What are your thoughts on this interview? Does Richard Clarke have a point when discussing breaking the Department of Homeland Security into multiple departments? If you had to make the decision to split the Department of Homeland Security or keep it the same, which would you choose?

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.

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:

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:

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 https://brainly.com/question/19521614

#SPJ1

What is the term for the type of company that provides coverage for an individual's risks?​

Ano ang kahulugan ng talos-tanod

Jack Jones, a 65-year-old with a heart condition, was driving alone in his Toyota Camry south on College Ave. in Fayetteville on September 15, 2009, his seat belt buckled, the driver-side window open and his left elbow outside it. Suddenly the accelerator jammed and the car leapt forward. Jack stomped the brake pedal but the Camry kept speeding up, running stoplights and skidding wildly on the downhill curves. Finally the car flipped, rolled over twice, and came to rest in the parking lot of Penguin Ed’s. The side airbags had deployed, and Jack’s left elbow formed an odd angle. Jack’s troubles had only begun. After he arrived by ambulance at Washington Regional Hospital, Dr. Davis was setting his broken elbow when Jack went into cardiac arrest. Luckily the medical response time was quick, his condition was stabilized and a Medtronic heart pacemaker was implanted in his chest to avoid future cardiac episodes. Unluckily, a wire component connecting the pacemaker to the heart failed on Nov. 1, 2009. Jack had another heart attack Nov. 2, and he is not likely to live. Jack’s wife Jan read in the newspaper about Toyota’s September 28, 2009 recall of 3.8 million vehicles, including the 2008 Camry, due to reports of driver- side floor mat entrapment of accelerator pedals. She consulted a partner in the Fayetteville law firm at which you are employed. The partner had a paralegal gather a few facts, noted below, and has turned the file over to you for preliminary analysis. The partner has instructed you to write a memo explaining the following: 1. What claims might the Joneses have, against whom, on what basis, and for what injuries? What authorities support each claim? 2. If you think that a particular claim may not succeed, explain why not. 3. If you lack sufficient information to evaluate a claimfully, describe what other information you need, how it would affect your evaluation of that cause of action, and how to obtain it. 4. Bottom line: Should we take this case? Why or why not? Or is it too soon to tell?

Bongani is 19 years old and lives with his parents. Without his guardian's consent, he concludes a contract of sale to sell his motorcycle for R2 000 to Mxali who is 25 years old. On enquiry by Mxali, Bongani lies about his age and says that he is 21 years old. Mxali pays the R2 000, but Bongani refuses to deliver the motorcycle to Mxali. Did Bongani breach any contract?