Response to the following 4 discussions in 100 words or more each.

1.I feel American law enforcement should view the two as separate entities, however realizing that they both can at times have similarities that make them indistinguishable from each other.

Depending on the law enforcement agency, and at what level; local, state, federal or tribal (if applicable), the perception of criminal behavior and criminal intent can be closely compared and in many cases related to terrorism, and in other perceptions may not be. Definitely there are many instances where domestic terrorism has played out on American soil and caused massive casualties (Oklahoma City bombing, Timothy McVeigh) for example. The issue is not how we view these acts of violence but instead how the agencies as a whole in the US, label them (White, 2014).

White say that the FBI labels the majority of domestic terrorist activities using common crime designations in the Uniform Crime Report (p. 310).

This causes lots of confusion when trying to single out acts of terror from other criminal acts. Even more confusing is the domestic terrorist piece of the pie. Understanding domestic terror within the US is an ever changing anomaly. We as a nation weren't routinely targeted until around 1982. White states that according to Daniel Levitas (2002, pp. 341-342), domestic terrorism includes violent right wing extremists such as the KKK, paramilitary organizations (or militias), abortion clinic bombers, violent anti-immigrant groups and others who use violence in the name of race or ethnicity. Many officers agree with this analysis, however, they wouldn't refer to it as domestic terrorism, but rather refer to it as a Hate Crime.

Christopher Hewitt (2002), analysis of domestic terrorism helps to illustrate why American law enforcement has grown more and more aware of this problem. Terrorism happening in America is usually approached as criminal behavior, community policing is usually the preferred mitigating alternative to dealing with such offenses.

The nature of "policing" provides the method of preventing or stopping terrorism. In the past 20 years, law enforcement has made great strides to understand and participate in anti-terrorism training. It is no longer viewed as an "exotic" problem, but rather a very real, very profound criminal problem here in th US. The bottom line though, is until the US stops sullying the definition of domestic terrorism by inhibiting our understanding through political interest groups, or government and federal organizations (like the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security), who refuse to share information, it will remain an albatross.

A curse in which will lead to further ambiguity and misinformation about domestic terrorism here within our borders, and only the combined efforts of all law enforcement agencies will we then get a true meaning and understanding of this diabolical phenomenon we call terrorism.

2. So as I read this question my initial response was an immediate and resounding, "No". But, as I thought about it a little more I realized it's more like a "Well, it depends". So, some of the cases will be obvious, like the case of Ghassan and Bryan Elashi of Dallas, TX who in 2005 were found guilty of funneling money, via their company, to HAMAS. Both were found guilty of money laundering, conspiracy, and dealing in property of a terrorist (A.P. NBC News, 2005) As I mentioned some of these cases are easy to understand but what do we say when it isn't so clear.

As an example take drug trafficking into account ,specifically as it applies to the opium and heroin market. Nearly 70% of the worlds opium is smuggled out of Afghanistan and the majority of that trade is controlled by the Taliban. Additionally, the DEA says that of the 43 designated foreign terrorist organizations that 19 of them are directly linked to some aspect of the global drug trade (Braun, M. 2008). So, does this mean that the dealerts on the city streets of Detroit, D.C., and New York could be charged with material support to terrorism? I'd say it would be an extremely overzealous prosecutor, and they exist for sure, that would try to make that charge stick in a court of law and here is why.

First off to be charged with a crime such as, material support to terrorism there must be proof of an actual intent to provide that support. So, unless that drug dealer provides equipment, money, or openly discusses his/her understanding that it's possible his/her product originates from a terrorism source then I say it does not equal terrorism.

3.Law enforcement and domestic security agencies search for defined roles in their battle against terrorism because just like the confusing definition of terrorism the nation had no real grasp about the policy and intention of homeland security. Issues surrounding homeland security were confused because the country was dealing with a new concept, a new meaning of conflict, and a change in the procedures used to defend the United States (White, pg. 334).

These entities compete with one another because the policy is unclear and with the new implementation of departments and sectors for security and peace operations mission focus is sometimes lost. An example of this would be the intelligence sector although while they may not have been fully equip to gather intelligence as some other law enforcement agencies their title assumes that it is their responsibility.

An agency's mission determines it role by identifying the key aspects of why they are in place. Some are easier to see than others such as customs and the Department of Energy. For example, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for protecting nuclear materials, power grids, and gas lines (White, pg. 335).

All these elements directly deal with the energy that powers our economy, so we establish an organization to oversee and mange it. Just as a custom agents or border patrol is in place to ensure that illegal activity whether it be trafficking of humans, weapons, or drugs does not cross the borders into the states.

4.Okay, so many of you may call me a cynic on this but, I think the different agencies struggle to define their respective roles regarding homeland security or, just that specific mission itself for one reason: Money.

Much like the world, money also makes the government machine go-round and without it agencies cannot operate. Anyone that has every worked for or been associated with a government agency when the federal budget is in question, understands the frustrations surrounding things like Continuing Resolution. The question of why they compete is again directly related to funding.

Agency executives are obviously vested in their respective organization, after all if you spent 20 years as a Customs and Border Agent you'd be a passionate about the future of the organization as well as the training, staffing, and equipping of the agency.
An agency's mission helps define its role definition because of the specific tasks typically dilenneated in an agency's mission statement.

For example, Customs and Border Protection's mission statement "is to safeguard America's borders thereby protecting the public from dangerous people and materials while enhancing the Nation's global economic competitiveness by enabling legitimate trade and travel" (CBP 2016).