You snipped the rest of my post. After we convict them (or not!) of Conspiracy (1/10^7 of the crime they actually perpetrated[*]), they cool their heels, get out, and are just as determined to perpetrate a crime. What do we do with these people? It's a new kind of criminal, it deserves a new look.
[*] Conspiracy is tricky: at what point do you rush in an make the bust? Do you wait "just a little longer" so that you can get more evidence so that the scope of the about-to-be-commited crime looks worse in front of a jury? Some would say that's what happened in the 1993 WTC bombing, just that they waited a little too long. I admit: it's difficult!
At what point of the last week before the Oklahoma City bombing would they have had to arrest McVeigh with enough evidence to make a conviction stick and achieve the outcome of taking him out of US society for a "long enough" time?
Well, we're not getting a new look, because people refuse to believe that this is a new situation that our "old scoool" laws don't cover very well -- so instead, what we get is this other approach (which the Washington Post skillfully described as "bruising to liberty and self-defeating from the outset" -- and yet, the guy is still behind bars), which is clearly AWFUL (why does it sound like you think I agree with the current situation?!).
Is it okay with you that we get this wrangling because you (and the Washington Post, I suppose) refuse to agree that this is a new situation? Is this really how new laws are supposed to be crafted?
> The talk-radio crowd assert ...
You've skipped a step. I'm asking a question (What Is To Be Done?), not stating an answer -- I do NOT agree with the current Administration on what to do with these kinds of threats, but I'm not willing to just be happy with just "indict him or let him go" ... and the reality is, neither is the government.
/jordan