Editing Counterterrorism (section)

==== American law enforcement ====
[[File:FBI Hostage Rescue Team Agents bei einer Übung.jpg|thumb|upright|[[FBI]] [[Hostage Rescue Team]] agents]]
Pursuant to passage of the [[Homeland Security Act of 2002]], federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies began to systemically reorganize.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Costanza | first1 = S.E. | last2 = Kilburn | first2 = John C. Jr. | year = 2005 | title = Symbolic Security, Moral Panic and Public Sentiment: Toward a sociology of Counterterrorism | journal = Journal of Social and Ecological Boundaries | volume = 1 | issue = 2| pages = 106–124 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Deflem | first1 = M | year = 2004 | title = Social Control and the Policing of Terrorism Foundations for a sociology of Counterterrorism | url = http://deflem.blogspot.com/2004/08/social-control-and-policing-of.html | journal = American Sociologist | volume = 35 | issue = 2| pages = 75–92 | doi = 10.1007/bf02692398 | s2cid = 143868466 | url-access = subscription }}</ref> Two primary federal agencies, the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] (DOJ) and the [[Department of Homeland Security]] (DHS), house most of the federal agencies that are prepared to combat domestic and international terrorist attacks. These include the [[United States Border Patrol|Border Patrol]], the [[United States Secret Service|Secret Service]], the [[United States Coast Guard|Coast Guard]] and the [[FBI]].

Following suit from federal changes pursuant to 9/11, however, most state and local law enforcement agencies began to include a commitment to "fighting terrorism" in their mission statements.<ref>DeLone, Gregory J. 2007. "Law Enforcement Mission Statements Post September 11." Police Quarterly 10(2)</ref><ref>Mathieu Deflem. 2010. The Policing of Terrorism: Organizational and Global Perspectives. New York: Routledge.</ref> Local agencies began to establish more patterned lines of communication with federal agencies.  Some scholars have doubted the ability of local police to help in the war on terror and suggest their limited manpower is still best utilized by engaging community and targeting street crimes.<ref name="HelmsCostanzaJohnson"/>

While counter-terror measures (most notably heightened airport security, immigrant [[Racial profiling|profiling]]<ref>Ramirez, D., J. Hoopes, and T.L. Quinlan.  2003 "Defining racial profiling in a post-September 11 world." American Criminal Law Review. 40(3): 1195–1233.</ref> and border patrol) have been adapted during the last decade, to enhance counter-terror in law enforcement, there have been remarkable limitations to assessing the actual utility/effectiveness of law enforcement practices that are ostensibly preventative.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Kilburn | first1 = John C. Jr. | last2 = Costanza | first2 = S.E. | last3 = Metchik | first3 = Eric | last4 = Borgeson | first4 = Kevin | year = 2011 | title = Policing Terror Threats and False Positives: Employing a Signal Detection Model to Examine Changes in National and Local Policing Strategy between 2001–2007 | journal = Security Journal | volume = 24 | pages = 19–36 | doi = 10.1057/sj.2009.7 | s2cid = 153825273 }}</ref>  Thus, while sweeping changes in counterterrorist rhetoric redefined most American post 9/11 law enforcement agencies in theory, it is hard to assess how well such hyperbole has translated into practice.

In [[intelligence-led policing]] (ILP) efforts, the most quantitatively amenable starting point for measuring the effectiveness of any policing strategy (i.e.: Neighborhood Watch, Gun Abatement, Foot Patrols, etc.) is usually to assess total financial costs against clearance rates or arrest rates. Since terrorism is such a rare event phenomena,<ref>Kilburn, John C. Jr. and Costanza, S.E.  2009  "Immigration and Homeland Security"  published in Battleground: Immigration (Ed: Judith Ann Warner); Greenwood Publishing, Ca.</ref> measuring arrests or clearance rates would be a non-generalizable and ineffective way to test enforcement policy effectiveness. Another methodological problem in assessing counterterrorism efforts in law enforcement hinges on finding operational measures for key concepts in the study of [[homeland security]]. Both terrorism and homeland security are relatively new concepts for criminologists, and academicians have yet to agree on the matter of how to properly define these ideas in a way that is accessible.