1. Richard Clarke does not have a point when he discussed breaking the Department of Homeland Security into multiple departments because what this achieves is increased departmentalization.
2. I would not split the Department of Homeland Security into multiple departments. Rather, I would split the department into operational units to manage the various threats that the United States faces while keeping the department as one.
<h3>What are the goals of the Department of Homeland Security?</h3>
The Department of Homeland Security, created after the 9/11 attacks, to strengthen the security architecture of the nation at home, has the responsibility to pursue the following security goals:
- Prevent terrorism
- Enhance security
- Secure and manage U.S. borders
- Enforce and administer U.S. immigration laws.
Under these broad goals, the Department of Homeland Security oversees the national security of the United States from numerous threats.
Some of the direct responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security include:
- Border security
- Aviation security
- Countering terrorism
- Emergency response
- Chemical facility inspection
- IT and cybersecurity security
- Natural disaster planning and response.
Thus, instead of discussing splitting the Department of Homeland Security into multiple departments, Richard Clarke should look at ways to strengthen and empower the department to achieve its goals.
Learn more about the Department of Homeland Security at brainly.com/question/19521614
#SPJ1
Answer:
Roe vs Wade began in 1970 and was officially decided in 1973. Today, it’s viewed as the pivotal case that legalised abortion across America.
Explanation:
Overturning Roe vs Wade and other attacks on abortion access will not make abortion go away; it only serves to make it more unsafe
Answer:
Mainly, the greatest benefit of solving problems outside the judicial system is the cost, since every judicial process necessarily entails a high cost, both in taxes, costs, fees, etc. In addition, the resolution time is much longer, since it involves a whole series of procedural steps that necessarily imply a passage in time, which can be avoided through an alternative resolution of conflicts.
Those means of alternative dispute resolution include, among others, mediation and arbitration. Mediation, on the one hand, involves a series of meetings between the parties in conflict, with the assistance of a specialist, the mediator, who seeks to bring the parties closer together and achieve the resolution of the dispute. On the other hand, arbitration implies that the parties in conflict abide by the solution proposed by an impartial third party, the arbitrator, who will decide according to the rules of law or equity, as appropriate.
