No, I think the point is that security "professionals" easily distracted by nonthreats are putting us more at risk. If they can't sort a "taunter" from a "terrorist" then we have a real problem.

Bet the guards at Buckingham palace would act on a real threat and ignore the taunts. Think TSA would do that?

Terrorists are very concerned about OPSEC. They're going to try to attract as little attention as possible. But as Kippie once said, TSA is pretty much designed to foil dumb terrorists only.

Why help a police officer build a case against you?
 

That's sort of ignorant common sense. The sensible thing to do when a police officer is attempting to build a case against you -- which, if he asks you about what you're doing, is almost certainly what he is doing -- is to remain silent.

If a police officer has reason to believe he has witnessed someone engaging in unlawful activity, he's highly unlikely to end his investigation based on something the suspect says to him. If you just remain silent, you should be no worse off than you'd have been had you explained yourself, and you might be better off if you remain silent. Common sense says, zip it.

The concepts to detect criminal activity and terrorism are the same. This is because terrorism is a criminal activity. The same tactics can and are used. The setting doesn't matter because the same general laws and regulations that Law Enforcement have to operate under apply in the airport setting. It matters little if we are talking about the check point, a bank, or someones house.

I could say I am not required to spoon feed you on demand and do your own homework but that would not really be fair would it. The surveillance concept is not mythical at all. It happens everyday in some settings. A border crossing can be similar to a check point in function and set up. DTO's do photo, video, and in person surveillance all of time. This serves the DTO's in many ways but here are the most common and the most germane to this discussion. It gives the DTO's the ability to access the officer's ability, work ethics, patterns. Most importantly it gives the DTO's the ability to identify the officers that are less than proficient at their jobs. This information is then provided to the folks that are doing the smuggling so they can attempt to get the officer they feel is least effective. In terms, of the facility it can be used to identify work patterns, traffic flow, work schedules and more importantly procedures things that you can not determine from public domain images because most do not have the appropriate reference points especially in terms of time because they are not current. We change things as much as possible and feasible to combat these tactics. This forces the DTO's to setup certain scenarios to see what the reaction will be. This surveillance doesn't have to be in the form of photos or video. I have recovered documents from both smugglers and people that were attempting to enter the country through ports of entry illegally. These documents were basically at very in depth questionnaire if you will concerning the process of inspection, it included names of the officers, physical description, questions asked, what was searched and what wasn't. These documents are then mailed back to the company the alien works for or the smuggling organization the alien used sometimes for a "discount" off the price of the smuggling attempt.

Criminal organizations that are sophisticated do the same thing when casing banks, jewelry stores, armored car robberies and the like you know big ticket items. I am not talking about smash and grab robberies done by your average gang banger. I am talking about organized crime. You can't get guard schedules, who takes smoke breaks and when and where from google images.

Terrorist organizations are no different then the other organizations I mentioned above except they have a slightly different goal. When you are talking about the high profile terrorist activities here or abroad 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, the Embassy bombing, even the Oklahoma City bombing months and in some cases years of planning went into those activities. They did not get up one morning and say lets go blow something up. Unfortunately for us, these organized terrorist organizations can be and are better than the average DTO or criminal organization. They learned the value and art of compartmentalizing. Small groups not knowing who the other groups are or the purpose beyond what their specific group assignment is.

The smallest of things can be significant if seen in the correct context. Unfortunately, it is easiest to see these things in the correct context after the fact. I have said it before but it is worth saying again. Very many things today might be different, including what most here complain about, if someone took the report made to the Federal Government that there were flight school students that were in flight school but were not interested in how to take off, or land a plane only how to steer.

I will see if I can come up with some public domain cases I can use since I suspect that my experience alone will not be good enough.

FB

Also I used some terms that may not be general knowledge. A DTO is a Drug Trafficking Organization. If there are any others just ask.

You folks talk about TSA and others being paranoid. When you have gone to a law enforcement academy, graduated, passed field training, and actually worked the job for a few years you will be much more qualified to judge what an officer will consider highly likely or highly unlikely to end an officers investigation. I am sorry but being arrested once just doesn't do it. Their are very many legal activities that can be used to mask illegal ones. The officer may be asking those questions to confirm his suspicion or to rule illegal activity out. The answers to the officers questions rule out illegal activity significantly more times than it confirms it. Many many times the answers really don't matter. It is the reaction to the questions. The uncontrollable physical reactions, non-verbal ques, and body language very many times tell the story way before the individual opens his or her mouth. A person who chooses not to answer simple questions will never do anything to reduce an officers suspicion and in fact may increase it. This in turn will increase the amount of time the encounter takes. Now if this encounter has progressed to the point that you are in custody and have been read Miranda it is past the point of a simple investigation .

This of course changes significantly if you actually are doing a illegal activity. In which case, remaining silent will certainly be your best bet.

FB

Terrorism is a tactic. How can you lump everyone who uses such tactics together and say that they have anything in common other than the commission of acts of terrorism?

I've seen you mention that before, and I think I've heard others make the same claim. Could you please cite a source for that claim? It certainly supports the story the U.S. government told us about the crimes of 9/11 a few hours after they were perpetrated, which should make us all look at it with suspicion.

However, those nuances are usually exactly what make an action legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional. Individuals that work with the law everyday (lawyers, judges, law enforcement officers) understand those nuances mean a lot. They don't agree with the application of law concerning those nuances very often but they do know that those nuances very often are what these cases hinge on.

FB

I'd like to see a cop explain to a judge that his probable cause justifying further action was the fact that a suspect remained silent.

Riiiiiiight. Because only guilty people have anything to hide. This presentation explains well why innocent people should never talk to the police.

Because criminal activity is usually just a tactic as well. The goal most often is to gain money. Terrorism regardless if you consider it a tactic or not is a illegal activity. Law enforcement mission is to discover and stop illegal activity it really doesn't matter what the organizations ultimate goal is if the "tactic" they are using is illegal.

As for the source of that claim all you have to do is look up the testimony before congress. The female FBI agent who lost her job over the fall out of her attempts at coming forward to report it to congress. She was out of the Minneapolis field office I believe the name is Coleen Rowley. There is a lot of information out there but it takes a lot of time to cut through the tin-foil hat conspiracy theory garbage. However, that may be your cup of tea.

FB

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in510607.shtml

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_knew...t_schools.html

http://www.cephas-library.com/terror..._hijacker.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

I'm not sure everyone realizes that people are being harrassed and even arrested every day for photography. Even if OP was deliberately trying to provoke a response, I applaud him for making the point. Please see Carlos Miller's blog Photography is not a crime.

QL

An officer will not have to because it will not be the only thing the officer has as reasonable suspicion, which by the way is all the officer needs to continue an investigation not probable cause. If it is the officer did not learn his job very well nor is he very good at it. It is the same reason you do not understand the concept because you don't have the experience or the training beyond what you think is correct that you got off the internet.

You are correct innocent people have things to hide. However, those things are not of interest to Law Enforcement beyond the ability of those things to clear the subject. Many many interviews of people who were being deceptive not in an effort to hide criminal conduct but instead to hide affairs or similar activities that I guess could be labeled as socially unacceptable but not criminal. Guess what I could careless, it explained why the subject appeared deceptive and was being deceptive. The subjects could have saved themselves and me a lot of time by just being truthful. In the end it doesn't matter to me I get paid for my time. I am also well aware of the rules and what I can and can not do. You do not appear to be as well informed as you think you are by your posts and you make some pretty serious incorrect assumptions in your posts. Just as you do your research to find out how far you believe you can push the envelope in legal terms, the law enforcement agency has a legal department doing that for them. They only have to focus on their jurisdiction as well, which makes life easier.

As for your internet presentation, there is always an opposing viewpoint. My initial observations would be this. The professor was a criminal defense lawyer. It is in his best interest (his wallet) for individuals not to talk to police so he has future clients. A question would be was he paid and how much was he paid for his presentation. It would be interesting to hear from a law enforcement officer that was not a law student which no offense certainly is not unbias. A law enforcement officer will tell you straight out as I am that his first point is most certainly false. A person can talk themselves out of an arrest if they are innocent and some can even do it if they are guilty. Many people do everyday. An officer can observe behavior that can raise the officers suspicion. The officer may question you concerning that behavior. The subject proceeds to talk to the officer, explains what happened, the reason for the behavior which turns out to be legal not what the officer first perceived. The subject goes on his way. It happens multiple times everyday.

I really don't expect you to believe me nor do I expect to change your opinion. It doesn't really matter to me in the end. In most cases the law enforcement officer doesn't want an arrest or conviction at any cost. It doesn't really benefit the officer. Most officers are not getting bonuses or raises based upon there arrest ratio. That stuff is dictated by contracts or civil service rules. The officer raises etc are pretty steady and set in stone. However, what will effect an officer's livelihood is anything that will impinge the officers credibility or integrity. This is because if any allegations along those lines is substantiated it affects the officers ability to testify in court. If he can't testify it pretty much ends his career. This why the vast majority of Law Enforcement officers will not lie in testimony concerning cases. Any case is not worth losing your ability to support yourself and your family. I am not saying that it never occurs. It does happen sometimes, just as lawyers get disbarred sometimes, just has an employee at any occupation gets fired sometimes. However, it doesn't happen with the frequency that many here believes it does.

FB

George Bruch from the Virginia Beach police department responds to Professor James Duane's presentation on why innocent people should never talk to the police: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...22229458915912

I don't understand your answer. You're saying that you can lump all organizations which engage in acts of terrorism together and that they all have something in common other than the commission of acts of terrorism "because criminal activity is usually just a tactic as well"?

Terrorism is the use of terror to achieve some goal. It is coercion by infliction of fear. Criminal activity is any activity which is unlawful.

You said that terrorist organizations are like the other criminal organizations you mentioned, except that they have a slightly different goal. What do you think terrorist organizations' goal is?

Which I watched and is why I said a law enforcement officer that was NOT in law school to be a lawyer or did you miss the part where he said he was a third year law student trying to get out of law school and was contemplating pursuing is career as a criminal defense attorney.

FB

Let me see if I am understanding you here:

1. LEO going to law school to become a criminal defense lawyer loses all credibility when talking about LEO interactions
2. Other members of the thin blue line are infallible, as long as they have nothing to do with law school or desire to learn more details about the law in a formal, non-LEO driven environment

The FBI crime statistics for the US in recent years show that most crimes in the US were done to gain money?

The second listed item needs a revision in order to factor in the following:

There are LEOs who attend law school in order to learn more details about how to leverage their government-enabled power-trips to engage in yet more "mission creep" while minimizing the risk of their facing a career setback due to playing the part in "mission creep".

You seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter what the goal of any organization is if the actions of those organizations is illegal. Law enforcement is manly concerned with the illegal actions of any organization. The goal of any organization can be an idea kinda of thing. The idea or goal may be immoral, socially unacceptable but still be legal. However, when the actions of that organization cross the line be it traditional criminal activity or terrorism that is when law enforcement becomes involved. Law enforcement will use similar tactics to combat both criminal activity and terrorism because for the most part domestic law enforcement agencies with be governed by the same laws and regulations in both cases with some exceptions. Not all criminal activity is a terrorist act but all terrorist acts are criminal activity.

FB

Terrorism is about as traditional as criminal activity can be, although it may not necessarily be acknowledged as such where and when done by the most powerful. States/governments -- much like ethnic groups -- are the result of terrorism.

.... still waiting for an answer to that. Keep in mind that: not all property-related crime is done to gain money; and some violent crime is done to gain money; and gaining money is distinct from avoiding expenditure.