Once again the British show that the best response to individuals planning or executing violent attacks upon other citizens is to treat it as the crime that it is.

The idea that you can "wage war" against individuals who are affiliated with no nation is simply illogical.

Britons get life for plotting al Qaeda bomb attacks (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070430/ts_nm/britain_trial_dc_7)

Treating terrorism as a crime works when the state has a monopoly on power and violence. In a society where the state has neither or is merely one of several competing powers treating terrorism as a crime is akin to the dutch boy with his finger in the dike.

The way the British treated the IRA (as criminals), who obviously had their share of power to commit violence, shows that what you said is simply untrue.

"Terrorism" by individuals is a crime and the best way to respond to it is to treat it as the crime that it is.

Treating terrorism as a crime works when the state has a monopoly on power and violence. In a society where the state has neither or is merely one of several competing powers treating terrorism as a crime is akin to the dutch boy with his finger in the dike. When the state has a monopoly on power ad violence, the state is the terrorist.

States without a monopoly on the use of violence to solve problems do not last long. People cannot be trusted with violence. They are too apt to kill each other.

The way the British treated the IRA (as criminals), who obviously had their share of power to commit violence, shows that what you said is simply untrue.

"Terrorism" by individuals is a crime and the best way to respond to it is to treat it as the crime that it is.

The ability to commit violence and being a viable to contender for power are two entirely different things. The IRA was never, ever going to take over either Northern Ireland or Ireland. Ergo, your analogy sucks.
Take your analogy and tell me how it works in afghanistan or iraq or the Northwest frontier of Pakistan. Better yet tell us how the police are solving terrorism in Somalia or Darfur. Working real well in Sri Lanka where the Tamil Tigers have been using it for over 25 years. Some good police work going on there eh.

The ability to commit violence and being a viable to contender for power are two entirely different things.

No, not really.
The ability to commit violence is a type of power.


The IRA was never, ever going to take over either Northern Ireland or Ireland. Ergo, your analogy sucks.

That was never the IRA's goal. They wanted to get the British out of Northern Ireland. Ergo, you have no idea what you are talking about. It isn't an "analogy". It is a fact.


Take your analogy and tell me how it works in afghanistan or iraq or the Northwest frontier of Pakistan. Better yet tell us how the police are solving terrorism in Somalia or Darfur. Working real well in Sri Lanka where the Tamil Tigers have been using it for over 25 years. Some good police work going on there eh.

No, not really. :)
Every single place you just mentioned lacks a police force strong enough or organized enough to function effectively against those terrorists.
You can add Iraq to that list too.

"Terrorism" is just a tactic.

It isn't a nation and it isn't a people.

It isn't single organization or even multiple organizations sharing a singular goal.

"terrorists" and their goals are different from country to country and thus are best addressed by the local police forces who have the domestic infrastructure to investigate and prosecute those people.

Of course, terrorism is a crime, should be treated as a crime and tackled by police.Anything else is plain stupid

No, not really.
The ability to commit violence is a type of power.
In the political context that type of power is insignificant. It is not a threat to the state. The state is neither threatened, nor is their monopoly on violence threatened.

That was never the IRA's goal. They wanted to get the British out of Northern Ireland. Ergo, you have no idea what you are talking about. It isn't an "analogy". It is a fact.
The IRA had no political aspirations? Might want to pick up the phone and speak to Gerry Adams about that.


No, not really. :)
Every single place you just mentioned lacks a police force strong enough or organized enough to function effectively against those terrorists.
You can add Iraq to that list too.

Here's a news bulletin for you. Police forces are organs of the state. And now we're back to my original point. If the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence police forces become ineffective. Terrorism has the room to grow.

"Terrorism" is just a tactic.

It isn't a nation and it isn't a people.

It isn't single organization or even multiple organizations sharing a singular goal.

"terrorists" and their goals are different from country to country and thus are best addressed by the local police forces who have the domestic infrastructure to investigate and prosecute those people.

That's all good but it has nothing to do with how terrorism should be dealt with.

Perhaps you can treat terrorism as a crime if both the 'crime' and the 'criminals' happen to be within your borders where you have jurisdiction. If the terrorism occurs outside your country or the terrorists reside outside your country where you do not have jurisdiction you cannot treat it simply as a crime but must treat it as an act of war by an outside force.

Treating terrorism as a crime works when the state has a monopoly on power and violence. In a society where the state has neither or is merely one of several competing powers treating terrorism as a crime is akin to the dutch boy with his finger in the dike.
A dutch boy? She won't like that. She needs the ol' clog dance from someone of a different persuasion.

</lamejoke>

Perhaps you can treat terrorism as a crime if both the 'crime' and the 'criminals' happen to be within your borders where you have jurisdiction. If the terrorism occurs outside your country or the terrorists reside outside your country where you do not have jurisdiction you cannot treat it simply as a crime but must treat it as an act of war by an outside force.

Now we are back to the same problem we have today, trying to wage "war" on individuals not affiliated with any state is what got us stuck in this quagmire in Iraq. They had to find a state with which to wage war because it is impossible to do with inidviduals.

You treat terrorism like a crime. If it perpetrated by individuals who live in another country then you treat it like any other crime, you work with the law enforcement in that country, perhaps even backing them up but always working with them, to catch the criminals and bring them to justice.

That is simply the best way to handle terrorism. This idea of "waging war" on individuals is simply insane. There is no other word to describe it accurately.

In the political context that type of power is insignificant. It is not a threat to the state. The state is neither threatened, nor is their monopoly on violence threatened.

HA! Tell that to the Iraqi government.

Police forces are organs of the state.

I am glad that you agree with me that the best way to handle terrorism is to treat it like the crime that it is.


That's all good but it has nothing to do with how terrorism should be dealt with.

It has everthing to do with it but if you don't get it, then you just don't get it.

Now we are back to the same problem we have today, trying to wage "war" on individuals not affiliated with any state is what got us stuck in this quagmire in Iraq. They had to find a state with which to wage war because it is impossible to do with inidviduals.

You treat terrorism like a crime. If it perpetrated by individuals who live in another country then you treat it like any other crime, you work with the law enforcement in that country, perhaps even backing them up but always working with them, to catch the criminals and bring them to justice.

That is simply the best way to handle terrorism. This idea of "waging war" on individuals is simply insane. There is no other word to describe it accurately.

How's that idea working with iran? Or with Pakistan in the NWFP? How about Syria?

Keep tapping your ruby red shoes and repeating.

HA! Tell that to the Iraqi government.
Exactly! The police are doing a wonderful job of handling terrorism aren't they.:thumbs:



I am glad that you agree with me that the best way to handle terrorism is to treat it like the crime that it is.

If that's what you think i'm telling you your reading comprehension is worse than imagined!

It has everthing to do with it but if you don't get it, then you just don't get it.

You'd have to be able to logically explain it first.

Perhaps you can treat terrorism as a crime if both the 'crime' and the 'criminals' happen to be within your borders where you have jurisdiction. If the terrorism occurs outside your country or the terrorists reside outside your country where you do not have jurisdiction you cannot treat it simply as a crime but must treat it as an act of war by an outside force.

Simply not true. Just because something is outside our borders does not mean it cannot be a police action. This is where the intelligence communities and police of many countries work together to thwart attacks and break up networks. Military action is fine against the type of situation that was in Afghanistan, but that is totally different, at this stage, there is close to no military action feasible.

You cannot fight a war with the military against a mindset, you cannot bomb an idea. Intelligence work, police work - it's the only credible defense against terrorism.

Simply not true. Just because something is outside our borders does not mean it cannot be a police action. This is where the intelligence communities and police of many countries work together to thwart attacks and break up networks. Military action is fine against the type of situation that was in Afghanistan, but that is totally different, at this stage, there is close to no military action feasible.

You cannot fight a war with the military against a mindset, you cannot bomb an idea. Intelligence work, police work - it's the only credible defense against terrorism.

Tell us how that idea is working in regards to get iran to transfer custody of the AQ they hold. How's that working in the NWFP in Pakistan?

If the military cannot defeat a mindset as you claim the same applies to the police. Both use force to establish their supremacy.

How's that idea working with iran? Or with Pakistan in the NWFP? How about Syria?

I see... you are confused.

I mentioned terrorism and you start listing nations.

Terrorists are not soldiers for any nation.

That is why you mistakenly believe that we can wage war on terrorism, because you are confusing terrorists with nations.

You'd have to be able to logically explain it first.

I have but you seem to have a problem with logic.

You illogically confuse terrorists with nations.

If a nation commits an act of violence then it is not terrorism, it is an act of War.

If the military cannot defeat a mindset as you claim the same applies to the police. Both use force to establish their supremacy.

Subtleties seem to be beyond you. Therefore, I will try to keep this simple.
The Military is a Hammer.
The Police are a Scalpal.
Both use "violence" in the course of their duties, but they have completely different functions and skillsets.

I see... you are confused.

I mentioned terrorism and you start listing nations.

Terrorists are not soldiers for any nation.

That is why you mistakenly believe that we can wage war on terrorism, because you are confusing terrorists with nations.

On the contrary, known terrorists reside in all the places i've listed. Yet the police forces have been unable to obtain said individuals. Police forces in those nations have been unable to constrain terrorists from committing acts on their own nation as well as their neighbors. Clearly the police force is impotent. Clearly policing doesn't work in states where the police force is useless in combatting terrorism in states that lack a monopoly on violence.

I don't usually repeat myself, but I will for you waldo.

Terrorists are not soldiers for any nation.

Therefore the police are the only solution. The police have not solved every murder ever committed so by your logic that makes them "impotent".

Perhaps we should just do away with all police since you think they are "impotent"? Just replace them all with Military and let the Army police our cities. How does that sound waldo?

Subtleties seem to be beyond you. Therefore, I will try to keep this simple.
The Military is a Hammer.
The Police are a Scalpal.
Both use "violence" in the course of their duties, but they have completely different functions and skillsets.

AS you've already admitted the 'scalpel' in iraq isn't working very well is it. Nor is it working very well Gaza, Iran, Chechnya, or Pakistan. Why isn't your 'scalpel' working so well in these places?

*sigh*

There you go again confusing terrorists and nations...

The police forces in Iraq are hampered by the violence that our presense is inspiring, not to mention the sectarian violence that infects all levels of their lives. That goes to the futility of trying to force three tribes that don't like each other to stay together.

AS you've already admitted the 'scalpel' in iraq isn't working very well is it.

Our Military is in Iraq. Therefore, your analogy sucks.

*sigh*

There you go again confusing terrorists and nations...

The police forces in Iraq are hampered by the violence that our presense is inspiring, not to mention the sectarian violence that infects all levels of their lives. That goes to the futility of trying to force three tribes that don't like each other to stay together.

Don't worry i'm not confusing terrorists with nations that's merely those voices in your head.

Two problems with that 'theory' is that we're not iran, or gaza, or pakistan and yet, they all have terrorists. Second clearly the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence in iraq which is more supportive of my theory than yours.

Don't worry i'm not confusing terrorists with nations...

Unfortunately, yes you are.


Two problems with that 'theory' is that we're not iran, or gaza, or pakistan...

Wow, Im glad you told me that. Here I was thinking that we were the United States of Gaza... </sarcasm>

Pssst...Gaza isn't even a country.

and yet, they all have terrorists.

Your "Gaza" example proves my point, the Israelis have been responding to the Palestinians with their military for over 50 years with no progress towards ending the violence.

The police are simply more effective against terorrism than the military.

"Terrorism" is a crime and should be treated as such.

Describing the hunt for terrorists as a "police" action suggests that you are in the prevention and detection stage of the crime. That's a great idea.

But this isn't a typical police crime such as neighborhood kids breaking windows. The stakes are much higher, and since they are, so too should be the police powers that are put in place to catch them.

But unfortunately the application of these enhanced powers becomes a partisan argument among our leaders.

I think anyone who believes that a "police" action is sufficient has to be willing to back that up by giving the investigators the tools needed to do that job. Many people here don't believe in that.

Thank you!! You have just completed both sides of the complex puzzle.

If the terrorsits plot against you out side your borders, you must hunt them down and stop them.


Perhaps you can treat terrorism as a crime if both the 'crime' and the 'criminals' happen to be within your borders where you have jurisdiction. If the terrorism occurs outside your country or the terrorists reside outside your country where you do not have jurisdiction you cannot treat it simply as a crime but must treat it as an act of war by an outside force.

Describing the hunt for terrorists as a "police" action suggests that you are in the prevention and detection stage of the crime. That's a great idea.

I am thinking more of investigation and capture for prosecution. Prevention by the police seems unlikely. The most effective tactic for preventing terrorism is to not give people a reason to hate us. The agency with the most power in that regard would be the government. They are the ones who make decisions that cause terrorism, such as putting military bases in Saudi Arabia, not the police.

But this isn't a typical police crime such as neighborhood kids breaking windows.

This statement suggests that your experience with police and what they do is limited to suburban settings. I thought you were a police officer once? If so then you should know better than to suggest that the "typical" crime in the U.S. that police spend their time on are children breaking windows (an event I am familiar with and that does not usually degenerate into involving the police). That demeans and diminishes the work of all the officers who tirelessly pursue actual crimes and criminals perpetrated by a seemingly endless supply of nutcases. We seem to have no end of serial killers, bombers and psychos shooting up schools here that the police are able handle without needing more and more power.


The stakes are much higher, and since they are, so too should be the police powers that are put in place to catch them.

But unfortunately the application of these enhanced powers becomes a partisan argument among our leaders.

I would certainly hope so. If there were no argument about such a controversial topic then that would be a sure sign we are no longer being represented and our Democracy has completely crumbled into oblivion.

I think anyone who believes that a "police" action is sufficient has to be willing to back that up by giving the investigators the tools needed to do that job. Many people here don't believe in that.

The police already have considerable power.
Can you explain precisely what "tools" you think they need?

1. I am thinking more of investigation and capture for prosecution. Prevention by the police seems unlikely.
2. The most effective tactic for preventing terrorism is to not give people a reason to hate us.
3. The police already have considerable power.
Can you explain precisely what "tools" you think they need?
1. "Investigation and capture" would lead to prevention.

2. Tell that to the children and babies at Iraqi markets. Or the people at the club in Bali.

3. A couple of years ago there was a controversy in which libraries were being asked to keep track of people who borrowed certain books.
And another in which cell phone companies were asked to give up certain information about certain individuals.

Constitutionally speaking, there is no expectation of privacy when it comes to libraries or your cell phone records. And yet, there was an uproar.
This is what I'm talking about when I say that if you think terrorism can be handled as a police action, the available tools must be increased.
The stakes are too high.

Wow, Im glad you told me that. Here I was thinking that we were the United States of Gaza... </sarcasm>

Pssst...Gaza isn't even a country.

Didn't say it was.



Your "Gaza" example proves my point, the Israelis have been responding to the Palestinians with their military for over 50 years with no progress towards ending the violence.

Actually the West Bank and Gaza were very quiet until '92, the Oslo accords changed that.

The police are simply more effective against terorrism than the military.

Your argument is changing. It's gone from the absolute that "it should be treated as a crime" to the relative "police are more effective". Which is consistent with my point that the dealing with terrorism thru the police force is a viable idea in situations where the state has a monopoly on violence. In situations where the state doesn't have that monopoly then police work isn't effective enough.

Waldo, My argument remains the same. Terrorism should be treated as the crime it is because police are more effective against terrorism.

Your argument about a "monopoly on violence" simply has no merit. If the state has a "monopoly" on violence that would mean the terrorists have little to no capacity for violence.

Fighting terrorism is not a matter of who has the greater capacity for violence. It is also about the effective use of other assets such as intelligence and technology.

3. A couple of years ago there was a controversy in which libraries were being asked to keep track of people who borrowed certain books.
And another in which cell phone companies were asked to give up certain information about certain individuals.

Constitutionally speaking, there is no expectation of privacy when it comes to libraries or your cell phone records. And yet, there was an uproar.
This is what I'm talking about when I say that if you think terrorism can be handled as a police action, the available tools must be increased.
The stakes are too high.


So the answer to my question is that you think Police need to be able to track library transactions and phone records. The phone records have ALWAYS been available with a warrent. You would have to explain precisely why you feel that a warrent should no longer be necessary.

Simply not true. Just because something is outside our borders does not mean it cannot be a police action. This is where the intelligence communities and police of many countries work together to thwart attacks and break up networks. Military action is fine against the type of situation that was in Afghanistan, but that is totally different, at this stage, there is close to no military action feasible.

You cannot fight a war with the military against a mindset, you cannot bomb an idea. Intelligence work, police work - it's the only credible defense against terrorism.


Drew, sometimes I think Dharmabum is channeling through you. Working with foreign police presupposes that the governments and hence the police of those other countries want to work with us. That is too great an assumption to make and one that has been shown to not be the case over and over. We can't even get certain governments to extradite criminals. What makes you think governments inimical to the United States would cooperate in hunting down terrorists and prosecuting them?

Dharmabum, Once again you are using faulty logic, or more precisely no logic at all.

The fact that terrorists are not nations is no more germane to the discussion than the fact that murderers are not nations. In both cases they reside in nations, nations that are not always in synch with what the United States deems important. If you were right there would be no criminals residing safely in other nations. Those country's police would round them up and prosecute them. The fact is, that doesn't always happen.

To repeat the mantra terrorists aren't nations over and over makes it no more important to the discussion than it was the first time you posted it.

Waldo, My argument remains the same. Terrorism should be treated as the crime it is because police are more effective against terrorism.

i have no fear about you ever acknowledging the possibility you could be wront.

Your argument about a "monopoly on violence" simply has no merit. If the state has a "monopoly" on violence that would mean the terrorists have little to no capacity for violence.

Uh that's why you don't see a lot of terrorism in Europe or NAmerica but you do see it iraq, afghanistan, chechnya, pakistan, gaza.....

Working with foreign police presupposes that the governments and hence the police of those other countries want to work with us.

Pakistan is our ally. Why wouldn't they want to work with us? Most governments have no problems working with us when we are not being arrogant pricks, telling them what to do.

Especially right after 9-11 almost every nation in the world was willing to work with us to combat international terrorism, but Bush's decision to derail that fight into Iraq stopped all that.

If a nation refuses to work with us and harbors known terrorists than that becomes a state that we can declare war on, like we did with the Taliban in Afganistan.

i have no fear about you ever acknowledging the possibility you could be wront.

I know I am right in this case. You haven't convinced me of anything so why should I change my mind?


Uh that's why you don't see a lot of terrorism in Europe or NAmerica

Tell that to the Spanish and English terror bombing victims or the victims of 9-11 or the Oklahoma City Bombing. Tell that to the victims of the D.C. snipers or the Anthrax mailer or the Olympic bombing in GA.

Tell that to the people who work at the abortion clinic in Texas that a Terrorist tried to blow up last week.

but you do see it iraq, afghanistan, chechnya, pakistan, gaza.....

Three of those five places are also under military occupation and thus do not qualify for the scenario in question. A domestic insurgency while under military occupation is not the same as International Terrorism.

Of course, terrorism is a crime, should be treated as a crime and tackled by police.Anything else is plain stupid

the problem is, in our system crimes are usually punished, not prevented. You cant punish someone who dies in the act of the crime. Soi f a suicide bomber blows up a building what are you going to do but write "case closed" and hope it doesnt hapen again?

The fact that terrorists are not nations is no more germane to the discussion than the fact that murderers are not nations.

And since we treat murderers as the criminals they are you just reitterated my point for me.

We don't wage "war" on murderers with our military, so there is no logical reason to do that with terrorists.

And since we treat murderers as the criminals they are you just reitterated my point for me.

We don't wage "war" on murderers with our military, so there is no logical reason to do that with terrorists.

yes, but again, we catch murderers after they have murdered. Before that they are simply citizens. following your strategy we would only capture and prosecute a terorrist after he has commited his crime.

yes, but again, we catch murderers after they have murdered. Before that they are simply citizens. following your strategy we would only capture and prosecute a terorrist after he has commited his crime.

Not true, there are plenty of times when we catch criminals, murderers and terrorists BEFORE they commit their crimes. There are lots of cases where people are charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

A terrorist was just captured last week (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18358756/)after he planted a bomb at an abortion clinic in Texas, but before it went off.

AUSTIN, Texas - A 27-year-old Austin man was arrested on Friday and charged with placing an unexploded bomb containing some 2,000 nails outside an abortion clinic in the state's capital.

yes, but again, we catch murderers after they have murdered. Before that they are simply citizens. following your strategy we would only capture and prosecute a terorrist after he has commited his crime.

I see your point Trav, but I don't understand how you expect to solve that problem with the military. To my mind, trying to eliminate terrorism with the military is akin to going after the Mafia with the Air Force. It's just not the right tool with which to find them. Once you find them, I have no trouble with sending in the Special Forces to deal with them and then leave. Occupying a country only breeds more terrorists.

I hate to admit it but the British are way ahead of anyone when it comes to 'anti terrorism' and 'counter insurgency',
a tip, you wanna get the brits over to Langley and teach them morons how to play the game.

Tell us how that idea is working in regards to get iran to transfer custody of the AQ they hold. How's that working in the NWFP in Pakistan?

If the military cannot defeat a mindset as you claim the same applies to the police. Both use force to establish their supremacy.

Wow - how confused are you? Reading your exchange with dharmabum - one can easily see that dharmabum has it right & you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

As to your question, getting Iran to transfer AQ they hold is totally irrelevant. That has nothing to do with any action to thwart terrorist plots. The only way to prevent attacks is to have intelligence about attacks about to happen & then to stop / arrest the people involved. This can only come from international co-operation in terms of intelligence and policing. Please tell me what kind of threat to the US people in the mountains of pakistan are? er...none.

This is not complex and it isn't hard to comprehend.