Oh look, more Republican fear mongering.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You are not making any sense.

It makes perfect sense. A police chief says "we're going to clean out the hookers." Five years later there are no hookers........when he says "praise me, I cleaned up the hooker problem" my reply will be "I don't think that we have the information to prove that those hookers could not have been prevented given pre-existing conditions."

[Publius]

Originally Posted by 7960

I've declared my hate for AboveCIA00 and abovecia2 but that doesn't mean I can actually harm him.

But these organizations ARE harming Americans and American allies abroad. Try again.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by 7960

It makes perfect sense. A police chief says "we're going to clean out the hookers." Five years later there are no hookers........when he says "praise me, I cleaned up the hooker problem" my reply will be "I don't think that we have the information to prove that those hookers could not have been prevented given pre-existing conditions."

Your analogy doesn't work. Typically when a police force steps up enforcement they don't create new tactics and methods to do it, they just apply more thoroughly their current tactics and methods. Our government has developed entirely new abuses of our freedom to supposedly "protect" us from terrorism, when they could have probably just applied more thoroughly the old methods and had the same (or possibly even a better, since it's conjecture) result.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Publius

Your analogy doesn't work. Typically when a police force steps up enforcement they don't create new tactics and methods to do it, they just apply more thoroughly their current tactics and methods. Our government has developed entirely new abuses of our freedom to supposedly "protect" us from terrorism, when they could have probably just applied more thoroughly the old methods and had the same (or possibly even a better, since it's conjecture) result.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Publius

Your analogy doesn't work. Typically when a police force steps up enforcement they don't create new tactics and methods to do it, they just apply more thoroughly their current tactics and methods. Our government has developed entirely new abuses of our freedom to supposedly "protect" us from terrorism, when they could have probably just applied more thoroughly the old methods and had the same (or possibly even a better, since it's conjecture) result.

And you can actually measure the effect on a small scale. You can directly observe the effect of adding one more police officer, of arresting one more drug dealer.

We are talking in a much larger scale when you talk about terrorism, something that happens rarely as it is. we see one major attack on US soil. what, every 4 or 5 years? Give or take 5 years? It's too unpredictable. It's not something you can measure. And if we allot the government to take away some of our civil liberties to make us safer.. how can you really ever show that it had some benefit? What is the cost of giving up your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? You can't quantify that.
You can quantify the costs of stepping up a police effort, of hiring more cops, of arresting more people.. and you can directly measure that against the benefit. I don't think you can really say the same thing with terrorism.
There are simply too many variables.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Publius

Your analogy doesn't work. Typically when a police force steps up enforcement they don't create new tactics and methods to do it, they just apply more thoroughly their current tactics and methods. Our government has developed entirely new abuses of our freedom to supposedly "protect" us from terrorism, when they could have probably just applied more thoroughly the old methods and had the same (or possibly even a better, since it's conjecture) result.

new tactics
BBC NEWS | Business | Police seek new tactics to fight fraud

new tactics
OnlineAthens: News: Police try new tactics in Baker murder case 07/19/01

new tactics
ORGANISED CRIME - CAN WE UNIFY THE DEFINITION ?

new tactics
MARTA - About MARTA - MARTA Police

new tactics
TomDispatch - Tomgram: Nick Turse on the new Homeland Security State

new tactics
Cops try new tactics to nail sport bikers: But on road, patrols are Chicago Sun-Times - Find Articles

new tactics
deseretnews.com | New tactics against DUIs offer glimmer of hope

new tactics
New tactics help cities stop parlors

new tactics
FBI Uses New Tactics To Catch Kidnappers / Death of Polly Klaas taught lessons



........police use new tactics all the time.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by 7960

new tactics
BBC NEWS | Business | Police seek new tactics to fight fraud

I don't see a single NEW tactic here, just the use of agreements with the private sector to help overworked officers deal with fraud cases.

new tactics
OnlineAthens: News: Police try new tactics in Baker murder case 07/19/01

The only thing "new" here is that they're spending the money to get a test not normally used (mitochondrial DNA). That isn't a new tactic, that is choosing to use an available tool that they normally wouldn't due to cost constraints.

new tactics
ORGANISED CRIME - CAN WE UNIFY THE DEFINITION ?

You're kidding, right? Did you read this piece or just post it? This is about new tactics used by ORGANIZED CRIME making it difficult for the police to make a unified definition of what organized crime is. All that it touches on is the need for faster communication and agreement between agencies: not a new tactic, but a use of new technologies available with old tactics.

new tactics
MARTA - About MARTA - MARTA Police

This isn't new tactics, this is like above just an effort to streamline communication between officers and the public.

new tactics
TomDispatch - Tomgram: Nick Turse on the new Homeland Security State

Again, old tactics with new technology ... Unmarked police and undercover surveillance have existed for years; attempts at crowd control have existed for years. As for the rest of this article, it supports my side more than your own considering that it talks about how the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is helping to implementing new tactics that harm our rights.

new tactics
Cops try new tactics to nail sport bikers: But on road, patrols are Chicago Sun-Times - Find Articles

I'd hardly call using more officers a new tactic. I'd also hardly call using helicoptors to track a new tactic; it's been done pretty much since the helicoptor was invented.

new tactics
deseretnews.com | New tactics against DUIs offer glimmer of hope

Again, not really new tactics so much as using old tactics with new technology. Allowing officers to phone in testimony rather than actually be present; strengthening currently existant penalties and lengthening currently existant probation times... These aren't NEW tactics, they're changes and tweaks to tactics that have been around for decades.

The only one that might be considered NEW here is the in-car breathalyzer, which one could call a trampling of rights more than a new tactic, after all breathalyzers have been around for a long time.

new tactics
New tactics help cities stop parlors

Also nothing new ... Tweaking licensing laws, using current statutes in a new way... These aren't new tactics.

new tactics
FBI Uses New Tactics To Catch Kidnappers / Death of Polly Klaas taught lessons

Not new tactics, just a decision to allow officers to use their old tactics sooner instead of having to wait 24 hours.

........police use new tactics all the time.

And I just showed you how pretty much none of the links you posted actually has anything to do with truly NEW tactics.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Publius

I don't see a single NEW tactic here, just the use of agreements with the private sector to help overworked officers deal with fraud cases.

That's a new tactic to them.

The only thing "new" here is that they're spending the money to get a test not normally used (mitochondrial DNA). That isn't a new tactic, that is choosing to use an available tool that they normally wouldn't due to cost constraints.

A test not normally used is a new tactic.

You're kidding, right? Did you read this piece or just post it? This is about new tactics used by ORGANIZED CRIME making it difficult for the police to make a unified definition of what organized crime is. All that it touches on is the need for faster communication and agreement between agencies: not a new tactic, but a use of new technologies available with old tactics.

New tactics by organized crime is going to require new tactics by police.

This isn't new tactics, this is like above just an effort to streamline communication between officers and the public.

It's changing the way officers and the public communicate...new tactic.

Again, old tactics with new technology ... Unmarked police and undercover surveillance have existed for years; attempts at crowd control have existed for years. As for the rest of this article, it supports my side more than your own considering that it talks about how the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is helping to implementing new tactics that harm our rights.

How can you say "old tactic / new technology"? If they're using new technology then they're using new tactics that come along with that new technology. According to you there has never been an advance in television making...when someone invented the TV it was new, every TV since then has just been another TV.

According to you these are the same:

and

I'd hardly call using more officers a new tactic. I'd also hardly call using helicoptors to track a new tactic; it's been done pretty much since the helicoptor was invented.

New to them................

shall I continue?

[WickedLou9]

You guys are getting way off point here.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by 7960

That's a new tactic to them.
A test not normally used is a new tactic.
New tactics by organized crime is going to require new tactics by police.
It's changing the way officers and the public communicate...new tactic.
How can you say "old tactic / new technology"? If they're using new technology then they're using new tactics that come along with that new technology. According to you there has never been an advance in television making...when someone invented the TV it was new, every TV since then has just been another TV.

According to you these are the same:

[IMGhttp://www.unmuseum.org/trk9etfcabinetbefore.jpg[/IMG] and [IMG]http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com.au/images/nec.ht1.jpg/IMG]
New to them................

shall I continue?

So I guess if I decide to back into my parking space instead of pull forward into it I've developed a brand new tactic for parking! After all, it would be new to me!

[WickedLou9]

you are getting too much into specifics.

You need to be able to measure and verify. With crime you can do both. Crimes happen consistantly and over a short period of time. Like over the past year there have been 1500 robberies, 2000 assaults, etc.
You can observe that easily. If you make some change in crime fighting methods, you can directly observe the results and it's not hard to do.

With terrorism you have one occurance in 4 or 5 years. maybe. sometimes. If you make some change.. well there were no attacks in the past 4 years..then we changed something.. still no attacks after 1 year or whatever.. What does it mean? Beats me. maybe nothing? There are just too many variables involved.

[Donkey®]

Let's get back to this ad...


Biggest and most ridiculous piece of shit I have ever seen.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Let's get back to this ad...


Biggest and most ridiculous piece of shit I have ever seen.

Pretty lame if you ask me....

[motivez]

Apparently it was what's known as a "phantom ad buy", essentially a ploy for free media. They spent 20,000 in some district no one has ever heard of and then let news about it spread around the country, hoping the news media would pick it up.

The same tactic was, I believe, used by the Swiftboaters against John Kerry because they had no financial means of launching a nationwide ad campaign, but I bet everyone hear saw some of their ads at least once.

Pretty savy, but I think the content of the message is what matters to most people, and the content has failed to stir up the same fear they've been able to use in the past.

The people have caught on.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Publius

Time fallacy. Clinton supposedly got "tougher" on terrorism after the first WTC bombings, and everyone would have said in August 2001 that we were doing a fine job of stopping terrorist attacks by Muslim fundamentalists within our nation, after there hadn't been one since 1993... Then 9/11 happened.

Just because we haven't been attacked again in the past 5 years doesn't mean we are preventing them from attacking us. It was 8 years between attacks last time.

incorrect

[avsp]

Originally Posted by motivez

Apparently it was what's known as a "phantom ad buy", essentially a ploy for free media. They spent 20,000 in some district no one has ever heard of and then let news about it spread around the country, hoping the news media would pick it up.

The same tactic was, I believe, used by the Swiftboaters against John Kerry because they had no financial means of launching a nationwide ad campaign, but I bet everyone hear saw some of their ads at least once.

Pretty savy, but I think the content of the message is what matters to most people, and the content has failed to stir up the same fear they've been able to use in the past.

The people have caught on.

FWIW the story of the 'ticking' ad became a minor news story here in the mainstream media, ..., mentioned on both ITV & BBC main nightly TV news shows

We dont have political ads here in the UK & so the more 'extreme' versions get covered occasionally. The sub-text usually is 'those crazy yanks & their weird ways'

[Publius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

incorrect

Care to expound upon this? I've shown in this thread why it is absolutely correct; saying it isn't so doesn't make you right.

[KatKanPlay]

When most of us speak of no terror attacks since 9/11, we are speaking of the "Homeland". Known terrorist attacks abroad have been going on since Munich.