NCJ Number
189763
Date Published
March 2001
Length
34 pages
Annotation
This document addresses two significant legal problems with the United States domestic preparedness program.
Abstract
The first problem is the doctrinal difficulties inherent in defining a terrorism incident. The second problem is that a distinct subset of terrorism, biological terrorism, is equally as hard to define. The American legal system has achieved a fragile balance between national security, effective law enforcement, and personal liberties to apply in times of war, peace, and national disasters. Terrorism does not fall easily into any of those categories; biological terrorism sometimes does not fit at all. It may be that the “rules of war” are too hard and permit more governmental powers than are desired in a democratic state. It may be that the “rules of personal liberty” are too soft and unduly tie the hands of government actors trying to divert a crisis with no historical antecedent. It may be that the “rules for disasters” are too vague and assume a level of communication and preparation not possible in a biological terrorism situation. Deciding which laws apply best is difficult because most laws were created to deal with situations other than terrorism. Laws nevertheless do exist that can be applied to domestic preparedness. Claims to the contrary bolster policymakers’ calls for more legislating but they do so at great risk by potentially threatening to dissuade first responders from utilizing existing tools to combat a terrorist attack. Gaps in the law, in particular with regards to biological terrorism, do exist but they do not require the creation of an entirely new legal regime. Instead, in many cases they just need to be deciphered within the vast Federal and State legal codes. 54 notes.