremacist groups include the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis,
> Aryan Nations, White Aryan Resistance, the Order, the Christian
> Patriots, the Christian Identify, and the Skinheads (Center for
> Democratic Renewal, cited in Bartollas and Hahn, 1999: 176).
>
> Members of domestic terrorist groups have bombed government offices,
> women's clinics, newspaper offices, white supremacist and related
> groups have also been arrested for trying to bomb federal offices, and
> courthouses, as well as the offices of the Southern Anti-Poverty Law
> Center (which monitors racist and other radical groups), the
> Anti-Defamation League (which monitors anti-Semitic and other violent
> groups), and the NAACP (which monitors racist group activity).
>
> Fortunately, there have not been many cases of terrorist attacks using
> "weapons of mass destruction" in which many people have been killed or
> injured and there have been no cases of attacks using nuclear devices,
> although terrorist organizations have such capabilities.
>
> There have been a number of attacks with alleged anthrax and ricin
> and, during the late 1990s, responders were having to deal with
> frequent incidents. The incidents, most involving mailed letters or
> boxes with containing suspicious powder, became disruptive and costly
> for local governments. Response protocols usually required
> evacuations, decontamination, and transport to a medical facility.

**U.S. policy concerning domestic terrorism**

> The U.S. policy regarding domestic terrorism is that it is essentially
> criminal activity and should be prosecuted as such.
>
> In the U.S. criminal justice system, the federal government has
> primary jurisdiction over certain kinds of crimes. For example,
> federal law enforcement agencies have jurisdiction in cases involving
> crimes against banks (e.g., robberies), counterfeiting, kidnappings,
> aircraft piracy (e.g., "skyjackings"), organized crime, violations of
> civil rights (e.g., "hate crimes"), interstate flight to avoid
> prosecution, bombs, and terrorism.
>
> When violent acts or threats of violence are determined to be
> "terrorism" the FBI is automatically the lead agency. Nonetheless,
> until federal law enforcement agents arrive on the scene, local law
> enforcement officers are responsible for managing the crisis. \[
>
> \[The FBI has been reorganized since September 11, 2001, to deal with
> the threat of terrorism and that reorganization, including the
> relationship between the Department of Justice and FBI and the
> Department of Homeland Security will be described in a later
> session.\]
>
> Domestic terrorists have used "weapons of mass destruction." However,
> a large percentage of the incidents involved threats or possession of
> chemical or biological (CB) materials, rather than attacks and only a
> few involved radiological materials (radium and plutonium residue).
> \[See list in *Terrorism and Emergency Management*\]
>
> Because of the potential for jurisdictional confusion, during large
> special events (e.g., political conventions, the Superbowl, the World
> Series, the Olympics, the NCAA Final Four playoffs, or a visit by the
> Pope) officials normally develop protocols for the transfer of lead
> responsibility from state and local law enforcement agencies who
> normally have jurisdiction to federal agencies who assume jurisdiction
> if there is an act of terrorism.
>
> Federal law enforcement agencies also provide training and technical
> assistance to state and local agencies prior to such events and
> maintain liaisons with the agencies involved in event security.
>
> State and local governments are increasingly preparing to deal with
> terrorist violence, but are heavily dependent upon federal money and
> technical assistance.
>
> As the expected "first responders" to large-scale terrorist incidents,
> many larger local police departments have developed special operations
> units.
>
> Under the provisions of Presidential Decision Directive 39 (PDD 39)
> and the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996, state
> and local agencies are receiving equipment from the U.S. Department of
> Defense and other federal agencies to build their capacities to deal
> with large-scale terrorist incidents in general and nuclear,
> biological, and chemical (NBC) incidents in particular. \[See Session
> Two on the Structure of Anti-Terrorism Programs.\]
>
> U.S. counterterrorist efforts were also bolstered by two Presidential
> decision directives (PDDs) in 1998. \[See later sessions for more
> details.\]
>
> PDD-62 clarified the missions of U.S. agencies involved in
> counterterrorism, enhancing response capabilities and focusing efforts
> to protect America's computer networks. It also created the position
> of National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and
> Counterterrorism.
>
> PDD-63 outlined a national program to protect the nation's
> telecommunications, banking and finance, energy, transportation, and
> government infrastructures. It provides for risk assessment and
> planning and established linkages among public agencies and private
> firms.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Objective 1.4**

**Describe and discuss the international terrorist threat to the U.S. in
general terms**

> According to U.S. State Department statistics in Table 1-1, the number
> of international attacks has been declining, although the seemingly
> large decline between 1988 and 1989 was due to a change in the
> classification of events (many attacks in Israel were reclassified as
> domestic rather than international terrorism). Errors were made in the
> classification of events in the 2003 State Department report and the
> corrected data were used in Table 1-1.
>
> \[The Department of State stopped publishing its annual *Patterns of
> Global Terrorism* report in 2004 and began publishing *Country Reports
> on Terrorism* with a focus on policy rather than statistical analysis.
> The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) is now responsible for
> statistical analysis and publishes its annual *Report on Incidents of
> Terrorism*. NCTC uses a much broader definition of terrorism and, as
> is stated in its 2005 report, its statistics are not comparable to
> those in the *Patterns of Global Terrorism* reports.\]

**Table 1-1: Total International Terrorist Attacks, 1981-20
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Year Number of Attacks**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

1981 489

1982 487

1983 497

1984 565

1985 635

1986 612

1987 665

1988 605

1989 375

1990 437

1991 565

1992 363

1993 431

1994 322

1995 440

1996 296

1997 304

1998 274

1999 395

2000 426

2001 355

2002. 205

2003. 208

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Source: Department of State, *Patterns of Global Terrorism 1998, 2002,
> 2003(revised)*. Note: Some attacks have been reclassified and the data
> has changed slightly from that included in *Terrorism and Emergency
> Management* (2001) and in earlier State Department reports.
>
> While it is difficult to generalize on the basis of a only few years,
> Table 1-2 generally indicates that the numbers of international
> terrorist attacks in Asia, and Eurasia have increased in recent years
> and the numbers in Africa, Latin America, North American and Western
> Europe have declined while the number in the Middle East has remained
> relatively stable.
>
> The changing nature of terrorist violence is evident in the steep
> decline in the number of attacks in Western Europe. In 1993, there
> were 185 attacks and, in 1995, there were 277 attacks in Western
> Europe (see data from *Terrorism and Emergency Management*, 2001).

**Table 1-2: Total International Attacks by Region, 1997-2003**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Region 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Africa 11 21 53 55 33 5 6

Asia 21 49 72 99 68 99 80

Eurasia 42 14 35 31 3 7 2

Latin America 128 110 122 192 201 50 20

Middle East 37 31 26 20 29 29 67

N America 13 0 2 0 4 0 0

W Europe 52 48 85 30 17 9 33

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Source: Department of State, *Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002 and
2004*.

> As Table 1-3 indicates, most international terrorist attacks during
> the 1997-2003 period were directed against businesses.
>
> The relatively small numbers of attacks on military facilities is
> because of the increased risk in such attacks to the terrorists
> themselves. Unfortified and unguarded civilian facilities are much
> safer targets than military installations.
>
> Although increasingly fortified, diplomatic facilities often have
> exposed locations in urban areas that make them vulnerable to bombs
> and rocket attacks, as happened in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.

**Table 1-4: Total Facilities Struck by International Attacks,
1997-2003**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Type of Facility 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Business 235 327 282 278 383 408 61

Diplomatic 30 35 59 29 18 14 15

Government 11 10 27 17 13 17 16

Military 4 4 17 13 4 1 3

Other 80 67 96 114 101 75 106

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Source: Department of State, *Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002 and
2003*.

> Relatively few Americans are killed most years in international
> terrorist attacks (see table below), except for 2001 which included
> the attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon.
>
> **Table 1-5: Total US Citizen Casualties Caused by International
> Attacks, 1993-2003**
>
> **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Year Dead Wounded Major Events**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

1993 7 1,004 First World Trade Center bombing

1994 6 5

1995 10 60

1996 25 510 USS Cole bombing

1997 6 21

1998 12 11 Tanzania and Kenya embassy bombings

1999 6 6

2000 23 47 Khobar Barracks bombing

2001 2689 90 World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks

2002 26 35 Afghanistan war

2003 35 29 Afghanistan and Iraq wars

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

> Source: Department of State, *Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999, 2002
> and 2003*. The number of casualties resulting from the World Trade
> Center and Pentagon attacks is considerably lower than more recent
> estimates.
>
> The frequency and nature of the attacks on U.S. facilities in the late
> 1980s and early 1990s illustrates the cyclic nature of international
> terrorism.
>
> The US State Department report following the bombings of the US
> Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in+ 1998 described a pattern of
> attacks against U.S. embassies, U.S. Information Service cultural
> centers, and other facilities in Europe, particularly Spain, in the
> late 1980s. The largest numbers of attacks, however, were in Latin
> America and South Korea and some facilities were attacked many times.
> The most common attacks were bombings.

## Table 1.6 -- Anti-U.S. Attacks in 2003

## Region Number of Attacks

> Middle East 30
>
> Eurasia 1
>
> Africa 1
>
> Asia 6
>
> Latin America 14
>
> Western Europe 17
>
> Total 60

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Type Number of Attacks**

Bombing 40

Armed Attack 7

Kidnapping 3

Suicide bombing 3

Arson 2

Firebombing 2

Chemical 1

Skyjacking 1

Other 1

> Total 60

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Type of Facility Number of Attacks**

Business 34

Other 35

Military 2

Diplomatic 6

Government 7

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Source: Department of State, *Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003
(revised)*

> As the data in Table 1.6 indicate, the most common anti-U.S. attacks
> in 2003 were bombings in the Middle East directed against business
> facilities.
>
> **U.S. policy concerning international and transnational terrorism
> before September 11, 2001**
>
> The U.S. adopted a "no negotiation, no compromise" policy in the early
> 1970s. The policy was adopted to discourage attacks, assuming that
> terrorists would be less inclined to attack if they had no expectation
> of achieving their political goals.
>
> The U.S. developed a broad range of antiterrorism and
> counter-terrorism programs, ranging from structural mitigation
> measures to reduce the vulnerability of facilities to training
> counter-terrorism forces to deal with hostage incidents and to pursue
> terrorists. \[The programs in existence prior to 2001 are described in
> some depth in *Terrorism and Emergency Management*, 2001\]
>
> The U.S. has actively promoted international agreements to support the
> principle of *aut punire aut dedere*, that nations should punish
> terrorists or extradite them to a nation that will do so.
>
> Support for a very strict policy against terrorists has been difficult
> to achieve, however. Nations are sometimes reluctant to agree to a
> general policy to punish terrorists because they support political
> groups that may be characterized as terrorist.
>
> The most success achieved in combating terrorism through international
> agreements has been in those areas where many nations are vulnerable
> -- such as protecting diplomatic personnel and facilities and
> protecting civil aviation.
>
> The Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nunn-Lugar-Dominici)
> Act of 1996 also addressed the threat of international terrorism and
> gave the Department of Defense a major role in dealing with acts of
> terrorism. The act specifically mentioned concerns about weapons and
> materials from the Soviet states being given to terrorists and hostile
> states.
>
> PDD-39, signed by President Clinton in 1995, designated the U.S. State
> Department as the lead agency for dealing with acts of international
> terrorism outside of the U.S., while the FBI was designated the lead
> agency for acts within the U.S.
>
> Current U.S. policy regarding terrorism is to:

-   "First, make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals.

-   Second, bring terrorists to justice for their crimes.

-   Third, isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor terrorism
    to force them to change their behavior.

-   Fourth, bolster the counterterrorist capabilities of those countries
    that work with the United States and require assistance (Department
    of State, 2003: xi).

> The U.S. Department of State maintains a list of states that are known
> sponsors of terrorism. In 2000, that list included Cuba, Iran, Iraq,
> North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. Afghanistan was also identified as a
> problem because the government permitted Osama bin Laden, the person
> believed responsible for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya
> and Tanzania in 1998, to operate training bases within the country.
>
> In 2001, a coalition effort lead by the U.S. toppled the Taliban
> government in Afghanistan and forced the Taliban and their Al Qaeda
> supporters to flee to the borderlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan
> and elsewhere. Fighting has continued as the new Afghan government has
> been established.
>
> In 2003, the U.S. and its allies toppled the Hussein government in
> Iraq and fighting has continued as the process of establishing a new
> Iraqi government has proceeded.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Objective 1.5**

**Describe and discuss the threats posed by "weapons of mass
destruction" in general terms**

Many officials and analysts do think that future acts of terrorism are
more likely to involve conventional bombs and firearms, even homemade
weapons, rather than "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD).

Terrorists have greater access to conventional and homemade weapons and
they do not require the same level of sophistication that it takes to
store, transport, and use chemical, biological, and radiological weapons
and materials.

Agencies are preparing for a variety of chemical terrorism scenarios:

> The worst case scenario is that terrorists might buy, steal, or be
> given access to chemical weapons or agents developed by the Soviet
> weapons complex. Toxic gases, from sarin gas to more exotic and lethal
> materials, might fall into the hands of terrorists.
>
> Some terrorist organizations have the capacity to make chemical agents
> and delivery systems with which to use them. The attack by Aum
> Shinrikyo on the Tokyo subway system in 1995 demonstrated that
> terrorist organizations may be willing to kill hundreds or thousands
> of people. While the delivery system was very crude and the group had
> failed in its attempts to use the same kind of material before, they
> still were able to kill twenty-seven people and injure almost 4000.
> Domestic groups have used ricin and other chemical agents but with
> very limited effect.

Terrorist organizations certainly can find toxic materials in many
American communities. Acids, poisons, and other toxic materials are
stored in factories, on farms, chemical plants, and even in some homes.
The question is whether terrorists can steal or buy such material in
amounts sufficient to pose a serious threat without being detected and
apprehended.

Similarly, agencies are preparing for a variety of bioterrorism
scenarios:

> The worst case scenario is the release of a cocktail of biological
> agents, such as a combination of smallpox and one or more other
> "weaponized" agents. Smallpox was one of the agents used in the old
> Soviet weapons program.
>
> The scenario now familiar because of attacks on post offices and
> Congress soon after the September 11^th^ attacks is the use of anthrax
> spores. Powder leaked from letters in the facilities and infected
> workers.
>
> And, agencies are preparing for a variety of nuclear or radiological
> terrorism scenarios:
>
> Terrorists may buy, steal, or be given nuclear devices or material
> from the old Soviet weapons complex or from one of the missile or
> storage facilities. Whether portable or larger nuclear devices are
> unaccounted for is uncertain, although people with nuclear material
> have been apprehended by authorities in Europe.
>
> Highly radioactive materials might be hidden in crowded cities and,
> over time, residents will receive lethal or at least dangerous doses.
>
> A recent focus of concern has been the potential use of "dirty bombs"
> in which a conventional bomb is used to spread radiological material
> over a wide area. Cleanup of the contamination would be expensive.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Objective 1.6**

**Describe and discuss the impact of the September 11, 2001 attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on the national emergency
management system in general terms**

> The threat of terrorism became the nation's top priority on September
> 11, 2001. The attacks on the World Trade Center towers in New York
> City and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, changed how Americans
> and many others in the world view the threat of terrorism.
>
> The September 11^th^ attacks caused American officials to reexamine
> policies designed to deal with terrorism and to organize to defend the
> nation. The attacks demonstrated the vulnerability of an open society
> (Flynn, 2004) and encouraged action to limit access to sensitive and
> often fragile institutions. The agencies and offices responsible for
> protecting the nation were
>
> The structure of the nation's effort to deal with the threat underwent
> profound change with the creation of the Department of Homeland
> Security and the restructuring of other departments and agencies
> responsible for protecting the nation.
>
> The new Department of Homeland Security presents many challenges in
> terms of effective coordination and administration and many of the
> challenges remain.
>
> A series of articles in the *National Journal* in June of 2002,
> pointed out the need for Congressional action to create an
> organization that can

1.  develop its own culture and mission, assuring information sharing
    and adequate information gathering and analysis,

2.  provide "one-stop shopping" for local officials,

3.  deal with illegal immigrants,

4.  track down and apprehend terrorists,

5.  develop working relationships with the Departments of Defense and of
    Health and Human Services,

6.  deal with transportation security and customs, and, through it all,

7.  reduce conflict among the organizations and fund the new enterprise
    without a major increase in the budget (*National Journal*, 2004).

> But, is the federal government doing enough to fight terrorism?

1\. Are we prepared for dirty bombs, chemical attacks, and bioterrorism?

> 2\. Are the airports, borders, seaports, nuclear facilities, "soft
> targets" like high-rise buildings, and special events safe from
> terrorist attack (Ratnesar, 2004)?
>
> 3\. What forms might the attacks take and what targets might be
> chosen?
>
> How should Homeland Security be organized?
>
> William L. Waugh and Richard T. Sylves (2004) have argued that over 40
> federal departments and agencies were involved in dealing with
> terrorism before September 2001 and the creation of the Department of
> Homeland Security has not brought all of them under the department's
> umbrella. The FBI and CIA, for example, are not part of DHS.
>
> They also argue that the national emergency management system that
> evolved over the past two decades includes networks of governmental
> and nongovernmental organizations that may be needed to deal with a
> major attack, as they were needed in New York City on September 11^th^
> for search and rescue and in the months following to deal with the
> consequences of the tower collapses.
>
> They argue that DHS' command and control-oriented national security
> approach is not conducive to the kinds of information-sharing,
> collaboration, and public involvement that have characterized the
> national emergency management system.
>
> According to the Congressional Research Service (Bea, 2002), the
> transfer of FEMA to the new Department of Homeland Security raises a
> number of issues, including how to coordinate the agencies and
> programs within DHS, how to maintain the "all hazards" approach that
> has characterized emergency management for the past decade, how help
> the victims of the September 11^th^ disasters, and whether the
> comprehensive emergency management model that has come to underlie the
> national system to deal with disasters is still applicable.

Many questions remain about DHS's abilities to coordinate the national
response to the terrorist threat and, at the same time, uphold the
missions of its constituent agencies, from FEMA to the U.S. Coast Guard,
to deal with natural and technological hazards and disasters.

> Conflicts among the agencies within DHS and among the other agencies
> involved in dealing with the threat of terrorism, such as the
> Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Defense,
> continue as evidenced by the coordination problems experienced during
> the TOPOFF 2 (Top Officials) exercise in 2003.
>
> "Turf wars" erupted among the Congressional committees responsible for
> dealing with Homeland Security resulted when DHS was created and
> Congressional oversight may continue to be contentious (Cohen, Gorman,
> and Freedberg, 2004).

Coordination of the efforts of the 22 agencies transferred to DHS will
continue to be a problem (Government Computer News, 2004) and providing
adequate funding will be a serious problem, as well (Center for Arms
Control and Nonproliferation, 2004).

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Objective 1.7

Describe and discuss the impact of the U.S. intergovernmental system on
the development of Homeland Security programs

> The American federal system has a profound impact upon public policy
> and program administration. For example, state laws govern the use of
> National Guard troops in emergencies, unless the Guard is
> "federalized."
>
> State and local laws also regulate land-use, building codes, and
> building standards which can be important issues in making buildings
> more resistant to bombs and other terrorist threats.
>
> Local first responders are typically the first to arrive on the scene
> and, therefore, are responsible for managing incidents caused by
> terrorists until federal agents arrive. The Oklahoma City fire
> department managed the search and rescue effort after the Murrah
> Federal Building bombing and the Arlington, Virginia, fire department
> managed the fire and rescue response to the attack on the Pentagon on
> September 11^th^.
>
> The City of New York managed the response to and recovery from the
> World Trade Center attacks with the assistance of federal agencies and
> the support of hundreds of other agencies from outside the city.
>
> Frank Keating, governor of Oklahoma during the 1995 Murrah Federal
> Building bombing (Keating, 2004) makes the case for federal
> investments in capacity building to assure that local responders are
> prepared to deal with acts of terrorism. Local responders have a
> critical role in protecting human life and property from terrorist
> violence and federal support is critical.

Similarly, state governments have critical roles in coordinating state
and local efforts. Maryland governor Paris Glendening (Glendening, 2004)
has made a strong case for federal support pointing out the need for
federal support for state preparedness and mitigation efforts.

> When President Bush met with NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, they
> discussed the high cost of Homeland Security to local governments (AP,
> 2004) and the need for federal financial assistance.
>
> The high costs of security to prevent terrorist attack and to deal
> with terrorist incidents that do occur are also have serious
> repercussions for local governments. Local officials need to set their
> own priorities, including whether to focus on WMD when low tech
> homemade bombs are more likely threats. Local officials also fear that
> the Iraq war may "intensify" the terror war and encourage more attacks
> within the U.S. (Gorman and Freedberg, 2004)

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Discussion Questions:

1.  Why is it difficult to protect open societies? (See reading by
    Flynn)

2.  Define terrorism. Why is it difficult to distinguish between
    "noncombatants" and "combatants?"

3.  Describe the history of domestic terrorism in the U.S. and
    international terrorism affecting Americans overseas and at home?
    What groups and facilities have been at greatest risk of attack?

4.  What are the major challenges for the new Department of Homeland
    Security that have to be addressed if it is to accomplish its
    mission? (See readings from the *National Journal*)

5.  How safe is the U.S. from terrorist attack today? (See reading by
    Ratnesar)

6.  How might the Department of Homeland Security's focus on terrorism
    undermine its responsibilities to deal with other kinds hazards,
    particularly natural and technological hazards? (See reading by
    Waugh and Sylves)

7.  Why is it difficult for Congress to oversee the Department of
    Homeland Security and fund its programs? (See readings by Cohen,
    Gorman, and Freedberg and by the Center for Arms Control and
    Non-Proliferation).

8.  What did Governor Keating recommend to facilitate cooperation among
    local, state, and federal agencies involved in dealing with
    terrorism? (See reading by Keating)

9.  What are the major challenges that states face in dealing with the
    threat of terrorism and fulfilling their role in Homeland Security?
    (See readings by Glendening, *USA Today*, and Gorman and Freedberg).

10. What are the major challenges that local governments face in dealing
    with the threat of terrorism and fulfilling their role in Homeland
    Security? (See readings by Machacek, *USA Today*, and Gorman and
    Freedberg)

**References for this session:**

Keith Bea, *Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security:
Issues for Congressional Oversight*, Congressional Research Service,
December 17, 2002.

Steven Brill, "A Watchful Eye," Newsweek (February 24, 2003). Reprinted
in Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw
Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp. 23-24.

*Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation*, "Homeland Security
Funding Primer: Where We've Been, Where We're Headed" (May 1, 2003).
Reprinted in Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions*
(McGraw Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp.51-57.

Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute for
International Studies, *Chemical and Biological Weapons Resource Page*
(http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/ cbterror.htm).

Richard E. Cohen, Siobhan Gorman, and Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., "The
Ultimate Turf War," *National Journal* (January 4, 2003). Reprinted in
Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw
Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp. 41-48..

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, *Terrorism in
the United States 1997* (Washington, DC: DOJ, FBI, 1997).

Paris Glendening, "Governing After September 11^th^: A New Normalcy,"
*Public Administration Review* (September 2002). Reprinted in Thomas J.
Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw Hill/Duskin,
2004), pp. 81-83.

Siobhan Gorman and Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., "A Burnt-Orange Nation,"
*National Journal* (March 1, 2003). Reprinted in Thomas J. Badey,
*Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw Hill/Duskin, 2004),
pp. 87-91.

Bruce Hoffman, *Inside Terrorism* (New York: Columbia University Press,
1998).

Frank Keating, "Catastrophic Terrorism---Local Response to a National
Threat*," Journal of Homeland Security* (August 2001). Reprinted in
Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw
Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp. 76-80.

Ian O. Lesser, Bruce Hoffman, John Arquilla, David Ronfield, and Michele
Zanini, Foreword by Brian Michael Jenkins, *Countering the New
Terrorism* (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1999).

John Machacek, "Bush Meets with N.Y. Mayor and Promises More Aid for
Cities," *USA Today* (March 19, 2003). Reprinted in Thomas J. Badey,
*Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw Hill/Duskin, 2004),
pp. 84-85.

National Journal, "The Experiment Begins" (June 15, 2002). Reprinted in
Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw
Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp. 9-22.

National Counterterrorism Center, *Report on Incidents of Terrorism
2005*, April 11, 2006. Retrieved from
[http://wits.nctc.gov](http://wits.nctc.gov/) on September 1, 2006.

Romesh Ratnesar, "The State of Our Defense," *Time* (February 24, 2003).
Reprinted in Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions*
(McGraw Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp. 25-29.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Safeguards and Security,
*Anti-Government Terrorism and Related Activities in the U.S.,
1992-1996* (Washington, DC: US DOE, January 1997).

U.S. Department of State, *Patterns of Global Terrorism: 2003.*
Department of State Publication (April 2003, revised June 2003)
\<\<http://www.state.gov/www/global/
terrorism/2003Report/2003index.html\>\>.

U.S. Department of State, *Patterns of Global Terrorism: 2002.*
Department of State Publication (April 2003)
\<\<http://www.state.gov/www/global/
terrorism/2002Report/2002index.html\>\>.

U.S. Department of State, *Patterns of Global Terrorism: 2001.*
Department of State Publication (April 2002)
\<\<http://www.state.gov/www/global/
terrorism/2001Report/2001index.html\>\>.

U.S. Department of State, *Patterns of Global Terrorism: 2000.*
Department of State Publication 10687 (April 2000)
\<\<http://www.state.gov/www/global/ terrorism/2000
Report/2000index.html\>\>.

U.S. Department of State, *Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1999.*
Department of State Publication 10687 (April 2000)
\<\<http://www.state.gov/www/global/
terrorism/1999Report/1999index.html\>\>.

U.S. Department of State, *Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1998.*
Department of State Publication 10610 (April 1999)
\<\<http://www.state.gov/www/global/
terrorism/1998Report/1998index.html\>\>.

*USA Today*, "States, Cities Step Up Security and Squabble Over Costs,"
(April 6, 2003). Reprinted in Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05:
Annual Editions* (McGraw Hill/Duskin, 2004), p. 86.

William L. Waugh, Jr., "The Global Challenge of the New Terrorism,"
*Journal of Emergency Management*, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring 2003): 27-38.

William L. Waugh, Jr., "Managing Terrorism as an Environmental Hazard,"
in *Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management*, edited by Ali
Farazmand (New York: Marcel Dekker, 2001).

William L. Waugh, Jr., *Terrorism and Emergency Management* (New York:
Marcel Dekker, 1990).

William L. Waugh, Jr., and Richard T. Sylves, "Organizing the War on
Terrorism," *Public Administration Review* (September 2002). Reprinted
in Thomas J. Badey, *Homeland Security 04/05: Annual Editions* (McGraw
Hill/Duskin, 2004), pp. 32-40.

Additional Session Information:

Interaction Systems Incorporated (ISI), *Terrorism Literature Report
(TLR) No. 11---Special Edition 19 April 2004.*
<http://www.tacia.org/documents/Links/TLR011.html>