Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: BoberFett
When they're found guilty of crimes shut them down and lock up the perpetrators. Until then, leave them alone. They shouldn't be treated differently than any other militia group exercising their right to keep and bear arms, their right to free association, and their right to freedom from unreasonable searches.
To me, the first thing this illustrates is the difference between using law enforcement v. military as a tool to combat terrorism.
As BoberFett's posts hints at, under law enforcement we generally have to wait until AFTER the crime is committed. How often do we see stories about women with restraining orders afraid for their lives being turned away by the police only to be murdered as they feared?
As far as waiting until they do something illegal - the article suggest (small) explosives are being detonated. That's big-time illegal, and should serve as grounds for an investigation, search warrents etc. Unfortunately, while the police/FBI would have no trouble investigating us, the ACLU etc (as others have pointed out) likely stand ready with lawyers to file suits if the FBI gets a bit zealous in any way.
Fern
Watching Bill O'Reilly does not make you an expert on terrorism. And while there are certainly cases where the military is needed, by far the most effective way to fight terrorism is with the police and intelligence organizations. 9/11 could have been stopped by a handful of cops in the right place at the right time, and the military is a spectacularly clumsy and inefficient way to fight small groups of terrorists.
But I have to say, your mindreading abilities are really quite impressive... :roll: