Question: Response to the 2 discussion questions with at least 100 words or more.

1. If I was a field practitioner, I would promote the ideas and lessons learned from hands on experience and time within a local population that is first hand dealing with these issues of terrorism, civil war and oppression. What a populace wants as an end result not only to stop the violence but to live happy and productive lives, do they want schools, roads, a stronger or different governmental sector? There is always a need to stop violence or a want for it, but their input on the "how" is important.

I fully believe that the relationship between academia and field practitioners is an "in between", but those in the field can easily become objective to the academia side of research or assumptions due to the knowledge they have gained and not put it to further regard or use, but on the flip side there may be key points, doctrine or value to what academia has found that may be of extreme use to field work.

By both sides working hand in hand there can be a balance found that may provide much needed results in the progress of helping our country or other countries that are in the grips of terrorism and violence, theory and findings can be put to the test by those in the field that are spending everyday working with a populace to find out if change is possible.

There should always be an middle ground taken when looking at the application of academia and field practitioner, not always will it be so cut and dry that one side or the other can apply their set of skills or knowledge and be accurate, with an open mind set and clear objective, solid steps can be taken from the application of knowledge from multiple areas or sides.

2. If I were a field practitioner rather than an academic or researcher some of the topics, lessons, and arguments I believe that would have contributed the most to understanding and or resolving real world situations are the individual demeanor, suspicious activity, daily interaction within the society, forced standard of living and survival, trends of petty level crimes associated with large scale corruption, and perception of violence. Although this seems like a large plate each one would assist in the investigation and prevention of crimes and violence.

The relationship between academia and field practitioners are they both embrace the concept of criminology to improve the community while trying to maintain the liberties of the people. Although tactics differ, they both essentially gather and assess data to prevent terrorist acts from happening or becoming detrimental. Even though there is significant criticism on each other's method both entities are operate under the umbrella of homeland security. Despite such criticism, there are operators within the homeland security system who are keenly aware of civil rights, privacy issues, and civil liberties (White, pg. 410).

I think from an outside perspective this seems to be somewhat in between when we look at the positive and negative nature of how they conduct business and the true focus of their intent. As leadership changes methods and laws tend to change as well. It is said that the Obama Administration used case data too invasively. This tactic threatens civil rights rather than protecting it.

Despite all the issues the communication and sharing of information could benefit both parties if they were able to come together and synch their efforts through analyzing everything to capture one big picture with a direct path of resolution. I feel that this should be strengthen so we are more prepared for future events such as 9/11 and the marathon bombing. No matter how much technology or personnel we throw at a problem we will never be successful unless we understand the intent, our individual responsibilities and roles, and share information to operate as a unified element.