Final answer:
Terrorist stops are restricted by various laws that balance security and civil liberties, such as the Terry v. Ohio and Rasul v. Bush court rulings, France's anti-terrorism laws, and US policies like the USA PATRIOT Act and Executive Order 13769.
Step-by-step explanation:
Terrorist stops are restricted by a variety of legal precedents and regulations that aim to balance national security concerns with the protection of individual rights and civil liberties. For instance, the landmark case Terry v. Ohio established that police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime and may frisk the suspect for weapons if there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous, without violating the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, in Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal court system has the authority to determine if foreign nationals held at Guantánamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned.
Additionally, the struggle to balance civil liberties with the suppression of terrorist activities is evident in various countries. In France, for example, there's legislation prohibiting "association with wrong-doers involved in a terrorist enterprise," which allows French authorities broad powers to detain and convict those suspected of terrorism-related crimes. In the United States, controversial measures such as the USA PATRIOT Act and Executive Order 13769 signed by former President Donald Trump, which temporarily banned entry from several predominantly Muslim countries, have sparked debates about the extent to which individual freedoms should be restricted for the sake of national security.