Pre and Post 9/11 Law Enforcement Responses towards Terrorism and Terror Threats

This essay evaluates the pre and post 9/11 law enforcement responses towards terrorism and terror threats. It discusses the changes in law enforcement's focus, the emergence of fusion centres, and the implementation of contingency theory.

Running head: TERRORISM AWARENESS
TERRORISM AWARENESS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1TERRORISM AWARENESS
Introduction
The need for counter-terrorism (CT) along with homeland security (HS) efforts have
increased since the occurrence of the 9/11 terrorist attack at the federal state. Furthermore, the
local levels have been receiving much attention in the realm of public safety endeavours. Reports
from U.S Department of State on evaluating as well as regulating the terror risk elucidated the
unremitting menace of terror attacks has driven domestic awareness responsibility to the higher
hierarchy of law enforcement program (Argomaniz, Bures & Kaunert, 2015,pp-201). Such a
capacity must be measured as much a key of law enforcement operation as crime investigation,
illegal intelligence as well as offense avoidance. Nacos (2016) has stated that in the direct
consequence of 9/11, several law enforcement agencies (LEAs) who have taken into
consideration terrorist threats to be high for their jurisdiction internally transferred their
resources. These agencies can further raise departmental expenses to enhance their security for
their department and to form counter-terrorism (CT) competencies along with the development
of a generalised level of awareness for fatal occurrences which might involve chemical,
biological, nuclear, radiological or severe volatile incidents (Santoro & Azab, 2015,pp-220).
Currently, CT and HS are identified as vital parts of LEA’s agencies specifically for LEAs which
are located in urban areas and in jurisdictions whereby threats of terror attacks is considered to
be high. The purpose of the following essay is to evaluate the pre and post 9/11 law enforcement
responses towards terrorism and terror threats.
Discussion
Andreas and Biersteker (2014) have stated that in pre-9/11, the focus of law enforcement
primarily based on certain types of criminal and illicit acts related to planned crime, white-collar
crime or groups engaged in illegal activities. However, in consequence of 9/11, law

2TERRORISM AWARENESS
enforcement’s focus has primarily developed that consist of terrorist attacks. Almost a decade,
post the 9/11 attacks, reports of Karlsrud (2017) have witnessed that LEA’s information-
distribution networks have developed to incorporate not simply CT but further the
implementation of an all-crimes advances with the objective of remarkable equilibrium among
criminal intellect linked to terrorist hazards. In terms of organizational departments, while pre-
9/11 a series of units comprised certain crime-centric departments like arranged offense
departments or narcotic units. Furthermore, Combs (2017) has revealed that after the 9/11 terror
attack, several large and recognized urban LEAs raised CT-centric departments in order to obtain
as well as evaluate information regarding terror threats and attacks as well as intelligence.
However, in the view of Carter (2015),pp-523, several state governments along with little local
administration have set up fusion-centres significantly on their initiative to seek the wide gaps in
areas of information-sharing, violence, terrorism and law enforcement. A recent evolution has
been identified as a substitution of Terrorism Early Warning Groups (TEWGs) with the fusion
centre model. Argomaniz, Bures and Kaunert (2015) have noted that fusion centre models
significantly developed the focus from CT-centric on all-crimes, all-danger advance to aptitude
collection, information distribution also evaluation. Majority of fusion centres are primarily
regulated by the state police or a state’s HS department whereby only 20% are supervised by
outsized metropolitan areas.
Reports by Wolfe et al. (2018) have disclosed that three of the five case study LEAs have
been co-located with the city’s or nation’s tragedy processes centre further facilitating these
authorities to attain wealth of scale both in the substantial venture and in co-locating employees
employed with both CT and for crisis preparation and reaction. Prior to 9/11, law enforcement as
a whole has been majorly accentuated on areas of internal domestic terrorist hazards and the ones

3TERRORISM AWARENESS
belonging to racialist or fundamental groups from the left wing and from the right wing which
created critical amount of hazard (Santoro & Azab, 2015,pp-227). According to the studies
conducted by Carter (2015), associations such as Animal Liberation Front, Symbionese
Liberation Army, and Black Liberation Army along with the Weathermen on the left were
identified as radical groups who had the potential of causing critical terrorist attacks. However,
the right majorly constituted of the Army of God, American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, and
Militias along with the Arm of God who were viewed as severe threats of domestic terrorism or
civil unrest (Rubin & Rubin, 2015,pp-410). These threats and detrimental nation risks were all
considered to be sporadic. These groups did not have its occurrence on regular basis and major
proportion of law enforcement executives at the local and state level failed to contest with these
agencies unswervingly. However, according to Lewandowski and Carter (2017), this was
identified as critical danger that the restricted as well as state law enforcement officers were
recognizable and educated for. Activities reflecting certain forms of criminality exhibited by
these groups typically involved anti-government activities, bombings, hostility and aggression
against minor sections of the society as well as bank robberies. These were identified as
individual crimes that showed commitments by individuals or by minor organized conspiracies
or threats (Santoro & Azab, 2015,pp-239).
At this juncture, Karlsrud (2017) have reflected on areas of network composition during
pre 9/11 which majorly focused on diverse types of criminal acts such as High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas (HIDTA). However, following the 9/11 terror attack, the networks’ foci
significantly expanded in order to involve wide ranging types of criminal activities and threats
under the fusion centre model. It has been identified by Carter et al. (2014), that various
developments which lie beneath the shift towards an all-crime, all-hazards strategy to

4TERRORISM AWARENESS
intelligence evaluation and information-distribution. Firstly, as LEAs’ counter-terrorism
endeavours continue to advance towards a union centric representation, huge and recognized
urban areas have initiated to utilize information technology in order to arrange practically and to
share information. A benefit of organizing through a virtual approach implies to its facilitation of
increased number of LEAs to engage in the sphere of information-sharing system and further
aids to condense the amount of resource commitments necessary to involve in a fusion centre
(Combs, 2017). However, Lewandowski and Carter (2017) have shed light on the primary goal
of the ‘fusion’ development in disseminating furthermore assessing intelligence information to
successfully recognize larger outlines, forms as well as themes of recent crime trends. Though
fusion process is considered as a dynamic process, there may be lesser rates of interpersonal
interactions in virtual organizations along with a declined level of informal information
exchange. Furthermore, incentivizing involvement shows greater amount of complexities when
LEA workforce is not co-located properly (Wolfe et al. 2018, pp-2)
Secondly, as per the studies of Carter (2015), transformed and improved hub on CT and
HS have been serving as a vital channel in order to efficiently support and endorse technology
adoption such as IT system, software as well as camera coordination operated by fusion centres.
Wolfe et al. (2018) have found that a beneficial factor of improved focus on counter-terrorism
and House of Security is that it proficiently increases an improved accessibility of intelligence
information, enhanced association of network participation along with influencing technology to
allow categorizing the nexus between various forms of illegal acts along with possible terrorist-
related movements. However, Lewandowski and Carter (2017) have indentified certain
challenges related to the extended usage of technology that is needed to further include
sustainability plans in order to seek regulation and maintenance as well as replacement expenses

5TERRORISM AWARENESS
uncovered by grant funding and also to focus on contrary data record management systems
among LEA network participants.
Thirdly, according to Ratcliffe (2016), LEAs have targeted the current infrastructure as
well as system to help in building their local intelligence operations. Furthermore, for example,
the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) network is recognized to be vital
representation for one LEA to efficiently form its counter-terrorism CT information-allocation
system. In addition to this, LEAs also have employed designated officers within the crime unit in
order to act as connections involving officers operating in the arena along with the CT division
or fusion centre and LEAs have extended their area system (Wolfe et al. 2018, pp-23). However,
one of the beneficial factors of implementing or expanding current linkages rely on the start-up
expenses related to the building on current associations tend to be lower. Meanwhile the
challenge of this fusion system as per the studies of Rubin and Rubin (2015) reflects on the
considerable amount of time and resources will be used in the functioning of this system. These
transaction expenses however tend to be disregarded while generating new networks.
Furthermore, areas where obtainable systems are implemented it is achievable that the objectives
of the networks can tend to get weakened over time.
Fourthly, Carter et al. (2014) are of the opinion that fusion centres have facilitated the
centralization as well as formalization of information exchange process among the LEA’s
alongside other system contributors within a particular region. These centres have further
permitted these networks in order to emerge officially related to the centralized intelligence
community. However, a benefit is that formalizing information distribution facilitates to
formulate this method less reliant on individual associations as well as associates which are
specifically essential as officers typically revolve of CT places into innovative and challenging

6TERRORISM AWARENESS
positions. Thus a confrontation of efficiently formalizing intelligence information substitute is
that fusion centre participants tend to reflect various information needs and objectives must be
distinguished as well as negotiated (McQuade, 2016,pp-4).
Lewandowski and Carter (2017) have identified theories in the organizational literature
which associates with the structural as well as organizational evolution of policing agencies
following the 9/11 terror attack. As per the studies of Gosz (2015), the contingency theory has
emerged as an overriding theoretical framework for comprehending the structures as well as
practices of police organizations. The contingency perspective is identified as a suitable theory to
implement to te study of organizational change in US police agencies following the occurrence
of 9/11 incident. As the incompetence of police strategies during the pre 9/11 attack reflected an
unconstructive fit between police agencies, crime departments and societal environments. Thus
for these agencies to attain greater level of efficacy they needed to bring significant
modifications to its structural formation. McQuade (2016) has stated that the contingency theory
framework primarily involves cyclical process certain framework aimed for understanding
organizational framework has been highlighted to understand the evolution process of U.S crime
agencies. In the framework of contingency theory an preliminary fit is present between an
organization and its background, along with environmental alteration that occurs due to
technological changes that leads to a misfit, such misfit tends to pose challenges to the
functioning and forces of the organization to implement subsequent modifications both in the
structure as well as operational approaches or threat becoming obsolete or immaterial.
Furthermore, White (2017) has noted that a new fit tends to materialize between an organization
and its external environment.
Significantly, three primary propositions have come forward under the idea of order maintenance

7TERRORISM AWARENESS
further referred as community policing regarding organizational change in U.S crime
investigation and policing. The contingency theory has further emphasized on police agencies
and law enforcement agencies must act responsive to a social setting that has altered significantly
in regards to its expectations about government in general along with police and law enforcement
services particularly (Carter & Phillips, 2015). Organizational change and developments in areas
of law enforcement services must lead to a reprioritization of police operations with a need to
form systematic associations between U.S law enforcement agency’s operational activities as
well as its materialization of organizational precedence. Thus, contingency theory has facilitated
to justify the necessity for LEAs and police agencies to efficiently adapt themselves to emerging
demands and seek improved fit within external surroundings by mitigating acts of terrorism
(McQuade, 2016, pp-10). Moreover, according to Dansky (2016), recognized and official
implementation of policing model and fusion-centric models such as stringent community
policing and law enforcement must lead visible actions aimed for social order as well as service
provision and reduce core functions of crime hostility and threats.
At this juncture, Freilich and LaFree (2015) have posited the importance of institutional
theory on the way organization’s external setting impacts its structure. However, a primary factor
of institutional perspective relies on the concept of legitimacy. Legitimacy typically refers to the
extent of cultural support for an organization; the degree to the range of organized cultural
accounts offers explanations for its continuation, operation and jurisdiction. However it is
essential to note that rationalized organizational settings rarely give legitimacy (White, 2017).
Thus organizations dealing with law enforcement services with efficient dissemination of
intelligence information must attain legitimacy and further sustain it over time. Furthermore,
according to Freilich and LaFree (2015), institutional pressures positioned upon organizations

8TERRORISM AWARENESS
tend to have crucial impact on the way organizations perform their day-to-day business. For
example, McQuade (2016) have noted that U.S police departments and law enforcement
agencies may often be observed to be under pressure and may be under court order in order to
employ more officers from ethically marginalized sections or to create demographic
representativeness in their agencies. Meanwhile, White (2017) have stated that crime
departments can be prosecuted if they show incompetence to use rationalized employment
procedures and would show greater degree of inclination towards more qualified and
experienced designated officers.
Furthermore, it is important to note that several factors of the institutional standpoint may aid in
understanding underlying reasons for evolution of the U.S law enforcement services. Police
agencies with evolving crime agencies function within an environment which is regulated by
social as well as political institutions such as special interest associations, mayor, city council)
(Ratcliffe, 2016, pp-265). Such law enforcement agencies have the capability to persuade the
policies and decisions of police organizations. According to institutional theory, crime
departments with law enforcement agencies must receive their legitimacy from these institutions
(Carter & Phillips, 2015, pp-335). Thus according to Carter and Phillips (2015) U.S police
agencies must efficiently guarantee they work as police agencies. To advance such a goal, law
enforcement agencies with crime departments and police agencies must prefer particular
objectives, procedures, approaches and tactics and conform to the expanded and institutionally
approved norms and regulations Freilich and LaFree (2015). Thus institutional theoretical
perspective proposes that organizational change or the modifications in law enforcement services
in the U.S need to reprioritize fundamental functions and can further initiate actions in highly
visible social environmental environment to successfully improve the external legitimacy of the

9TERRORISM AWARENESS
organization and intentionally safeguard pre-existing precedence (Wolfe et al. 2018, pp-27)
Conclusion
Hence to conclude, it is important to highlight that nine years following the 9/11 terror
attacks, LEAs are facing challenges to substantially invest in CT and HS along with the
continuing advantage of these investments. It further underlines the significance of buy-in form
senior management in order to express to the rest of the unit why a speculation in this region is
essential to its in general undertaking. There further lies an essential subject related to the way
law enforcement agencies along with state as well as local officials will be able to understand the
difference in CT and HS as well as in the fusion centres. Thus, the expansion of metrics at the
crime department level could aid to purposefully quantify long-term expenses and advantages of
counter-terrorism (CT) along with homeland security (HS).

10TERRORISM AWARENESS
References
Andreas, P., & Biersteker, T. J. (2014). The rebordering of North America: integration and
exclusion in a new security context. Routledge.
Argomaniz, J., Bures, O., & Kaunert, C. (2015). A decade of EU counter-terrorism and
intelligence: A critical assessment.
Carter, D. L., Chermak, S., Carter, J. G., & Drew, J. (2014). Understanding Law Enforcement
Intelligence Processes: Report to the Office of University Programs, Science and
Technology Directorate.
Carter, J. G. (2015). Inter-organizational relationships and law enforcement information sharing
post 11 September 2001. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(4), 522-542.
Carter, J. G., & Phillips, S. W. (2015). Intelligence-led policing and forces of organisational
change in the USA. Policing and Society, 25(4), 333-357.
Combs, C. C. (2017). Terrorism in the twenty-first century. Routledge.
Dansky, K. (2016). Local democratic oversight of police militarization. Harv. L. & Pol'y
Rev., 10, 59.
Freilich, J. D., & LaFree, G. (2015). Criminology theory and terrorism: Introduction to the
special issue.
Gosz, J. R. (2015). A critical analysis and study of fusion center integration and utilization in
contemporary homeland security and law enforcement operations (Seminar
Paper). University of Wisconsin, Platteville, WI.
Gosz, J. R. (2015). A critical analysis and study of fusion center integration and utilization in
contemporary homeland security and law enforcement operations (Seminar
Paper). University of Wisconsin, Platteville, WI.

11TERRORISM AWARENESS
Karlsrud, J. (2017). Towards UN counter-terrorism operations?. Third World Quarterly, 38(6),
1215-1231.
Lewandowski, C., & Carter, J. G. (2017). End-user perceptions of intelligence dissemination
from a state fusion center. Security Journal, 30(2), 467-486.
Martin, G. (2018). Essentials of terrorism: Concepts and controversies. Sage Publications.
McQuade, B. I. (2016). Police and the Post-9/11 Surveillance Surge:" Technological Dramas"
in" the Bureaucratic Field". Surveillance & Society, 14(1).
Nacos, B. L. (2016). Terrorism and counterterrorism. Routledge.
Ratcliffe, J. H. (2016). Intelligence-led policing. Routledge.
Rubin, B., & Rubin, J. C. (2015). Chronologies of modern terrorism. Routledge.
Santoro, W. A., & Azab, M. (2015). Arab American protest in the terror decade: Macro-and
micro-level response to post-9/11 repression. Social Problems, 62(2), 219-240.
White, K. L. (2017). Police chiefs' tasks, time, and contingency theory: An empirical
examination (Doctoral dissertation).
Wolfe, S. E., Rojek, J., Manjarrez, V. M., & Rojek, A. (2018). Why does organizational justice
matter? Uncertainty management among law enforcement officers. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 54, 20-29.