Is That Legal?

Yep. You might also be interested in this: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/who-benefits-from-security-hysteria/2006/08/11/1154803098557.html

Eric:

You're far to fair minded to note that in the lead up to the 2004 presidential election, the NYTimes Magazine published an interview with John Kerry in which he said he'd like to reduce the terror threat to something akin the mafia (or something like that).

Of course, the right recoiled in horror screaming that Kerry's view is what's wrong with Democrats. In other words, it's not a "law enforcement" problem. It's a damn, frickin' war.

Then . . . what was it . . . a few months later, after Bush (allegedly) won, your old boss, Mike Chertog, was quoted as saying that fighting terrorism was not about the bullshit show in Iraq (brought to us at a the measely sum of $300Billion and growing). Fighting terrorism was all about getting down and dirty the same way we fight drug dealers and the mafia, et al.

Look, these people -- Bush et al. -- they're liars. Period. End of story. They'd say anything (and have) to keep hold of the power to bankrupt our country so they're good friends at the pharma and oil companies can keep shoveling money their way.

Bush has never succeeded at anything except his consistent ability to screw up whatever he does.

Why must the fight against radical Islamic terrorism be either police work or military work? The two are not mutually exclusive.

It's police work to identify and apprehend domestically based terrorists.

It's military and diplomatic work to deal with the state sponsors of terror. Toppling the Taliban was eminently justified and it is not something the FBI could have handled. Similarly dealing with terror-exporting Iran is beyond the scope of police work.

I agree with explummer. The two activities are necessary. Its just that with the very nature of terrorism, a traditional military approach is rarely effective. Worse, our diplomatic approach is virtually non-existent.

There seems to be some confusion regarding what is meant by the argument that the U.S. should not approach anti-terrorism as a law enforcement activity.

The administration and the intel community are focusing on the terrorists themselves, rather than the causes of terrorism. Its like trying to combat a termite problem with the bottom of a shoe. Remember that ridiculous deck of cards? That's their approach with terrorism - find this guy, get that guy, round 'em up and rope 'em in. Ship 'em off to prison (or whatever we're calling those places these days). Remember when they got Zarqawi? It was a huge media event. And what a difference it has made! I'm glad they got the guy, but cannot think of a less effective approach to combat the overall problem.

Also, the term "Law Enforcement" implies the enforcement of laws, and generally comes into play when a law has been broken. Surely that should not be our overarching strategy with terrorists. Granted, law enforcement is a necessary component of national security regarding terrorism, and, on its own, may actually thwart individual terror plots. But it isn't going to reduce or hinder the growing terror problem.