Even though I am unsettled on this whole issue, I probably line up more with Jumper's sentiments than anyone else. I have always been against racial profiling; but I have always been in favor of "criminal" profiling; and there is a difference. I have also advocated better use of local law enforcement in the "war" on terror. Let's use Silverton as an example (simply because I used to live there and know several cops there). The police in Silverton have a pretty good handle on the comings and goings in their community. They know the local businesses, they also know the regular troublemakers.
Suppose a group of wannabe terrorists set-up shop in Silverton. You're telling me that, in time, the cops wouldn't notice things? That word wouldn't eventually get around? Now, granted, one of the problems that has always existed in law enforcement is the lack of cooperation that has existed among the various entities and I would submit that is going to have to change. But if it did (and in some areas maybe it already has) that could go a long way.
The bottom line is, some bureaucrat in Washington isn't going to know the inner workings of the city of Silverton. But if the various parties can share information, can work together, that's one powerful way you can fight terrorist networks here.
And I realize that the same arguments were made in the failed "war" on drugs. But here's the key difference- the drug trade has never slowed in this country because drugs are found at all levels. The wealthy do drugs; politicians do drugs; powerful people do drugs. The middle class uses drugs. If you jailed everyone that did drugs, we'd have a serious labor shortage.
That's not true with terrorism. Most of us don't commit acts of terror. There are millions and millions of drug users, but nowhere near as many terrorists.
Bookmarks