Yes but by putting our people under so much strain, the terrorists win by default. Businesses slow down, people find it harder to make a living etc. I think the right thing might be for us to do things as we always have and take casualties as we go. The whole point of the attacks is not only to kill but to paralyze us into a state of fear and irrationality where we will make mistakes that do more damage than five 9/11s put together. The body count won't be as high but the effects could be bigger overall.
Imagine after 9/11, the US forces flattened Afghanistan, and then came back home to the US and no one really changed too much in terms of security other than say "pay attention." Might have worked a lot better actually.

Agree with you. And I still say that this particular "adventure" in law enforcement has nothing to do with IDing terrorists. It's about street crime and escalating street violence.

It can't be painted as anti-terror unless a very broad brush and various shades or gray paint are used.

10-4 SSgt, I'll go with that but when questionable things like this are occurring, I try to find a way to be supportive and attempt to make sense out of it by saying this kind of stuff to myself. In some ways, this reminds me of some boneheaded things in the military....I love the disciplined environment and nature of the business but I hated the unnecessary discipline type stuff that was implemented. Another reason they may be doing this because of the closeness of the tri-states and their is a lot of cross border crime going on, so perhaps this is an attempt to curtail that or an attempt at adding an extra tool to attempting to cut down on the cross border crimes that take place and than the hoodlums flle out state in a matter of 2-10 miles.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Agree with you. And I still say that this particular "adventure" in law enforcement has nothing to do with IDing terrorists. It's about street crime and escalating street violence.

It can't be painted as anti-terror unless a very broad brush and various shades or gray paint are used.

Definitely! Street crime costs our countries billions in money and wasted resources, it needs to be bought under control. I'm just not convinced that this "experiment" is the way to go, it reeks of Communist style people control.

I personally have a leaning towards much stronger methods being used against identified individuals and not the generalised crackdowns that tend to annoy the innocent as well as the guilty.

In the 1950s, we had a problem with "Bodgies" which were the street gangs of the day. My state reintroduced the birch (Caning) and a number of other things that would be regarded as medieval in todays PC environment just for gang violence related offences. The effect was amazing. This was on top of whatever other sentence they received.

The punishments must be made to suit the crime, but I feel we should leave the innocent citizens out of it.

Leaving innocent citizens alone is a great idea, in a perfect society. This will lead though to complacency and re-active policy. Yes, in the pro-active approach, the innocent may have to spend a little time for the powers that be to check them out to ensure their legitimacy but if they are truly innocent, this ought to not be much of a problem. We have to do the same thing when we get on a plane, go on a military base, so I don't see too much of an issue with adding to more parts of society to make the job the police have to do easier on them. Without this type of policy, the police hands are tied as they are now and have been for about good while now, and they have to wait for something to happen to justify the probable cause to do what this policy may help avoid in the first place.

Originally Posted by senojekips

In the 1950s, we had a problem with "Bodgies" which were the street gangs of the day. My state reintroduced the birch (Caning) and a number of other things that would be regarded as medieval in todays PC environment just for gang violence related offences. The effect was amazing. This was on top of whatever other sentence they received.

The punishments must be made to suit the crime, but I feel we should leave the innocent citizens out of it.

Endorsing the fact that this severe action works is the tale of The Isle of Man, which was a holiday destination in the middle 20th century and close to Liverpool, quite a rough place at that time. Well, the Isle of Man retained the birch for certain offences. Result- no crime.

There's a time and place for nearly all things, the secret being to use them at the right time and for the right offence. Law enforcement needs and deserves the help of the public, there's no sense in needlessly putting them offside whilst giving the offenders an easy run in prison.

As far as I'm concerned, violent offenders have (whilst incarcerated) lost all of their rights. If you want rights, stay out of prison.
I don't believe that prison should be just for the deprivation of liberty, for some crimes it should be about "punishment", this is especially so when talking about crimes committed whilst incarcerated.

Innocents get caught in the punishment along with the criminals largely because of three factors:
1) Bureaucratic laziness
2) Political Correctness
3) On scene authority incompetence
In no particular order.
But political correctness has a lot to do with it.

I'm not surprised the caning worked well. If they're going to act like a bunch of children, treat them like a bunch of children.

Agree a lot on 2, very little on 1 and not at all on 3.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Innocents get caught in the punishment along with the criminals largely because of three factors:
1) Bureaucratic laziness
2) Political Correctness
3) On scene authority incompetence
In no particular order.
But political correctness has a lot to do with it.

I agree.

I hate this fad of being PC.