In general, in law enforcement I cannot apprehend someone because he looks like he might do something

This is the score that our method would assign to the New York Times

1. I am not sure that a centralized command structure is a necessary prerequisite in an enemy for a succesful military action. The American Indian wars come to mind as a counter example, so do a variety of guerrilla wars that were successfully prosecuted, not to mention the subjugation of non-centralized peoples by military force.

Seems to me that the essential differences between military action and law enforcement are (1) the ferocity of the action (wars see killing as a legitimate use of force to make the enemy do what you want, law enforcement generally does not) and (2) the designation of the opponent — in war it is by broad class — “all enemy combatants”– or even location –” all ships that enter the prohibited zone will be torpedoed”bined these add an element of pre-emption, a enemy soldier can be killed because of the possibility he will cause harm.

I must admit to a disquieting and unwelcome thought that I seem to be coming to. That is, that this may principally be a religious war , at least on the other side. We like to view the terrorists as wild eyed fanatics, unrepresentative of Islam. My reading of the FL title loans Koran suggests that they are closer to their religous scripture than we are prepared to accept. In any event, when combined with 30 years of mind poisoning propaganda and a largely uneducated populace, I think this conflict has greater religious impetus than we like to comprehend.

This feature is important, since an active controversy exists whether, e

It is worth noting that the increased moderation of both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia appears to be more the result of nearby successful application of overhelming military force and a crackdown on religous zeal, than it is of more traditional policial and economic change.

I to not believe this study’s conclusions are valid because I dispute its methods. Has it been published anywhere, I am curious? The study used the following measurement: “To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet. As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative. Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one. Our method asks: What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? A feature of our method is that it does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is. That is, for instance, we do we need to read policy reports of the think tank or analyze its position on various issues to determine its ideology. Instead, we simply observe the ADA scores of the members of Congress who cite the think tank. g., the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation is moderate, left-wing, or right-wing.” I do not believe that mentioning think tanks is an accurate indicator of the liberal or conservative bend of the news. It is determining bias based on how many times the media cite a think tank that is cited by a conservative, liberal, or moderate Congressmen. This seems like a terribly flawed measurement, without the context behind it.