Can new security departments prevent terrorism?

The US Senate has voted overwhelmingly to create a department that deals with the threat of international terrorism on American soil.

The move has sparked a debate over whether the UK should have a similar body.

The US Department of Homeland Security will merge 22 agencies, and have a combined budget of about $40bn.

Critics say it fails to resolve the intelligence lapses that preceded the 11 September attacks.

But that hasn't deterred the Conservative party from calling for a head of homeland security in the UK.

The idea has already been dismissed as a gimmick by government officials who say the current system, which places responsibility at the door of the home secretary, is working.

Should anti-terrorism measures be co-ordinated in this way? Will the Department of Homeland Security be effective?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

There is nothing to fear in the long-term

Tara, USA

In a democracy the pendulum is perpetually in motion to find a balance between security/protection and individual liberties. The inherent value of a democratic system is its ability to bend to the will of the people, and bend back again in harmony with that same will. The Department of Homeland Security should result in more efficient sharing of intelligence and productive action on the ground, which answers the current will. Yes, all power is eventually abused. Not "if" but "when" these powers are abused the balance will be restruck and the pendulum will swing back to flush. That is the job of the American people, and it will happen. There is nothing to fear in the long-term, and so much to gain in the short.
Tara, USA

The only reason the US has created a "Homeland Secruity" department is because all their so-called "defence forces" are too busy being aggressive elsewhere on the planet to defend anyone at home.
Gary Chiles, New Zealand

Terrorism will never be solved by bargaining and half measures. I am hardly an expert in law enforcement, but this is a step in a right direction, instead of hand-wringing about how we should deal with the "root causes" of terrorism.
Richard Murray, London, UK

Perhaps the security act will increase, or at least prolong, the awareness of the people to the threat of terrorist attacks. In this, however, the government must become more aware of its people.
Rich, USA

New powers to gain access to personal data would be abused.

Brian, UK

A UK homeland security initiative would, in my opinion, decrease the threat of terrorism. But at the same time it would infringe on civil liberties and probably involve the 'inconveniencing' of innocent people. Worse though is that new laws and powers to gain access to personal data, such as telephone calls, emails, bank and building society accounts, would be abused. Even though new powers are introduced for the purpose of fighting terrorism, I fear use of these powers would rapidly migrate to use by, for example, the inland revenue in regular audits, credit scoring agencies, and even debt collection agencies. The implications of a UK homeland security initiative needs to be openly debated, not flung upon us.
brian , UK

Fighting the war on terrorism reminds me a bit of the so called "health care" in this country, which jumps into action only after the body is already quite sick. Terrorism is, in a large part the result of years, if not decades of bad judgement in American politics, and the Department of Homeland Security is but a bandaid on a festering ulcer. Terrorism is a symptom, not the illness.
Susanne Friedrich, USA

Will this new department eliminate terrorism? Israel has some of the most sophisticated information gathering systems on the planet and they have employed draconian measures against terrorists real and imagined, and what do they have? Terrorism. All of Washington, DC was held hostage by a man and a boy with one rifle. For the U.S. to somehow believe that setting up another department and hiring more bureaucrats are going to stop those who are determined to cause terror is naiveté in the extreme.
Michael, Canada

It's the US "investments" in the CIA and military that has created the problem of international terrorism. Maybe curtailing activities here may ultimately be more successful than throwing more money at another institution.
Dermot, Dublin, Ireland

I am more fearful of the ever growing power of the presidency than I will ever be of Osama or Hussein

Karen, USA

I agree with Dermot. I would like to add that I am more fearful of the ever growing power of the presidency and in turn, the growing power of the CIA, the INS, and the Pentagon than I will ever be of Osama or Hussein. More specifically, I am fearful of the ever growing power of the right winged conservative Republicans. Why can't they see that this "solution" to fighting the war on terrorism at home is essentially the root cause of it in the first place?
Karen, USA

The Homeland Security Department has been created to use intimidation of their own citizens to further corporate interest and suppress dissent.
Per Lund, Norway

What are the CIA and the FBI suppose to be doing? Are we going to end up with the same old talking heads? The CIA won't work with the FBI and the FBI wont work with the security departments and the security departments won't work with the CIA, so on and so on. So who is protecting us?
Keith Anthony, Minneapolis, MN, USA

What we need to prevent terrorism is the removal of politically correct red tape which allows us to profile suspects. The 'human rights' groups are pretty thin on the ground when a terrorist act is committed but stop individuals from suspect countries at airports because they possibly fit the profile of a terrorist and all hell breaks lose.
Tristan Abbott-Coates, USA

A timely and useful idea

Igonikon Jack, USA

The Homeland Security Department is a timely and potentially useful idea for counter-terrorism and domestic intelligence. But the down side is that it also runs the risk of excessive intrusion into people's lives, most of whom have or will have nothing to do with terrorism.
Igonikon Jack, USA

More soundbites from a government clearly out of ideas. So who's going to head this? The minister against terror, sponsored by Mattel Action Figures?
Matt, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (ex. UK)

I find it odd that this comes from the party that usually opposes government expansion. Also, I'm appalled at the provisions they 'slipped in' to help their corporate buddies (e.g. liability protection for pharmaceutical firms).
Rob, USA

The Conservatives can't think for themselves any more, so they come out with half-hearted attempts to secure the new vote, hence this idea.
Jay, England

We already have an Department for Homeland Security, it is called the Home Office. All we need is a commitment to greater co-operation between the security services from all concerned.
Brian Binney

It may help to create a false sense of security

C Wright, UK

It isa gimmick, that would have no practical impact on security which is already co-ordinated by the home office. However it may help to create a false sense of security to help assuage peoples fears. But we should realise that in the short term re-organising the co-ordination of our security services will damage their effectiveness. The government is right to reject the idea. The opposition is once more clearly trying to prey on peoples fears to win votes, with no regard for the damage they do to the country.
C Wright, UK

The Department of Homeland Security to fight international terrorism is a great idea. Not only that it will create much improved co-ordination between different agencies, it will also be a new form of specialised security measure for the new kind of specialised terrorism. I think it is the need of time.
Agha Ata, USA

Dozens of thousands of bureaucrats are bound to overwhelm al-Qaeda and its cronies. The flow of information will hopefully be better but the new department will not protect America against terrorist attacks, especially suicidal ones. Only physical penetration of the terrorist networks can bring a tangible result; this, however, is much more difficult than creation of yet another bureaucratic behemoth.
Mirek Kondracki, USA

When anti-terrorism measures fail, most efforts are put into finding someone to blame

Paul, Wales

Anti-terrorism measures are always, like the government says, sufficient and working well enough. That is until they fail. When they do fail, most efforts are put into finding someone to blame, as opposed to fixing the problem.
Paul, Wales

The Americans have created Homeland Security to emulate the British MI5. So we in turn create our homeland security department to emulate the Americans - can nobody see the illogic here? Sounds like jobs for the boys to me.
Simon Mallett, UK

More civil servants. I am sure Osama Bin Laden is quaking in his boots!
Tom, UK

Such a body may reduce the risks of terrorist outrages, but the threat cannot be totally eliminated. The Department of Homeland Security will need to get lucky every single time there is a threat - the terrorists only need to get lucky once. If I was an American, I'd feel a little safer, but I'd also want to see this initiative supported by some spending on understanding and eliminating the causes of international terrorism.
John, England

So the reason that terrorists succeed is because the people hunting them have got the wrong job title? I feel safer already.
RC Robjohn, UK

I find the creation of a new department highly unnecessary. They should instead focus on and reform the agencies that bungled the intelligence before 9/11.
Eriq Allen, USA

Bush is selling the product for the market's demand

TJ Cassidy, USA

Like any salesman, Bush is selling the product for the market's demand. Whether or not it does what it's supposed to do is another story.
TJ Cassidy, USA

If 3,000 people dying means we need a new department with all the bureaucracy that goes with it, why not have a department for traffic accidents. At least we can be sure that they will have something to do in a year's time.
Alan P, UK

Surely the best security is the bobby on the beat, who knows his patch inside out and will instinctively know if something is not as it should be.
Colin Mackay, UK

Perhaps if the US doesn't invade Iraq it will have a more positive effect on combating terrorism. On another point, surely Saddam is the problem here. Can someone tell me why then he individually cannot be targeted, perhaps using crack troops or by attacking his palaces, rather than a full scale invasion which costs lots and endangers innocent lives.
Paul, UK