Quote:
Originally Posted by henry quirk
What I expect is for our employees to put law-abiding citizens first, and to eliminate threats to those citizens (the folks who pay the bills).
|
The Manchester bomber was a citizen and, as far as I know, a law abiding one until this incident.
Quote:
"He was investigated and deemed to be only peripherally involved in radicalism and not an imminent danger."
Yeah, that seems to be the story over and over. Seems like, at some point, folks would say 'okay, the last ten violent acts were done by persons only peripherally involved in radicalism and not an imminent danger, so mebbe we need to redefine our terms, lower the bar, tolerate less'.
|
The last ones that succeeded. Investigators have to do triage, and if the ones that they do consider to be a threat end up not making the news, that's probably in their favor.
Do you want to pay for an agency to put permanent surveillance on everyone who has ever shown up on their radar?
Would you want them to be able to do that, even if there were no monetary cost?
Or are you just advocating skipping the surveillance and imprisoning or killing people without evidence? Evidence against one [insert ethnicity/religion/etc] is evidence against all?