Topic: All Hazards vs. Terrorism?
After having read the text and any additional research you choose, explain what all hazards means. Assess how all hazards and terrorism relate or do not relate when viewed from an overall homeland security/emergency management perspective. Should 1 take precedence over the other when it comes to disaster management? Why or why not? Be sure to consider the 4 phases of emergency management when answering this prompt.
Peer Response #1
The all-hazards approach is a concept that recognizes and identifies generic processes and capabilities needed to address most kinds of emergencies and disasters (Broder & Tucker, 2012). For example, preparing and responding to a natural gas explosion requires comparable activities and capabilities to prepare and respond to a terrorist bombing. The National Emergency Management System (NIMS) is assembled around the all-hazard approach, which identifies programs that can be versatile to an overall volume of potential disasters or terrorism events. The all-hazards approach is implemented within the four phases of emergency management. The all-hazard model implemented in mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery has its problems. Still, it provides both a unifying approach to dealing with hazards and disasters and utilizes common terminology for emergency managers and public officials (Waugh, 2004). One weakness within the all-hazard approach is the overgeneralization of response and recovery plans. A general plan may not be adequate or as effective as a specific plan tailored to a particular type of disaster.
Peer Response #2
All-hazards emergency management Assumes common sets of emergency preparedness and response procedures and practices are applicable in any locality and that an economy of scale is achieved by planning and preparing for disaster in generic terms rather than for each unique type. (Sylves, 2019, pp.415)
The all-hazards planning focuses on developing preparedness for emergencies or disasters. “All-hazards planning is a sound and proven concept, but it doesn’t mean that organizations must plan for every possible hazard. What it does mean is that organizations should consider all possible hazards as part of a risk analysis” (Banda, n.a., para 7)
“By doing a Threat, Hazard, Identification, and Risk Assessment (THIRA), you can identify the range of hazard and risk exposures that have impacted, or may impact, the area and the organization itself.” (Banda, n.a., para 9)
What the all-hazards approach can contribute to the effort to deal with terrorism in its many forms is a basic framework for structuring the emergency response, preparing for the response, and recovering from attacks, as well as developing appropriate measures to prevent or reduce the impact of the attacks – whatever form the attacks may take. (Waugh, 2014, pp 3)
Mitigation efforts can reduce the political benefits of terrorist violence and the psychological impact. Recovery planning can reduce the social and economic impact, as well. All-hazards planning does encourage a broader perspective on risks and how to deal with them and a broader foundation on which to build effective programs to manage hazards and disasters. (Waugh, 2014, pp 4)
The all-hazards approach and terrorism approach relate in many ways. With both approaches, you will still need the emergency response teams such as fire and police, and ambulance. There is still a need for possible evacuation and getting the word out to the general public. The all-hazards approach will take into account hazards that have been deemed as a risk. Both approaches can be altered or added to should there be a need for added support.
“Indeed, the requirements for evacuation for flood may differ significantly from those required for evacuation during a hazardous materials spill” (Waugh, 2014, pp 1)
The all-hazards approach should take precedence over planning for terrorism. The all-hazards approach considers a general plan focusing on recent and past events that are the most probable hazards. “The “all-hazards” plans can provide a basic framework for responding to a wide variety of disaster, but planners typically address the kinds of disasters that might be expected to occur.” (Waugh, 2014, pp 1) The All-Hazards plan can be adaptable to any disaster, man-made or natural; what is essential is that the basic plan is in place probable hazards.
Emergency managers need versatility within a plan in order to handle any incident, from a large disaster involving multiple agencies to a house fire. The all-hazards approach gives personal the versatility to quickly and effectively manage emergencies.
The bible verse that came to mind this week is, “Whoever dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the LORD, “He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust”” (New International Bible, 1978/2011, Psalm 91:1-2). God is our refuge, our safety net. It is comforting to know that he is there for us; all we have to do is trust in him.
The practices of emergency management and homeland security are commonly viewed as separate interests, but to the emergency manager, they both need ample attention in order to be successful. Emergency management leads many to believe its primary focus is events caused by natural or manmade disasters, while homeland security focuses on terrorism. The all-hazard model is well implemented throughout the disaster emergency realm. The all-hazard approach needs further attention beyond mitigation strategies and prevention. Waught (2004) states, “Even within the Homeland Security apparatus, minimal attention is being paid to matters beyond prevention of terrorism-related disasters” (p. 11). The all-hazard model must be worked into the other three emergency management phases when highlighting homeland security concerns. If the all-hazard approach is effectively implemented it will assist in the preparing for the response, and recovering from attacks as well as developing future mitigation measures to prevent or reduce the impact of the attacks.
Natural disasters and terrorist attacks may share similarities in how officials prepare a response. Waught (2005) provides the anecdote, “A bridge or building collapse, a fire, an explosion, a power outage, and even a flood might result from terrorist actions. Certainly, the responses to the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon attacks were much like responses to fires and structural failures” (p. 10). The primary difference between preparing and responding to a disaster and a terrorist attack is that people are the target. Terror organizations intend to cause damage and kill civilians and rescuers to gain publicity for their cause (Kanarian, 2010). Special attention must be exercised when responding to a suspected terrorist event as the response may be the intended target. For this reason, focus on homeland security should take precedence over other disaster management strategies.
Mitigation measures must include strategies built into the response and preparedness phases that address this fact alone. For example, before the Boston Marathon bombing, law enforcement, fire, and EMS personnel all received training in scenarios involving a dirty bomb and other mass casualty scenarios (Walls & Zimmer, 2013). This training provided Boston’s first responders with the skills to handle the chaos surrounding the events of the Boston Marathon bombing. A terror attack may require additional resources during the recovery phase. The mental anguish to victims, family members, first responders, and community members must be addressed. It is crucial to employ a holistic, trauma-informed approach, which includes diverse faith or spiritual healing practices, to support survivors and surviving family members in the long term (OVC, 2015).
The Bible shares with us in Job 11:18, “And you will feel secure, because there is hope; you will look around and take your rest in security.” The men and women of homeland security fields strive to provide a secure nation, so everyone can have the opportunity to have a feeling of hope. Hope is much easier to obtain when a person is in a safe and comforting place. During a disaster, people loo around them for help and have hope to get through what they are going through. As others help and God provides for us, we find security. Our God is greater, stronger, and higher than any other; he will continue to protect us and revive us so we can provide hope for so many people.
Explanation & Answer length: 750 Words 2 Responses 250 Words Each.
Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America Darren W. Davis Michigan State University Brian D. Silver Michigan State University In the tradition of research on political tolerance and democratic rights in context, this study uses a national survey of Americans conducted shortly after the September 11, 2001 attack on America to investigate people’s willingness to trade off civil liberties for greater personal safety and security. We find that the greater people’s sense of threat, the lower their support for civil liberties. This effect interacts, however, with trust in government. The lower people’s trust in government, the less willing they are to trade off civil liberties for security, regardless of their level of threat. African Americans are much less willing to trade civil liberties for security than whites or Latinos, even with other factors taken into account.
This may reflect their long-standing commitment to the struggle for rights. Liberals are less willing to trade off civil liberties than moderates or conservatives, but liberals converge toward the position taken by conservatives when their sense of the threat of terrorism is high. While not a forecast of the future, the results indicate that Americans’ commitment to democratic values is highly contingent on other concerns and that the context of a large-scale threat to national or personal security can induce a substantial willingness to give up rights. We’re likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country . . . . It will cause us to re-examine some of our laws pertaining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping, immigration and so on. (Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, New York Times, September 29, 2001).
O ne of the most important findings of research on mass beliefs about democracy and civil liberties is the importance of context. Although understanding the support for abstract principles of democracy is important, what matters more is the level of support for democratic norms when they conflict with other important values (Gibson 1987; Peffley, Knigge, and Hurwitz 2001; Sniderman et al. 1996). Context-specific events provide critical insight into the level of commitment to democratic principles. Democracy often requires a great deal of forbearance, but when individuals have to tolerate and live with the consequences of their democratic beliefs the strength of their commitment to democratic norms may be best understood.
As Sniderman et al. observe, “arguments over rights are arguments embedded in a context” (1996, 62). For ordinary citizens during ordinary times, civil liberties issues are likely to be remote from everyday experience; but in certain contexts civil liberties issues have immediate implications for people’s sense of freedom and well-being (Gibson 1989; Gibson and Bingham 1985; Gibson and Gouws 2000). As the most horrific act of violence committed against innocent American citizens, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks created a phenomenal period for examining people’s commitment to democratic norms.
At the same time that democratic and personal freedoms have been threatened by the terrorist attacks, the U.S. government’s Darren W. Davis is Associate Professor of Political Science, Michigan State University, 303 S. Kedzie Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1032 (email@example.com). Brian D. Silver is Professor of Political Science, Michigan State University, 303 S. Kedzie Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1032 (firstname.lastname@example.org). For their financial support of the “Attack on America, Civil Liberties Trade-offs, and Ethnic Tolerance” survey, we are grateful to the National Science Foundation (SES-0140541) and the College of Social Science at Michigan State University. For their professional work in administering the survey, we thank Karen Clark and Larry Hembroff of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University.
We appreciate the continuing advice of Jim Gibson and Paul Sniderman on the project, as well as helpful comments on an earlier draft of the article by Saundra Schneider. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 48, No. 1, January 2004, Pp. 28–46 C 2004 28 by the Midwest Political Science Association ISSN 0092-5853 CIVIL LIBERTIES VS. SECURITY efforts to provide for the safety and security of society have required Americans to accept certain restrictions on their freedom—more surveillance of their papers and communications, more searches of their belongings, possible detention without a writ of habeas corpus, and possible proceedings by military tribunals without the standard protections of due process provided by civil courts.
To the extent that the trade-off between civil liberties and personal security rests on the notion that the very openness of American society contributed to the planning and execution of the terrorist attacks, the desire to live in a peaceful and orderly society should favor greater acceptance of limitations on personal freedom and civil liberties. By means of a national survey conducted shortly after the September 11, 2001 attack on America, we explore the willingness of American citizens to trade off civil liberties and personal freedom for a greater sense of security. The research question driving this analysis is: How much are American citizens willing to sacrifice to make themselves feel safe from the threat of terrorism?
If safety and security are truly more basic needs than self-actualization and freedom (Maslow 1954), then individuals, in particular American citizens accustomed to freedom, broad civil liberties, and a safe and secure society, should be willing to sacrifice a great deal to maintain this comfortable aspect of the American way of life, even at the expense of greater limitations on their personal freedom. Civil Liberties Trade-Offs America’s response to the terrorist attacks reveals a “contestability of rights” (Sniderman et al. 1996) in which the commitment to civil liberties collides with other cherished values. This issue of the trade-offs between civil liberties and the threat to personal security not only parallels how individuals make normal civil liberties judgments, but it accounts for why people find it difficult to apply abstract democratic norms to practical situations.
We may sincerely believe in free speech and association, but we may also believe in protecting our society from those who use these freedoms to plan or carry out criminal acts. As Gibson and Bingham have noted, support for civil liberties should not be regarded as an attitude in itself or as an abstract concept; instead it should be treated as a construct that characterizes the priorities assigned in cases of value trade-offs. “The exercise of rights generates costs, and these costs are sometimes so substantial that conflict 29 ensues” (1985, 108–9). McClosky and Brill (1983) similarly suggest that the choice of liberty is bedeviled by the need to strike a proper balance between freedom and control. To the extent that the support for civil liberties is most reasonably understood as contingent on the relevance of other important values, as opposed to being unequivocal and absolute, measurement approaches need to consider the continual play of competing forces that impinge upon civil liberties judgments. Sniderman et al. maintain that the exercise of liberty “unavoidably collides with other values” (1996, 244).
This research maintains that no right can be exercised without limitations before it clashes with the rights of others and the maintenance of order, and one cannot support both liberty and order at the same time. More precisely, as support for civil liberties increases, support for order and security decreases, and vice versa. In a similar vein, Peffley, Knigge, and Hurwitz (2001) argue that the way citizens rank competing values plays a major role in conditioning civil liberties judgments. Our civil liberties trade-off approach takes the form of counterposing individuals’ support for civil liberties against governmental efforts to provide for the safety and security from terrorism—two important values.
Although civil liberties and personal security are not necessarily at odds, the bases of contention that we identify rest on the efforts of government and law enforcement agencies to maintain order or provide security in the post-9/11 era. It is not order per se that clashes with individual rights, but rather the government’s methods of maintaining security that may challenge individual civil rights or liberties. In much of the research that adopts a value trade-off approach in the study of civil liberties and tolerance, the struggle is between preserving individual security and tolerating the civil liberties of disliked or threatening groups.
In the post-September 11 period, however, the civil liberties vs. security trade-off has mainly been framed as one of protecting individual rights or civil liberties from the government as the government seeks to defend the country against a largely external enemy, albeit one that has infiltrated American society and poses a domestic risk to public safety and security. The competing issues in the civil liberties vs. security trade-off are thus fundamental to the very idea of democracy as reflected in the Bill of Rights: that citizens should be protected from the government. Because it is the government’s actions that may clash with individual rights, we expect popular perceptions of government— trust in government, as well as patriotism—to play an important role in determining people’s willingness to trade off civil liberties for security. Using the contextual issues surrounding the trade-offs and the Patriot 30 DARREN W. DAVIS AND BRIAN D. SILVER Act legislation, we identify several dimensions of support for civil liberties.
Each of these became an important public issue in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Model Development Our analysis focuses on the effects of trust in government and the sense of threat on support for civil liberties. In order to test for these effects we need to take into consideration other theoretically important factors that may confound these relationships. Perhaps foremost among these is race, because of the current tension between African Americans and government, and because of the historical struggle for civil rights, which should heighten the concern of African Americans for the protection of civil liberties. Core Explanations Threat. If any single factor is likely to drive people to cede civil liberties for security it is threat.
In contrast to previous experimental research in which threat perceptions are only hypothetical, the 9/11 attacks were real and caused widespread anxiety and concern among Americans. One emotional response to threat is to try to reduce the discomfort by increasing personal security, increasing physical and psychological distance, or eliminating the threatening stimuli. Emotional reactions to threat may lead to greater support for personal security and the government’s efforts to reduce the risk of future terrorist attacks. That threat tends to increase support for restrictions on civil rights and liberties is a consistent finding in the tolerance literature (Gibson 1998; Marcus et al. 1995; Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus 1982).
In a different way, threat perceptions can exert a cognitive influence on the willingness to trade civil liberties for personal security. According to LeDoux (1996), Marcus and MacKuen (2001, 1993), and Marcus, Newman, and MacKuen (2000), the perception of threat enhances attention to contemporary information and to the source of anxiety. It also promotes political learning and decreased reliance on habitual cues (Marcus and MacKuen 1993). Following this logic, if a heightened sense of threat releases people from standing decisions, habits, and ideological predispositions, then people may rely less on social norms protecting civil liberties and come to favor increased governmental efforts to combat terrorism. This would be consistent with experimental research after the 9/11 attacks, which shows that fear enhanced support for cautionary public policy measures (Lerner et al., 2003), which, we argue in this case, could involve granting greater authority to the government to take measures to prevent terrorism.
According to the tolerance literature, threat, in particular sociotropic threat against society or cherished values and norms, usually outweighs the sense of personal threat in leading people to act in antidemocratic or intolerant ways. Nonetheless, when threat is personalized the response may become overwhelmingly intolerant toward perceived outgroups or threatening groups (Davis 1995). Because the September 11 attacks evoked both sociotropic and personal threat among American citizens, it is important to investigate the effects of both types of threat on the willingness to sacrifice civil liberties for security. Trust in Government. Support for civil liberties is typically connected to a larger set of beliefs about democratic institutions and processes. If the willingness to exchange civil liberties for security translates into a concession of power to government, then trust and confidence in government should take on great importance.
Trust in government may be thought of as a resource upon which government can draw when it needs latitude from its citizens in tolerating restrictions on their civil liberties (Hetherington 1998; Weatherford 1987). Hetherington (1998) shows that rather than just revealing dissatisfaction, low levels of trust make it more difficult for the government to succeed. We expect citizens to make a distinction between different levels of government when asked about their willingness to trade off rights. Although federal agencies such as the FBI, the INS, the CIA, and the Defense Department have played the most visible roles in the antiterrorist fight, it was law enforcement that was most immediately responsible for the safety and protection of American citizens.
Not only were trust and the sense of threat contemporaneously affected by the terrorist attacks, but they are also integrally related. It seems reasonable to expect that high levels of perceived threat among those who are more trusting of government may create a greater willingness to adopt a prosecurity position than what would be expected based on their level of trust alone. A similar condition may apply to people who are the least trusting in government but also perceive less threat from terrorism. Such individuals may be even more concerned about protecting individual rights. 31 CIVIL LIBERTIES VS. SECURITY Other Social, Psychological and Political Attitudes While we hypothesize that people’s willingness to trade off civil liberties for security will be predictable from their sense of threat from terrorism and their trust in government, it is important to take into consideration other attitudes that might account for the willingness to make the exchange.
Dogmatism. Psychological insecurity and inflexibility, in particular the level of dogmatism, is expected to influence people’s willingness to trade civil liberties for personal security. Dogmatic people, according to Rokeach (1960), often reject conflicting information and are more likely to be ideologically conservative in their political beliefs. Whereas a closed belief system tends to be less tolerant of differences and more apt to take an eitheror approach in the face of complex or confusing information, an open and flexible belief system is adaptable, responsive to additional information, and open to persuasion. Because a closed belief system is associated with a sense of pessimism, fearfulness, trust in authority, and intolerance, which became intensified in the context of the terrorist attacks, we expect more dogmatic people to support personal security over the protection of civil liberties. Interpersonal Trust.
High levels of interpersonal trust (sometimes referred to as “social trust”) are seen as important indicators of social capital and mark the ability of citizens to work in concert to influence what the government does. Furthermore, if people trust other people, they may feel that it is less necessary to grant the government additional powers to control misbehavior. If they trust their neighbors or other members of their communities, they may also have a stronger sense of personal security and be less anxious about the possibility of finding terrorists in their midst. Therefore, higher interpersonal trust might partly compensate for the effect of higher trust in government.
We might pose as a counterhypothesis, however, that greater interpersonal trust should be expected to be positively correlated with a willingness to concede civil liberties to the government, because more trusting individuals may tend to grant greater trust to the authorities as well, and to be less concerned that intrusive government surveillance will be misused against them. National Pride and Patriotism. Intense feelings of national pride, loyalty, and love of the country were widely portrayed in the mass media as positive by-products of the terrorist attacks. Taken to the extreme, however, patriotism may undermine democratic values and processes. Patriotism can take on chauvinistic tones and lead to a narrow definition of who and what may be considered “American” and the rejection of out-groups who may not fit traditional American characteristics.
Echoing language from the 1950s, in the post-9/11 era people who voice questions about government policies or practices are sometimes branded as “anti-American.” In such instances, a strong sense of patriotism and rallying people to support the common cause is associated with intolerance (Adorno et al. 1950; Gomberg 2002). Research by Schatz and Staub (1996) shows that blind patriotism is strongly associated with political conservatism and the belief that the U.S. national security is vulnerable to foreign threat. This result informs Hurwitz and Peffley’s (1987) and Sullivan, Friend, and Dietz’s (1992) findings that patriotism is associated with aggressive views on national defense and security.
Liberalism-Conservatism. Previous research shows strong ideological differences in the support for civil liberties and reactions to threat (McClosky 1964; McClosky and Brill 1983; McCutcheon 1985; Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus 1982). Far more than liberals, conservatives have been associated with beliefs about duty, respect for authority, and the primacy of law and order. Liberals, on the other hand, are often seen as willing to risk a measure of social instability for the sake of promoting certain changes (McClosky and Brill 1983). According to McClosky and Brill (1983), liberals tend to think of rights as natural and inalienable that government cannot take away, while conservatives tend to view rights as more situational and contingent.
Demographic Factors Social background explanations reflect broader historical, cultural, and economic contexts in which the trade-offs for civil liberties and the further empowerment of government may be evaluated. Race and Ethnicity. African Americans tend to be strongly supportive of civil liberties (Davis 1995), due in part to their struggle for civil rights and a distrust of government. As a result, African Americans may be reluctant to concede rights that they have worked hard to achieve or to empower a government in which they have little confidence, even for the sake of personal security. Hispanics may not have as profound a history of struggle for civil liberties and civil rights as African Americans, but they 32 DARREN W. DAVIS AND BRIAN D. SILVER have also not been fully integrated into American society and show little faith in g..
Do you have a similar assignment and would want someone to complete it for you? Click on the ORDER NOW option to get instant services at EssayBell.com