This Discussion Board will examine the hypothesis that U.S. security would be more effective if efforts were focused more on the economic, social, political, and religious causes of terrorism than expending heavily in military, security, and law enforcement measures.
In the United States, organizations that charter to safeguard civil rights and constitutional structures are among the critics of the hard approach to security. Even at the international level, where there is no general agreement on the definition of terrorism, there appears to be an effort to endorse soft measures to counter terrorism as a more effective, long-term approach that does not infringe on basic civil liberties.
In this context, examine the balance between security and individual rights established by the Constitution. You are expected to use previous course work and research from current publications to analyze and discuss whether this approach is a feasible and viable alternative to current security strategies. Include answers to the following questions:
How would you characterize the U.S. approach and measures to counter terrorism and secure the homeland? How does it compare to the approach advocated by critics of security and military measures?
Is there an optimal balance between security and individual liberties? Are there options to minimize the encroachment of civil liberties while enhancing security?
Is there a way to develop an adaptive approach to security that includes an all-of-the-above strategy and optimizes security measures in the homeland and abroad?