In the following oped piece, Ed Quillen of Salida makes a case regarding the current framing of the terrorism issue for the 2004 elections:

Either military or police, Bush vs. Kerry

Question for debate:

[B]Which approach to terrorism is superior: military, police, or both?[QUOTE]

By "superior" I mean which approach works the best to deter future terrorism. There should be plenty of history out there to draw from when making arguments for your favored approach.

I'm a fan of Quillen and fully agree with his take. But when I get time, will contribute to this debate with links to more supporting evidence.

This will likely be a major issue in the coming election, so I look forward to reading all of your arguments. Later, AM. . .

<div><table width='50%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' style='border: 1px solid black' align='center'><tr><td class='maintitle'> Topic closed...</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Reason: Duplicate topic.<br /><br />Recommended action: Please use the search feature to locate a similar topic. If you are unable to find a similar topic, please contact the staff member who closed the topic by clicking the PM button below this post.<br /><br />Helpful links:<br /> - Simple Search<br /> - Advanced Search<br /> - Starting New Topics<br /> - Survival Guide<br /> - The Rules<br /> - Staff Directory<br /></td></tr><tr><td class='darkrow1'><div align='center'>Note: This is an automated response.</div></td></tr></table></div>

Here is the first topic: Law Enforcement, role of law enforcement for terrorism