That's pretty much what I said.
Nope, they play "dodge bomber".
I read your comment as "FBI wasn't even watching." FBI was watching, but had no access to the information about the training going on. That's because they didn't have a warrant to go in, because they didn't have probable cause. The tip about abuse gave the PC to go in.
<sigh>I hate that I'm about to do this, but putting on my pro-freedom lawyer hat...
This is sometimes the price of freedom. Freedom is not certified safe; it necessarily entails a certain amount of risk to tie the hands of law enforcement by not allowing them to go in absent a warrant. Sure, it sounds suspicious after the fact, but, as the story outright says:
I daresay there are at least a few people on this very forum who could come awfully close to this, as well as a few who know somebody like this. Do we want the FBI charging in every time somebody sets up an "off-grid compound" and does a lot of shooting?
Sometimes, the price of freedom is the danger that someone will use it to hurt us. I maintain that the alternative is worse. My original comment (before I finished reading the story) referred to "Famous But Incompetent," and suggested deliberate ignorance, but I don't think that's the case here. As soon as PC was established--by serendipity, as is often the case--law enforcement went in and got the goods, but I don't think this is like the Florida shooting where the threat was clearly established and FBI, et al., ignored it. Based solely on the story, I think the FBI was doing things right.
Lawyer hat off: I'm very grateful that the tip did come out, and that this was stopped before it could start. Hopefully, there will be incriminating evidence that can be used to establish PC against other cells and stop them as well; that will be the real test of the FBI's diligence.
He said "If it hadn't been for the kidnapped boy..." So if not for that, they wouldn't have been onto the evil bastard. Which they should have been given his SOB father.
Where in the story did you find probable cause? Just being an SOB ain't it (thank heaven; I've been called that many times, including by my own mother--who failed to see the irony).
Well, I thought that's what they did now. Keep an eye on terrorists and their kin/associates. Pretty sure they don't need a warrant for that. Just like they were finally eyeballing him (without a warrant) after the kidnapping.
BTW, I always appreciate your legal point of view. So while I am arguing, I am also listening.
They do, but within the confines of the law (which includes the Constitution). So, again, where in the article did you find probable cause? Or do we just ignore that pesky Fourth Amendment for (alleged) SOBs?
Well, "He was heavily armed with an AR-15 rifle and four pistols..."
and the son of a known terrorist sympathizer at the very least.
"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
US Constitution, Article III, Section 3, clause 2.
It's not a perfect fit, but it's damned close.
Similar threads
