QandO
Questions and Observations| « Peace in our time | Main | Talking Points nonsense... » |
|
March 18, 2004 Where they ain't Reader Steverino leaves this comment in a post below.... The problem with treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue is that to do it effectively, the resulting police state would make the more objectionable parts of The Patriot Act seem like complete liberty.At the John Kerry campaign blog, they seem to understand this already....  The real problem with a "law enforcement" approach to terrorism is what to do with nations that disagree. Sure, you can enforce laws in the US, and among allies.....but how does one enforce laws in a Taliban controlled Afghanistan? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? If they don't cooperate fully, then we're just spending billions of dollars fighting terrorists "where they ain't". And speaking of wars we've been fighting as a "law enforcement issue".....how's that "war on drugs" working out? |
The War on Drugs is going great - if you are a dealer.
Prices have never been higher (I'm told)....
Posted by: John Rogers at March 18, 2004 10:59 AM
Jon, you are right in this assertion:
The real problem with a "law enforcement" approach to terrorism is what to do with nations that disagree
What I was getting at was that once you assume terrorism is a law enforcement issue, then that enforcement really stops at your borders. Countries that will not work with you aren't going to be any help in combatting terrorism. In that case, you have to have an overwhelming police state in order to prevent terrorists from striking within your country. It's a losing proposition.
Posted by: Steverino at March 18, 2004 12:02 PM
great analogy. I have to remember that next time some lefty mentions it. They will have appolexy.
Posted by: capt joe at March 18, 2004 05:32 PM