Saturday, July 08, 2006
The Terrorist Debate
Eric Lipton has a really stupid article published in the .

WASHINGTON, July 8 — In Miami last month and now in New York, terror cases have unfolded in which suspects have been apprehended before they lined up the intended weapons and the necessary financing or figured out other central details necessary to carry out their plots.

For officials in Washington, it is a demonstration of the much-needed emphasis in this post-Sept. 11 era for pre-emptive arrests.

"We don't wait until someone has lit the fuse to step in," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Friday at a news conference about the New York plot.

But the Miami and New York cases are inspiring a new round of skepticism from some lawyers who are openly questioning whether the government, in its zeal to stop terrorism, is forgetting an element central to any case: the actual intent to commit a crime.

One job of law enforcement is to protect the citizens of this country. When our government has evidence that people are plotting a terror attack, they need to act before the terror attack actually happens and then leave it up to the courts to handle the rest. That is the way this all works, and I’m quite thankful for it.

I get the feeling that we are about to see some outrage about arresting these terror suspects. I would hope that this isn’t the case. If they are innocent, then the courts will handle it. There is no reason for anyone to run into this situation claiming that the government jumped the gun, because they didn’t.

**If you would like to write for this blog, please check out BTL’s Contributor Call


Links to this post:
Create a Link