Abstract
The Department of Homeland Security was developed in the purported claim that it would better protect the people of the United States from threats such as international terrorism. However, since it’s inception in 2002, it has been highly controversial, with opponents claiming that Homeland Security infringes on civil rights and is costly, and in the end does little to meet its stated mission. By assessing the current state of Homeland Security it is possible to understand whether the department is protecting Americans or simply diminishing their liberties.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States government passed a bill known as the Patriot Act, signing it into law on October 26 of that same year. The Patriot Act, among other things, called for the formation of a Homeland Security Department, what is basically a permanent federal police force. The main task of Homeland Security is to thwart terrorism. To accomplish this task, each state creates its own Homeland Security force. The state forces coordinate with the federal force in order to more easily share information and stop terrorist attacks before they can be committed.

In order to accomplish the task of finding terrorists, the various state and federal Homeland Security task forces utilizes several controversial data gathering methods. The Patriot Act greatly increased the governments, and thus the department of Homeland Security’s, ability to conduct surveillance. It has expanded the government’s ability to look at records on an individual’s activity that is held by third parties. It has expanded the government’s ability to conduct searches without the owners consent or knowledge. The Patriot Act also expanded a narrow exception in the Fourth Amendment that was used for the collection of foreign information, allowing it to be used on U.S. citizens. Perhaps most controversial, however, as been what is known as “tap and trace” searches, which allows the government to collect address information on the origin an destination of communications. (ACLU, 2010). While the intent is to protect the citizens of the United States physically by being better able to identify possible terrorists and thus thwart attacks, it has undoubtedly infringed on the civil liberties of law abiding citizens in the process. Thus comes the controversy over how much freedom must American’s give up in order to be protected against terrorists and acts of terror?

Another issue that has come up repeatedly in regards to Homeland Security is its cost versus its benefits. While some may say there is no price you can put on security and freedom, when it comes to Homeland Security, there is real and knowable cost. The annual budget for the department ranks in the billions. In a time of financial crisis, when many American’s are struggling to keep their homes and food on the plate, many are asking the question as to whether Homeland Security is really keeping them safe, or simply straining the federal budget? At the National Convention of the Internations Studies Associations, keynote speaker Rear Admiral William D. Sullivan, vice director for strategic plans and policy for the U.S. Department of Defense, said al-Qaida’s goal is to bankrupt the nation, forcing it to withdraw its troops from the Middle East. Judging from the annual budget of Homeland Security, which is in the 10’s of billions, they may be succeeding (Mueller, 2008, p.1).

Part of the problem of assessing the success of Homeland Security, and assuring the American people that it is worth the cost, is the inherent problem in proving its effectiveness. How does one judge the success of anti-terrorism? It is difficult to put a monetary value on a non-event, or trying to figure out how many lives were saved or how much damage was avoided. In the end, the success of Homeland Security will depend on how the American people view it. If American’s feel safer, then they will support it and it will continue to receive ample funding. However, if American’s begin to feel enraged at the loss of their privacy and civil liberties, combined with a looming budget crisis that is threatening the very fabric of the U.S. economy, then the Department of Homeland Security may end up with its budget on the chopping block.